Lol stop pretending that there's some deep complicated point to be made here. Its embarrassing to see that you think your argument is something profound that "plebs" can't get, when I could dissect it within half an hour,present it in a simpler manner then proceed to point its flaws. But then again I am talking to a guy who thinks that we can experience infinite heaven or hell after death because our brain slows down infinitely.
You're haughtily skeptical and demanding when it's clear to me that you don't know the material and haven't put in any of the work. You're going off from my posts only, instead of researching the things you don't know and learning the well-established philosophical positions on this topic. It's like watching a movie trailer and then giving your review critique. JFL
The point being made isn't necessarily deep (that's a matter of opinion anyway), but it is complicated. This has been an on-going discussion for literally eons, yet you're acting smug like you've deboonked some retarded tinfoil hat conspiracy and are seemingly butthurt that you just don't get this stuff. That's OK, brocel, this shit ain't easy.
Your dissections are the same old recycled points I've dealt with in the past, except it's worse this time, because it's coming at me from a place of ignorance. I'll reply as a courtesy, but I know I'm wasting my time, because you've demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't showing that you'll put in an honest effort into learning about this.
As for you dig at me, you've failed to understand that this was a theological speculation on the reasons why there is an emphasis in many religions on an afterlife and how it could be explained as experiential moments within the framework of our consciousness dissipating as we die to give context to the allegories and metaphors of infinite bliss and suffering (heaven and hell).
That was mostly a response to the ridiculous claim that my argument is unsubstantiated when I've been repeating multiple times the rationale behind why those things are incompatible.
And I've shown in the post before how it is in fact compatible. You wouldn't make that post if you had so much as a minimalist understanding of the basic free will positions. I mean, it's literally called "compatibilism," like I already said (
). I wish you'd take 15 minutes to do a cursory reading on just this specific thing, let alone on the broader metaphysics of free will.
I understand the flaw in your thought process. We apply certain standards to a system to determine if it falls under the category of deterministic or not. But you refuse to apply the same analysis to the concept of free will itself. For some reason free will, to you, exists outside the confines of things in this world that could be held as predetermined or not. I.e. its over and above everything else. So of course you'd think " it's logically possible to have free will within a deterministic system". I don't have any problem with this idea if free will were nothing more than a ghost that couldn't influence day to day outcomes. But as it turns out, the exercise of will does influence the state of this world and hence is a part of the system.
Again, you're demonstrating an abject failure of lacking the background understanding. I'm going to keep telling you to read up on the thesis of compatibilism until it's drilled into your head that you can, in fact, have both free will and determinism without any logical contradictions.
Free will is the concept of self-determination that is
FREE from the constraints of causality (mechanically in terms of physics) and any other (physical) externalities. That is, it's independent of the truth of any metaphysic, be it determinism, indeterminism, or some other unclear, fuzzy, and bizzarre ternary alternative.
As such, the "standards" applied to a system don't apply here, because free will is, by definition, conceptually free from those things. Consequently, this entails that any agent with free will is, in essence, its own generator of causal chains. Those causal chains can be closed loops with any kind of system, because those causal chains are ultimately still subordinate to the First Cause ("God", "Prime Mover," or Ontic Progenitor, as I call it, but it's the same thing), and also because the agents are finite (our free acting bodies are not eternal or immortal). If it wasn't (subordinate), you'd be left with the well-known problem of infinite regress (recursive causal chains with no origin point).
So, in essence, this is just plain mental bias. If you were to actually apply your analysis to free will itself you'd soon realise that a world with free will operating within it cannot be deterministic because free will itself is inherently un-deterministic. I know you claim otherwise and I know you point to lots of material around it but so far I've heard zero arguments on how free will isn't inherently undeterministic. Zero arguments on how can the "will" be "free" if the outcome is already determined. How can 1+1 = 7.
As an example of this mental bias, in the game you posited you assume that the outcome is deterministic based on the fact that its solved. But you fail to consider the player who makes the first choice as part of the game itself. Sure if the game is solved then we know all the possible outcomes but that doesn't mean it is deterministic. Because how one particular instance of this game evolves still depends on that first choice that the player makes. A choice which renders the entire outcome undetermined.
My nigga, there is no mental bias.
