Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. — 180 Proof

:rofl: :fire:

The fact that it's determined doesn't take away its freedom — Goldyluck

yes any freedom we have is part of, and bound within, determinism.

there is no true free will

our free will simply means that nobody has a gun to our head. we are still completely bound by causality

just not (scientifically) understood as of yet — Agent Smith

there is no level of understanding we will ever reach which will allow something to come from nothing.

Good one! Plus, a first cause wouldn't know anything, given that it has no input. — PoeticUniverse

exactly. that would be another magical belief

the magical invisible soul with its magical spiritual intelligence magically creating first casues into the mind with its magical free will

there is no level of understanding we will ever reach which will allow something to come from nothing. — Miller

And you're the last word on all such matters. :up:

What if one cannot learn because the will has become much too fixated? Doom. — PoeticUniverse

Ouch! That sounds like cynical Fatalism. Whatever happened to the romantic Fatalism of the Greeks? :gasp:

I took "the red pill" and with formerly blind eyes I clearly saw that "There Is No Red Pill". — 180 Proof

So you had no choice but to remain in illusory ignorance of reality. The "blue pill" is the default choice to avoid learning the hard truth of Existentialism. However, the "chop wood" quote, from Akira-sensei, sounds existentialist to me. Except that Existentialism requires "an act of will" by a "free and responsible agent". So, I guess the non-choice to remain bound in blindness is actually Cynicism. No? :worry:

The terms "red pill" and "blue pill" refer to a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

"Cynicism is an attitude characterized by a general distrust of others' motives."
If you distrust the one offering a "red pill", you by dereliction of choice, choose the pill-not-taken. :joke:

And you're the last word on all such matters. — Agent Smith

no logic is

one plus one will never equal five. it doesnt matter how much time goes by or how much science we do

we already have certain absolute truths that will never be changed

no logic is

one plus one will never equal five. it doesnt matter how much time goes by or how much science we do

we already have certain absolute truths that will never be changed — Miller

Ex nihilo nihil fit. Where's your argument?

Ouch! That sounds like cynical Fatalism — Gnomon

They wouldn't get vaccinated and couldn't, so they died from Covid.

They wouldn't get vaccinated and couldn't, so they died from Covid. — PoeticUniverse

Not all anti-vaxxers are Fatalistic. Some exercised their "Free Won't", to rely on God instead of fallible doctors. That's Faith, not Fatalism. OK . . . fatal Faith, if you insist. :joke:

Not all anti-vaxxers are Fatalistic. Some exercised their "Free Won't", to rely on God instead of fallible doctors. That's Faith, not Fatalism. OK . . . fatal Faith, if you insist. — Gnomon

There's no "Fatalistic" tendency undermining the fixed will truth; that's just a diversion, as is saying "cynical". The will itself excercises "free won't" just like any other decision/choice analysis that it performs.

FREE WILL?

Do you control your thoughts or do they control you?
Could you, silly as it seems,
Just be falling, hook and line, for your thoughts?
Think about it—thoughts may tell you the answer!

The brain’s decisions are determined by
Memories, associations, and
Learned behaviors right up to the instant;
So—our decisions are predetermined.

The ‘free’ in free will has no real meaning,
Unless we take it to mean random, that
One’s will depends on nothing but dice rolls;
What good would such a brain be anyway?

Can you start or stop your thoughts? In other words,
Can you will that which does the willing? Try it.
Oops, a surprise thought just came from the blue;
You did not will it—the will is unfree!

A mind is perhaps many little minds,
Each a simpleton awaiting control,
Such as when we eat, socialize, or fight,
None of them very complex at all.

The brain, with its hundred billion nerve cells,
Does all of our decision-analysis,
Only making its results known, at the last,
To the brain’s highest level: consciousness.

People act, robot-like, since they know not
The why of what they do, for decisions
Are made blind, by brain networks, just before
They’re presented to us in consciousness.

Consciousness comes three hundred milliseconds
After the brain does its analysis,
And, thus, has no causal say or veto power,
Zero, over what the brain comes up with.

Decisions are not made by consciousness,
Although, this fine picture in the mind’s ‘I’,
Merely the brain’s perception of itself,
Is fed back whole for future shortcutting.

Not much of what the brain does reaches
Consciousness, and even when it does,
The mind’s last to know, being like a tourist—
For decisions precede their awareness.

