Reality can not make mistakes. — vanzhandz

I agree with your general implication, that whatever will be is what will become real. Hence, each individual's destiny was "meant to be" in some general sense. Others though, will pick apart your wording. For example, what do you mean by "reality"?

I'll leave the buzzards to scavenge over your terminology. So, I'll just note that "reality" is not absolutely Deterministic. Instead, Evolution is heuristic*, which means "trial & error". Therefore, the future state of the world is never absolutely certain, but always open to serendipity (chance). Which allows sentient beings some maneuvering room on the road to destiny. :smile:

* This notion of "heuristic evolution" is being discussed on the Free Will vs Determinism thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/653374

Que sera, sera
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
___Doris Day, Frank De Vol

Given that there are clear restraints on pure Free Will, I think the focus of the debate is between Compatibilism and Determinism. And since we can't prove determinism in every situation, logic compels us to accept compatibilism since that is the only theory which can explain all the things we observe. — Ree Zen

Yes. That's what I mean by "FreeWill within Determinism" (as explained above, and in my last reply to ). Semi-rational Humans are not totally free, but relatively free-enough to become one of many determinants of evolving reality. 20th century Scientists, applying Classical Logic, were surprised to discover the Uncertainties & Incompleteness of the foundations of Reality. Quantum "mechanics" turned-out to have gaps in the chain of causation ("acausal"), that seem absurd & mysterious, unless we make allowances for the imperfections of heuristic Determinism. :smile:

Fuzzy logic is an approach to variable processing that allows for multiple possible truth values to be processed through the same variable. Fuzzy logic attempts to solve problems with an open, imprecise spectrum of data and heuristics that makes it possible to obtain an array of accurate conclusions.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fuzzy-logic.asp

Quantum Indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

So, we have that 'potentials' can be treated as being real, from your other sources; thus, the wave-function and the quantum fields are real, not just math tools/descriptions; They are sculpted by the All. — PoeticUniverse

Since "Real" for most folks means "material" or "physical", i prefer to speak of Potentials & Constructive Absences as "Ideal" or "meta-physical". That's because we don't know of their existence via our 5 senses. Instead, we infer their statistically possible existence via the sixth sense of Reason : the ability to fill gaps in knowledge with logical rules of prediction from known premises to probable conclusions.

Those projections into the future are not empirically real, but only theoretically & statistically probable. So they exist as immaterial mental models, alongside Unicorns & Utopias. That's why materialists reject Idealism, as illusory. Our models are indeed figments of imagination. So we can't distinguish fantasies from facts, except by philosophical & statistical reasoning to determine how likely they are.

So "The All", (or G*D, or Cosmic Potential, or BEING) are merely theoretical inferences from our experience with counter-intuitive (or mysterious) features of Reality, and gaps in our understanding of Physics. Quantum Fields & Mathematical Geometry are not real things, they are mental models of how the world might work if we could see Ideality with our third eye (imagination). Unfortunately, some of us take our theoretical (ideal) models as actual, based on wishful Faith instead of testing them with skeptical Reason.

All possible forms that the physical world can take was defined by the initial conditions of the BigBang. So, you could say that the reality we now experience was "sculpted" by The ALL. But, the fact that humans can imagine things-that-are-not-but-might-be is evidence that the program of evolution is doing a heuristic (trial & error) search of the field of possibilities established in the beginning. A Deterministic algorithm is perfect & complete, so would leave no gaps in its calculation. But a Heuristic procedure (like natural Evolution) only looks for "good enough" fitness, hence it omits a lot of not-good-enough candidates. So, some possibilities were left open, to be filled by human Will.

In their arguments about such Real vs Ideal notions as FreeWiil, most people assume that our world is the result of either a divine miracle (absolute perfection) or a natural gapless algorithm (deterministic). Both are top-down processes, with everything pre-destined. But our experience does not confirm that presumption. The world is far from perfect. Hence, whoever or whatever "sculpted" this work-of-art, was either imperfect, or intentionally allowed for novelty to emerge. Thus a heuristic program of evolution would be a bottom-up kind of self-creation.

That's why I view the world as a self-organizing program with only the basic Operating System (natural laws & initial conditions) established in the Singularity Seed. Therefore, a heuristic program for evolution could allow Possibility Space for creative human imagination (FreeWill) to alter the course of evolution in tiny incremental steps that gradually transform Nature into Culture. :cool:


People Are Really Bad At Probability, And This Study Shows How Easy It Is To Trick Us :
https://www.fastcompany.com/3061263/people-are-really-bad-at-probability-and-this-study-shows-how-easy-it-is-to-trick-us

What is the basic difference between determinative optimization, heuristic optimization :
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_basic_difference_between_determinative_optimization_heuristic_optimization_stochastic_optimization_and_robust_optimization_techniques

What is the difference between a heuristic and an algorithm? :
"What the algorithm does is precisely defined"
"A heuristic is still a kind of an algorithm, but one that will not explore all possible states of the problem, or will begin by exploring the most likely ones."
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2334225/what-is-the-difference-between-a-heuristic-and-an-algorithm

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D (or whatever label you prefer for the whole of which we are sentient parts).
BothAnd Blog Glossary

