I don't see it as a paradox - it's simply a dilemma.michael879 said:its called newcomb's paradox:
Its a game theory thought experiment in which there are 2 players. One player predicts the choice that you will make between either choosing box B or choosing both A and B. He can predict with 100% accuracy. There is $100 in A no matter what the prediction is but if the prediction is that you will choose just B, he puts $1000 in B. You then make your choice and keep whatever is under the box(es) you chose.
If he predicts B and you choose B you get $1000. If you choose A and B you get $1100. If he predicts A and B and you choose B you get nothing. If you choose A and B you get $100. The question is, after he has made his prediction, what should you choose?
If the paradox which can exist only if there is freewill, then the fact that it exist proves freewill!michael879 said:I heard this paradox a while ago that is only a paradox if there is free will. Ill write it once I can find the exact details later.
Does a paradox that only exists if there's freewill count as a proof against free will?
The scientific evidence against freewill is based on numerous studies and experiments in neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy. These studies have consistently shown that our thoughts, decisions, and actions are largely influenced by external factors such as genetics, environment, and past experiences, rather than a conscious and autonomous choice. Additionally, studies have also shown that our brains make decisions and initiate actions before we are consciously aware of them, further challenging the idea of freewill.
Determinism, the idea that all events are predetermined by past events and natural laws, is incompatible with the concept of freewill. If everything is predetermined, then our thoughts and actions are also predetermined, leaving no room for true freewill. Some philosophers argue for the possibility of compatibilism, which suggests that freewill and determinism can coexist if we redefine our understanding of freewill to align with deterministic principles.
Some argue that even if our actions are determined by external factors, we still experience the feeling of making a choice and having control over our actions. This illusion of freewill can be attributed to our limited understanding of the complexities of our brain and the environment. However, from a scientific perspective, it is important to distinguish between the concept of freewill and the perception of freewill, as the latter may not have any basis in reality.
The concept of freewill has significant implications on moral responsibility and accountability in society. If our actions are determined by external factors, then the idea of holding individuals accountable for their actions becomes questionable. This has led to debates in the legal system about the role of freewill in determining criminal responsibility and punishment.
This is a philosophical and scientific question that has been debated for centuries. While there is a growing body of evidence challenging the concept of freewill, it is difficult to definitively prove or disprove its existence. Our understanding of the complexities of the brain and human behavior is constantly evolving, and it is possible that future research may provide new insights on the concept of freewill.