Free will is an epistemic problem

[TimeSeeker]

This is my claim: Free will (choice) is an epistemic problem.

Given the CHOICE between two options HOW do you CHOOSE one over the other and why? Justify.

This is a variant of Buridan's ass ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass )

Buridan's ass is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will. It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein a donkey that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the ass will always go to whichever is closer, it dies of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision between the hay and water.

The difference in this case is that I am going to make you choose between water and water. Given the CHOICE of mathematical systems:
A. 1+1 = 2 (Decimal)
B. 1+1 = 10 (Binary)

They are both equivalent. The differences are merely symbolic. By Occam's razor a system with two digits (0 and 1) is far simpler than a system with 10 digits (0 to 9). So why has society CHOSEN B? Justify the choice.

[Eodnhoj7]

This is my claim: Free will (choice) is an epistemic problem.

Given the CHOICE between two options HOW do you CHOOSE one over the other and why? Justify.

This is a variant of Buridan's ass ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass )

Buridan's ass is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will. It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein a donkey that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the ass will always go to whichever is closer, it dies of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision between the hay and water.

The difference in this case is that I am going to make you choose between water and water. Given the CHOICE of mathematical systems:
A. 1+1 = 2 (Decimal)
B. 1+1 = 10 (Binary)

They are both equivalent. The differences are merely symbolic. By Occam's razor a system with two digits (0 and 1) is far simpler than a system with 10 digits (0 to 9). So why has society CHOSEN B? Justify the choice.

Choice, that which occurs between multiple options, is strictly directed movement as the choice which one observes is the direction they physically, emotionally, intellectual move towards.

Considering choice is premised in an intersection of multiple phenomenon (in this case two symmetrical mathematics languages) with this intersection of these multiple paths/ways/etc. (Direction) meeting at a point, what we understand of choice is a point of origin.

1) Hence choice is origin with this origin being a purity of directed movement in one respect (with this giving an objective nature to choice in the respect objectivity is structure and limit)

2) and simultaneously a means of inversion where the choice necessitates an inversion of one path to many paths with these many paths being inverted to one path. Choice, as inversive, is without form in these respects and observes a dual subjective nature.

3) Choice is dually a point of origin and point of inversion with this origin/inversive nature of consciousness existing as a third neutral element of the point strictly for what it is (I may have to elaborate further).

As to the correct choice between the Maths? What is correct, hence true, in regards to use leamds itself a symmetry where the choice is symmetrical to the goal one wishes to take. There is no correct choice if no goal is kept, hence choice is merely a form of structuring or creation.

In simpler terms, in respect to your argument, choice is a means of creation and the structure created from that choice is determined as true or false based upon its ability to maintain itself.

[TimeSeeker]

Choice, that which occurs between multiple options, is strictly directed movement as the choice which one observes is the direction they physically, emotionally, intellectual move towards.

I am starting to see how you use the phrase "directed movement". It's how I use the word "action". In the Black Box model ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box ). It is any measurable output. A consequence. An effect on reality.

Considering choice is premised in an intersection of multiple phenomenon (in this case two symmetrical mathematics languages) with this intersection of these multiple paths/ways/etc. (Direction) meeting at a point, what we understand of choice is a point of origin.

Or a point of deflection.Change. In direction or momentum.

2) and simultaneously a means of inversion where the choice necessitates an inversion of one path to many paths with these many paths being inverted to one path. Choice, as inversive, is without form in these respects and observes a dual subjective nature.

If I am starting to understand your language then a "point" is any significant event. A point in spacetime?
A directed movement is a "choice" or "action". And the "directed through a line" is the direction. In one picture:

directed movement.png

3) Choice is dually a point of origin and point of inversion with this origin/inversive nature of consciousness existing as a third neutral element of the point strictly for what it is (I may have to elaborate further).

It is the process of:
1. Recognising that a choice exists.
2. Making the choice e.g directing your movement.

In my language that's a decision. The entity making the decision (directing their movement) is an agent. Or consciousness. Whatever - it's a whole.

As to the correct choice between the Maths? What is correct, hence true, in regards to use leamds itself a symmetry where the choice is symmetrical to the goal one wishes to take. There is no correct choice if no goal is kept, hence choice is merely a form of structuring or creation.

Agreed. Without criteria for success or failure (e.g values) there is no such thing as "correct choice". This is straight out of decision theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory

In simpler terms, in respect to your argument, choice is a means of creation and the structure created from that choice is determined as true or false based upon its ability to maintain itself.

Not to maintain itself. To increase the likelihood of reaching the goal. It is akin to Dijkstra' shortest path algorithms.

[Age]

This is my claim: Free will (choice) is an epistemic problem.

What do 'you' mean by 'epistemic problem'?

I do not see any problem at all here.

[TimeSeeker]

What do 'you' mean by 'epistemic problem'?

I do not see any problem at all here.

OK. Given the CHOICE for of two equivalent Mathematical systems:

A. 1+1 = 2
B. 1+1 = 10

Which one do you choose and why? What knowledge do you need to make the decision?

[Age]

What do 'you' mean by 'epistemic problem'?

I do not see any problem at all here.

OK. Given the CHOICE for of two equivalent Mathematical systems:

A. 1+1 = 2
B. 1+1 = 10

Which one do you choose and why?

What do you mean by stating 'OK', and then just jumping straight into writing the exact same thing as you did in the opening post?

Are you unable to explain what 'epistemic problem' means, to you?

To me there is absolutely NO problem in the 'free will/determinism' topic. What the final resolution IS is already obvious, to me.

Since, to me, there is NO problem at all and this issue has already resolved AND you are unable to give any explanation into what you think/believe the problem is, but instead just want me to just answer your question, then my answer is I might or might not choose any or all of them. And, the reason WHY I would do that is because of free will. I CAN make whatever choice I WANT to, and that, to me, IS free will.

See, I do NOT debate such ridiculous issues as this and that is because I can see both the Falsehoods and the Truths in both determinism and free will, and any other supposed "philosophical debate" also.

I am Truly free to make a choice, BUT, there is only a predetermined or an already determined set of choices, of which I can freely choose from.

Being totally free to choose whatever I want, whenever I want, means that free will exists. However, and just as equally,
Whatever I so freely choose now WILL cause an affect and thus determine what WILL also happen from now one, and so that means that determinism exists, also.

Both determinism and free will co-exist equally. Always has and always will.

[TimeSeeker]

You are getting way off track. All I am asking you to make a choice. ANY choice! Then justify it.

I want you to explain the process by which you have come to the conclusion that one thing is better than another things.

You claim there is no problem and yet you can’t choose A or B. If you don’t like the options - add your own, then explain why it's better than my options.

[Age]

You are getting way off track.

Am I?

All I am asking you to make a choice. ANY choice! Then justify it.

I justified My choice already. How did you miss it?

I will repeat it again, just for you.

I CAN make whatever choice I WANT to, and that, to me, IS free will.

WHATEVER choice I make IS My choice, alone. That IS what free will IS. Being freely able to choose IS free will.

If I make a choice NOT to choose one of your choices, then I just made a choice. That was THEE choice I made, out of ANY choice.

I want you to explain the process by which you have come to the conclusion that one thing is better than another other things.

Okay I will explain the process by which I came to the conclusion that THE CHOICE I made is better than another.

The process starts with your BELIEF.
Your BELIEF is, there is NO free will.
So, you will TRY TO come up with ANY thing to support your BELIEF.
I, however, already KNOW what the Real and True conclusion of this topic WILL BE.
I detest when a person BELIEVES that they KNOW what the Real and True conclusion IS, and especially when that conclusion is so obviously wrong. Just like in the case here with you.
So, to show you WHERE, and HOW ,your BELIEF is wrong.
I made A choice, ANY choice, as you so put it.
THAT choice I freely made, SHOWS just HOW free will IS, alive and well.
I then explained HOW 'free will' is NOT the choice one makes, but THE ABILITY TO choose or make a choice.
THE ABILITY TO be to able to freely choose ANY choice is free will in motion.
So, the conclusion which is here for all to see is that THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE is free will, and NOT some deterministic view one may have of free will.

That is; unless of course you WANT to dispute that view/definition, and provide the conclusion of WHAT free will actually IS?

Just maybe when you give an accurate definition of 'free will' and of 'determinism' as well for that matter, then you will SEE and understand exactly WHERE and HOW human beings have been TRYING TO debate some thing of which there is NOTHING to debate. There is NO problem so there is NO THING to resolve.

You claim there is no problem

Yes I did claim that, to me, there is no problem, whereas, you claimed that there is a problem.

The difference though is I explained WHY I see there is NO problem at all, without any questioning from others. I freely gave My explanation already, whereas, you explained nothing at all, about some supposedly and alleged "problem", even AFTER I questioned you regarding this very point.

and yet you can’t choose A or B.

But I CAN choose A or B. I just CHOSE not to, thus expressing, and showing, free will in action.

If you don’t like the options - add your own.

I did, and thus I have already. I also did this before FREELY, and thus of My own free choosing.

[TimeSeeker]

But I CAN choose A or B. I just CHOSE not to, thus expressing, and showing, free will in action.

So you just chose to reject all of Mathematics? Ignorance in action.

Not quite the point I was trying to make about epistemology/knowledge, but it'll do for now.

