In computer science it is known that it takes more computational power to simulate a computer system than the computer system itself has; typically, much more. I think this principle can be generalized:

For any system S, any complete simulation of S, S', must be more more complex than S — hypericin

I think this is true if one assumes that the simulation is of the exact quality and complexity of the universe the computer making the simulation belongs to. I don't think it's so if the computer is aiming to simulate a simpler type of universe than the universe the computer is in.

I would assume entities in the simulation would not be able to tell any difference within their own simulated reality, and they wouldn't be able to compare their computed reality with the computing reality. If these simulated entities decided to create their own simulated reality, it would have to be even simpler than theirs too.

One way i think the computing limitations can be overcome is by simply extending the time the computer needs to calculate the next time step. For the entities in that simulation time would feel as if it were running normally. Since each simulated entity is computed together with the rest of the simulation, they experience things in time with the simulation. Meaning that from one time step to the next, no matter how long it takes to calculate that time step, the entities would perceive it as instantaneous. The speed of "light" in their universe would probably need to be slower than in the computing universe to compensate for the difference in computing speed, but it wouldn't feel any different to them. This is all mostly speculation of course.

It's not as simple as taking any old drug in any old way. Doing it like that is hit or miss, and usually more miss. When i was younger i was a walking chemistry experiment. I've done almost every drug at one point or another. It wasn't about fun and parties. I was curious and interested in everything including my own mind, and i figured that i can understand my mind better if i experiment with it by disturbing it. It's been said that we swim in the mind like fish swim in the water, we don't have an external reference to compare it to. A fish that's never been out of the water would conceivably not even be aware of water, but if you disturb it by removing it from it's watery environment it quickly knows there is something about water. That fish just got wiser. In the same way by disturbing my own mind temporarily with a drug i can begin to compare the differences with and without the drug.

I learned early on that to get the most out of my drug experience in the context of my goal i had to pay close attention to my set, and setting, and dosage (Timothy Leary). Shamans and medicine men since early on had formulated procedures and rituals that would prepare them for the "sacrament". What i chose to do was combine the drug with meditation. The point of meditation (emptiness meditation) was to settle the mind in order to observe deeply it's natural state. Isolated and hermetically sealed away from external influences. Once i was able to achieve a reasonable baseline state (not easy), i began to test different drugs. I would then sit calmly and observe what it did to me. I wouldn't try to understand it while in it, i would wait to think about it after the drug wore off.

To do this i practiced contemplation (not meditation). I found that if i just had the intention to understand, and i didn't stress out about it, then my mind while sober would begin to make suggestions for what i wanted to know. It wasn't always immediate, many times it would take days, weeks, and even years. Having the experience was enough to get my unconscious mind working, as long as i had sincere interest. Most of the insight or "enlightenment" that i received from doing this was not so much about physics or history, or something external like that, it was a personal self-knowledge of how i work internally. It wasn't usually something i could really right down, or prove to another person. It wasn't that type of knowledge. It was knowledge tailored to me alone, but the effect it had on my i thinking made me a better person eventually. It helped me not just understand myself better but other people too. Because i had a window into my fundamental internal processes, i began to see intimations of the same processes outside myself. In other people, society, history, nature.. in the sober state i began to feel ultra connected to everything. I began to recognize and even feel myself in other people, animals, bugs, the Earth, the universe.. So now i know that the I in me is the same I in you who are reading this, and that's just one of the few things i actually can say about this topic. Anything else would probably sound even more ridiculous, especially to the uninitiated.

“Know thyself, and thou shalt know the universe and God.” - Temple of Apollo at Delphi

Descriptions are really good for art, literature, instruction, but it's not sufficient on its own for science, and understanding.

Consciousness doesn't cause itself, Will is neither free nor a Determinism: — Joshs

I agree that consciousness dosn't cause itself, but i don't see how it follow that will is neither free nor deterministic.

The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has ever been conceived, a type of logical rape and abomination. But humanity's excessive pride has got itself profoundly and horribly entangled with precisely this piece of nonsense. The longing for “freedom of the will” in the superlative metaphysical sense (which, unfortunately, still rules in the heads of the half educated), the longing to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for your actions yourself and to relieve God, world, ancestors, chance, and society of the burden – all this means nothing less than being that very causa sui and, with a courage greater than Munchhausen's, pulling yourself by the hair from the swamp of nothingness up into existence. — Joshs

I agree with all of the above quote.

Suppose someone sees through the boorish naivete of this famous concept of “free will” and manages to get it out of his mind; I would then ask him to carry his “enlightenment” a step further and to rid his mind of the reversal of this misconceived concept of “free will”: I mean the “un-free will,” which is basically an abuse of cause and effect. We should not erroneously objectify “cause” and “effect” like the natural scientists do (and whoever else thinks naturalistically these days –) in accordance with the dominant mechanistic stupidity which would have the cause push and shove until it “effects” something; we should use “cause” and “effect” only as pure concepts, which is to say as conventional fictions for the purpose of description and communication, not explanation. In the “in-itself ” there is nothing like “causal association,” “necessity,” or “psychological un-freedom.” There, the “effect” does not follow “from the cause,” there is no rule of “law”. — Joshs

My issue is mainly with this last section. How is "un-free" will a violation of cause and effect? I think he is playing with words here perhaps in a disingenuous way. Description and explanations again are arbitrary distinctions. If you observe a thing and describe it, that's perfectly fine, but if you want to do something with it, or go even deeper then it has to be converted into an explanation (but it doesn't have to be true to begin with). Take the explanation and generalize it, then experiment and verify. If the generalized explanation holds then it may be considered more true than not. Further and deeper development can continue. We don't understand anything from descriptions unless we generalize, they are just static pictures, explanations are more akin to video. Still not the territory, it's just a map of the territory. An explanation can be described, and a description can be explained. I would use a description, not an explanation to communicate a concept like cause and effect, but use an explanation to produce technology, or even to discover deeper principles of nature.

I don't understand how he makes the conclusion that there is no cause and effect in the "in-itself". I kinda get a funny distrusting feeling about him. Just saying.

The self analysis i'm referring to is not meant to figure out if there is free will or not, it's meant to expose personal assumptions, desires, insecurities, fears, etc. that will affect how one perceives, relates, and handles certain ideas. For example, if one believes in God or is religious, and if one begins their inquiry trying to prove God, or at least trying not to disprove God, then one will avoid and reject anything that they think might take them in the direction they have decided already not to accept (even if it's potentially true). You must be like a mirror, able to reflect what is with as little distortion as possible. This should be obvious to most people i think.

I myself have used and still use certain lessons i've learned from Buddhism, Hinduism, but especially Zen Buddhism. Meditation i have found works for achieving a state of empty objective neutrality (as much as possible). In my opinion it would be a waste of my time really to even attempt to tackle big external questions with big internal implications if i haven't done my internal prep work.

It's useful to think about it like vision. Some people have bad vision which keeps them from seeing the world accurately. These people then need to correct that handicap by going to an ophthalmologist to have their vision analyzed to then fashion lenses that will correct for the visual distortions. Then they can go and see the world for what it is, they can drive for instance and not kill anyone by accident, or mistake things for other things, etc..

:up:

Change is inevitable, it's a constant in the universe.

What is conditioned are the possibilities, then there is random selection from the possibilities (probability). In no sense is free will present in that situation.

And thus free will is negated, because you can't choose to fly, just like you can't take short cuts by walking through walls, or any such thing.

Ok, but just tell me how the distinction helps us answer the question of free will?

If things are indeterminate are you able to determine your own choice?
If things are determinate are you able to determine your own choice?

I

I find the dichotomy of free will/determinism to be false. — Jackson

I've already stated that the dichotomy is not between free will and determinism. It is about determinism and indeterminism. Free will is simply something thought to be contingent depending on which one is considered to be true.

It does not matter to me one way or the other. I make my decisions without reference to free will or determinism. — Jackson

This is also the way i operate. I never wonder about my free will when making decisions, because it's pretty much settled as far as i'm concerned. I'm open to being proven wrong of course or i wouldn't be sincere.

How is free will illogical? You would have to show the concept is inconsistent with itself. — Jackson

Tell me first if you are a determinist, an indeterminist, or both (like me). I think i can logically show it's impossible with any one you pick. I'm not sure that you can show that it is possible regardless of the one you pick. Which one is it?

Newton said God made physical laws. — Jackson

This is irrelevant. Newton was also a virgin when he died, and had dreams or desires of burning his mother. But this brings up a point i've been pondering...

Does it unsettle you in any way to consider that free will might not exist. Do you have a personal preference? Like i said in a previous post, it's important to examine oneself before one examines problems or issues outside oneself. I can easily see why some people may be disturbed by the notion. Especially if one believes in God, or is seeking to believe in God. Do you believe in God?

I don't think Newton and others invented determinism, i think they discovered an aspect of nature. It is at least true under certain constrained conditions. Others have also discovered indeterminism such as in quantum physics, and this is also true. We tend to always want to through the baby out with the bathwater.

I have reason to believe that nature is both indeterminate and determinate, both have been shown to be true in one or some other aspect of nature. Complex systems like the ones we are familiar with operate in the range between chaos and order (indeterminism and determinism respectively), generally termed "edge of chaos". You need both for complexity to evolve. Chaos (indeterminism) produces variations in the environment, while order (determinism) selects from the environment. This is the nature of evolution.

I should say that i'm not very concerned about social constructs because a social construct may be true or false like anything else. There is no reason why a social construct must be true or false exclusively. In fact social constructs are part of evolution, where human ideas undergo variation in individual minds, and then are selected out of the environments of minds (memetics) those ideas that confer some kind of advantage to the system in question. Then further variation and further selection ad infinitum.

Like i've already stated in prior posts, my point is that in any case (determinism or indeterminism) the possibility (not the probability) of free will is absurd and illogical. What i have been consistently asking here is for someone to provide me with at least a concept that does not violate what we already know to be true, and that can in principle show that free will is in fact possible and consistent with logic.

I also want to say that our ideas and models of the world do not have to match exactly with the way nature "really" works, it need only be sufficiently true for our purposes. Science is evolving like everything else and it is not in some already perfect state. The better our models get the better we know to make better models, etc..

“…it is important to distinguish between determinism as a feature of a scientific model and determinism as a metaphysical thesis about nature. According to the metaphysical thesis, all physical properties in nature are definite and determinate, and the evolution of the natural world is fixed uniquely. (The complete and instantaneous state of the world fixes its past and future with no alternatives.) — Joshs

Not sure how the distinction between scientific models and metaphysics helps, but i would agree in general with what is quoted above.

This thesis hardly follows from the fact that we can construct nonstochastic dynamic-system models of observable phenomena. — Joshs

I'm having trouble with this part, how does it hardly follow?

It seems to me that Evan Thompson (never heard of him, will look him up) is just making arbitrary distinctions between in this case a scientific model and a metaphysical proposition. I don't necessarily see anything particularly "wrong" about it, but i'm not sure how much the distinction helps in answering the question of free will. Perhaps you can help me understand how it does if you think it does.

anything can be justified. — Agent Smith

Yes and no. You can justify anything but one would have to tinker with the premise of the argument. The logic itself can not yield a false conclusion if the correct premise is used. I think that would be the only way.

So, what does an argument that proves free will look like, eh? Makes you wonder, don't it? — Agent Smith

Well that's why i said that. I have wondered about it, and it would probably look like some undiscovered force that can negate for example charge coupling. Like some kind of particle degaussing force. It's the only thing i can think of, do you have any ideas? But the problem is that it would probably violate some conservation law.

Well i still think it's as easy as conservation laws, you don't have to wonder after some complex process if there is more or less energy. You are guaranteed to have the same amount of energy coming out as you had going in. I see this almost as an analog of determinism in the sense that there is no chance of deviating from law, no matter how much complexity and time is involved. One can probably even call it the law of conservation of will, or maybe the law of conservation of order.

Consider how a crystal grows in a saturated solution. If the crystal in question is salt then one would see a matrix or lattice cube formation expanding. The salt molecules have no choice but to attach to the growing crystal in a specific way. Positive to negative, never positive to positive or negative to negative (like Legos). Only one way (determinism). This is simple to figure out but when more than one molecule is involved then things become more complex and varied, but never does it violate the charge rule.

Positive and negative charges represent a type of energy imbalance which is always trying to resolve itself by neutralizing with an opposite charge (energy minimization). It is the only reason things move in the universe, except for gravity which works in a different way because it's a different thing. But all the forces are deterministic, i've never seen or heard of indeterminism outside the quantum realm.

The only thing that can convince me of some type of macro-indetermanancy that leads to free will agents is to show me the mechanism by which it is enabled. Apart from that everything points to macro-determanancy, and i have no reason to think otherwise.