THIRD EYE IS NOT MYSTICAL, BUT IMAGINATIVE


PS__It's probably the heuristic (trial & error) procedure of evolution that makes it seem "absurd" to those who look at the trees (parts) and fail to see the forest (whole system). Reductionism is a good method for empirical Science, but not for hypothetical Philosophy. Therefore, when it's applied to subjective ideas instead of objective things, that logical method may result in reductio ad absurdum.
Absurd = illogical
Heuristic = fuzzy logic

The inevitable future of equilibrium symmetry carefully designs/forces the stable particles with properties that will produce the periodic table, molecules, even DNA. — PoeticUniverse

As you implied in a previous post, the universe has a "broken" symmetry. Perfect symmetry would not allow for change & positive evolution. Perhaps that imperfection of determination is what allows us to freely choose "which branch of a bifurcation to take". :cool:

In physics, symmetry breaking is a phenomenon in which (infinitesimally) small fluctuations acting on a system crossing a critical point decide the system's fate, by determining which branch of a bifurcation is taken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking

So now I have as much free will as there can be. Hurray! — PoeticUniverse

Yay! You have become a guided mission within the mostly random flux of natural causation. What makes the difference is Intention & Selection. :grin:

Since mechanistic models only consider the extrinsic force exerted on one part by another in a deterministic system, they overlook the spontaneous propagation and self-persistence of constraints that organize our world while leaving it open to further organization. ___Terrance Deacon — PoeticUniverse

Deacon put his finger on the crux of this FreeWiil debate. Those who hold a "mechanistic model" of the world are self-blinded to the Holistic & Organismic functions of a system with the creative internal "constraints" that we know as Natural Laws. Those limits on random freedom tend to guide the cause & effect chain in a pre-determined, non-accidental direction. The result of that internal guidance system is the patterns within randomness that we interpret as order & meaning. :nerd:

PS__Unfortunately, some of us go to the opposite extreme by creating a spiritualistic model of reality, in which souls can overcome the gravity of their body.

Kevin Giorbran had an idea, in ‘Everything Forever’, but he killed himself, so I can’t get any more out of him… — PoeticUniverse

I read Giorban's book several years ago, and it blew my mind. Sadly, he exercised his FreeWill with the ultimate personal choice : "to be, or not to be?" So he went on to explore that eternal state before he could break his ideas down for me. Consequently, much of the book went over my time-bound Something-Right-Now mind. Some of his interpretations of "Timelessness" seem to imply some kind metaphorical time-travel. That sounds like Deacon's Constitutive Absence. But I don't know if he meant for that block-time imagery to be taken literally. :smile:

Excerpts from reviews of Everything Forever :
"The past and the future are quantum potentials, and conscious beings are continually creating the most likely futures and the most likely, consistent pasts. Meaning arises as a result of the decoherence of these potential states."

"I particularly enjoyed the section on how the future helps arrange the present."

We see that the All had to employ the opposites of matter and anti-matter, which in addition to being mirror opposites have opposite electrical charge; so now we know that the All couldn't have done it with just one type of matter. We can surmise that other opposites were also of necessity, such as positive kinetic energy and negative potential energy. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. I envision the "splitting" of the BigBang Singularity as an ovum (egg) dividing. First one cell becomes two, and then two become four, thus the bifurcation continues doubling at an exponential rate. Each pair are twins, but opposite. And the tension between positive & negative poles creates minor differences, that eventually become significant enough to call them separate categories or species or organisms.

The result of this rapid doubling & opposing is the emergence of a complex multicellular universe with a variety of organizations, such as stars & galaxies & planets & living things. That creative polarization continues today, because it is necessary for change & evolution. Oppositions are dynamic, whether they attract or repel each other. So, we call those pulling or pushing relationships "forces" or "energy".

It's the internal tug-o-war that makes the world go around. But it also pulls things apart, which we call "entropy". That negative force would quickly dissolve all organizations of matter, if it were not for the opposing force that I call "Enformy" (the power to enform ; to organize). It's the self-organizing force that reductive scientists call "negentropy". But as a holistic philosopher, I prefer to focus on the positive.

For example, amid all this deterministic cause & effect -- due perhaps to an incidental swerving curve -- some looping effects bend back on themselves, creating positive feedback, and novel effects that never existed before. Thus oppositions are necessary for the creation of difference and for the "endless forms most beautiful" that Darwin extolled. In my thesis, I call that pushing & pulling creative force : EnFormAction. :nerd:

EXPONENTIAL CELLULAR DIVISION

I argue that agency, choice, and control are emergent, higher-level phenomena, — PoeticUniverse

Speaking of "Emergence" and other mysterious appearances. I just came across an article by Tom Siegfried of Science News, that may shed light on another controversial concept that we have discussed on this and other "Science vs Pseudoscience" threads. For instance, I often use the Aristotelian concept of "Potential" in my posts as reference to things that are "not yet actual", such as wavefunctions that are potential particles. He calls this "a new philosophical framework". The paper's authors propose that we "expand the definition of reality" to include things that have "not yet become actual". Hence, "These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — that is, real components of existence." They understand that it's a difficult concept to grasp for those with a Classical physical worldview.

