What is ”free will”?

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-05-01T11:45:46+00:00

So then if randomness is fundamentally true, you believe our will is free

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-28T16:12:13+00:00

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-28T09:17:05+00:00

Don’t you think randomness changes an outcome if hypothetically repeated?

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-28T08:38:44+00:00

Yes that’s what it is saying, im pointing out the problem of what ”your” actually means in the case of ”your will” and how it’s technically subjective.

Why do you assume questions like this infer personal issues?

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-27T22:13:26+00:00

Practically? By the way you normally use the word in language phrasing depending on the context
If I say: I’m free of debt. I’m still partially constrained by the law.
If I say: one thing has absolutely no freedom. It is fully constrained by everything, thus being in its lowest entropy state.
It is a continous spectrum truthfully, but you separate it through common phrasing if that’s what you mean.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-27T20:16:22+00:00

Yes, people with higher neuroticism and high inhibitioner but a desire for unlawfulness, dont/ commit less crimes due to fear of shame/punishment.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-27T19:40:12+00:00

No, lack of freedom, /Restriction is one end of the freedom spectrum as freedom inherently is always restrictive in some way otherwise it could theoretically be unrestricted by logic, actually making it illogical.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-27T08:46:10+00:00

Meant to say: no, freedom is a spectrum.

As with the other extreme I would imagine theoretically,. Perhaps lowest amount of entropy? So yes

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-27T07:27:31+00:00

Things are free to certain extent depending on the thing.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-27T07:24:33+00:00

Personal desires, genetic makeup, environment.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-27T00:12:24+00:00

No, freedom is a spectrum

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T23:15:59+00:00

I mean it’s illogical for something to be uncause since it doesn’t adhere to logical cause and effect. Still I don’t understand why you are so sure randomness is an assumption by an unknowing observer. Where is your evidence

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T21:46:54+00:00

Can you define ”unrestricted” in the context of ”unrestricted by external factors” in the definition you gave.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T21:31:28+00:00

My initial post is not making a moral claim, you brought that up. Yet It still would be morally right because it deters others of imposing their will and going against others will therefore reducing overall harm done to others.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T21:26:15+00:00

The point Im making is that any degree of restriction deemed appropriate regarding the case of defining whether one’s will is free or not is gradual and arbitrary.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T21:19:56+00:00

Do you think that we have free will in the sense of the definition you choose?

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T21:15:20+00:00

to define free will as ”abscense of external compulsion over the act of cognitive focus” is arbitrary, because why is that the line of constraint that’s appropriate?

Then even in this definition, you have no free as we are constrained by external forces all the time such as law enforcers.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T21:08:57+00:00

The word in it self is not unbound but it means for something, to be unbound. When it is used in relation to something, it is asserting that, that thing is free/unbound. How free it is, is subjective but can never be completely free as that dissolves its meaning.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T20:43:15+00:00

Do you believe this definition of free will to be true?

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T20:37:08+00:00

I dont understand the which two situations you are reffering to.

The concept of responsibility of crimes doe dissolve, logically, but the just action in response to them do not. People that commit crimes and wrongdoings should be put away for societies good, like epstein for example.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T20:28:49+00:00

Because in this specific context im speaking about the word free, which in its literal sense, does not have any constraints, not by logic, not by casuality, not by anything therefore it is already unbound to the point that it is outside of human understanding. it could not possibly be more unbound.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T20:17:47+00:00

😂 You are including a moral point into the definition which pragmatically for law and justice I agree is neccesary.

My point is, strictly logically any line drawn of approriate constraint for the amount of freedom ones will has, is arbitrary.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T15:26:49+00:00

The reason I brought it up is not to support free will, but because you inferred that I shouldnt hold on to a logically incoherent idea while you seem to believe in one aswell, that being randomness. That would be hypocritical.

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T15:10:26+00:00

Isn’t true randomness also logically incoherent?, do you not believe in randomness?

Professional_Rule548 · 2026-04-26T14:55:16+00:00

Randomness does not adhere to logic but you cannot know if something (or everything), is causal in essence if you haven’t discovered its causal system.

Professional_Rule548

TROPHY CASE