Nature is lazy i.e. it wants to minimize energy expenditure for any given task. Rivers flow in such a way that it takes the shortest path down from it source to a sea/ocean/lake. — Agent Smith

Water usually meanders and curves as it flows. That is why rivers are not straight in the long course. You can see this also happening perhaps in the shower as streams of water flow down the tile or glass in a sideways sinusoidal flow pattern. I think it has to do with the angular momentum of the water molecules. Besides it's not really the same when dealing with complex adaptive systems like a human being. You're "decision" to zig-zag is contingent on the confluence of many internal factors mostly psychological and unconscious that were themselves trying to minimize their energy states. Those internal energy states probably take presidence over other energy states at different levels.

This may be interesting to you: Free energy principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle

Thank you, and it's quite alright. We don't need to agree exactly every time, but we should understand each other, and be able to reason together. I may not know you, but i know the I in me is the same I in you. :-)

Are you sure it is binary? Either free will or determinism? — TiredThinker

The dichotomy is not to do with free will, but between determinism and indeterminism. The difference between determinism and indeterminism is that determinism enforces a definite trajectory of development or unfolding with no possible deviations from natural law.

Indeterminism states that things don't have to have a cause, because things can behave in whatever random way. An example of indeterminism would be like a positive particle that is attracted (not repelled) to another positive particle or refusing to move at all. While in determinism the particle has no choice but to obey the law of electromagnetism, gravity, or what have you.

Doesn't determinism imply that that exact end state of the universe needs to be a particular way and thus a particular trajectory is needed? — TiredThinker

Yes, the trajectory and end state of the whole universe is determined at initial conditions. A good analogy for this would be to say that when an egg is fertilized, an organism begins to develop along a very specific trajectory until it's final form or state is achieved. If this type of development were open to the free will of any of its parts or even environment, then structural abnormalities will develop in its systems jeopardizing the organism's viability.

For the proper functioning of the universe or any system all the parts need to do their job correctly every time, not just some of the times.

When one is asleep and having a dream, even though one might interact with characters and things in the dream those characters are just projections of the dreamers mind. All that really exists in the dream is the dreamer, although it may not appear that way. Is this not a form of solipsism?

It one were to apply this concept to the "real" world, then one can consider this reality to be someone's dream and either one is the dreamer or the dreamed. In either case it would be a form of solipsism. All interactions would be self interactions. Ultimately i think the nature of the universe may hold a very similar quality to this idea. We may all be manifested aspects of the universal dreamer, in the dream we call reality.

In the context or system that i'm describing i like to think of the word "will" as what a thing will do. What a thing does is contingent on its function, and its function is contingent on its shape, form, or structure pattern (form follows function). So a thing WILL do what it does by virtue of how its pattern can interact with other patterns in it's local environment. Free will is to say that a thing can do what ever regardless of its function or inherent pattern. Consistent patterns will fail to form, things will loose their necessary functions within a system. Structures that do their own thing would resemble cancer cells in a biological organism. Not to say that certain circumstances can't cause abnormalities in a structure, but it wouldn't be because of free will. The mechanism for free will is not possible.

I'm a computer programmer, and i have for some years now programmed simulation experiments that follow what i've outlined (in parts not in whole). I've been able to produce novel forms that can interact with each other, and complexify. At this time i'm trying to produce self created emergent laws along with patterns that can produce new emergent levels. I'm looking into how Marchov chains can be used and incorporated to produce better simulations of this kind, along with simple neural networks that self assemble (self-organization).

The apparent novelty that we see develop in macro states of organization was determined at the moment the seed pattern emerged from chaos. All the implications are inherent in that original pattern. All it takes is time to develop or evolve through pattern mutation and environmental selection.

The level of complexification we are in right now is forming the next level of emergence. We are the ones building it through our cultural and technological systems that will culminate in a global cybernetic conscious system that AI is the head of. We are building it but not by our free will, but by the biological, and psychological drives in all of us (conscious and unconscious). It is just like how cells got together to form tissues, they don't know they are making tissues that will make organs. They just do what they are driven to do by their nature and local influences. We are no different.

Can this process of biological and cultural complexification be modeled in terms of the deterministically causal motions of objects in space (evolutionary arrangement and rearrangement of molecular patterns)? — Joshs

Yes, anything above the quantum level is classical and deterministic. At least that's how i see it.

Perhaps i should outline my picture of the chain of cause and effect from the very beginning to show why i think there is no room for free will... this will be ultra-simplified for brevity.

All there is in this or any universe is energy and information. Information is generated as pattern from the chaos of the quantum foam (indeterminate, symmetric). These patterns manifest and rise from the quantum fluctuations (breaking symmetry) as what we call fundamental particle / anti-particle pairs like quarks, electrons and positrons.

At this point these particles are now determined by emergent laws that aim to bring everything back to neutrality (symmetry). This is why particles annihilate when they meet their perfect anti-partner. This represents the shift from an indeterministic system to a deterministic one. So both are the case where one produces new patterns (matter) and the other just processes the patterns in strictly deterministic ways.

As patterns (particles) are attracted and repelled by other particles they begin to combine and fall into more complex patterns. While complexification continues; emergent levels of organization begin to form such as the atomic level of organization, which in turn engender the emergence of molecular systems with new affordances and possibilities unavailable at lower levels of emergence. All this is strictly governed by natural laws that are perpetually seeking to annihilation matter.

Eventually from molecules we arrive at the cellular or biological, which complexify even further to form emergent structures like tissues that form organs that form systems and finally intelligent organisms like humans. Again all this is ruled by natural law, non of these particles or structures have free will.
Now the type of organization that occurs in the brain is not fundamentally different than what goes on at the lower levels (no free will just natural law). There is no place in this whole story where free will can be found, so why would it happen in the brain, or in our consciousness which is itself an emergent property of the brain? (rhetorical).

The feeling of free will is a manifestation or product of what i call "causal reflection", in which the bottom-up trajectory of causation is reflected back down from the highest level of causal organization in the body namely consciousness, looping back on itself yielding the effect of self awareness. Within this self-awareness we experience the feeling of free will, but it is still caused by the chain of cause and effect that came up all the way from the quantum foam itself. We are the repositories of information history on this planet.

At any point in this chain had free will agents emerged then it would have disrupted the entire enterprise of higher order complexification. Things would deviate from the main pattern of evolution and fall into eventual catastrophic failure. Evolution is still doing it's work on us and we are not the final product, we are still larval at this stage, and any free will interference would compound into abnormal and imbalanced systems.

determinism is based on a preconceived notion of the self or the world. — Joshs

Please elaborate on this point. Preconceived or not, how is determinism negated, and negated by what?

Alternatives to the freedom vs determinism
binary assert that while we are determined by our history, both personal , biological and social, these don’t dictate future behavior in a strictly causal way. — Joshs

What are these alternatives called? And again what is the basic concept in these alternatives that enable free will? How does that happen, is there an alternative to determinism and indeterminate randomness or chaos? Is there a third or fourth option that i'm not aware of?

I said i wasn't going to waste our time if i don't think you're serious. I find it strange that you don't know what i mean by free will is not real. That is fundamental to the discussion. Your motives are suspect. I've dealt with this type of thing many times before, it never reaches any useful conclusion.

You made no argument and did not address my comment. — Jackson

I already made arguments in prior posts, and how did i not address your comment?

Information comes in many forms. Text, audio, video, what's the difference?

Of course.. that's why you don't understand what is even being discussed here. I won't waste your time or mine anymore because you obviously just want to believe what you just want to believe at all costs. That in itself is interesting to me.. human nature got to love it.

I actually do not understand the idea we have no free will. — Jackson

This is the reason why posted the Sam Harris video, to help you understand what is actually being addressed here. Sam Harris gives a pretty thorough explanation of the process you think of as free will or choice. Did you watch it? Take your time, and think about it, there's no hurry.

You think you have free will, and you did have to. This is what is meant when one claims that free will is not real. In essence my point is that free will is illusory. I can go on to write a bunch of stuff now, but i think a more efficient course in this case is to share this thought experiment offered by Sam Harris in this video.

Let me know what your thoughts are after watching, and performing the thought experiment.

Sam Harris Free Will Thought Experiment Number 2.

This is what i mean, are you committed to uncovering the truth or to just defend your views? and if you can't or won't defend your views then just ignore and move on? Because i addressed your claim about the difference between one scenario and the other in your example. Are you implying that my objection is invalid somehow? If so then let me know how.

You see the reason i joined this forum is so that i can test the validity of my ideas, notions, conclusions, etc. with other quality critical thinkers. I would think that a sincere philosopher or scientist would be willing to do that. I personally want my ideas to be picked apart, criticized and tested in the hope that i may learn something new and advance to the next stage of understanding. I have no problem in changing my mind about something if reasonable arguments are supplied. Like i mentioned before, if we're not doing that then what are we doing? Why is it so difficult to provide just one reasonable account or mechanism by which freewill can be realized, even if just a hypothetical one? Anyone??