However, a similar concept has been proposed by biologist & neuroscientist, Terrence Deacon, in his book Incomplete Nature. There, he introduces the notion of Constructive or Constitutive Absence, as a "state of things not yet realized". He suggests that is a "defining attribute of life and mind" as well as of "ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences". Deacon's Absence also seems to be similar to Aristotle's Potential.

Coincidentally, the Science News article says, “This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility,” Which some posters will reflexively label as "bunk" or "category error". But another recent post on the Immaterialism thread linked to a novel idea from physicist Sean Carroll : Effective Field Theory. He refers to this field of Potential as more fundamental than a virtual Quantum Field, and labels it as the "underlying reality". Really???

I may get deeper into the spooky Power of Absence later in this thread about how the human Will could convert ideal Potential into real Actual. But, meanwhile, I'm aware that these cutting-edge scientific theories are making it harder to distinguish Science from Pseudoscience. Yet that's the price we pay for cutting reality down-to-the-bone and beyond. :nerd:


Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities :
three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses.
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/quantum-mysteries-dissolve-if-possibilities-are-realities

Constructive Absence : a form of causality dependent on specifically absent features and unrealized potentials

Effective Field Theory :
In physics, an effective field theory is a type of approximation, or effective theory, for an underlying physical theory,
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/651352

↪Gnomon
That :lol: is a "LOL" emoticon. – tears from laughing at your post, G. This :cry: is crying. :rofl: — 180 Proof

Yes. I know. I was just using poetic license. I'm not quite as stupid as your sophistry-mockery makes me out to be. But, then there is no empirical evidence for poetry either. :joke:

PS__This emoticon :joke: means "tongue in cheek", which means "ironic", or "I may be joking"..

↪Gnomon :lol: — 180 Proof

Come-on now! Big philosophers don't cry over spilled mockery :joke:

I argue that agency, choice, and control are emergent, higher-level phenomena,
Hope so!
I just moved my coffee so I can't knock it over. — PoeticUniverse

Smart move! Some advocates of Panpsychism imagine that all elements of reality are conscious agents. But my interpretation of "Universal Information" (ratios ; relationships) could be called "Evolutionary Panpsychism". In that case, "psyche -" refers to the mind-stuff (Logic : Memes) we now know as "Information" (meaning-to-Self & power-to-inform non-self), not as wandering souls. This interpretation makes Reincarnation and Karma unlikely, but useful as what-if metaphorical models to mull over.

Moreover, the current peak of emergent agency is the self-&-other-control of homo sapiens. Which is limited to internal self-control, plus the intention to control external non-self via natural & technological extensions of body and senses. For example : You imagined a future state in which your elbow knocked the cup over, then exercised your statistical freedom to move your hand in order to change that possible future state from probable mess (90%) to less likely (10%). :smile:

Emergence :
Emergence is a continuous process that appears to be sudden only because the mind reaches a tipping-point of understanding between an old meaning and a new meaning, causing a phase-change from one logical category to another.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

PS__If the esoteric topic of Emergence, Phase Transitions, and Quantum Leaps interests you, PM me for a link to a brief idiosyncratic model of Evolution by transitional stages.

Humans design in top-down waterfall phases,
but Evolution emerges in bottom-up stairstep
stages of development
0. Omega Point :
Who knows?
9. Reiterate
Ongoing Emergences
8. Artificial Forms :
Machines, Computers
8. Metaphysical Forms
Reasoning & Designing
7. Organic Forms :
Life, Minds, Societies
6. Physical Forms :
Stars, Galaxies, Planets
5. Matter :
Primitive Particles
4. Energy :
Unformed Plasma
3. Quantum Field :
Statistical Possibilities
2. Big Bang :
Start the computation
Set initial conditions
1. Singularity :
Design, Codes, Laws
0.Infinity :
Eternal Logos

OK 'God' is not, but the Eternal Basis may have a way of coming up with something workable although not ideal, which we have to figure out, which may help out with the 'free' quandary of free will. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Several philosophers, over the ages, have concluded that, in order for anything temporal & temporary to exist, something stable & eternal must exist unconditionally. Ironically, for the Greeks, the notion of conditional space-time came long before we obtained evidence that even the physical universe had a beginning, and will eventually fade away into non-being. For example, Heraclitus ("panta rhei") referred to this ultimate perfection as the "'Absolute' -- the all-inclusive whole or unity that underlies everything -- exists in the unity of opposites, first as a 'Being", and secondly as a constant 'Becoming'" (Philosophy Now, Dec - Jan). Like Plato and Aristotle, Heraclitus didn't refer to this "eternal" essence as a humanoid god, but as an abstract principle (law of laws) of existence.

In my own Enformationism thesis, I came to the same conclusion, but from a different direction. The weird sciences of Quantum & Information, were begging for an Absolute Ground to make sense of the counter-intuitive aspects of "the most successful theory ever formulated". So, borrowing from those ancient intuitions, I began to refer to my "Ground of all Being", with the traditional terms : BEING, LOGOS, and Universal Substance. However, in deference to the most common tradition, I also added the ambiguous label "G*D", to more completely cover the multi-faceted role of what the Information-based thesis proposed : "the Enformer", or "the Programmer". I even equate the "Absolute" with Eastern notions of impersonal "Brahma", and abstract "Tao". Like Infinity & Zero, these absolutes encompass every possibility. So, a simple non-theological description might be just plain "ALL". And a worldview based on that integrated & unified principle is known as Holism.

