If we had total free will, it would invalidate all scientific knowledge about human behavior since there would be nothing fixed in our behavior.

I'd say that if we have free will, it's very limited. Otherwise it would be an insult to those low-functioning autists and anorexics. It would mean that an anorexic could wake up one day, make a U-turn and say "I'm going to eat as much as I need from now on." Or that a low-functioning autist could suddenly snap out of their autistic personality and become normal. But those things aren't happening. So if free will exists, it must be very limited.

The solution is to accept the trilemma as unsolvable and instead work with knowledge in terms of conjecture and criticism.

Don't we experience change while we're asleep? Reality must keep track of all other organisms' state and location.

Free will is the ability to make choices not determined by determinism or randomness.

I don't know if there is free will or not, but I'm leaning towards it not existing. It logically doesn't make sense to try to explain how free will can exist. There may be true randomness, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there are multiple possible futures.

You can't prove anything without assumptions.

I think knowledge could be defined as "Beliefs based on highly-tested perception" or "The best explanation for sensory evidence."

Free will does not exist. Studies have shown that our brains make decisions before they reach our consciousness. If you had free will, you'd be aware of your decisions at the same time that you make them.

Karl Popper's suggestion was to throw away certainty from knowledge and work with knowledge in terms of probability. Basically, we are justified in believing something if it's the most probable belief given our current data.

Perhaps we may define knowledge as "Beliefs based on rigorously tested sensory beliefs"?

Nihilists reject some general aspect of human existence, such as knowledge, meaning or morality.

I get it. Knowledge should be seen as a pragmatic tool to help us navigate.

What I wanted to do was find a solid way of forming knowledge. Pragmatism appears to be the answer.

This is a pragmatic approach to knowledge. But perhaps it's the only working epistemic theory.

Science is by definition falsifiable theories, so defining knowledge as "unfalsifiable information" leaves no room for science-based knowledge.

What about science though? If you define knowledge as unfalsifiable information, then science is out of the window.

The problem with determinism is that it cannot explain the beginning of everything.

I suppose common sense is necessary so there aren't too many questions. We need to move on / navigate smoothly enough.

Accept that certainty is impossible. Its' the same for everyone.

You can't ever be sure you won't do anything insane before you die.

But being insane means doing things no one in their right mind would do. For example, throwing away your iPhone 12.

In order to discuss God's existence you need to agree on some of its traits.

I'd define knowledge as "mental awareness of objective truth".

Yeah. You can't guarantee you won't do something extremely stupid.

Discussion requires agreement. Without agreement, nobody knows what anyone is talking about.

So there is no absolute, objective science for any sport? What about athletics, such as high jump and running?

Basically, that which you are forced to accept.

Bad.

If there is no such thing as objective good or bad, then anyone is free to procreate. But otherwise, I'd say yes, to prevent suffering and cruelty in this world.

Mind-body dualism?

But yeah thinking certainly has a physical presence/existence.

A fact is a socially accepted idea about others and right or wrong and our physical existences.

Every thought has a physiological reaction in the brain, and mental things such as mental stress and mental suffering can affect the body, leading me to believe thoughts happen in the brain.

Schadenfreude is sadism in English.

Yes, given how poorly mental healthcare works without state involvement.

Free will has nothing to do with meaning of life.

I appreciate your honesty, because humans tend to be defensive with regards to deep questions as though They’re significant. The only thing that makes humans special is that we have free will.

Everything has an ultimate nature. The question is How predictable human behavior in the physical world is If you assume nothing about a particilar individual. Is order or chaos the best way to describe How any particular individual behaves?

Humans are very order-less :D

But you say we’re not completely random-oriented in nature.

I see. So there is no fixed way in Which all humans behave.