Google says "Retrocausality."

e.g.

4. Acosmism (sub species aeternitatis) :smirk:

Of course the theist would say creation ex nihilo as first cause. Other options include but are not limited to:

1. Gnostic eternalism
2. Cosmic Dualism
3. Pantheism

stop trying to do mental gymnastics to save free-will, and just throw it out.

throwing out free-will simply removes blame, not responsibility, because responsibility is still within causation.

any and all starting points are illusions caused by ignorance of previous causes. including free-will and creationism.

existence is an unstoppable eternal loop

Can anyone even conceive a theoretical model where such thing, an event that's caused by something other than a past event or randomness, is possible? — philsterr

existence is an unstoppable eternal loop — OmniscientNihilist

Yes, my worldview is grounded on the notion of Eternal BEING : the power to exist. All other concepts assume that " existence precedes essence ". No being, no properties. In the chain of causation, the "buck" stops at existence. You can call that ultimate origin point God or G*D or BEING. But, once existence is established, all other causes flow from the First Cause : Eternal Existence. Whether there can be loops in eternity is debatable. :smile:

How do we know what free will is if we have never had it?

stop trying to do mental gymnastics to save free-will, and just throw it out.

throwing out free-will simply removes blame, not responsibility, because responsibility is still within causation.

any and all starting points are illusions caused by ignorance of previous causes. including free-will and creationism.

existence is an unstoppable eternal loop

- yup! Agree with this.

Why do you believe existence is an eternal loop? :) genuinely curious. Always like to hear why people reached similar conclusions to myself.

Eternal Existence — Gnomon

No input; no cause; no information; nothing specific; nothing more; everything possible; many worlds; multiverse; the tenth dimension; the Library of Babel; no meaning; no opposite; no alternative.

throwing out free-will simply removes blame — OmniscientNihilist

A sin is a sin even if someone is predetermined to do it. Why couldn't we blame them in that case.

existence is an unstoppable eternal loop — OmniscientNihilist

Can it really be an eternal loop if there are random causes? If there is no true randomness, that'd break our current models of physics just as much as the existence of free will would.

How do we know what free will is if we have never had it? — Gregory

I don't know what free will is, BUT
If the architecture of our brain is really nothing fundamentally more than what we currently understand about it (a complex set of neural networks), then all our actions are perfectly determined by our sensory inputs. We literally just 'observe' our brain's reactions to outside events.
Even if the brain uses quantum computing (of which we have no evidence so far), as we currently understand it, at most it just introduces some randomness to the process. We still just 'observe' those random outcomes in addition to the results of deterministic computations.

So, I cannot define what free will exactly is, but if we have no actual effect on our own actions at all, then to me, free will does not exist.

A sin is a sin even if someone is predetermined to do it. Why couldn't we blame them in that case. — philsterr

under determinism it would be truthful to hold them accountable, but not blame them.

If there is no true randomness, that'd break our current models of physics — philsterr

randomness is just a pattern to big to see, and dont worry about what physics says when it comes to metaphysics.

So, I cannot define what free will exactly is, — philsterr

free-will typically just means nobody has a gun to your head forcing you. philosophically it means the ability to create something out of nothing. which is impossible.

you can have relative freedom, but never absolute freedom. absolute freedom is nonsensical just like saying square circle.

dump your belief in free will in the trash and move on. continue to make progress forward. trying to prove free will exists is just the ego trying to prove itself real. for its own narcissism.

Free will is not creation out of nothing. Once a brain is formed, that ontology IS free will. The brain doesn't emit freedom. It is freedom, it is free

Where does the world come from in solipsism if nothing comes from nothing

If every event in the universe is caused either by past events OR by chance, we can only 'observe' both things that happen around us AND our own -or our brain's computing architecture's- reactions to them.
There is no room for choice or 'free will'.

We are not aware of any physical phenomenon that could give space to a different form of causation.

Can anyone even conceive a theoretical model where such thing, an event that's caused by something other than a past event or randomness, is possible? — philsterr

When you take an umbrella as you leave the house, are the causal conditions of that event entirely in the past, or is an awareness of - and significance attributed to - potential (future) events also informing your will (the faculty by which one determines and initiates action)?

The way I see it, the mind gives ‘space’ to a different (atemporal) form of causation.

dont worry about what physics says when it comes to metaphysics. — OmniscientNihilist

Please limit this discussion to the observable (in theory, not necessarily now, but potentially sometime in the future) part of physics. The kind that has some form of measurable impact on the classical physical world.

When you take an umbrella as you leave the house, are the causal conditions of that event entirely in the past — Possibility

As far as we know, yes. Your mind makes a prediction about the future based on past events and experiences. E.g. if you see the sky is blue you're a lot less likely to pack an umbrella. If you overheard some weather report you're likely to take it into account, even if you're not realizing it. But you may also be able to predict the weather based on physical phenomenons your unconscious mind understands, that we haven't yet been able to formalize. How bad getting caught in the rain would bother you will also play a role.

ree will is not creation out of nothing. Once a brain is formed, that ontology IS free will. The brain doesn't emit freedom. It is freedom, it is free — Gregory

all freedom and or free-will can only exists relatively, not absolutely.