Heraclitus, also anticipated the Eastern notion of Yin-Yang in his concept of "unity of opposites". This is a way of reconciling all dichotomies by merging antithetical polar opposites into a synthesis of Unity (the One). For example, Hegel, lecturing on Heraclitus explained his notion of Unified Identity : "Subjectivity is the opposite of Objectivity, and since each is the 'other' of the 'other". He went on to assert that "thought itself is the true Being". And in the 21st century, we could substitute shape-shifting "Enformation" (energy / matter + life / mind) as a modern version of ancient Logos and Tao. Like abstract Energy, we don't know what BEING is, only what it does : cause beings & things to exist, and to desist.

Since "Absolute BEING" encompasses all possibilities, including Positive & Negative, Freedom & Determinism, the Yin-Yang notion of Freedom within Determinism could suggest a solution to the "free quandary" in a cause & effect world. Randomness explores all possibilities, but Selection chooses what becomes Actual. :nerd:

UNITY OF OPPOSITES INCLUDES
FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM

Bingo. I've spent days in another thread providing a LITANY of scientific studies that show there is no evidence that suggests this isn't the case. — Garrett Travers

I assume that "this" refers to the poetic & religious notions of human autonomy & moral agency that are rejected as wishful thinking by some philosophical & scientific thinkers. But, their reductionist policy regarding Nature-studies tends to exclude such holistic phenomena as the feeling of personal freedom. They don't find such evidence, because they are not looking for it. So, I don't know where you found a "litany of scientific studies" in favor of freedom from determinism.

However, the book that inspired this revival of the FreeWill thread, does present a plethora of scientific evidence against human autonomy. Since their minds are already made-up though, few posters here have read the referenced book, or even the book review on my blog. But there is one side-note in the review that links to an article by Scientific American magazine blogger John Horgan : Free Will is Real. There, he interprets the scientific evidence, if not proving moral freedom, at least not proving that causal immunity is impossible.

So, it's usually left up to theoretical philosophers to prove by argumentation, not evidence, that humans have evolved some independence from Deterministic natural laws. In the article, Horgan confesses that "I can live without God, but I need free will. Without free will life makes no sense, it lacks meaning. So I’m always on the lookout for strong, clear arguments for free will." That's why he interviewed a philosopher who has made a study of scientific evidence, and concluded that "Free Will is Real". Which is the title of his book linked below. :smile:


Free Will Is Real :
Philosopher Christian List argues against reductionism and determinism in accounts of the mind
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/free-will-is-real/

Why Free Will Is Real :
List makes the case that free will is real by responding to the three key objections typically proposed in the philosophical literature through the central insight that free will should be considered a ‘higher-level’ psychological phenomenon.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2020/04/03/long-read-review-why-free-will-is-real-by-christian-list/

It is often presumed that intellectuals have little or no political power. — Olivier5

It's not the bookish intellectuals like Marx & Engels that the CIA is worried about, but those sword-wielding activists, like Lenin & Stalin, who are motivated by Utopian visions to follow Marx's advice. "The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.” Apparently, the CIA reads PoMo as a left-wing manifesto, to be implemented as Socialism or Communism. :smile:

Isn't there a branch of philosophy concerned with ignorance and what we don't actually know? Epistemology covers knowledge, but what covers the stuff we tend to just assume we know, but in fact don't? — TiredThinker

I don't know. It's a mystery to me. :smile:

Ignorance is the not knowing that opens us up to philosophical wonder, to scientific discovery, to human wisdom."
https://ignorance.medicine.arizona.edu/about-us/what-ignorance

“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science.”
― Albert Einstein, The World As I See It

Typically, mystery does not receive much attention in philosophy. Although Heidegger and other key philosophers have made a place for mystery in philosophy, ...
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739134344/Mystery-in-Philosophy-An-Invocation-of-Pseudo-Dionysius

'Free won't' is just the usual subconscious neural 'voting' that comes from another part of the brain will than did the initial proposal. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but that other "part" of the brain is not a physical Location ; it's the holistic governing Function we call the "Conscience" or the "Super-Ego". It's function is not to control body parts, but to guide the whole system of parts known as the "Self" or "the captain of my soul". And its commands are the only "votes" that we are consciously aware of. So the subconscious crew has no choice but to say "aye, aye sir". :halo:

Would a non determined spontaneous will choice count as free? — PoeticUniverse

Yes. That's what I referred to in the blog review as "Un-scripted". The analogy is to actors improvising their character's lines & gestures within the constraints of the director's general plot. I view that as an example of Freedom within Determinism. Nature sets the stage and establishes a general direction for evolution, but intelligent Actors (free agents) are able to do their own character development. As in life, the result is often absurd & comedic, due to the lack of pre-determined structure. :smile:

BTW, in your videos, are any of your characters, spouting sagely aphorisms, free to create their own dialog? Or are you a tyrannical deterministic creator? :joke:


“The mind is a kind of theatre . . .” ___David Hume
Unlike stage actors, with a script, freewill agents are ad-libbing their roles, by reacting to the changing scenario. The playwright merely places characters in a situation, then allows them to improvise and extemporize, based on each character’s individual traits. We learn bits about the other characters, and about the plot, by inter-acting. The playwright has left us free to create a unique role for ourselves.
BothAnd Blog, post 122

Improvisational theatre, often called improvisation or improv, is the form of theatre, often comedy, in which most or all of what is performed is unplanned or unscripted: created spontaneously by the performers. Wikipedia

Great work. — Garrett Travers

Thanks. But you might not agree with some of my Poetic & Philosophical speculations on controversial topics such as Consciousness & Free Will. :smile:

A real example strong emergence is needed, if there is one. The liquidity is because the tiny hydrogen atoms roll around and also roam between (as ions) the much larger oxygen atoms. — PoeticUniverse

OK. I'll admit that "wetness" is a qualia, not a quanta. But "liquidity" is a measurable physical difference (e.g. viscosity) between gas, solid & liquid forms of H2O. Maybe that's why Fish don't know they are wet : their scientists haven't studied their environment philosophically in terms of Qualia. :joke:

Emergence: A unifying theme for 21st century science :
"Examples of emergent behavior are everywhere around us, from birds flocking, fireflies synchronizing, ants colonizing, fish schooling, individuals self-organizing into neighborhoods in cities – all with no leaders or central control – to the Big Bang, the formation of galaxies and stars and planets, . . ."
https://medium.com/sfi-30-foundations-frontiers/emergence-a-unifying-theme-for-21st-century-science-4324ac0f951e
Note 1 -- this article is from the Santa Fe Institute for Complexity Science : dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of "complex adaptive systems", including physical, computational, biological, and social systems. This is where I get a lot of my information about cutting edge science, that might not be common knowledge.

Note 2 -- In my understanding, Consciousness is an emergent quality of the complex adaptive system we call the "Brain". You can't measure it physically, but you infer it rationally. Some scientists tried to measure Einstein's brain to see what made him so smart. But, that was futile, like trying to measure the weight of a Soul.

Respectfully, I feel my absurdist prognosis is more physically grounded ... — 180 Proof

“Those of us who want to believe that human beings have free will must find sufficient evidence that our minds are something more than can ever be attributed to physical causes.”
___Peter Carter, The Single Simple Question

Carter makes it clear that, although he has rationally concluded that causal determinism prohibits human freedom, emotionally he cannot accept that his beautiful world is inherently meaningless, that his loved ones are automatons, or that life itself is a farce. So, he holds out hope that his calculations are wrong.

This pathetic hope-against-all-hope is one of the "absurd human passions" that Hume referred to as inappropriate for a perfect deity. Carter must be aware that neither the world, nor its reasoning creatures, are perfect. Yet, his working definition of "FreeWill" seems to require a perfect & omniscient being. Hence, his project -- of proving that Determinism is not absolute -- is bound to fail. However, if he could accept a less-than-perfect definition of freedom, his desire for a world in which Reason is not ridiculous might prove to be reasonable. :smile:

Freedom within Determinism :
“Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links.
Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. In other words, a self-conscious link is a causal agent---a transformer, not just a dumb transmitter. And each intentional causation changes the course of deterministic history to some small degree.”
___Yehya
BothAnd Blog, post 48

Yeah, these litany of shallow definitions you lean so heavily upon in your posts are just lazy crutches crippling your intellectual credibility. :eyes: — 180 Proof

Boy! Your Nihilist & Determinist attitude has really made you sour and cynical. :naughty:

However, if your philosophical worldview is actually Absurdist or Existentialist -- as defined below -- then there may be some hope for you yet. Keep your narrow mind open, at least a crack. :smile:


Absurdism vs Nihilism :
Nihilists, specifically passive nihilists, believe that there's no intrinsic meaning in life and “it is futile to seek or to affirm meaning where none can be found”. ... Absurdists, on the other hand, hesitantly allow the possibility for some meaning or value in life.
https://thinkingdeeply.medium.com/absurdism-vs-nihilism-explanations-and-differences-of-both-philosophies-cf571efe75e9

Determinism vs Existentialism :
In short, determinism stands against the notion of human responsibility and accountability, arguing instead that human beings do not will their own choices. On the contrary, existentialists suggest that accountability is essential to basic human functioning.
https://www.yoair.com/blog/which-side-of-philosophy-do-you-reside-on-determinism-vs-existentialism/
Note -- accountability requires some freedom of choice

Looks good to me! I like the predicted exponential growth towards the rather more concerning Omega point. Concerning as Omega is the last greek letter in that particular alphabet and usually signifies an ending. — universeness

My reference was not to the Greek alphabet, but to the evolutionary theory of paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Other scientists, such as Frank Tipler, have used the same name for the notion of upward progression of evolution toward some final resolution. I haven't made any detailed study of the process, so my use of the "Omega Point" is pure conjecture.

However, the Inflationary instant at the beginning of the universe is also a hypothetical conjecture with no empirical evidence. Hence, the question mark. If the universe is just one phase of an eternal cosmic cycle, then the Omega Point would be the end of one rotation, and the beginning of another. But, if our universe is one-and-done, then the final state is either extinguishment, or the birth of a gestating deity -- some call it the "Cosmic Christ" -- as deChardin surmised. I don't claim to know which is correct, but I have made my guess. In any case, if evolution is indeed progressive, it should also be in the process of creating something new & different & better, in some sense. :cool:

The Omega Point is a supposed future when everything in the universe spirals toward a final point of unification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

Respectfully, I feel my absurdist prognosis is more physically grounded ... — 180 Proof

Respectfully : "To each his own". :wink:
An old physically-grounded joke says that "Opinons are like *ssholes . . . everybody has one, and they stink". :joke:

Absurdism : the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.

We’ll have to pick at some of the clues to see what might come out of them although not seeing anything about free will or not at the outset. . . . . Big Bang Cosmology indicates that many particles may be entangled with some others, having have been all together at the start although probably not everything is entangled with everything. — PoeticUniverse

As an amateur philosopher, I don't concern myself with reductive physical particles, but with the holistic meta-physical -- or "sub-physical" if you prefer Sean Carroll's sub-quantum category -- synergy that entangles grains of sand into solid concrete. Concrete has an inter-active matrix that binds weak loose parts into strong cohesive wholes.

The whole point of Holism is that multiple particles are entangled into a unitary system that has properties above & beyond those of its elements. So, if you are looking at the clues in isolation, you'll never see any emergent phenomena, such as Life or Mind or Free Will. I suspect his allegiance to reductive methods may have blinded Peter Carter to the very evidence he was seeking. :smile:
PS___In detective movies, the gumshoe follows the clues, and tells the DA, "I know he's guilty, but I can't prove it". Observation finds the clues, but intuition binds them into a verdict.

Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses novel properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent parts that can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

MOTTO OF HOLISM

The cosmic calendar scale's the time since the big bang to a single year.
On that scale, the past 8 thousand years scale's to only a few seconds on the cosmic calendar.
A human lifespan is currently no more than a blink of a cosmic eye.
I think that Human society will be fair and just within the next few seconds of the cosmic calendar. — universeness

For what it's worth, here's my own cosmic calendar. It shows an optimistic upward progression, despite all the physical entropy and political digressions. I attribute the upward evolution to the counter-entropy force of Enformy. Scientists call it "negentropy", but I prefer the more positive sounding term. :smile:



Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
BothAnd Blog

When we give metaphysical priority to our lived experience, that we think, act, and live as if we have free will, and recognize that this is clear evidence of the reality of something which transcends the laws of nature, we develop a completely different perspective of the laws of nature, and the reality of time itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But ironically, some posters on this forum prefer to give "priority" to the reductive specific laws of Physics, and to diminish the importance of holistic general principles of Meta-Physics. In their view, nothing transcends the absolute laws of Lordly Nature, as revealed by the prophets of Physics. But, Einstein stuck a pin in the Classical Science bubble, by revealing that the world is Relative and Random. It's only "natural" selection that gives evolution a positive direction, by enforcing certain standards of fitness for progress.

Unfortunately, as humanity gains more independence -- via cultural selection -- over the nature gods, our feeling of freedom from Fatalism makes some of us cocky. As-if we can ignore or manipulate universal natural laws with our little local levers of technology. That hubristic arrogation of power is what gets the willful & prideful in over their heads. Yet, a more modest attitude may allow us to get some of what we want, without running roughshod over everybody else. That doesn't give us transcendence over nature, but does permit humans to collaborate with Nature. :smile:

Free will may need to be unpacked into two categories: — Agent Smith

Yes. I suspect that the feeling of Free Will is easier to justify in the modern era of Democracy and Technology, than it was back when the average human seemed to be a pawn at the mercy of the powerful-&-willful men & gods & natural forces. My own half & half category is a sort of compromise between religious Positivism and scientific Negativism on the topic. Like most things in the imperfect real world, Freedom is relative. :smile:

I too was indoctrinated with the "Free Will Theodicy" — 180 Proof

I may not have made it clear in the post above, that the author of the book wanted to prove that FreeWill is believable, but after all his reasoning, concluded that humans are slaves to Determinism.

As a young adult, I went through a similar self-analysis of my own "theodicy", and came to basically the same conclusion. But, in my later years, the Enformationism worldview (science-based but information-centric), led me to look at the "facts" from a different perspective. So, my current "theodicy" is a BothAnd complementary compromise between Fatalism and Optimism. I think humanity has just enough freedom & force to nudge the flood of evolution into a rivulet on a course that is more suitable for human purposes. That new direction probably won't take us to heaven, but it may make the journey more enjoyable and purposeful. :smile:

Since the Metaphysics, Yet Again thread has faded into the usual counter-accusations of "woo" and "non-sense", I thought I'd resurrect the ghost of Christmas past, by opening the Pandora's Box of "FreeWill", and related philosophical conundra. — Gnomon

I just can't leave the ghost of Free Will in peace. Since this is one of the most polarized topics on the forum, I find it one of the most interesting as a philosophical exercise.