First-level people have beliefs and desires,
But second-level people can have beliefs
And desires about their beliefs and desires,
Becoming able spectators of themselves.

Although our decisions of the instant are
Fully determined, and are therefore not free,
We may happen to learn something new—and make
Choices tomorrow we wouldn’t make today.

Thoughts good and bad come and go, as the brain
Looks at itself without assigning values.
Still, lucky that others can’t read our minds,
’Though forbidden thoughts are normal and sane.

If you try hard not to think of something,
Then you will just think of it all the more
So, if told to avoid impure thoughts, you’ll
Think of people naked beneath their clothes!

We may fall for our thoughts, hook, line, and sinker:
Conditioned responses, reflexes, or
Overwhelming emotions, spurious,
Or ancient, planted by evolution.

When extreme thoughts arrive, uninvited, as
Some do, the larger will vetos them—“don’t”.

We’re all robots, but no one notices
Since there are so many different kinds,
Which, though making life quite interesting,
Obscures the fact that the will is unfree.

The will itself excercises "free won't" just like any other decision/choice analysis that it performs. — PoeticUniverse

Who is this "Will" you speak of? Do I know him? Can I introduce him to my Will? Actually, he calls himself "Me". And his screenname is "Gnomon the gnarly gnome", who sometimes masquerades as the robot "Will Robinson". The fool thinks he's choosing clever bon mots to post on this forum, when he's actually imprisoned in a dungeon of illusion, and has only himself -- his imaginary self -- to talk to. He is only free to won't what he wants, but can't have. He pretends to exercise his freedom as a Fall who chose to gravitate. But, he feels free to post gnarly nonsense on the foolosophy forum. :cool:

So you had no choice but to remain in illusory ignorance of reality. — Gnomon

"The red pill" (choice) is an – perhaps the – illusion, and from this, we can infer reality (à la causality).

However, the "chop wood" quote, from Akira-sensei, sounds existentialist to me.

I don't see the connection. To me the sensei's maxim simply means that, however much we change ourselves, we do not changed anything else. Choice itself (pace Kierkegaard & Sartre) is an introspective illusion; actions – consequences – which affect nonselves (i.e. other-than-the-self) are constituent aspects of reality.

So, I guess the non-choice to remain bound in blindness is actually Cynicism. No?

No. There is no "non-choice", Gnomon. Choosing "the red pill" just makes no difference with regard to reality. To think so, to expect some change, Akira suggests, is delusional – or as Socrates might say 'to remain ignorant of one's ignorance'. Reality as such "loves to hide" as Heraclitus (& Heisenberg?) says, so ignorance simpliciter is both fundamental and ineluctable.

Who is this "Will" you speak of? — Gnomon

Brain. Fire at Will!

THE OTHER SHOE DROPS

Determinism doesn’t sit well, at first;
Its flavor does not quench the thirst,
For then it seems we but do as we must,
But, we’ll see a way that in this we’ll trust.

We wish that our thoughts reflect us today,
Our leanings, for it could be no other way.
To know, let us turn to the ‘random’ say
To see whatever could make its day.

Shifting to this other, neglected foot,
What could make the ‘random’ take root?
It would have no cause beneath to explain
The events, they becoming of the insane.

We could pretend, imitating air-heads,
Posting nonsense on purpose in the threads,
But that then we meant to do this way,
Noting history, too, so ‘random’ holds not its sway.

There’s less problem of a determined Nature
Than the same in our individual nature,
But, sense isn’t made from ‘random’ direction
That relies on naught beneath its conception.

Would we wish it to be any other way?
Doing any old thing of chance that may?

The ‘random’ foot then walks but here and there,
Not getting anywhere, born from nowhere.
The unrooted tree lives magically, unfathomed.
Is not then ‘randomness’ but a fun phantom?

The opposite of determined is undetermined,
The scarier ghost that’s never-minded.

"The red pill" (choice) is an – perhaps the – illusion, and from this, we can infer reality (à la causality). — 180 Proof

Yes. That's how Cypher inferred a juicy steak, when he rejected the Hadean underworld of harsh reality to the comforting illusion of normality in the Matrix. "Ignorance is bliss" and inference is your personal truth.