Where does the world come from in solipsism if nothing comes from nothing — Gregory

the world rises and sets in and of consciousness, just like everything else

Please limit this discussion to the observable — philsterr

you observe your own mind and mistake it for reality

No input; no cause; no information; nothing specific; nothing more; everything possible; many worlds; multiverse; the tenth dimension; the Library of Babel; no meaning; no opposite; no alternative. — PoeticUniverse

Nothing but BEING : the power and potential for existence. In BEING, all things are possible.

Deus cogito, ergo sum. G*D thinks, therefore I am. :smile:

Someday, either in the past or future, everyone faces a moral choice that they can't help but believe the are free towards

all things are possible — Gnomon

And all possible things happen, meaning an information content of zero, overall, which is fine, for it has to be that way.

I assume so.

As you put it (I hope I am not missinterpreting here) the nature of the question is binary.
Since it is put as EITHER OR (exclusive or). This model fails to concieve a entire spectrum of statistical configurations, which would contain a degree of both at the same time.

I am not refuting the possibility to assign a determenistic view to statistical results but lets put this aside here and instead assume that there is true randomness at play.

So we have events that contain structural determined factors aswell as randomnes regarding the outcome. Take a coin toss in this example the structure of the coin (having two sides) influence the result aswell as the random nature in the variable outcomes (heads up xor tails up).

In some way we can say the result is directed/willed (by choosing a two sided coin) but free aswell because the being present of random outcome. Where the will contains an ambiguity in regard to the specific outcome but not in regard to the general outcome. We could model this ambiguity resulting out of necessity or preferability or something else.

I think this at least a possible model that can't be easily dissmised because of the advance of statistics in scientific models or chaos as a seemingly present phenomena that both can't properly be reduced to determenism in simplistic ways.

A different issue you rise and seem to ignore (not sure how conciously) is the slight of hand with wich you merge an ontological view regarding questions about determinism and a subject view depending on information.
While an purley ontological framework using determinism is not intrested in the information (assumes having all information). This is maybe best expressed in the statement that, if we knew everything we could predict everything, that determinism makes. The lack of information of a subject is at best an explanation why not everyone sees that determinsim "actually is the case".

However the subject view is highly dependant on informations present. Consider the coin toss example again but now conceptualize it as completley determined. Since you are not capable of grasping all relevant factors regarding the result the phenomena is locally random from the subjective perspective even in a theoretically deterministic reality where one theoretically could predict the result. However even if you knew the reality is deterministic it would be unreasonable that you as subject think you could gatter all information of the universe and consider them in the moment of the coin toss. (The idea of a being knowing everything is kind of selfdefeating for a determenistic framework in my view). So you would know the result is not truely random but this would be meaningless to you and it would still therefore be truely localy random since you truely aren't able to get to an information state where you can predict a specific outcome.
Btw the temporal aspect is part of the subjective view that is not necessarily used.

Btw2. A view of someone supporting complete randomness seems stramenish so if you considered that option reasonably you should already yourself came up with different options that are not stuck to the binary framework you seem to set up.

all things are possible. — Gnomon

And all possible things happen — PoeticUniverse

Not necessarily. Hence the information content is One. :smile:

Causes don't exist say Buddhism. If consciousness can be from a brain and if the world can come from a singularity, matter can move without spacetime. We can't sense space-time, so its a religious thing from Einstein.

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

To Heidegger, the atom bomb represented the Sun. Tonight I am watching the Penrose/Craig debate! I have two observations that I think are relevant. First, maybe the worldflows from the Forms of math. Second, if the Lord created out of nothing, then morality is out of nothing and the Lord could in reality be evil. So I side with matter, who is never malicious per se

Hegel “Contradiction is the root of all movement and all vitality: it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity.”

Schelling “Contradiction alone brings life even into the first necessary nature, which we have considered merely conceptually until now.”

Aristotle "to maintain that being and non-being are identical, is to admit permanent repose rather than perpetual motion.

Lenin wanted his scientists to find the material contradiction through which matter moves, and disprove Aristotle. The paradox of zero temperature might be the secret to perpetual motion

Not necessarily. Hence the information content is One. :smile: — Gnomon

'Everything' is all at once, so everything is even already done. The slo-mo replays continue forever.

When you take an umbrella as you leave the house, are the causal conditions of that event entirely in the past
— Possibility

As far as we know, yes. Your mind makes a prediction about the future based on past events and experiences. E.g. if you see the sky is blue you're a lot less likely to pack an umbrella. If you overheard some weather report you're likely to take it into account, even if you're not realizing it. But you may also be able to predict the weather based on physical phenomenons your unconscious mind understands, that we haven't yet been able to formalize. How bad getting caught in the rain would bother you will also play a role. — philsterr

What about whether or not you plan to walk anywhere?