Now that you have made the choice explain to us why you chose to reject Mathematics instead of choosing Mathematics.

[Age]

But I CAN choose A or B. I just CHOSE not to, thus expressing, and showing, free will in action.

So you just chose to reject all of Mathematics?

Ignorance in action.

Call it what you like.

But choosing not to choose between two tiny, very little mathematical equations is NOT rejecting 'all of mathematics'. ALL of mathematics is a fraction bigger than those two minuscule things.

TRYING TO use any thing, in order to TRY TO back up and support your already held BELIEF, could be interpreted and regarded, by some, as being ignorant as well, this time just ignorant of the what IS the Real and actual Truth of things.

"Mathematics", so far, has NOT solved the determinism/free will issue. Do you really BELIEVE that it, and you, can do it here and now?

[TimeSeeker]

No. I am simply asking you to justify your choice.

I justified My choice already. How did you miss it?

I will repeat it again, just for you.

I CAN make whatever choice I WANT to, and that, to me, IS free will.

^^^^ This is insufficient. Obviously you can make any choice you want. You just did. You chose to reject the First Axiom of Mathematics (the two 'tiny little equations'). The rest of the house of cards goes with it - you don't get to take out the 1st floor of a skyscraper and keep the rest...

So. I am asking WHY did you WANT TO be ignorant?

[Age]

But I CAN choose A or B. I just CHOSE not to, thus expressing, and showing, free will in action.

So you just chose to reject all of Mathematics? Ignorance in action.

Not quite the point I was trying to make about epistemology/knowledge, but it'll do for now.

Now that you have made the choice explain to us why you chose to reject Mathematics instead of choosing Mathematics.

You have, on a few occasions already, edited your posts as I am responding to them. I will now respond to your added parts here.

And, what point is that, that you were TRYING TO make about 'epistemology/knowledge'?

If you recall correctly, I did ask you WHAT DID YOU MEAN regarding the exact same thing, which you obviously refused to answer. So, if you do NOT clarify what POINT you are TRYING TO make, then HOW to you expect others to grasp what you are TRYING TO point out?

I did NOT choose to reject mathematics at all. I just chose what I DID, to show you WHAT free will IS, to me, and HOW it exists.

If you think/believe mathematics will PROVE, without a shadow of doubt, what you already BELIEVE is True, then go ahead and USE mathematics.

I am certainly interested in SEEING what you think/believe you could provide.

[Age]

No. I am simply asking you to justify your choice.

I justified My choice already. How did you miss it?

I will repeat it again, just for you.

I CAN make whatever choice I WANT to, and that, to me, IS free will.

^^^^ This is insufficient. Obviously you can make any choice you want.You just did.

Then, there you go. I HAVE 'Free Will'.

My job is done here.

You chose to reject the First Axiom of Mathematics (the two 'tiny little equations'). The rest of the house of cards goes with it - you don't get to take out the 1st floor of a skyscraper and keep the rest...

So. I am asking WHY did you WANT TO be ignorant?

WHAT do you mean by "ignorant" here? WHAT do you think/believe I WANT TO be ignorant OF EXACTLY?

The first dictionary I found and the first definition I looked at said, 'ignorant', lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

What has this got to do with Me making a CHOICE, free willingly?

[TimeSeeker]

And, what point is that, that you were TRYING TO make about 'epistemology/knowledge'?

If you recall correctly, I did ask you WHAT DID YOU MEAN regarding the exact same thing, which you obviously refused to answer. So, if you do NOT clarify what POINT you are TRYING TO make, then HOW to you expect others to grasp what you are TRYING TO point out?

What I am trying to point out is that you can't justify your choices without appealing to some prior knowledge.

Saying "I can choose" is a weasel word. Obviously you can choose. You just did - you chose to reject the First Axiom of Mathematics!

What I am asking you is WHY did you make that choice? Because you can? Thats circular!

Based on what information did you determine that rejecting the Axioms of Mathematics is a better option than the other two?

[TimeSeeker]

WHAT do you mean by "ignorant" here? WHAT do you think/believe I WANT TO be ignorant OF EXACTLY?

What has this got to do with Me making a CHOICE, free willingly?

You free and willingly CHOSE to reject one of the Foundational Axioms of Mathematics.

The consequence of such choice is that you also have to reject arithmetic.
And if you reject arithmetic - you also have to reject algebra.
And if you reject arithmetic and algebra - you have to reject geometry.

And if you reject arithmetic, algebra and geometry then you have no Mathematics left because there is NO field of mathematics that doesn't hinge on one of those three pillars.

So I am ASSERTING that you are ignorant. Based on your (unwise) choice to reject the foundational axiom of Mathematics.
It's not a belief. It's a conclusion based on evidence.