Free Will Paradox (No Troll)

[Reav3R]

Definition of Free Will (Assumption): We assume having free will means having the ability to pick one or more choice(s) (but not all) out of definite or indefinite choices; that one or more choice(s) could be any of the various options.

The Paradox: The only way to prove that you have the ability to pick a (any) choice is by picking that (one) choice, and since you can only pick one or more (but not all) of the various choices, you can't prove that you had the ability to pick anything other than those particular choice(s) already made.

Example: I give you a cup of fatal poison and ask you whether you have the ability to drink the cup. You can reason that you do have the ability but you won't drink it because of common sense. I argue that you don't have the ability to drink it because common sense prevents you from drinking it no matter how hard you try. You can't prove that you have the ability to drink it because you won't do it, so you don't have the ability to drink that cup. Consequently, you don't posses the free will to do so either. This example can be expanded to everything (minus choices already made).

Conclusion: Since you can't make all the possible choices there is to make, you can't prove that you had the ability to choose any of those choices (other than the ones already made), therefore you had no control over the choices already made. Consequently, you don't posses any free will. By proving free will exists (making all possible choices at the same time), you also prove that it doesn't exist because if all choices can be made simultaneously, then the definition of free will would be invalid.

Does that make any sense to anyone here?

 

Because all trolls are obsessed and emotionally deprived kids

[Aborted]

I choose not to read your excessively long bullshit.
I win.

[Gray]

It doesn't make sense at all. It's fucking stupid.
Of course not drinking poison is common sense and it would kill you, you can't just negate everything because you didn't want to.
Your choice were NOT to drink it, you could have, but you chose not to drink.

You can't mix future and past into the mixture just like that.
Choice is a present day thing.

Just because you weren't smart enough to think about EVERYTHING it doesn't mean that you can't think of ANYTHING.
Grasp that concept.

Popped your bubble.

[Reav3R]

@@ @Abnormality

How can you prove that a chain of previous events and thoughts set from the very beginning of existence hasn't set things up for you to make that No choice at the present? That's my point. How do you prove that you used your free will to make such a choice and how will you prove that you actually had the ability to say Yes if you have already taken No?

How can you know you could've done A instead of B if B is already done, the only way to prove you can do something is by doing it and if you have already done X in the past then you can't prove you could've done something else unless you change the past which is impossible.

You can't prove that you CHOSE not to drink it, how can you prove you HAD THE ABILITY to drink it in the first place?

[Rance-Sama]

Well you got wrekt like a little bitch.

[Reav3R]

Well you got wrekt like a little bitch.

Read my answer. There's no way for you to prove you could've made a different choice in the past unless you can change the past which is impossible. You can't prove anything by simply saying I can do that, the only way to prove you have the ability to do X is by doing X successfully.

[Gray]

@@ @Abnormality

How can you prove that a chain of previous events and thoughts set from the very beginning of existence hasn't set things up for you to make that No choice at the present? That's my point. How do you prove that you used your free will to make such a choice and how will you prove that you actually had the ability to say Yes if you have already taken No?

How can you know you could've done A instead of B if B is already done, the only way to prove you can do something is by doing it and if you have already done X in the past then you can't prove you could've done something else unless you change the past which is impossible.

You can't prove that you CHOSE not to drink it, how can you prove you HAD THE ABILITY to drink it in the first place?

Sigh.
I sort of want to scream in your ear and punch a pillow.

You and you alone make your choices, unless other variables come to play.
Variables that cause certain options unreliable or unavailable.

That is why you normally pick what you think is best.

Again, don't mix past into this.
It's a variable, at that time when you made the choice, that choice seemed like the most logical one.

This thread was not one of those times.

I just can't help myself.
You can't prove that you CHOSE not to drink it, how can you prove you HAD THE ABILITY to drink it in the first place?

You didn't drink it, isn't that proof enough?
What do you want? A fucking picture or constant documentary about how trivial all your choices are?

Have the ability to drink it? You had the ability to make this stupid thread.
You can move your fingers obviously and your arms, that makes you capable, or "having the ability" to drink it in the first place.

[Reav3R]

It's a variable, at that time when you made the choice, that choice seemed like the most logical one.

How can you logically prove that you had the ability to make a different choice in the past? This is the part you don't get. Prove you had the ability and could've said something different in the past. Alternatively:

I ask you to pick 1, 2 or 3 and only pick one, prove you have the ability to pick either 1, 2 or 3. The moment you give me the number you picked, I argue that you couldn't have picked another number by choice, how do you prove I'm wrong logically?

Sigh.
I just can't help myself.
You can't prove that you CHOSE not to drink it, how can you prove you HAD THE ABILITY to drink it in the first place?

You didn't drink it, isn't that proof enough?
What do you want? A fucking picture or constant documentary about how trivial all your choices are?

Have the ability to drink it? You had the ability to make this stupid thread.
You can move your fingers obviously and your arms, that makes you capable, or "having the ability" to drink it in the first place.

That's why it's a paradox.... Meh. Proving is disproves it at the same time.

[Gray]

I have no idea what you fail to comprehend.
Variables, such as time, mood, personality, environment, energy or whatever.
Maybe such as being forced to drink it. If you don't have the mental capacity to chose whether to drink something or not I think you should probably be classified as senile.

[Reav3R]

I have no idea what you fail to comprehend.
Variables, such as time, mood, personality, environment, energy or whatever.
Maybe such as being forced to drink it. If you don't have the mental capacity to chose whether to drink something I think you should probably be classified as senile.

You don't get even a single word of what I'm saying and you certainly don't know what paradox means. *sigh*
What you're saying is completely irrelevant to what I said before and what I answered you. You got stuck in the poison example and can't take your head out.

[Gray]

I know what a paradox is, but not having picked a choice doesn't mean that it contradicts itself.

[Reav3R]

I know what a paradox is, but not having picked a choice doesn't mean that it contradicts itself.

Then answer this:

I ask you to pick 1, 2 or 3 and only pick one, prove you have the ability to pick either 1, 2 or 3. The moment you give me the number you picked, I argue that you couldn't have picked another number by choice, how do you prove I'm wrong logically

You failed to explain how you prove you could've made a different choice in the past. How do you prove you had the ability to make a different choice?

The only way to prove you can do X is by doing X. Free will means you can do anything, to prove you have free will you need to do everything. If you do everything then free will is meaningless because doing everything at the same time leaves no choice. There, it contradicts itself.

[Gray]

Then answer this:

You failed to explain how you prove you could've made a different choice in the past. How do you prove you had the ability to make a different choice?

The only way to prove you can do X is by doing X. Free will means you can do anything, to prove you have free will you need to do everything. If you do everything then free will is meaningless because doing everything at the same time leaves no choice. There, it contradicts itself.

Geez. Have some faith in your choices and know your limits.
By making that post then you disproved yourself about the subject of the thread, you have no free will.
I however do. You can't prove me wrong.

Again, pow.

[Ticherhaz]

bla bla bla ... talk to my hand //terminator

[Reav3R]

Geez. Have some faith in your choices and know your limits.
By making that post then you disproved yourself about the subject of the thread, you have no free will.
I however do. You can't prove me wrong.

Again, pow.

Now you're beginning to get my point, finally. You already proved yourself wrong but you can't technically prove me wrong, you'll end up in a paradox.

1) There's no way you can logically prove that you have the ability to do X while at the same time having the ability to do Y instead. Therefore you can't satisfy the requirements of having free will (by assumption).
2) If you somehow logically prove that you have the ability to do X or Y, that means you have done both X and Y because that was the only way to prove your claim. Consequently, you will hit a paradox wherein both outcomes point to the non-existence of free will:
You proved you can make any possible choice by making all possible choices at the same time, therefore leaving no more choice to make. If there are no more options left, you obviously can't make a choice, so free will can't exist.

You can either fail to prove free will exists (1), prove it doesn't exist by trying to prove it exists (2) or prove it doesn't exist by failing to prove it does (3).

But you'll probably fail to comprehend a single word of this again anyway...

@ @Zuhrain you're the reason the thread is [+18], go spam elsewhere good boy. *heart*