To me the sensei's maxim simply means that, however much we change ourselves, we do not changed anything else. — 180 Proof

That's also how I interpret Existentialism. You can't change how the world works, but you can change your Frame, your perspective. Back when I first heard of the Existentialist philosophy, it sounded sour & pessimistic, compared to my Christian worldview. But now, it seems to be just the other way around. Instead of patiently waiting for salvation in another life, I just try to make the best of the "bird in hand" life. Not by escaping from the chain of cause & effect, but by making free choices for my personal behavior, including attitude adjustment. So, the sensei makes sense to me.

Privileged Frame of Reference :
The observer's privileged perspective is due to the freedom to aim as you will
http://www.faithfulscience.com/relativity/privileged-frame-of-reference.html

No. There is no "non-choice", Gnomon. Choosing "the red pill" just makes no difference with regard to reality. — 180 Proof

I agree. But to freely choose the red pill is a decision to change your worldview. That doesn't make any difference in Reality, but it makes a world of difference in Ideality : your mental model of reality. If we had no freedom, there would be no change. But my model of the world is completely different from that of my younger self. Was I fated to make that mental adjustment?

I like to refer to Roman poet Lucretius' notion of a "swerve" (course change) to illustrate how I view a modicum of Free Will within a general context of Determinism. I can't change Reality, but I can change how I view the world, and how I adapt my behavior (swerve) to Reality. When I'm driving, I can't move that obstacle in the road, but I am free to swerve and miss it. Fight Fate! :starstruck:

"if the atoms never swerve so as to originate some new movement that will snap the bonds of fate, the everlasting sequence of cause and effect --- what is the source of free will possessed by living things . . .?" Lucretius (c, 99-- 55 BC) On the Nature of Things.

FREELY FRAMED PERSPECTIVE

I wonder if all those people you are mentioning understand and use the term "free will" in its simple, common meaning leading to the unequivocal existence of free will. I have heard a lot of people denying the existence of "free will" but I still wait for sound arguments that support that position. I mean, personal arguments in real time. Not having to read (volumes of texts) from what 3d parties have to say on subject ...

We could pretend, imitating air-heads,
Posting nonsense on purpose in the threads,
But that then we meant to do this way,
Noting history, too, so ‘random’ holds not its sway. — PoeticUniverse

My personal worldview is not reality, but a mental model of what's out there. So you could call it "pretense" or "nonsense", but that label will also apply to you. If you are not free to choose between Sense and Nonsense, then how can you think of yourself as Rational? :wink:

Rational behavior refers to a decision-making process that is based on making choices that result in the optimal level of benefit or utility for an individual.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rational-behavior.asp

"What a strange suggestion, to deny the existence of freewill . . . I have no proof that you have free will, and you will never be able to show otherwise . . . Without free will, there could be no rational thought. As a consequence, it is quite impossible for science and philosophy to deny free will."
Quantum Chance : Nonlocality, Teleportation and Other Quantum Marvels by Nicolas Gisin
Note -- you can't prove FreeWill, because by definition it can't be replicated.

I wonder if all those people you are mentioning understand and use the term "free will" in its simple, common meaning leading to the unequivocal existence of free will. I have heard a lot of people denying the existence of "free will" but I still wait for sound arguments that support that position. — Alkis Piskas

I agree that most of the argumentation on this forum is futile, because we have two different definitions of Free Will. Some black & white thinkers assume the term refers to absolute god-like freedom, which would allow us to work Magic in the world. But, I can't imagine that many reasonable people could hold such an outlandish view. In my use of the term, FreeWill is limited and constrained by the causal laws of Reality. But I view Rational Choice as a causal link in the chain of Determinism. :smile:

Free Will within Determinism :
“Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links.
Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. . . ." ___Yehya
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

"Ignorance is bliss" and inference is your personal truth. — Gnomon

I've no idea what orifice you've pulled this bon mot out of but it seems like a projection. Nothing I've said suggests "bliss" of any kind, merely an acknowledgement that ignorance is ineluctable / inexhaustable – a feature of knowing itself (like e.g. Eudoxus' 'method of exhaustion'). It's acquired / habitual ignorance of this intrinsic ignorance (e.g. maps =/= territory) that produces "illusions". At most, "the red pill" only reduces / unlearns habitual ignorance which makes explicit intrinsic ignorance itself (i.e. 'knowing that we don't – can't – know everything', thereby inferring the horizon of 'unknown unknowns'). The so-called "choice of red pill or blue pill" doesn't apply to intrinsic ignorance.

