The question of whether free will exists comes down to whether a system can be consistently described as regulating based on its own models, including the regulation of the model creation itself.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Following Gödel's incompletness theorem, I would argue that an agent cannot have a complete axiomatic model of itself while being able to prove its own consistency meaning that an agent cannot exhibit free will if the system is relying on computation to perform actions.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jkleiner17 @Plinz
The other way around: you have control (observe/model/act), while atoms in motion are unguided. Moreover, you are Turing complete, so from the begin state we could not even in principle compute what you’d do, unless we simulate you in full fidelity, awareness, control and all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So in order to accurately simulate me, we have to construct a system that itself would have free will, thereby making the simulation non-deterministic?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jkleiner17 @onnlucky
I don't think that any of the approaches that tries to link free will to non-determinism work. You are not more free if your decision is forced or influenced by dice throws. Your policy just becomes noisy.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I agree with the inherent disagreement between non-determinism and free will. However, from a computational approach to explaining the human psyche, I do not see how a deterministic program could implement free will. It rather seems like our perception of choice is an illusion.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
There is a choice: it is the process that weights preferences and expected outcomes until a decision is being made. Our mind also creates a representation of that process (which does not have to be faithful).
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.