Do humans have free will?

[Hellestal]

@Trinopus

Well, yes, you are. You’re using the word in two different ways.

No.

I have been painfully consistent on this. Painfully. Consistent.

It is your own failures of understanding that are causing the perceived fracturing of meaning. You look at the world through a broken lens, and then blame other people for not appearing as consistent bodies. That’s a bad play. A better move on your part would be to fix your lens, rather than blaming others for the flaws you think you see.

In this context, that means: learn the actual definitions. Learn what people who espouse determinism actually mean when they use that word. In every single post I have ever written on this topic, I have been using this definition: the standard, plain, boring, mathematical definition. It’s been clear for thread, after thread, after thread, that you do not understand this definition. That’s the crack in your lens. You don’t know what it is, don’t comprehend its implications, don’t understand that when the vast majority of (scientifically literate) people have some inclination to believe that the universe is deterministic this is the definition they are using. We are almost all of us consistent on this. You are the odd one out.

The problem isn’t with the entire rest of the (scientifically literate) world. The problem here is the faulty lens you are carrying around. Fix that lens. Learn the actual definitions, straight from the people who actually do espouse determinism.

You are not a member of that club. You do not get to define our words for us, nor especially to interpret us poorly and then accuse us of inconsistency.

@Trinopus

But it isn’t the same as the word used in the discussion of free will.

Yes, it is.

We’re not “switching” definitions when we’re discussing a system of differential equations,* or when we’re discussing “free will” (whatever that is supposed to mean). We’re using exactly the same definition for both purposes. When (scientifically literate) people advocate for determinism in “free will” discussions, this is the definition that the vast majority of them are using. It is a painfully consistent definition.

*It’s worth pointing out that the Schroedinger equation itself is a partial differential equation. The entire point of the MWI is that that equation is all you need (theoretically) to explain the universe: the deterministic evolution of the universal wave function.

This is like two years old at this point, but it’s worth re-posting because (again) this did not penetrate your understanding.

@Hellestal

@Trinopus

In ordinary language, a “deterministic” model means that this here atom has an “expiration date” attached to it somehow, and that when that time comes, the atom will decay. This means there has to be some kind of timing mechanism, some internal clockwork, and a means of measuring time.

…
I think it’s damn shoddy of physics to make use of words in ways that contradict their “ordinary world” meaning.

There is no “ordinary language” here.

This is a technical word. It has a technical definition. Ordinary people don’t use the word. Only people who appreciate the technical definition become advocates for the idea. If you have misunderstood until this point, that is unfortunate, but it is not incumbent on physicists or philosophers to make sure every interested lay reader is fully up-to-speed on every definition. You have to do the reading yourself.

…

Your misunderstanding is personal. It is your mistake, not a mistake in the “ordinary meaning” of the word. I understand that it feels to you personally as if your meaning is the ordinary meaning, since you’ve been carrying it around in your head all this time and it’s been perfectly ordinary to you. But it’s not. You’ve been carrying around a misconception, and it is not a generally held misconception because this is not a generally discussed topic. Among the select people who are highly interested in the disputes about interpretations, it is perfectly common knowledge that the MWI is deterministic by the standard meaning of deterministic.

Painfully. Consistent.