In one of the posts above, I mentioned the book that I was currently reading : The Single Simple Question that Challenges All Convictions. I eventually finished reading the book. Then I started a BothAnd Blog post to review it from my personal perspective, which seems similar to the author's. His father was a preacher, and the son of a preacherman. He doesn't specify the particular brand of Christianity he was indoctrinated in. But it probably was not very different from my own. And, like me, he bears no animosity to those who were not dissuaded by doubts.

Raised as a back-to-the-Bible fundamentalist Christian, I took moral freedom for granted. But later I began to ask myself some of the same questions Carter dealt with in the book. Contrary to the title, his layman's philosophical investigation was not limited to a single question. But the central issue for him was Freedom versus Determinism. The cover says : "Connecting the Conundrums of God and Immortality, Free Will, the Strange Reality of Quantum Physics, and Finding Purpose in Existence." So, I merely followed his trail of breadcrumbs through the maze of Metaphysics and Physics.

The book review originally had the same name as this thread : FreeWill and other Popular Delusions. But I decided to add "Unscripted" to qualify FreeWill, in view of my takeaway from the project.The review is only three pages, but the end notes and afterthoughts go on for several more pages. If that's too much to read, you can just look at the pictures. :smile:

PS___ Anyone who is sincerely interested in this topic can message me for a link to the book review.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/messages/inbox/gnomon

https://www.amazon.com/Single-Simple-Question-Challenges-Convictions/dp/1695354788

Your Award for finding the needle in the haystack: — PoeticUniverse

Sometimes it seems like finding a needle in a stack of needles. :joke:
I clicked on the Austin Torney award, but it just sits there and slowly cycles, from beginning, to between, and back to the origin. Am I supposed to just stare at it, and meditate while mumbling a mantra, and sipping 'shroom soup? :cool:

HERE BE DRAGONS — Gnomon
And they breathe fire into the equations. — PoeticUniverse

Yes! And in my information-centric thesis, that "fire" is the universal force that I label as Potential EnFormAction, which works as active Energy, and rests as mundane Matter. :smile:

BUT WE WILL! — universeness

Bravo! That sounds much more optimistic than the OP. I just hope your momentary enthusiasm doesn't turn into apathy, when the ideal of egalitarianism remains as far away as the horizon. I learned long ago, to lower my expectations, even as I set moderately higher goals. :smile:

I am socialist but I don't accept your suggestion that socialism is a political polarisation. — universeness

That "suggestion" was not my personal opinion, but a reflection of the historical & current political polarization between "socialist" Liberals and "capitalist" Conservatives. Throughout history, those on the top echelons of society (owners of capital) were typically status-quo Conservatives. The Moderate mid-levels of society were content to just hang-on to their not-so-bad positions. And the huddled masses, were either passively accepting of their lot in life, or frustrated by the lead-ceilings as they tried to climb-up to the next rung in society.

For millennia, upward social mobility was mostly a pipe dream, until the Socialism & Communism & Unionism movements reacted vigorously to the inhumane conditions of smoke-stack industrialism. As long as the masses remained compliant and quiescent though, there was no political polarization. But when poverty & racism & sexism became in-your-face issues, and the divide between Haves & Have-nots became un-ignorable. Only then did the top dogs began to have their noses pushed into their own sh*t.

Traditionally, Monarchic politics was a concern of only the rich & powerful. But, when Democratic ideals began to question the morality of ancestral aristocracy, a newly-revealed chasm between top & bottom of society soon became entrenched into routine Democratic politics. Unfortunately, the hierarchical gap between rich & poor remains to this day, as a running sore in all societies. Hence, the ancient Left vs Right division between noble peers, has evolved into a Top vs Bottom polarization of minority & majority classes. Yet, political mud-slinging still labels social Liberals as commie Leftists, and economic Conservatives as fascist Right-wingers. That's why moderates in the middle must learn to duck, as the slinging now comes from left & right and top & bottom. :cool:

I doubt that public education has much to do with personal moral calculations. — Gnomon
Surely the way in which you are educated affects your moral compass. — universeness

Of course, it should. But my comment was directed at the current conflicted situation of public education in the US. For example, government-funded schools are now political battlegrounds over the teaching of "Critical Race Theory", among other academic concerns. One side seems to view it as an ethical issue regarding fair treatment of "minority" citizens. Meanwhile, the opposition treats it as a political propaganda attack on the besieged colorless race. (note -- I know nothing about the CR theory other than the label)

Up to about a century ago, secular public schools were primarily mandated to produce ethically-good citizens. But now, the teaching of good morals is left mostly to private religious organizations. So, the secular mandate of modern mind-molding is to train children to be technically-good workers. Presumably, regardless of Race, Religion, or National Origin. The attitude seems to be : the future is untainted, but history is morally compromised -- and best avoided in the presence of tender minds. :smile:

Does the real responsibility for the way things are, lie more with the fact that good people don't do enough to combat those who are only interested in their own advancement? — universeness