Just fucking use the internet - the biggest damn library in human existence - to educate yourself on this. These confusions will eventually go away as your understanding matures. However, I can't guarantee that bigger confusions won't replace them.
To clarify, I meant that the games themselves are inherently deterministic, based on the limited combinatorial options available within the rule set to achieve the win condition(s). Games of chance, on the other hand, are inherently indeterministic. Note that we're talking about the games
in a vacuum and not subject to the physical mechanics of our universe.
Ok wow. Now I can clearly see where all the "free will is not random" BS was coming from. Such a collossal confusion of terms.
Bear with me here. Lets assume for the sake of argument that free will is indeed random. Also lets assume that in this universe there are a set of truly random events whose outcomes are not determined by any mechanism and are randomly generated on a fundamental level and that free will is a subset of those. (I know you don't believe that free will is random because you've confused yourself with your own bs about predestination but listen further )
If free will is random, then it is neither free, nor does it have will. Herp derp.
Do RNGs have will? Do a pair of dice have will? (Don't ask Schopenhauer.
)
All of what you just said is moot.
Also lets assume that an all knowing God does exist who does know the outcome of all those random events. And thus the future of this world is predestinated since God knows everything.
Just one last time: The knowledge of a future outcome is not a preordination of said outcome. It only appears to someone with imperfect knowledge as though someone with perfect knowledge preordains (predestines, same shit, it's synonymous) the outcome.
But when you place an all knowing entity as part of this system then by very possibility of the existence of such entity it is rendered that the said events were never truly random to begin with. Since their outcomes were predestinated. And hence either God is not omniscient for these events to be truly random or they were never random to begin with since God exists.
Omniscient means knowing everything. Literally everything. Infinitely everything.
EEEEVERYTHING. ALL OF THE THINGS. Randomness or not, it won't matter as far the property of omniscience is concerned. I'm not convinced you truly understand the concept.
As a side note, true randomness probably doesn't exist in our reality, but there is some evidence that it may. The closest thing to it is subatomic particle behavior and radioactive decay. If it truly did (even at the macro scale), then see the first line of what I said two quoted segments above. However, probability clearly does exist (abstractly and concretely), and in any closed, probabilistic system (dice, cards, seeded pseudo-RNGs etc.) the outcomes are known (expected, but not predicted).
Literally the same thing applies to free will because it shares the property of random events just like random events cannot be predestinated for them to be random, free will cannot be predestinated for it to be free. For some reason your mind is unable to comprehend this simple thing. that's how these things are literally defined. Your insistence that the existence of an OB does not contradict this definition is completely unsubstantiated.
Whether the outcome of the said events appeared via some causal mechanism or they just poofed into existence has no bearing on this. Even if outcomes were to just magically appear out of circumstances they would still neither be "random" nor "free" if they were predestinated.
I've already addressed these in this post.
I get what you're saying. You believe that the choice was always mine and it was always in my hands. Its just that God knows already what I was going to chose. He doesn't force that choice on me, I could chose otherwise . He just passively knows what that choice is gonna be. But you're wrong because the very existence of that knowledge tied my hands. I know that you try to differentiate "God choosing for me" from "God knowing the choice", but the truth is there was no choice in either of those cases.
So you continue to insist, despite argument to the contrary.
Let's forget about God. Let's say that I have a crystal ball that'll show me exactly what you're gonna do one week from now. I believe that since this is definitely gonna be your future then the choices you made that lead up to that were outside your control, since the outcome was always gonna be the same as seen in the ball. You, on the other hand, believe that the choices were still yours and you had all the power to choose otherwise and create another outcome ,its just that the ball told me what you were going to end up choosing beforehand.
This analogy is flawed and does not work for two main reasons, the first of which is because nobody except an OB knows what having perfect knowledge is like. You - the user of said crystal ball - are also not omniscient, so you have no idea how this ball works and cannot be certain of its effectiveness and reliability. God (or an omniscient being), on the other hand, knows exactly
how He knows (if that makes sense).
This is the difference in our viewpoints and to me the former makes way more sense than the latter. Such a "free will" that is compatible with predestination seems amputated at best and downright illogical at worst. Its a rather dubious contradictory notion to hold in your head
None of this makes any sense to you because you haven't seriously studied this and looked at the arguments and positions from all sides. You have tunnel vision and are trying to square the circle without being aware that you have a square lying around somewhere.
