The end of free will?

[timtofly]

That's quite the assumption to make
.

I am not very imaginative.

Making up the answer and treating the question as "solved for now" also rules out predictions, in addition to not being useful.

Avoiding answers is not useful either. I am not the one accusing others of making stuff up. That is an excuse for those who do not like answers given. Why is the default response, "The answer is just made up, and not very useful"? Assuming people just make stuff up; is not always a given. The comfort such an assumption gives must satisfy some inquisitive minds, as it does seem to be a "go to" objection to certain facts. That is why using the "x" unknown scenario makes for a great conversation piece while at the same time the user of "x" is accusing all others of doing the same thing in giving made up answers.

I get the need for empirical evidence. Seems like a gigantic mountain to climb, if one has to empirically experience everything there is in the universe. Especially if one is not free to do anything else.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Avoiding answers is not useful either. I am not the one accusing others of making stuff up. That is an excuse for those who do not like answers given.

If you don't have a good reason to anticipate an answer, you are not "avoiding" that answer.

If you ask "what is 2+2" and I answer "sausages", your objection is not an excuse. If you ask "what causes disease" and I answer "fargwargs", your objection is not an "excuse because you don't like my answer".

Why should you expect fargwargs cause disease? Maybe they cause consciousness. We have equal reason to suspect fargwargs as god(s).

Why is the default response, "The answer is just made up, and not very useful"?

Because not-made-up answers involve empirical reality. Constrained anticipation with testable consequences.

he comfort such an assumption gives must satisfy some inquisitive minds, as it does seem to be a "go to" objection to certain facts.

"Fact" implies something was proven. You have not done this. When I said "nobody knows", that's our best answer. Not making up an answer and then shifting burdens because others don't like an arbitrary answer w/o evidence.

I get the need for empirical evidence. Seems like a gigantic mountain to climb, if one has to empirically experience everything there is in the universe.

You only need to "empirically experience everything there is in the universe" if the scope of answer you seek is everything in the universe. You can answer a particular question with much less information than that.

 

[timtofly]

If you don't have a good reason to anticipate an answer, you are not "avoiding" that answer.

If you ask "what is 2+2" and I answer "sausages", your objection is not an excuse. If you ask "what causes disease" and I answer "fargwargs", your objection is not an "excuse because you don't like my answer".

Why should you expect fargwargs cause disease? Maybe they cause consciousness. We have equal reason to suspect fargwargs as god(s).



Because not-made-up answers involve empirical reality. Constrained anticipation with testable consequences.



"Fact" implies something was proven. You have not done this. When I said "nobody knows", that's our best answer. Not making up an answer and then shifting burdens because others don't like an arbitrary answer w/o evidence.



You only need to "empirically experience everything there is in the universe" if the scope of answer you seek is everything in the universe. You can answer a particular question with much less information than that.

I did not ask the question. However the answer was given before the question was put forth. Would it not be the work of the one putting forth the question to still test and predict answers until they had an empirical answer that gave them more proof than the answer that was avoided for a multitude of reasons?

I am not saying that they can or cannot rule out all the made-up ones. How would they even rule them out? What would be the starting point? At what point would an established answer overcome one that was just "made up"?

Are we not talking about something that is a fact to one person and not a fact to another. There are plenty of facts that some have not proven. As pointed out, it may be an impossible task, or some may not even see the need of such proof. They assume it is a fact because no one just made it up, but it was experienced empirically.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Quantum fluctuations did it! The universe is alive with probability.

Or at the very least, is probably alive.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I did not ask the question. However the answer was given before the question was put forth. Would it not be the work of the one putting forth the question to still test and predict answers until they had an empirical answer that gave them more proof than the answer that was avoided for a multitude of reasons?

If you want to answer something other than "I don't know" to the question, you need empirical evidence no matter who you are. Not sure what you mean by "answer was given before the question was put forth". That depends on your assumptions of OP's definition.

I am not saying that they can or cannot rule out all the made-up ones. How would they even rule them out? What would be the starting point? At what point would an established answer overcome one that was just "made up"?

Arbitrary made-up answers are equally bad to each other. A sensible approach washes them out and doesn't even consider them unless there's a reason to do so. Established answers "overcome" arbitrary explanations when there is evidence that justifies them as "established".

Are we not talking about something that is a fact to one person and not a fact to another.

There is no such thing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you want to answer something other than "I don't know" to the question, you need empirical evidence no matter who you are.

Is that true for all questions?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Is that true for all questions?

No, because there are questions about things like preferences, or similar transient or non-fact-dependent considerations (IE today I prefer blueberries to strawberries, but that isn't always the case). What I was saying is in context of an assertion of fact.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, because there are questions about things like preferences, or similar transient or non-fact-dependent considerations (IE today I prefer blueberries to strawberries, but that isn't always the case). What I was saying is in context of an assertion of fact.

I thought about asking another question here, and that's a fact.

I chose not to ask it, and that is also a fact.