If you are not free to choose between Sense and Nonsense — Gnomon

The fixed will chooses all the time; it's mostly about providing for future. A bright fixed will can still be sensible. Or a will may not have good inputs and go for what turns out to be nonsense. The neural analysis considers what it holds and all the inputs. Restraints and forces against what the will wants are inputs, too. I could even grant that the brain waves of others are inputs, also—just another input! Billions of neurons with trillions of connections then do their analysis. Thinking may be flawed and neurotransmitters may not be sufficient to carry the signal across the synapse, but these are just more inputs.

We see that 'random' doesn't make for free will. Some may take consolation that the hurting of the will by 'random' provides for something different to happen. Perhaps there is no 'random'; I'm looking into this now. That would be a super shock!

The fixed will chooses all the time; it's mostly about providing for future. — PoeticUniverse

What's the difference between "fixed will" and "free will"? Is it totally bound, hence not able to choose at all. or merely limited in the scope of its choices? Is there a way to measure the degree of fixation? Are we like Sisyphus, condemned to rock 'n' roll for ever, but taking some satisfaction that we are playing our pre-defined role in the great scheme of things to the best of our ability? Ironically, king Sisy was like Adam & Eve, punished by the gods for a mutinous attempted act of free choice. Who do you think is punishing us with the desire for freedom without the power to choose?

"Will" is an expression of future tense, so it implies some ability to choose between one apparent path and another. I say "apparent" because our conjectures into a time not-yet present are speculations, not confirmed facts. Most animals have some power to anticipate the short-term future, and to the agency to change their own behavior to intersect with the preferred option. But human Will Power is enhanced by our ability to speculate farther and more accurately into the potential future.

When you scan a restaurant menu, do you just accept Fate, and point at random --- or do you pretend to choose on a whim, rather than compulsion? In my case, at first I sample a variety of options, then decide which suits my personal preference, which becomes my default choice. Or am I condemned to eat Tako (octopus sushi) forever, even though the smell nauseates me? :yum:

We see that 'random' doesn't make for free will. — PoeticUniverse

How do we see that? When statisticians calculate a historical trajectory into the future, is that attempt to see a pattern-within-randomness, doomed to failure. Would you call it "absurd" that we can't see very far into the future? Seems to me that's just normal, as in a Normal Curve. However, in a Galton Board model of randomness, even though the Bell Curve is "fixed" the randomized balls are free to fall anywhere within the boundaries of the curve. The balls are rigidly constrained (fixed) by physics , but humans are freedom-loving change-agents, who can choose to bend (not break) the law. :nerd:

Freedom Within Randomness :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvHiee7gs9Y

Regular Order within Random Chaos :
Admittedly, our home world is rather “messy” in some ways, but I prefer to think of it more positively as “order out of chaos”. The chaotic part of reality is what scientists know as Randomness. The orderly part is known by religious people as Design. Put them together, and you get a world with enough order to produce living creatures, and to be understandable to their minds.

Intentional versus Involuntary :
In human cultures, we can easily distinguish the works of Nature from the products of human intention. That's because Nature is on auto-pilot, while humans have hands on the wheel
. . . . The process of evolution can be construed as an ongoing reckoning of Cause & Effect events. Another way to put it is to say that Natural Selection is the product of freedom-of-action (randomness) and constraints-on-action (selection).

nothing comes from nothing

and nothing comes from something

nothing and something both cannot create something

but something can change into a new shape and make you believe its a new something when its not

I've no idea what orifice you've pulled this bon mot out of but it seems like a projection. — 180 Proof

I wasn't trying to put sweet "bon mots" in your mouth (or any other orifice) ; just noting a common saying intended to justify being resigned to remain in a static state of willful ignorance. Are you "woke" to the reality of cognizance? :cool:
PS__why would you assume that I was accusing you of blissful ignorance? Are you accusing me of projecting my own blindness onto you? "Let he who is without ignorance cast the first bon mot" :joke:

The so-called "choice of red pill or blue pill" doesn't apply to intrinsic ignorance. — 180 Proof

Where you are free to choose to focus your attention on the negative space of "intrinsic ignorance", I opt to aim my frame at the positive potential of self-enformation (selective education). Consequently, I don't think of humanity as benighted by Nescience, but as the beneficiaries of Science.