There's a difference between me giving to charity because I want to and me giving to charity because someone has a gun to my temple. — Agent Smith

What exactly is the fundamental difference? In either case you have a reason for giving to charity. If you have a reason for doing something, that reason has a reason, and that reason has a reason, etc.. If reasons were turtles it would be turtles all the way down.

Everything we do is a manifestation of unconscious activity in the brain governed by the laws of biology in turn governed by chemistry, and ultimately the laws of physics. It all bubbles up into the conscious portion of our minds (Global Neuronal Workspace) and given a confabulated justification by specifically the left hemisphere of the brain (the "interpreter" or "storyteller" responsible for the feeling of freewill and the sense of self).

This video clip having to do with split-brain patients illustrates what i am trying to point out:
Split-brain and left hemisphere "interpreter"


Another illustrative phenomena that can help us gain some insight into this question of freewill is called the "Alien Hand Syndrome", again with split-brain patients. These people have each side of their bodies and minds independent of the other, and sometimes they need to restrain their left hand (right hemisphere) because it occasionally decides to attack its owner. This and other available data contribute to a significant body of evidence showing that we are not in control of our decisions. Here is a short clip about that:


I challenge anyone to provide me with a reasonable account or mechanism by which freewill can be achieved, even if just hypothetical. I've never heard one, perhaps someone can surprise me. I want to believe in freewill as much as the next guy but i must have reasons for doing so, if not then what are we really doing?.

I think the issue is here is that the topic is made to be more complex than it is, often with good reasons. — Manuel

I agree that the topic is being made more complex than necessary, but in my opinion for no good reason. We have the rules of logic and mathematics which are our only tools for approaching truth. There is no other (at least accessible to us), so it's all we have.

though this has been and will continue to be, fiercely disputed. — Manuel

I mean what is there to continue disputing that can not be settled with simple logic and first principles. Of course those executing the logic must at least have some mastery of themselves before effectively wielding the power of it. If we do not know how to recognize our own bias, pride, and ignorance then even when faced with truth will we reject it at our own detriment, perpetually sinking into a maelstrom of bewilderment.

“Know thyself, and thou shalt know the universe and God.” - Temple of Apollo at Delphi

Does this simple quantum example defend the idea of free will? That things aren't certain even in the short run? — TiredThinker

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle simply states that YOU can not know where the electron is. It's Heisenberg who is uncertain not the universe. If you measure the position then you're precluded from knowing it's momentum, and if you measure the momentum then you're precluded from knowing its position. In either case the universe knows both, but we are limited as conscious observers as to what we can know at any one time. It says nothing about freewill.

I think the whole freewill dilemma is actually quite easy to settle, but our feelings confuse us. We don't want to admit the unflattering truth that we can't choose, so we keep on going in circles trying to prove something that can't be proven because it's just not true.

Think about it... there are only two options; determinism and indeterminism. We already know that determinism means no freewill, that's easy enough. We get confused when it comes to indeterminism as if the order of the universe can be upended because someone just felt like having it their way. To believe in freewill is to literally believe in magic and in a chaotic universe where things happen not by laws of nature but by the whim of people or simply a person. We can't tell the universe what to do, the universe tells us what to do, and it gets us to do what it wants by making us think it is our "freewill". What we call "freewill" is really the will of the universe itself, and even the universe itself doesn't have freewill it's just "will".

Is it that black and white? After all if absolutely everything was chaos, then nothing could exist, as existence requires order. But if everything was determined, then nothing new could occur. So it’s not a one or the other situation, there is both chaos and order. — Wayfarer

It kind of is at a fundamental level, but i agree with you and that's why i said "in either case or in combination", but i still don't see how "freewill" can reasonably work in those conditions even in combination. I'm willing to change my mind on the matter, it just needs to make sense.

Only that if there’s no free will, there’s nothing to discuss, because the outcome of any discussion is already predetermined, so it’s not worth having. — Wayfarer

I agree as well, except that it's no more or less worthwhile than discussing anything else. It's all simply the universe processing information, and there is always a reason why anything occurs including apparently pointless discussions. We have no choice in discussing freewill.