Free will, freedom from what?

[Atla]

I am absolutely certain you have very little idea about QM and how it ties in with consciousness.

"absolutely certain"
And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

Oh no!! Please don't tell me there's a "WE"..

The "absolute certainty" I have about you and your credentials on the topic is because most physicists would admit the same (u arrogant X)

Go ahead, explain how quantum-indeterminacy has NO role to play to support conscious minds having free will.

Because by itself it's just predictably random, and free will can't be based on randomness.

Shit effort.

So tomorrow I'll explain how you should never have insisted so arrogantly that I "..know very little about science".

I can only assume you are making such a claim based on my insistence that I KNOW God exists - that somehow to your meagre, short of insight mind this means then I cannot under_stand science.

If you think you can just google until tomorrow what this QM thing is, and then lecture me about it, you might be in for a surprise.

[Immanuel Can]

I was having a conversation with another poster when you jumped in. That poster was absolutely talking about relativity as in physics, as in Einstein. Whether you think it makes sense or not, that's what he was talking about, that's what I've been talking about.

Okay, that's fine. But maybe you can connect the dots for me. What has physics got to do with freedom?

Believe it or not, I didn't say it did. All I said to op was, relativity does not rule out determinism. Which is true, it doesn't, and Einstein was himself a determinist.

Ah. So you weren't talking about free will, but rather just excluding any proposed connection between either determinism or free will? So Einstein would be irrelevant, in that case, would he not? Even were he a determinist, that fact would not suggest he had sufficient reasons to prefer determinism over free will, and the theory of relativity would have no particular implication for the present discussion...ultimately, that would be your point?

[Flannel Jesus]

, that would be your point?

Op said relativity rules out determinism, my point was correcting that error. That's not to say determinism is necessarily true, or anything about free will at all.

[Immanuel Can]

, that would be your point?

Op said relativity rules out determinism, my point was correcting that error. That's not to say determinism is necessarily true, or anything about free will at all.

Right. I see the point. I agree.

I would add that neither does epistemological relativism, nor does quantum randomness. Both simply add the element of "unknowing" to our awareness of the actual facts, but don't change the actual facts of the case, whatever they may be, in relation to free will. Both try to establish real-world facts by reverting to epistemological uncertainties or lack of specific explanation of those facts.

To put it another way, they're trying to use an epistemological strategy to establish ontological truth. However, if I understand your point, then we can also say that a predetermined universe would still be predetermined, even if you and I were relativists, and even if we were confused by quantum explanations. And a universe with some measure of free will in it would still be a universe with free will in it, regardless of relativity, relativism, and/or randomness explanations.

[Flannel Jesus]

, that would be your point?

Op said relativity rules out determinism, my point was correcting that error. That's not to say determinism is necessarily true, or anything about free will at all.

Right. I see the point. I agree.

cool. remarkably simple when you strip it back to literally the only things I said.

[Immanuel Can]

Op said relativity rules out determinism, my point was correcting that error. That's not to say determinism is necessarily true, or anything about free will at all.

Right. I see the point. I agree.

cool. remarkably simple when you strip it back to literally the only things I said.

Maybe. But part of what we are trying to do here is to solve philosophical problems. And that means we need not just to understand what you said, but on what basis you said it, and how you thought it was relevant to the philosophical problem on which we're all working. So follow-up inquiries certainly are in court.

[Self-Lightening]

my insistence that I KNOW God exists

Talk about arrogant...

[Self-Lightening]

"Paper" is not "argument." "Paper" is composed of wood. An argument is composed of meaning,

I see... Carry on!

[Janoah]

Nobody was disputing the existence of natural laws.

Well, finally, you realized that you have no freedom from natural laws.

[Immanuel Can]

"Paper" is not "argument." "Paper" is composed of wood. An argument is composed of meaning,

I see... Carry on!

Well, meaning is a mental phenomenon. One cannot say, "What is the meaning of this boulder," or "What is the meaning of snow?" One certainly cannot say, "What is the meaning of wood (or of paper)?" Even the black squiggles on the paper aren't meaning -- a person who does not know the language will see the same shapes and letters as somebody who can read them, but not understand any meaning from them.

So the meaning of something is a mental phenomenon. And physical laws do not account for what meaning is contained on a piece of paper, or in the head of the percipient. All the physical processes add up to no meaning, unless a mind processes them AS meaningful.

Thus, some sort of dualism is inevitable. Strict Materialism or Physicalism, which natural laws can describe, cannot account for the existence of meaning at all. The meaning is real, and it is present: but it's not subject to some sort of physical law.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody was disputing the existence of natural laws.

Well, finally, you realized that you have no freedom from natural laws.

You're not reading carefully. I pointed out that nobody is disputing their "existence." I did not say that these natural laws cannot be overcome, or that we "have no freedom" from them. They can be defeated -- most obviously by OTHER natural laws, but plausibly by other things as well, as we shall see.

As to what they have to do with freedom, the answer is really "nothing." It may well be the case that the world is ordinarily governed by sets of natural laws...it does not tell us whether they ALWAYS are. That's an additional guess, one you're having to make up out of nothing.

But I also notice you dodged my question about Israel and the Exodus. So why not answer it? Maybe you can explain how natural laws can make a particular people "chosen."

[Janoah]

I did not say that these natural laws cannot be overcome,

Same old story, сan you disobey the law of gravity?

[Immanuel Can]

I did not say that these natural laws cannot be overcome,

Same old story, сan you disobey the law of gravity?

You're not getting it. There's no point in us going around again.

Are you going to answer my question about Israel?

[Janoah]

I did not say that these natural laws cannot be overcome,

Same old story, сan you disobey the law of gravity?

You're not getting it. There's no point in us going around again.

Are you going to answer my question about Israel?

If you do not answer the question of my topic, then there is nothing to talk to you about. Ciao

[Immanuel Can]

Same old story, сan you disobey the law of gravity?

You're not getting it. There's no point in us going around again.

Are you going to answer my question about Israel?

If you do not answer the question of my topic, then there is nothing to talk to you about. Ciao

But I did. I can't make you like the answer.

Now answer mine...if you can. But I'm betting you can't, because either way means bad things for you...and you know it.