Whatever lies beyond the limited scope of the human mind may be "Intrinsic Ignorance", and some may choose to remain mired in "willful ignorance", but those of us on this forum are blessed with the innate human power of Reason : the power to choose the path to Enlightenment, either within or without. :nerd:

TURN TOWARD THE LIGHT AND THE SHADOW IS BEHIND YOU

PS__why would you assume that I was accusing you of blissful ignorance? — Gnomon

As I quoted you previously,

"Ignorance is bliss" and inference is your personal truth. — Gnomon

this is why.

Consequently, I don't think of humanity as benighted by Nescience, but as the beneficiaries of Science.

A more "nescient" sentiment – which, being a child of this zeitgeist, I also can't shake-off – has never been expressed. :point:

TURN TOWARD THE LIGHT AND THE SHADOW IS BEHIND YOU

Nostalgic but impotent because, except for death, there's No Exit from this Platonic skull-Cave. :fire: :eyes:

What's the difference between "fixed will" and "free will"? — Gnomon

"Free will" is what sounds good to have because it announces that the will is free of something than no one is ever able to say but for that the will can usually operate, but that is not adding anything because that's what the will normally is. So, ‘free will’, on the surface, seems to be a great thing to have, for it promises one to be free of some constraint, which must be a good thing, right? Is the will/brain free to operate in the way that it does? Well, usually, outside of the control of parents, employers, owner, gods, and the like who can have forcing methods, so this kind of ‘free’ is not adding anything extra to the regular will, since mechanisms like the will are already free to operate.

In Earthly judicial courts, coercion/controlling/forcing/insanity, etc. can serve to have one judged as not responsible versus being held responsible. Note that this diametric is orthogonal to the other axis—that of a fixed will dependent on what one has become up to the moment versus a non-fixed (free?) will not depending on anything, if one still wants that in order to be ‘free’ (‘twould be a mess—not anything could function).

Does one want to be free of the consistency that the will provides, based on who we are from what we’ve become? No, this would not be the ‘free’ of free will. For the religious, does it mean to be able to be free of God’s will? No, for this is not ‘free’ since there will be consequences. What, then, is there for the will to be free of that is not some trivial finding? No one can say!

The closest we can answer this is the stance that compatibilists take, which again is no great shakes at all, for they still have it that all events are determined, which strangely makes for a free will for them but for when one is coerced into doing something, since their ‘free’ state is merely the freedom from coercion, for they grant determinism. Did they consider that the coercion was always going to happen, too, in the whatever will be will be? Other restraints upon doing what we like are such as the weather, laws, people, and more. A truly free will seems to have no real meaning, yet still remains a kind of Holy Grail hope to find somehow. When they can't push the idea forward, they may try some diversionary push-back.

Is it totally bound…? — Gnomon

Not if there is 'random', but otherwise it does as it has to. We see that 'random' harms the will if it messes up the path the will was taking.

Is there a way to measure the degree of fixation? — Gnomon

The deeper the fixation, the harder it is to learn or get deprogrammed. Some may be so stuck that we just ignore them. Every family seems to have one of those among their relatives.

Who do you think is punishing us with the desire for freedom without the power to choose? — Gnomon

No one can say what other way the will could be free of itself. No punishments, but perhaps there's some evolutionary advantage.


As for Super Determinism, this is just determination all the way through, with no 'random'.

pro:

1. The Block Universe is so. (Plus, 'God' knows everything, to the dismay of theologians.)

2. The quantum particle measurements ending in probabilities may be…

2a. because we can't take the influence of the entire universe into account or

2b. since the wave function proceeds deterministically before measurement, that's that, and since the particle is not a pinpoint but is spread out we can't have a precise location just stabbing into some part of it, which may also disrupt it, or

2c. it is already determined how the scientist will probe it that correlates with the result, making science useless.

con:

1. The eternal bedrock of reality can't have any input to it (yet there could be the most simplistic default of the way it has to be).

nothing comes from nothing

and nothing comes from something

nothing and something both cannot create something

but something can change into a new shape and make you believe its a new something when its not — Miller

:ok: but the first one is an axiomatic statement; we're interested in theorems. The rest of your post is interesting.

