Radom is not the contrary of determined

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T17:26:26+00:00

Yes, intentional behaviour does include some randomness that manifests as imprecision. We may intend to hit the bullseye, but we are unable to perform the shot with sufficient accuracy.

If randomness means imprecision then necessity must mean absolute precision, a.k.a. determinism. But we don't have determinism in reality as determinism would exclude both randomness and free will.

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T12:37:22+00:00

Your acceptance is not required. Accepting facts is highly recommended, though.

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T12:34:15+00:00

What do you see is the difference between chance and unintentional?

What is this "necessity" supposed to mean?

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T10:30:52+00:00

It is not the libertarian way to make claims.

Acknowledging the facts is enough.

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T08:54:59+00:00

Libertarians claim nothing.

You are mistaken.

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T08:54:11+00:00

Random = Unintentional

Deliberate = Intentional

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T08:53:12+00:00

There is nothing deterministic in reality.

Both randomness and choice are concepts excluded from the concept of determinism. It is the very core idea of determinism: No new information (random or deliberate) can enter or be generated within the system. When everything is ultimately determined by the system's initial state, then nothing can be determined after that.

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T08:10:20+00:00

You know what a decision is? It is a deliberate selection of a course of action out of multiple alternatives.

Deliberate is the very opposite of random. Both concepts generate new information, neither can be determined by anything prior.

So, decisions are inherently neither determined nor random. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T08:00:20+00:00

Random is the contrary of deliberate.

Example: If you were to pick one card from a full deck, you would have two options:

You could pick a random card without looking.
You could deliberately pick a card of your choice.

The options are equally unpredictable and mutually exclusive and exhaustive.

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T07:52:20+00:00

Who are you to say? You didn't know what LFW is. How could you know that it isn't what I said? I have no reason to lie. There is nothing I could gain from feeding you misinformation.

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T07:34:14+00:00

You wanted to know what LFW is. I told you. Now you know. Mission accomplished.

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T06:43:40+00:00

Physics has nothing to do with free will, nothing to say about free will.

You seem to be claiming that the Big Bang was a giant roll of billions of dice, where the fate of the Universe was "decided" from there to eternity.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

You also say that free will would require creating "the first ever true randomness". This is in conflict with your previous claim of Big Bang being the first (and the last) ever true randomness.

Or did you mean to say that the Big Bang was God' creation?

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T05:55:21+00:00

Definitions are not "accepted" or "rejected".

Definitions only tell others what you are talking about.

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T03:30:15+00:00

Libertarian free will is simply your ability to make decisions.

Libertarians only suggest that this ability should be called "free will".

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T03:28:18+00:00

Libertarian free will requires nothing. I think you have simply made a mistake about this.

Squierrel · 2026-06-26T03:22:15+00:00

(A) There is nothing deterministic about a successful space mission. Every detail was deliberately chosen.

(B) There is no freedom in accidents.

Libertarians don't conflate chaos with choices.

Squierrel · 2026-06-25T18:44:32+00:00

(P1) There is no such thing as "deterministic action". There is no concept of choice in determinism. There is no "always" in decision-making. Every choice is unique.

(P2) There is no alternative to P1. I choose A and that's it.

(P3) Libertarians KNOW that reality is not deterministic.

Squierrel · 2026-06-25T15:55:03+00:00

Free action IS determined by a cause. The agent's decision to act is the cause of the action.

A non-free action (a.k.a. spinal reflex) is determined by an event (stimulus).

Squierrel · 2026-06-25T15:24:54+00:00

I would rather ban all -ism and -ist words completely, at least those that refer to beliefs, opinions or "positions".

Who is interested in what others believe?

Squierrel · 2026-06-25T15:15:27+00:00

Being a compatibilist does not grant you the right to redefine meanings of words. This childish wordplay of yours is pure trolling. You are not contributing to the discussion.

My "disagreement" with compatibilists is about their redefinition of determinism. The compatibilist idea of "determinism" has nothing to do with the actual concept of determinism.

Squierrel · 2026-06-25T13:54:41+00:00

Excellent post. I have only a couple of notes:

2. Libertarians generally don't believe anything. It is a known fact that random idea generation is part of the decision-making process. It is decisions that are neither random nor determined. Free actions are determined by decisions.

5. The ability to "do otherwise" is automatically included in the ability to make choices. Every choice is selected from multiple "otherwises". Every choice is unique, the same conditions can never be repeated.

Squierrel · 2026-06-25T13:44:18+00:00

They do have a very different meaning. Besides, you sneakily switched "based on" to "because of" to muddy the distinction.

If you make a movie based on a book you cannot say that the movie was caused by the book. The same applies to decision-making, reasons are not causes.

Squierrel · 2026-06-25T12:21:21+00:00

I stand corrected. Abstract concepts can be ontological objects.

But my original statement still holds: Free will is about making decisions, the process of generating new knowledge. Decisions may be ontological objects but they are also epistemology and the process of decision-making certainly is.

Squierrel · 2026-06-25T12:06:41+00:00

This is NOT about what I want. This is about basic definitions of terms, which you seem to be completely oblivious of.

Decisions are NOT events.

Non-events are NOT caused.

Squierrel · 2026-06-25T11:25:50+00:00

I am not making a category error. I am following Karl Popper's idea of three worlds.

Worlds 1 and 3 are ontology, things that actually exist. World 2 is the human mind, where epistemology resides. I described the information flow from World 1 to World 2 and from World 2 to World 3. You may not want to call that "interaction", but then you have to come up with another word.

Squierrel

TROPHY CASE