For my filthy lucre:

Aristotle "to maintain that being and non-being are identical, is to admit permanent repose rather than perpetual motion. — Gregory

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned
until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned
is not the same as not to be burned.' ~Ibn Sina

:up:

Hegel “Contradiction is the root of all movement and all vitality: it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity.”

Schelling “Contradiction alone brings life even into the first necessary nature, which we have considered merely conceptually until now.” — Gregory

Nonsense. Any and every thing follows, like rabbits from a charlatan's top hat, from violating the LNC.

If :fire: = not :fire:, then burn 'em both, right? :roll:

Lenin wanted his scientists to find the material contradiction through which matter moves, and disprove Aristotle. — Gregory

"... second time as farce". The comrade was, in fact, a demogogic sophist (& murderous fanatic to boot). What is it Voltaire says about believing absurdities and committing atrocities? :shade:

The paradox of zero temperature might be the secret to perpetual motion — Gregory

Are you referring to vacuum fluctuations (accounted for by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)?

There is no room for choice or 'free will'. — philsterr

If free will does not exist, then an individual is not responsible for what he does. That would mean that there is no need for a legal system to judge anybody for his crimes. That is, however, not the mainstream belief. We rather seem to believe that people can be held accountable for what they do.

In other words, free will seems to be deeply embedded in our beliefs.

Of course, I have no explanation whatsoever for this basic belief. In fact, there is no explanation nor justification for any basic belief. We just seem to believe it.

There is nothing special about the status of free will as a basic belief. Logic is a system of fourteen basic, speculative, and arbitrary beliefs with no further justification. Number theory is one of nine basic beliefs (Peano) that cannot be explained.

These beliefs appear to us as arbitrary, but they are most likely rooted somewhere in our deeper nature:

"Fitra" or "fitrah" (Arabic: فطرة‎; ALA-LC: fiṭrah), is the state of purity and innocence Muslims believe all humans to be born with. Fitra is an Arabic word that is usually translated as "original disposition," "natural constitution," or "innate nature."

The belief in the existence of free will, and the fact that we act upon that belief, and even construct entire legal systems that assume it, are simply part of human nature, most of which cannot be explained, justified, or clarified. Humanity is largely a mystery to itself.

Descartes thought the truths of the world and mathematics were contingent and dependent on God, who could have made them differently. Hegel took this further and said all logic was the same. Yet concept of the the Absolute in Hegel's thought would seem to imply that there is a hyper-truth within the unity of the Absolute. So there would be ultimately one thing that was true. Everything else is a movement ("negative"). "In the COLOR of the Lord" Eric Clapton? Which color?

If free will does not exist, then an individual is not responsible for what he does. — alcontali

If, in fact, "free will" doesn't exist, then we're condemned (Sartre) to believe "if free will does not exist, then ..." therefore, since there is responsibility, there must be "free will".

Btw, it's possible to be responsible but not guilty (i.e. blameworthy) e.g. defective brakes responsible for a car crash - makes no sense, however, to claim that the car or its failed breaks are to blame.

You can believe in a motive force of 'contradiction', and still disavow Mao. In fact, I'd recommend it.

Let me summon a muse, because I might be out of my depth: John Updike: "writing criticism is to writing fiction and poetry as hugging the shore is to sailing on the open sea." I'm freestyling here. I don't have any firm verse to hold me, but if I swim out a little...

A contradiction of present states, like presently-being-burned or not-presently-being-burned, is very clearly susceptible to the LNC. Being burned sucks. It's painful, then you die. it's a big mess. The dialectic can't save you.

But most of the time, any current state is in the process of moving toward something. And there are multiple, contradictory, ways of conceiving of the state it's moving toward. That's the important thing here - temporality. How do you conceive of something in flux? And why would you ever think a conception of reality that excises flux is anything but a sterile safe-spaced nothing? A bold-fonted catechism can link up to the firm and ever-present real god. Grappling with the real takes a little more.

What's Hegel doing? He's trying to understand the process of how a present-oriented logic deals with the slipperiness of the flux-y thing it's applied to. In everyday life, we're either being burned or we're not. Wittgensteinian approaches hold firm, here. But when we get to the delicate matter of applying man-made categories to the extra-human essentials of being, it doesn't quite work. The world won't yield to our conceptions. And instead of throwing up his hands in narcissistic rage, he traces just exactly how that plays out. Doesn't do it great a lot of the time, but you can see where he's coming from, if you pay close heed.

Same with Marx. If contradiction as engine of history seems too esoteric, just read any account of the 2008 crisis. Not too arcane, is just that the system of granting mortgages was a present practice, based on an idea of the future, that ran up again other present forces, tending somewhere different. The contradiction isn't present; its how the present holds contradictory visions of itself, with reference to the future.