All this is quite interesting. But they are all descriptions and fancy definitions To talk about "free will" and have a meaningful discussion, we must first agree on what "free will" is in common sense and simple terms. Then there can follow arguments supporting or rejecting the existence of free will. Don't you agree?

Anyway, I am pretty sure that you actually know yourself what "free will" means in simple terms! :wink:

PS__why would you assume that I was accusing you of blissful ignorance? — Gnomon
As I quoted you previously,
"Ignorance is bliss" and inference is your personal truth. — 180 Proof

You are quick to take offense at generic statements, and also quick to make specific offensive assertions. But I just shrug-off such accusations as :

A more "nescient" sentiment – which, being a child of this zeitgeist, I also can't shake-off – has never been expressed — 180 Proof

But that's OK with me, as long as we keep dialoging. I learn from both positive and negative arguments. Obviously, you have given a lot of thought to philosophical questions. But your conclusions seem much gloomier than mine. To each his own . . . :smile:

so this kind of ‘free’ is not adding anything extra to the regular will, since mechanisms like the will are already free to operate. — PoeticUniverse

I get the impression that you are still reacting to a definition of "free will" that I am not espousing. I specifically stated that the "freedom" I'm talking about is "limited". Which, I would think, should fit your definition of "regular" will. Except, there may be some minor distinction that I'm missing. :brow:

Note that this diametric is orthogonal to the other axis—that of a fixed will dependent on what one has become up to the moment versus a non-fixed (free?) will not depending on anything, if one still wants that in order to be ‘free’ (‘twould be a mess—not anything could function). — PoeticUniverse

I'm not familiar with the notion of "fixed" versus "free" willpower. I Googled "fixed will" and got no applicable links. So, I suppose you have your own personal definition of the term. I"d like to hear how you would distinguish between my notion of "limited FreeWill" and your "fixed Will". On the face of it, "fixed" sounds pretty final, and not very desirable. I have been using the common phrase "Free Will" in the usual philosophical sense of Agency as noted below. To me, that definition sounds more like "limited" than "fixed". :chin:

Agency :
The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

We see that 'random' harms the will if it messes up the path the will was taking. — PoeticUniverse

That may be true, but randomness also breaks the chain of Cause & Effect with an Acausal link. It's that gap in causation that may provide a way to escape from the bonds of Determinism. But, it takes intelligence and reasoning ability to take advantage of the opportunity of arbitrariness in place of necessity. :smile:

“Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links.
Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. . . ." ___Yehya
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

The deeper the fixation, the harder it is to learn or get deprogrammed. — PoeticUniverse

By "fixation" are you talking about "self-deception"? If so, I must agree. But philosophically-inclined people should be open to self-examination to weed-out false beliefs. And yet, on this forum, we still find "fixations" that are resistant to criticism. And a common issue raised in Free Will topics concerns whether the freedom of agency is a self-deceptive illusion. But I don't know any sane person who believes he is free to jump off a tall building with impunity. If some do feel that free, they certainly require some "deprogramming". For the record, I'm not talking about such extreme cases, but about examples of "regular will". :wink:

As for Super Determinism, this is just determination all the way through, with no 'random'. . . . .2. The quantum particle measurements ending in probabilities may be… — PoeticUniverse

I'm not clear on whether you were arguing from a "pro" or "con" position. But FWIW, I don't depend on the weirdness of quantum randomness to open the door to freedom of the Will. The warm, wet brain does not seem amenable to Superposition. On the macro level of human behavior, the quantum randomness averages-out to the familiar Cause & Effect, that we rely on as we make our Choices. It's more telling that our notion of Necessity is a general assumption, not an empirical fact. Even hard-nosed scientists are aware of the vagaries of reality, so they don't assume "Super-Determinism", but merely Mundane Regularity. :cool:

"Although the intuition that our mind chooses its actions 'at will' begs for an explanation, quantum physics is no solution" ___Stanislas Dehaene

"He who says all things happen of necessity cannot criticize another who says that not all things happen of necessity. For he has to admit that the assertion also happens of necessity."
___Epicurus

PS___ Since Consciousness and WillPower are subjective, ultimately what counts is not objective evidence, but that you feel free. If not, your outlook may be clouded by the bitterness of desires frustrated by Fate. If, however, you don't feel free, then no evidence or argument will convince you otherwise. So, to paraphrase Clint Eastwood : "do you feel free, punk?" :joke: