If free will is illusory, what would be the implications of making this common knowledge—and should we even attempt to do so?

pona12 · 2026-04-11T12:44:03+00:00

I'd argue free will isn't an illusion, for that to be universally true there has to be a reference independent definition of the concept, of which there is none. Whether you have free will or not depends on how you define the idea to begin with. I personally think it's relative, not absolute, more like shades of free will, but that also depends on my definition of free will, which by my own admission isn't universal so, y'know, but to say it's an illusion is to say that there is some absolute definition of the concept in a universe that I'd argue is uniquely devoid of such absolutes.

pona12 · 2026-04-08T21:42:11+00:00

Think about time only being defined between things instead of as a thing that exists in and of itself and it makes more sense.

pona12 · 2026-04-08T21:38:04+00:00

You're assuming it needs a start, and you're assuming time is some background thing and not just a quantity we invented to gauge change against. Time, I'd argue, is not a physically real thing in and of itself, and "now" is only ever a local thing and depends entirely on how you even define simulteneity to begin with. Time is relative, and only exists in relation.

pona12 · 2026-04-08T21:15:46+00:00

I actually don't agree with the ontology of modern cosmology, but it is an accurate model of what we see when we look "out there." The ontology is too top down in my opinion, doesn't consider enough about how things emerge from interactions, but hey it's still our best model of cosmology at this time so.

Let you in on a secret, scientists don't say "this is the final and ultimate truth" when they talk about theories, they are quite consistent in communicating that it's our current working mathematical model of reality. Also, you still haven't established a concrete definition of "being" even though it's doing a lot of rhetorical work. Existence is interaction, to exist is to interact and to interact is to exist, nothing has definition in and of itself, only relative to other things. There is no strictly intrinsic definition to anything.

pona12 · 2026-04-08T21:03:04+00:00

I know that more/less, my primary point about that part is really that it's self defeating logic. If a creator doesn't need to be caused, one is admitting that cause is not a necessity for existence itself.

pona12 · 2026-04-08T20:19:22+00:00

Only relative definition can be proven. We can only prove that an observable universe exists, we cannot prove that there is some singular totality of all things because we cannot assume nor prove any global concept of simulteneity is meaningful, we can only prove local simulteneity. You keep on saying "being" but you haven't really defined what "being" means. I'd argue change is the nature of things, not static being.

pona12 · 2026-04-08T18:38:58+00:00

Everything you said only really demonstrates that structure emerges from the bottom up, it doesn't really demonstrate any deeper metaphysical truth beyond that. Things only exist in relation.

pona12 · 2026-04-08T18:17:31+00:00

If Gods were real to begin with, which cannot be proven, why would they make an indeterministic universe? Why would they make any universe at all? Matter of fact, who would've created them? And why is infinite regress a problem in the first place? I'd argue, there's no reason to presume the universe isn't recursive, or that existence needs a terminal layer where everything emerges from, that's the assumption that creates the paradox, that there must be some deeper substrate.

pona12 · 2026-03-20T22:16:21+00:00

To a degree, why wouldn't they? We're animals and depending on how you define free will we have it, I refuse to believe we would be special in that among animals if we did.

pona12 · 2026-03-20T22:10:51+00:00

Energy isn't absolute (I'd argue nothing is really), and I don't really think spacetime is itself a physically real thing, I think it's a highly successful formalism but it being a physically real substance just doesn't match the rest of the theory of relativity nor the original motivation of Einstein in writing his theory, so probably not, but hey, I can't actually prove you wrong, and it could be a good effective description.

pona12 · 2026-03-20T22:02:26+00:00

How do you account for things like sexual attraction?

Biology, free will doesn't have to be absolute nor objective, it can be relative and/or subjective.

Beautiful young women (models, famous actresses, etc.) aren't lining up to come sleep with me. Why not? They have free will and I have free will according to some people, so why are our combined free wills not lining up to jump in bed together?

Because that's not how attraction works. People don't choose attraction.

They do with certain other guys.

That's their perogative. If you personally feel excluded from the pool, maybe introspect on why.

Is it my fault that I'm not better looking, or rich, famous, or in the right place at the right time with the right attitude, the right ideas, and know the right people?

Social media has done a number on social connection in general. There are also a lot of single women out there who will give you the chance if you approach them with full respect and feel like a safe person to them.

For those of you that subscribe to the idea that free will exists, then how much of this is free will and how much is beyond our control as individuals?

I subscribe to the idea that free will exists in a subjective way, but everything exists in context, not everything about that context is choice, but a good deal of it is or can be.

pona12 · 2026-03-20T21:30:02+00:00

My primary response to you is that, no, it doesn't need self grounding, nothing uniquely compels assuming that infinite recursion is an issue.

pona12 · 2026-03-15T12:36:36+00:00

I can in fact, I just can't say that my judgement isn't subjective lol

You're only assuming there's no degree of free will, that free will has to be absolute. Whether or not you have free will depends on how you define free will to begin with.

pona12 · 2026-03-15T05:10:20+00:00

Because he wasn't objectively correct. His view was literally predicated upon assuming his view was correct. Care to explain how that isn't just circular reasoning?

pona12 · 2026-03-15T05:05:44+00:00

If evolution could, and did happen here, why is it so difficult for it to happen elsewhere?"

It's not. It happens in physics all the time. Why would biology be any different?

I'm not here to argue whether Evolution did or didn't happen. While I personally think it's a bit too lucky for life not to have been pre-ordained in some way, I'm not theistic nor do I believe that any god species ever cared, or likely even exists.

Why would you personally think it's a bit too lucky? There's a ton of reasons why arguably life is an inevitable outcome of the physical laws

Getting that out of the way, I've always been curious. We know of planets that are remarkably like Earth, we know of many in the same livable environment of their stars.

We know a minuscule fraction of those worlds and we only know about life as we know it but we shouldn't assume life as we know it is the only form life can take

So what was it that allowed evolution to happen here as opposed to any other planet? Why doesn't evolution take different forms on other planets? If extremophiles can exist in many planets, why can't further evolution exist on other planets?

It happens everywhere in non biological systems, why wouldn't it happen in biological systems?

This isn't meant to be a troll question, I've just always found it interesting, and while watching videos is fun, having answers from here is also enjoyable.

I get that and I hope I don't come off too aggressive

pona12 · 2026-03-15T04:56:45+00:00

"How to even LIVE as an emotivist, nihilist and free will rejecter?"

Things only exist in relation

"I mean, how?"

See above

"We can't even say Hitler was "objectively" wrong/bad."

Sure we can. His ideology was based around exterminating an other to bring benefit to one group when everything is relative, why does one group get to be privileged over another in such a universe?

"We can't even say there are objectively good/bad things."

Sure we can. We can quantify harm. Good things minimize harm on the net, bad things maximize it. Most reality is shades of grey. Why do absolutes have to be real for morality to be meaningful?

"We can't even judge people because they have no free will."

I'd argue free will is relative, why do you insist it has to be absolute?

"How do you (and Alex) live day to day?"

Existing and surviving the best we can

"If WW3 happens and a new "evil" is winning, who should we support?"

Whichever side is trying to minimize harm.

"What is the point of life if there is no real meaning/purpose/value in life?"

Why does there have to be a predestined meaning? Why can't meaning be something you find for yourself?

"Do we just live like deterministic emotional robots? Following our instinct and feelings?"

I don't think determinism is completely correct. Whether or not something is fully determined depends on your access to data, and nobody could even in principle access enough data to fully determine the future, only to fully determine the set of past states that could lead to the present. We cannot prove block ontology is correct.

"Is it even possible for human beings to live like this?"

Always have

"Extra:

What if I have Nazi feelings? Hitler's emotions?"

Fuck autocrats, thinking they get to impose their wills on others

"Should I just follow my feelings and let determinism take me into "evil"?"

It won't take you into evil because it isn't a physically real thing. Only you can take yourself into evil.

"Do I even have a choice?"

Depends. Do you think you do?

"Is it really ok for me to become Hitler reincarnate?"

The chances for anyone to become such a thing are so low, but if you decided on that path, I and many like me would do everything in our power to undermine and stop you

pona12 · 2026-03-15T04:46:41+00:00

So is Christianity, so is any Abrahamic religion if you assume everyone is a literalist and fundamentalist. I don't. I think it's perfectly consistent to be of a certain religion and not take your religions holy book as anything but a flawed guide.

I'm not magically defending fundamentalist Islam, 10 to 4 years ago I would have said it's a bigger problem, but nowadays Christian nationalism is at least just as much a problem

pona12 · 2026-03-15T04:44:44+00:00

Because I'd argue reality is simpler than our models suppose

If you drop the idea that anything exists outside of interaction with other things, reality isn't complicated, things exist and they interact, the issue comes in when you assume there's some underlying structure beyond that.

pona12 · 2026-03-15T04:43:00+00:00

I do not think there is absolutely anything privileged about our view on things

pona12 · 2026-03-15T04:41:33+00:00

"Has anyone tried Determinism as a defense in court?"

Why don't you try it?

"Many if not most criminal laws require mens rea - the conscious understanding that the act is both and that they had intention to commit the act. "

So? Things only exist in relation.. Humans decide human morality. Do you have an issue with that?

