How On Earth Can We Be Free?

[psycho]

Of course, we are talking about the human experience in a situation. By options being real I mean the things that define a situation and they are matter for the future destiny of a human being. Is the option real given the definition?

Nope.

The factors that form the actions of a person do not give the possibility of being chosen by him.

Do you believe that randomness is without cause or it is caused?

Until now, science says that randomness is an intrinsic quality of reality.

That it is not the product of our ignorance of the variables that make up a phenomenon.

I do not interpret that causality is sequential. I do not suppose that a phenomenon has antecedents independent of itself from which it results. I do not interpret that randomness is a created phenomenon.

In that light, randomness is a state whose factors are unknown to me.

Unpredictable is different from random. As I mentioned there is no particle in reality. That is a human interpretation borrowed from the classical regime. That is not accurate in the quantum regime.

The wave function is a mathematical tool. Produce predictions. A math tool is deterministic. The
reality it is not.

Unpredictable is other than random, but unpredictable is a quality of a random phenomenon.

Of course, we are talking about human in a situation. So you believe that decision is something real to human?

If decision is the exercise of free will to choose a certain action, disregarding the causal factors, no.

[Advocate]

>Until now, science says that randomness is an intrinsic quality of reality.

Randomness is that we inherently cannot know the ultimate causality of everything. It is not a special property of the universe.

[bahman]

Of course, we are talking about the human experience in a situation. By options being real I mean the things that define a situation and they are matter for the future destiny of a human being. Is the option real given the definition?

Nope.

The factors that form the actions of a person do not give the possibility of being chosen by him.

Of course, they do. For example, I am free to drink tea or not now. They are both possible. Are you saying one of them is possible and another one impossible?

Do you believe that randomness is without cause or it is caused?

Until now, science says that randomness is an intrinsic quality of reality.

That is not correct. First, the reality is probabilistic when it comes to measurement. Again, randomness is different from probabilistic. It is deterministic if you do not disturb it.

That it is not the product of our ignorance of the variables that make up a phenomenon.

It is. As I mentioned information propagates deterministically when it is not disturbed. Otherwise, it shows probabilist features depending on measurement.

I do not interpret that causality is sequential.

Causality is sequential. One thing causes another thing.

I do not suppose that a phenomenon has antecedents independent of itself from which it results. I do not interpret that randomness is a created phenomenon.

So randomness is real?

In that light, randomness is a state whose factors are unknown to me.

I am talking about whether randomness is an intrinsic property of reality when you subtract all observers? Do you have an argument in favor of that? Science does not say so.

Unpredictable is different from random. As I mentioned there is no particle in reality. That is a human interpretation borrowed from the classical regime. That is not accurate in the quantum regime.

The wave function is a mathematical tool.

That is not correct. The wave function is real. Particle and wave are mathematical tools that we use to explain reality in a small scale because we are familiar with them. There is no particle in reality but information which as I mentioned described by the Schrodinger equation.

Produce predictions.

Yes, when you want to know where the information is as particle or wave.

A math tool is deterministic.

Not, necessary.

The reality it is not.

Everything is interrelated but causally related.

Unpredictable is other than random, but unpredictable is a quality of a random phenomenon.

It is better to say that a random phenomenon is unpredictable but not otherwise.

Of course, we are talking about human in a situation. So you believe that decision is something real to human?

If decision is the exercise of free will to choose a certain action, disregarding the causal factors, no.

Think of a situation that you are walking to reach a destination on a road that you don't know. Suddenly the road forks at a point. You don't know which way is the right way to go. So the causal factors cannot play any role here. You are yet free to choose and pick up the road you like. Can't you?

[bahman]

>Until now, science says that randomness is an intrinsic quality of reality.

It does not say so. The reality is probabilistic but not random.

Randomness is that we inherently cannot know the ultimate causality of everything.

It depends. There are stochastical models that describe a part of reality, the stock-market for example. It is stochastic because you cannot model the decisions of individuals, yet can say something.

It is not a special property of the universe.

It is not.

[Age]

>Until now, science says that randomness is an intrinsic quality of reality.

Randomness is that we inherently cannot know the ultimate causality of everything. It is not a special property of the universe.

But we CAN KNOW the ultimate causality of everything.

If ANY one is interested I can SHOW them HOW.

[bahman]

>Until now, science says that randomness is an intrinsic quality of reality.

Randomness is that we inherently cannot know the ultimate causality of everything. It is not a special property of the universe.

But we CAN KNOW the ultimate causality of everything.

If ANY one is interested I can SHOW them HOW.

Am I going to drink a cup of tea or not?

[Age]

>Until now, science says that randomness is an intrinsic quality of reality.

Randomness is that we inherently cannot know the ultimate causality of everything. It is not a special property of the universe.

But we CAN KNOW the ultimate causality of everything.

If ANY one is interested I can SHOW them HOW.

Am I going to drink a cup of tea or not?

What has this got to do with the topic of discussion here, which is; 'the ultimate causality of everything'?

[bahman]

But we CAN KNOW the ultimate causality of everything.

If ANY one is interested I can SHOW them HOW.

Am I going to drink a cup of tea or not?

What has this got to do with the topic of discussion here, which is; 'the ultimate causality of everything'?

For the ultimate causality of everything, you need the decision that each individual makes at any given moment. You don't have that information. So sorry.

[Age]

Am I going to drink a cup of tea or not?

What has this got to do with the topic of discussion here, which is; 'the ultimate causality of everything'?

For the ultimate causality of everything, you need the decision that each individual makes at any given moment. You don't have that information. So sorry.

But I do have that information, as I continually point out and state. That is; IF each individual is Truly OPEN and Honest.

Besides that, 'I' do NOT need to KNOW the decision that each individual makes at any given moment anyway to have ALREADY DISCOVERED, and thus ALREADY KNOW, the ULTIMATE causality of everything.

See, what came with discovering and learning what thee Universe ACTUALLY IS, and how It ACTUALLY WORKS, was the knowledge of 'the ULTIMATE causality of everything', as well.

Which, by the way, can ALL be PROVEN True.

[bahman]

What has this got to do with the topic of discussion here, which is; 'the ultimate causality of everything'?

For the ultimate causality of everything, you need the decision that each individual makes at any given moment. You don't have that information. So sorry.

But I do have that information, as I continually point out and state. That is; IF each individual is Truly OPEN and Honest.

Besides that, 'I' do NOT need to KNOW the decision that each individual makes at any given moment anyway to have ALREADY DISCOVERED, and thus ALREADY KNOW, the ULTIMATE causality of everything.

See, what came with discovering and learning what thee Universe ACTUALLY IS, and how It ACTUALLY WORKS, was the knowledge of 'the ULTIMATE causality of everything', as well.

Which, by the way, can ALL be PROVEN True.

You cannot have the knowledge of the free decision.

[psycho]

Of course, they do. For example, I am free to drink tea or not now. They are both possible. Are you saying one of them is possible and another one impossible?

This is the repetition of previous examples.

You still do not prove that it is possible to be aware of all the factors that led you to choose to drink tea.

So I'm still talking to someone who doesn't fully understand why they chose to drink tea.

That is not correct. First, the reality is probabilistic when it comes to measurement. Again, randomness is different from probabilistic. It is deterministic if you do not disturb it.

It is. As I mentioned information propagates deterministically when it is not disturbed. Otherwise, it shows probabilist features depending on measurement.

These two answers don't make sense from my point of view. But getting into it is going to take me far off the subject.

I accept that you believe that.

Causality is sequential. One thing causes another thing.

The issue of causality exceeds this issue. If you want you can start a new thread.

So randomness is real?

Yes. The randomness is real.

I am talking about whether randomness is an intrinsic property of reality when you subtract all observers? Do you have an argument in favor of that? Science does not say so.

Yes.

Observers do not have any special characteristics.

It is absurd for science to claim that randomness disappears if all observers are removed.

Yes, when you want to know where the information is as particle or wave.

What is information?

Not, necessary.

Do you interpret that there are mathematical tools that are not deterministic?

Everything is interrelated but causally related.

I can't understand how your comment relates to mine.

Think of a situation that you are walking to reach a destination on a road that you don't know. Suddenly the road forks at a point. You don't know which way is the right way to go. So the causal factors cannot play any role here. You are yet free to choose and pick up the road you like. Can't you?

I do not understand why you affirm that there are no causal factors of the decision in that situation.

[bahman]

Of course, they do. For example, I am free to drink tea or not now. They are both possible. Are you saying one of them is possible and another one impossible?

This is the repetition of previous examples.

You still do not prove that it is possible to be aware of all the factors that led you to choose to drink tea.

So I'm still talking to someone who doesn't fully understand why they chose to drink tea.

Do you mean that I am not aware of a factor in my decision yet decide? I am simplifying the situation for you with that example. I can even go to the indifferent mental state that it does not matter to me to drink the tea or not.

That is not correct. First, the reality is probabilistic when it comes to measurement. Again, randomness is different from probabilistic. It is deterministic if you do not disturb it.

It is. As I mentioned information propagates deterministically when it is not disturbed. Otherwise, it shows probabilist features depending on measurement.

These two answers don't make sense from my point of view. But getting into it is going to take me far off the subject.

I accept that you believe that.

Well, that is related to our discussion but let put it aside for now.

Causality is sequential. One thing causes another thing.

The issue of causality exceeds this issue. If you want you can start a new thread.

Ok, I agree.

So randomness is real?

Yes. The randomness is real.

What is the source?

I am talking about whether randomness is an intrinsic property of reality when you subtract all observers? Do you have an argument in favor of that? Science does not say so.

Yes.

Observers do not have any special characteristics.

It is absurd for science to claim that randomness disappears if all observers are removed.

Why? Where is your argument that randomness is an intrinsic property of reality?

Yes, when you want to know where the information is as particle or wave.

What is information?

Formation of a field.

Not, necessary.

Do you interpret that there are mathematical tools that are not deterministic?

Sure yea. And there are systems like the stock-market which are stochastic which makes this branch of mathematical tools useful.

Everything is interrelated but causally related.

I can't understand how your comment relates to mine.

We can skeep that for now.

Think of a situation that you are walking to reach a destination on a road that you don't know. Suddenly the road forks at a point. You don't know which way is the right way to go. So the causal factors cannot play any role here. You are yet free to choose and pick up the road you like. Can't you?

I do not understand why you affirm that there are no causal factors of the decision in that situation.

Then tell me why you pick up X instead of Y, X and Y are different roads at the fork when you don't know where these roads take you.

[Age]

For the ultimate causality of everything, you need the decision that each individual makes at any given moment. You don't have that information. So sorry.

But I do have that information, as I continually point out and state. That is; IF each individual is Truly OPEN and Honest.

Besides that, 'I' do NOT need to KNOW the decision that each individual makes at any given moment anyway to have ALREADY DISCOVERED, and thus ALREADY KNOW, the ULTIMATE causality of everything.

See, what came with discovering and learning what thee Universe ACTUALLY IS, and how It ACTUALLY WORKS, was the knowledge of 'the ULTIMATE causality of everything', as well.

Which, by the way, can ALL be PROVEN True.

You cannot have the knowledge of the free decision.

But I do have 'THAT' KNOWLEDGE.

WHY do you BELIEVE that 'I' can NEVER have the knowledge of the 'free decision'?

[bahman]

But I do have that information, as I continually point out and state. That is; IF each individual is Truly OPEN and Honest.

Besides that, 'I' do NOT need to KNOW the decision that each individual makes at any given moment anyway to have ALREADY DISCOVERED, and thus ALREADY KNOW, the ULTIMATE causality of everything.

See, what came with discovering and learning what thee Universe ACTUALLY IS, and how It ACTUALLY WORKS, was the knowledge of 'the ULTIMATE causality of everything', as well.

Which, by the way, can ALL be PROVEN True.

You cannot have the knowledge of the free decision.

But I do have 'THAT' KNOWLEDGE.

WHY do you BELIEVE that 'I' can NEVER have the knowledge of the 'free decision'?

Because it is free. Because you can never know what I would want when I make a free decision.

[Age]

You cannot have the knowledge of the free decision.

But I do have 'THAT' KNOWLEDGE.

WHY do you BELIEVE that 'I' can NEVER have the knowledge of the 'free decision'?

Because it is free. Because you can never know what I would want when I make a free decision.

What, to 'you', is a, supposed, "free" decision?