“The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.”
___Karl Marx

Back to your original post --- who's responsible for the evil in the world? : A> God ; B> Politicians ; C> Philosophers ; d> You?
Marx, the philosopher, spent his life in dark, dusty libraries perfecting his theory of an ideal political & economic system. So, he relied on non-philosophers to be the cannon-fodder, who actually did the dirty, bloody work of revolution. Therefore, you need to ask yourself : are you a leader, or a bleeder, or a thinker? Who appointed you to be the next Lenin, or the next peasant soldier, shouldering the earth-moving responsibility for changing the course of the world? Did Marx or Lenin achieve their high ambitions? To move the world, you need a lever and a fulcrum. :cool:

The Quantum Field Theory on Which the Everyday World Supervenes:
Sean Carroll on QFT: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07884.pdf — PoeticUniverse

That's interesting! Sean Carroll's Effective Field Theory postulates a level of reality underlying the old Quantum Field Theory. 19th century Materialism was an update of ancient Atomism. But that was soon superseded by sub-atomic somethings (particles), then by sub-particle Quarks, as the foundation of reality. Now the sub-basement of reality is an even less substantial "approximation" of a Theory of Everything.

Maybe I could sneak my own Enformationism theory into that vague virtual class of un-excited Nothingness that is "more fundamental" than an empty place of Potential particles. I used to label that Ideality as "Meta-Physics", but now I can call it "Sub-Physics" : the "underlying reality" that sub-venes the material Macro & mathematical QFT levels. :nerd:

Quantum field theory :
QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

Effective field theory :
In physics, an effective field theory is a type of approximation, or effective theory, for an underlying physical theory,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_field_theory


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HERE BE DRAGONS


Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

"Thusly, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly,
A process fundamental in nature,"

I will always feel guilty that I could have done more. Do we all deserve such a self-judgment? Is it possible to be too harsh on ourselves on this issue? I don't feel I am being too harsh, it feels correct. — universeness

Sounds like you are forcing a gullt-trip on yourself. Presumably, that stems from a feeling of responsibility for the woes of the world. You may have internalized that feeling from a polarized religious or political background, or from an idealistic or perfectionist philosophical tradition. Until you can learn to accept your own imperfections, your diversionary tactics will still be haunted by the spectre of failing to live-up to your own standards, or the standards you are judged by. Impossible standards sound good in theory, but in practice they produce only angst. :gasp:

But very few humans (academic philosophers aside) don't think that way
I assume you didn't intend the word 'don't' here. Why is this sentence true?
Lack of education? Due to the deliberate historical actions of others? Why do you think its true? — universeness

Yes, the "don't" was an unfortunate typo that reversed the intended meaning. I doubt that public education has much to do with personal moral calculations. And History is too eclectic & inclusive to apply direct force to specific individuals. Nevertheless, non-philosophers typically prefer simple broad principles, like the Golden Rule. Still, such general precepts must be interpreted for specific situations.

Academic Philosophers are unusual in their motivation to precisely analyze human behavior down to general rules. Yet, their collective conclusions tend to cluster in the shape of a Bell Curve, but with "fat tails". By that, I mean those who are highly motivated (narrowly focused experts) tend to move toward extreme positions. Moreover, the extremists are more likely to be opinion influencers, and leaders of "movements".

Fortunately for the rest of us, the Middle position (Aristotle's Golden Mean) still dominates the statistical distribution of opinions. That's why philosophical wisdom typically advocates a moderate stance, in order to avoid incessant warfare between right-wingers and left-wingers. However, when the shooting starts, the moderates in the middle get shot-at from both sides. So, we learn to keep our heads down, until the combatants run out of ammunition.

Stalin and Hitler were not academic philosophers, but they were influenced by the likes of Marx (communism) and Nietzsche (individualism) to build Utopian sky-castles, regardless of how many follower's lives it cost. And they forced moderates to choose one extreme or the other. Which placed unreasonable and untenable ethical pressure on them. When trapped in the jaws of a moral either/or vise, they had no option, but to "look to themselves" for an incalculable solution. :cool:

A situation arises such that, If I sacrifice my life then I would significantly improve the lives of a great many others. But no-one would ever know. I would never be credited. In fact, due to the lies of others, I would forever be known as one of the main villains of the scenario. Would I do it? Would you?
I like to think I would but I have never been tested in this type of situation. — universeness

This kind of hypothetical moral quandary puts people in untenable situations. If you accept the machine-like logical computation of Utilitarianism, or the god-like Categorical Imperative, then the moral solution would be obvious -- if you could instantly calculate all possible consequences of your decision. But very few humans (academic philosophers aside) don't think that way.

Instead, we do quick back-of-the-envelope subconscious calculations, based on personal emotional values. That's usually good enough for small-group ethics. But when faced with global ethical repercussions, such as the Holocaust, ordinary people tend to do mundane acts (followed orders), and hope for the best. That's what Arendt called "the banality of evil".

You've never been tested in such a situation, because it is an extreme case, seldom met in real life. The Hitlers and Stalins of the world, were idealists, working toward Utopian dreams. Hence, there is no price too high to pay for Heaven-on-Earth. So their "final solutions" were not realistic, and were not calculated logically or mathematically. :sad:

“a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic”
___Joseph Stalin