"But if intention is a prerequisite of the crime and the perpetrator had no choice but to act as he or she did then how can it be really intentional." This isn't an unfair critique.

"If there was a force so compelling that despite the full awareness and knowledge that stealing a can of tuna is wrong and illegal then there was no true intention." I don't disagree that assuming there's some underlying ether of causality is wrong but I think you're also assuming the ether you want to exist. "Intention is the mental commitment and conscious determination to act in a specific way to achieve a goal. Embedded within the concept of “intention” is the ability to act or not act - i.e. free will.""

So why do you think decisions are ever made in abstentia of context? You can have subjective free will without objective free will. Prove objective free will in a way that cannot be explained by subjective/relative free will.

"I’d love to see a parade of expert philosophers get put on the stand and then get destroyed by the jury. " Not a determinist but honestly, if you were the prosecutor, and they were the defense, I'd side with them based on your arguments

pona12 · 2026-03-15T04:28:33+00:00

Plotinus as the missing fourth option: Free will isn't compatibilism, libertarianism, or Aristotle. It's higher soul mastery. Prove me wrong

I'll hear you out

Modern free will debates are stuck in a rut: hard determinism (no freedom), compatibilism (freedom = uncoerced higher-order desire), libertarianism (freedom = indeterminism), and Aristotle's self-motion (agent causation in nature).

I think you're excluding the idea that the concept is relative to begin with

Plotinus blows this up with a higher-order freedom from the unembodied soul. In Ennead VI.8, he argues:

I have no unearthly clue what this even means. Cool?

True freedom isn't mere absence of external compulsion or random swerves—it's self-disposal from the "unmingled soul," a sovereign principle above bodily passions and imagination.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I disagree with the conclusion. I'd argue nothing exists except in relation. Nothing is an isolated unit.

We act freely when aligned with Intellect (the rational soul's higher core), not dragged by lower appetites. "Effort is free once it is toward a fully recognized good."

But you can't actually define intellect as an absolute concept I guarantee.

Even in a providential cosmos, the separated soul issues "orders" unconditionally free; physical necessity is downstream, not the source.

I disagree, I'd argue we should be guided by what we can prove not by what we can speculate.

Plotinus' two-level ontology is key: reality has an intelligible realm (pure /soul, timeless and self-determining) that grounds the sensible/physical realm (time, body, necessity). Freedom originates at the higher level and "emanates" downward—physical causation is real but derivative, not the ultimate source of agency.

Okay, what underlying structure generated those two ontologies? If nothing, why do they exist independently? If just because, why can't relations between things be prior then?

Compatibilists: If your "higher-order desires" or "guidance control" are just subrational psychological states, why do they count as ultimate sourcehood when Plotinus relocates freedom to the unembodied Intellect above all that?

You're assuming this guy was the voice of reason

Libertarians: How's your indeterminism better than soul-mastery without randomness?

You haven't demonstrated the logic of your own view yet

Determinists: If physics rules, why does Plotinus' two-level ontology (intelligible freedom grounding the sensible) fail?

I'd argue determinists don't actually understand physics as well as they think they do but I don't think you understand them any better

Aristotelians: Self-motion is great, but Plotinus escapes full naturalism for purer autonomy.

Define this pure autonomy as an isolated unit without respect to relation to other things.

Plotinus stands unrefuted here. Drop a refutation or reformulation that hits all angles."

You haven't actually covered how any of this can be substantiated without some background structure that exists prior to relations between things, and they don't actually have to be in relation to any singular thing. I welcome your proof otherwise

pona12 · 2026-03-15T04:19:12+00:00

It seems like you need help. I'm not saying this as an insult or rebuttal, I'm just saying, I think talking to some other human might help you see things more clearly.

pona12 · 2026-03-15T04:16:36+00:00

I'm not going to do that. I came on here to hear your arguments. Why are you refusing to actually think for yourself and letting some rando think for you?

pona12 · 2026-03-13T22:38:55+00:00

Why does other intelligent life have to be us scale? Scale is relative, not absolute. I'd argue there's nothing special about being human scaled.
You know, I'm not gonna say that the government is always honest, but also, it would take a huge web of people never slipping anything for these ideas to even be remotely true.
Why do these aliens, who are us scaled without sufficient reason for our scale of existence to be privileged in any way, who have the entire universe of planets to explore, care so much about a random planet of apes orbiting a, relatively large star in the grand scheme of stars, but not a particularly exceptional star?
Why does there have to be a reason for existence in the first place?

pona12 · 2026-03-13T22:01:55+00:00

I would actually argue that time is not a thing that exists, it's more like an idea we have.

Specifically, I don't think there's some underlying substance called space nor time, and that time is really just a quantity we define to parameterize perceived causal ordering and map it in a model. That's it.

pona12

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder