Philosophy Now Forum

There is no freedom from the regularity of nature, everything that happens obeys the regularity of nature, including human behavior, so what is freedom from?

It should be noted that "everything is predetermined" is also absurd.
For actual, simultaneous infinity is an absurdity, in light of the theory of relativity, it is clear that simultaneity itself is relative.

Janoah wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 10:58 pm There is no freedom from the regularity of nature, everything that happens obeys the regularity of nature, including human behavior, so what is freedom from?

From not having the ability 'to choose', for "one's" 'self'.

If you did not have 'the ability to choose', then 'you' would not be 'where' 'you' are 'now'.

Having the 'ability to choose' provides 'you' with 'the freedom' to be 'wherever' 'you' want to be, as well as 'the freedom' to be 'whoever' 'you' want to be.

Janoah wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 10:58 pm It should be noted that "everything is predetermined" is also absurd.

Why is 'everything is predetermined', also, absurd, and, 'also absurd' in relation to 'what', exactly?

What else is, also, 'absurd' here?

Janoah wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 10:58 pm For actual, simultaneous infinity is an absurdity, in light of the theory of relativity, it is clear that simultaneity itself is relative.

But, absolutely every thing is relative, to 'the observer'.

And, this happens and occurs in an infinite, and eternal, Universe.

Janoah wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 10:58 pm There is no freedom from the regularity of nature...

Actually, that's totally a supposition. It has no evidentiary basis for belief. All one can conclude from the observation that nature usually behaves in way X is that nature usually behaves in way X. It does not follow that Y has never happened, nor does it even count for the slightest evidence against the possibility that Y happened. What you're depending on is actually a belief called "uniformitarianism," which is a gratuitous demand that what usually happens must also be what always happens -- an expectation that, in life, is defeated quite regularly.

For example, people don't usually win the lottery. But somebody does. So to assume the uniformity of losing one's money in the lottery would be incorrect, right?

It should be noted that "everything is predetermined" is also absurd.

I would agree with you that it's false. But on what basis would you say it's "absurd"? That is, after all, the word you chose...

Janoah wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 10:58 pm There is no freedom from the regularity of nature, everything that happens obeys the regularity of nature, including human behavior, so what is freedom from?

There is no absolute freedom for any human being since it is a fact the self [person] is 'imprisoned' with the physical self and consciousness.

However, there is relative freedom, i.e. a human being is 'free' to do whatever he wants within his ability to do so.

The issue with 'freedom' is mainly a religious issue because believers want humans to be absolute free to be accountable for their evil acts and sins so they are justified to be burnt in eternal hell.

Nevertheless, the idea of absolute freedom as a useful ideal for the purpose of a moral ideal and standard.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 10:38 pm

Janoah wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 10:58 pm There is no freedom from the regularity of nature...

Actually, that's totally a supposition.

If it is, actually, a total supposition, then besides another total supposition that there is freedom from 'Nature', Itself, then how could 'freedom from the regularity of nature' even be a possibility, let alone an actuality, exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 10:38 pm It has no evidentiary basis for belief.

Is there any evidence for holding a disbelief here?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 10:38 pm All one can conclude from the observation that nature usually behaves in way X is that nature usually behaves in way X.

If some 'thing' has been happening and occurring for say the absolute length and distance that can be observed, continually, then this 'usual behavior' of 'that thing' is how 'that thing' usually behaves, always, obviously.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 10:38 pm It does not follow that Y has never happened,

But just adding a 'Y' into 'the mix' here, which for all any one knows could just be an absolutely logical and physical impossibility anyway.

Anyway, regardless of this, how 'Nature' behaves HERE-NOW is how 'Nature' behaves always. This cannot be refuted, and any such claim you are trying to make here "immanuel can" is just another 'total supposition' of yours alone. Also, noticed is how you are just 'trying to' back up and support a very strongly held onto belief of yours. One I will add that you could never back up and support.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 10:38 pm nor does it even count for the slightest evidence against the possibility that Y happened.

LOL And, what is 'Y', exactly, or what could 'Y' even be, exactly?

Not that you could ever explain and provide, because you have absolutely no 'Y'.

you just did not like the fact that what was presented above refutes your strongly held onto belief here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 10:38 pm What you're depending on is actually a belief called "uniformitarianism," which is a gratuitous demand that what usually happens must also be what always happens -- an expectation that, in life, is defeated quite regularly.

What can be clearly seen here, and which this one is desperately 'trying to' depend on, is 'this one' trying to find and use any sort of words that will somehow back up and support its 'current' unjustifiable and refutable belief here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 10:38 pm For example, people don't usually win the lottery. But somebody does. So to assume the uniformity of losing one's money in the lottery would be incorrect, right?

Trying to 'align' this example with, and in regards to, 'Nature', Itself, is a fairly skewed and twisted distortion attempt to go down.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 10:38 pm

It should be noted that "everything is predetermined" is also absurd.

I would agree with you that it's false.

Yet here you are one of the biggest believers that God has a pre-destined plan for absolutely every one/thing, while also apparently believing, absolutely, that 'everything is pre-determine' is false, as well.

Are you able to explain this apparent absolute contradiction of yours here?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 10:38 pm But on what basis would you say it's "absurd"? That is, after all, the word you chose...

On what basis would you say it is 'false'? That is, after all, the word that you chose.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 3:14 am

Janoah wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 10:58 pm There is no freedom from the regularity of nature, everything that happens obeys the regularity of nature, including human behavior, so what is freedom from?

There is no absolute freedom for any human being since it is a fact the self [person] is 'imprisoned' with the physical self and consciousness.

That is only if 'that person' chooses to remain 'imprisoned'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 3:14 am However, there is relative freedom, i.e. a human being is 'free' to do whatever he wants within his ability to do so.

So, how does 'this' match and align with 'your claim' that you human being or personal selves are 'imprisoned', exactly?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 3:14 am The issue with 'freedom' is mainly a religious issue because believers want humans to be absolute free to be accountable for their evil acts and sins so they are justified to be burnt in eternal hell.

But, do not some 'theological texts' say and claim that you human beings are born 'bad' or 'evil'? And, that God has 'a plan', 'for you'?

If yes, then how can a human being go 'against' what is already 'planned' 'for them', by God, Itself?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 3:14 am Nevertheless, the idea of absolute freedom as a useful ideal for the purpose of a moral ideal and standard.

So, "veritas aequitas" has no so-called 'absolute freedom' in what it says, does, and writes here, correct?

Since the label "Free Will" isn't literal, many get caught up in the word Free and thus threads like this one appear. Alas, because of the label it's easier to describe what Free Will isn't than what it is. It isn't Predetermination.

It isn't Predetermination because there is no one here to know what is going to happen next.

Knowing what happened is only revealed after the event, by which time, the event has gone as though it never happened. The event can only live in memory, which is dead, and never not this pure unknowing aliveness always present one without a second.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 10:38 pm
Actually, that's totally a supposition.

I will not undertake to prove anything to those who do not see the immutability of the natural law. Because one can only prove based on the immutability of the law, of course, if we are not talking about old wives' tales.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 3:14 am
There is no absolute freedom for any human

Yes, this is what needs to be understood first


***Nevertheless, the idea of absolute freedom as a useful ideal for the purpose of a moral ideal and standard.***

A sane person does not need self-deception; on the contrary, relative freedom of choice is valuable for a person precisely in freedom from self-deception, in overcoming it.

Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 7:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 10:38 pm
Actually, that's totally a supposition.

I will not undertake to prove anything to those who do not see the immutability of the natural law. Because one can only prove based on the immutability of the law, of course, if we are not talking about old wives' tales.

You're just assuming the "immutability." And I think you're probably misunderstanding what the phrase "natural law" means, too. A "natural law" does not mean a fiat law, far less an immutable truth: all it means, scientifically, is a regularity we observe -- in other words, a thing that usually seems to happen, without regard for whether or not it has ever been contravened.

The other misunderstanding you may be having is mistaking one kind of "law" for something that can be interrupted by a different kind of "law." For example, it may be a "natural law" that people in the middle of the ocean eventually sink and drown...unless they are superb swimmers, or on something floating, or not there very long, or saved by a helicopter... In such cases, the "natural laws" involved in being airlifted to safety prevent the "natural law" of drowning from being the final result.

So no, "natural laws" are not old wives' tales. But neither are they absolute, nor are they the only things at work in the world, nor are they uniform and undefeatable by other things.

The upshot of that is simple: we cannot tell, from the existence of one or another natural "law" what has or has not happened, or can or cannot happen. All we can say is all things being equal, and nothing interfering, then a particular "natural law" outcome is the most likely result.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 7:59 pm
You're just assuming the "immutability."

One can confuse yourself and others, but the one who confuses others will not jump off the roof of a high-rise building, because he knows for sure that the regularity is unchangeable, and he will definitely fall.

Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 10:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 7:59 pm
You're just assuming the "immutability."

One can confuse yourself and others,

I'm not confused, and others are not. Is the concept too difficult for you? I'm surprised...you seemed capable.

but the one who confuses others will not jump off the roof of a high-rise building,...

I don't understand this claim. What is it about "confusing others" that makes one impervious to suicide?

In any case, people have fallen from great heights, and MOST have died, perhaps. But some have not. Some only sustained broken legs and backs. Some fell into water, or fell on some trees or bushes that broke their fall. None of that suggests that the law of gravity didn't work; it just means that another principle intervened, so that what we would ordinarily expect to be the outcome didn't happen.

So you're just demonstrating my point. "Natural laws" are only "all things being equal" kinds of things. But sometimes, things are not equal.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 12:16 am None of that suggests that the law of gravity didn't work;

Well done! You figured out that the law of gravity is unchangeable, and that there is no freedom from the regularity of nature.

Janoah wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 6:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 12:16 am None of that suggests that the law of gravity didn't work;

Well done! You figured out that the law of gravity is unchangeable, and that there is no freedom from the regularity of nature.

if there was no freedom from the regularity of nature, there'd be no need for bismuth subsalicylate...

-Imp