No Objective Space or Time = No Free Will or Events

[Simon Adams]

I obviously can’t tell whether any of you have free will, but I certainly do. It’s shaped by all kinds of things including my evolutionary driven instincts, my emotions, and the realities of the world. Nonetheless I can chose how I respond to the world, and how I act in the world. Isn’t that a fundamental axiom of all spiritual traditions, all legal systems etc?

[AshvinP]

I obviously can’t tell whether any of you have free will, but I certainly do. It’s shaped by all kinds of things including my evolutionary driven instincts, my emotions, and the realities of the world. Nonetheless I can chose how I respond to the world, and how I act in the world. Isn’t that a fundamental axiom of all spiritual traditions, all legal systems etc?

Indeed it is. We have a bad habit of proclaiming beliefs we don't really hold. Like, "there is no free will". The pragmatic philosophical insight (and Christian theological insight well before) was that our actions reflect our beliefs much better than our words. We all act as if there is free will, therefore we believe it does exist in reality.

[Ben Iscatus]

Is "mental space" something else than thoughts and dreams, a different category? So, how do thoughts and dreams exist?

That my dim thoughts are not merged with your bright thoughts (superposed) means there is a separation, which I called mental space. Focus by Will is, I suppose, what selects and separates.

[SanteriSatama]

Is "mental space" something else than thoughts and dreams, a different category? So, how do thoughts and dreams exist?

That my dim thoughts are not merged with your bright thoughts (superposed) means there is a separation, which I called mental space. Focus by Will is, I suppose, what selects and separates.

Not so bright, I'm afraid, as I'm not sharp enough to get what "separation" means. These letters are not really separate, the black marks are joined by the white background, and convey meaning in the difference between dim and bright.

[Starbuck]

Everything has already happened. An objective reality does exist as information. It was simulated by a Creator before experiencing it first-person from all PoVs.

Pretty much my take on everything.

The only caveat I would add is that from the 'alters' point of view everything is being made up on the go - and that creative spontaneity is the same as the 'already happened', but just from this side of the boundary.

[Brad Walker]

Free will is an erroneous intuition. There's agency, degrees of freedom, but not free will, doing otherwise than one would do. Denying free will is common in spiritual traditions. There's better empirical basis for psi than free will, yet the relatively uninteresting latter is important to many people. Supposedly free will would make existence more meaningful, even for atheists that don't believe in final judgement. Free will is incoherent in any model of causation, regardless of ontology.

[Simon Adams]

Spiritual traditions only talk about denying free will in terms of making a choice, in choosing to deny your lower instincts so that you free yourself from them. So you have things like fasting, where you chose not to eat even though your instincts are saying you should eat. If anything this is a prime example of free will in action, choosing something ‘higher’ over your base nature.

In terms of free will being incoherent in any ontology, that’s basically choosing a materialist ontology and adding superdeterminism. You’re essentially saying that all the books on your shelves were written at the time of the big bang, which is a bizarre claim if you think about it long enough. As Ashwin said, I bet you don’t live your life like that.

You can find perfectly coherent descriptions of free will going back to Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas etc, but of course for those you have to accept a ‘first cause’ that had the ability to act, and has shared that ability.

Of course physical matter is deterministic when there is no life present. Arguably that breaks down at the quantum level, but as it doesn’t at the macro level, it seems reasonable to conclude that the “thing in itself” is deterministic. However there is no reason to think that consciousness is deterministic. In fact the only single reason to assume that, is if you believe that consciousness is just an illusion created by electrical and chemical reactions in the brain...

[Brad Walker]

Spiritual traditions only talk about denying free will in terms of making a choice, in choosing to deny your lower instincts so that you free yourself from them. So you have things like fasting, where you chose not to eat even though your instincts are saying you should eat. If anything this is a prime example of free will in action, choosing something ‘higher’ over your base nature.

Denying the reality of free will is common along with denying the reality of the ego. Predetermination is a common theme in theology. I don't think you're understanding the distinction of free will vs. agency.

In terms of free will being incoherent in any ontology, that’s basically choosing a materialist ontology and adding superdeterminism. You’re essentially saying that all the books on your shelves were written at the time of the big bang, which is a bizarre claim if you think about it long enough. As Ashwin said, I bet you don’t live your life like that.

No, free will is incompatible with any ontology. Causation has subsequent states as outputs of prior states with rules applied. Any notion of free will paradoxically relies on a deterministic substrate, mind or matter, to be reliable. It's simply incoherent and a pseudo-problem. All books were "written" during the finite duration simulation precomputation of spacetime that was later experienced by the books' writers.

Sam Harris does live like free will is illusory. Why can't anyone? Society could be less predatory if people got over the illusion of free will. But people, even physicalists who should know better, or spiritualists that should be less prideful, cling onto it.

[Simon Adams]

Denying the reality of free will is common along with denying the reality of the ego. Predetermination is a common theme in theology. I don't think you're understanding the distinction of free will vs. agency.

I fully accept the ego. I did Buddhist meditation for years. But I disagree with the idea that there is no self, only that it’s difficult to see the self when you’re looking for the self, as all you will find is the ego.

In terms of predestination, in my view there is a lot of confusion and nonsense written about that. Of course god knows everything that will happen, but that doesn’t mean that our choices are not free. God’s knowledge of our choices does not constrain our choices. God is in all places and all times, he does not surf along with us on each of our separate nows. If I told you what I had for lunch yesterday, that doesn’t take away the free choice I made.

No, free will is incompatible with any ontology. Causation has subsequent states as outputs of prior states with rules applied. Any notion of free will paradoxically relies on a deterministic substrate, mind or matter, to be reliable. It's simply incoherent and a pseudo-problem. All books were "written" during the finite duration simulation precomputation of spacetime that was later experienced by the books' writers.

Sam Harris does live like free will is illusory. Why can't anyone? Society could be less predatory if people got over the illusion of free will. But people, even physicalists who should know better, or spiritualists that should be less prideful, cling onto it.

No you’re stuck in a materialist mindset. Our choices matter. If you study the history of terrible events where people who would be normal people in normal times do terrible things, it’s where they just go along with things, where they don’t want to stand up and be counted, to chose something different no matter the consequences. The biggest risk of a country going into totalitarianism is when the collective will trumps the individual will. So I would say not only are you wrong, you’re dangerously wrong.

[AshvinP]

Sam Harris does live like free will is illusory. Why can't anyone? Society could be less predatory if people got over the illusion of free will. But people, even physicalists who should know better, or spiritualists that should be less prideful, cling onto it.

Really? So, if someone murdered Annaka tomorrow, he would not call for their arrest and punishment?