I do think that you are in way over your head at this point.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I thought about asking another question here, and that's a fact.

I chose not to ask it, and that is also a fact.

I do think that you are in way over your head at this point.

Maybe, maybe not. We have strong reasons to suspect your thoughts have testable consequences in empirical reality. We don't yet have a means to verify them, and I'm kind of afraid of that changing. But in our reality those electrical signals/chemicals either fired for you or they didn't, aka you're telling the truth or you're lying.

 

[timtofly]

If you want to answer something other than "I don't know" to the question, you need empirical evidence no matter who you are. Not sure what you mean by "answer was given before the question was put forth". That depends on your assumptions of OP's definition.



Arbitrary made-up answers are equally bad to each other. A sensible approach washes them out and doesn't even consider them unless there's a reason to do so. Established answers "overcome" arbitrary explanations when there is evidence that justifies them as "established".



There is no such thing.

Then the statement "there is no such thing" is not a statement of fact. It is a preferential view based on only your empirical knowledge. The only way it could be is if you retained all empirical knowledge.

Actually I do not need all empirical knowledge to make a statement that is fact. If "I do not know" is an acceptable statement, then there is proof that some people may know something of fact, that another person does not know.

But we are not talking about having an answer to everything. We are talking about the ability to know everthing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Then the statement "there is no such thing" is not a statement of fact. It is a preferential view based on only your empirical knowledge. The only way it could be is if you retained all empirical knowledge.

If we're going to work with the English language, the word "fact" has a commonly accepted meaning. If we use that, it is impossible to have the existence of a fact vary from person to person. A person might not be aware of a fact or wrongly believe something else, but that's a wrong property of that person rather than reality.

Actually I do not need all empirical knowledge to make a statement that is fact.

You can guess something is true without knowing it for certain. It will still either be true or not.

If "I do not know" is an acceptable statement, then there is proof that some people may know something of fact

That's a wrong-statement. I do not know how many stars are beyond the portion of the universe that is observable to us. Show me the proof that "some people may know" that exact star count.

But we are not talking about having an answer to everything. We are talking about the ability to know everthing.

We don't know if either is possible. If we're not able to know everything, we also lack a reasonable estimate for where our barriers will be.

 

[timtofly]

If we're going to work with the English language, the word "fact" has a commonly accepted meaning. If we use that, it is impossible to have the existence of a fact vary from person to person. A person might not be aware of a fact or wrongly believe something else, but that's a wrong property of that person rather than reality.

I do not accept that a fact neccessarily belongs to all humans. The reality is that as individuals we are not aware of all facts. Pointing out a person is wrong because they do not hold all the facts, is a judgment call. Even if existence started 20,000 years ago, it would be impossible for a group of humans much less one person to hold all the facts either related to the closest part of the universe much less the whole.

You want me to accept it is possible to know 14.5 + billions of years worth of facts? At what point does the 14.5 + billion year universe have a portion that is not part of that 14.5+ billion years?

You can guess something is true without knowing it for certain. It will still either be true or not.

You cannot guess a truth. That is why we use the term "predict". If you know something there is no guessing involved. Guessing to me is to lead another person away from what you know, to keep them from actually knowing that you know.

That's a wrong-statement. I do not know how many stars are beyond the portion of the universe that is observable to us. Show me the proof that "some people may know" that exact star count.

How do you know there is a part of the universe that is not observable? That is as much of an assumption as assuming there is a God.

We don't know if either is possible. If we're not able to know everything, we also lack a reasonable estimate for where our barriers will be.

We know that we do not know everything. That is the boundary. That does not place a boundary on free will. Saying we do not have free will is an unnecessary and unknown set by the boundary of not knowing every thing. The freedom comes from the point we do not know everything. We can still learn and gain knowledge. The only boundary then will be when we know everything there is to know in the universe. Even if the fact remains that it is impossible to know all facts, the boundary on free will is not the impossibility. The boundary to free will is the unwillingness we impose on our own abilities.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I do not accept that a fact neccessarily belongs to all humans.

Quoted states that you do not accept reality, as a general rule.

The reality is that as individuals we are not aware of all facts. Pointing out a person is wrong because they do not hold all the facts, is a judgment call.

Quoted is straw. I never made such a case. Nothing I said is contingent on one individual knowing "all facts".

How do you know there is a part of the universe that is not observable? That is as much of an assumption as assuming there is a God.

Please no false equivalency.

What is "observable" is contingent on our present capabilities. Right now, that is based on the speed of light and plenty of evidence suggesting there is stuff past that point.

There is no such evidence for God. It's not even the same topic. It has as much relevance to this thread as a Tom and Jerry cartoon, perhaps less.

We know that we do not know everything. That is the boundary.

That's a moving boundary. There's a theoretical absolute boundary. We don't know where it is.

The rest of that paragraph is non-reasoning. The fact of the matter is that we don't know whether "free will" exists or not, or even how to precisely define its meaning. That might change as we become more advanced.