Free will and determinism

childeye 2 · Apr 26, 2026

Jerry N. said:
Since nobody has answered my question, I’ll pose it again in several forms:

If we don’t have free will,

Why do we feel remorse or guilt when we do something wrong?

Because it violates our conscience. But the conscience itself can be wrong

Jerry N. said:
Why do most countries have a justice system to punish crimes?

Because people cannot be allowed to murder and pillage. It doesn't mean that fear of punishment can instill goodness.

Jerry N. said:
Why do we pay restitution when we damage somebody’s property?

Because it's fair to do so and unfair not to.

Jerry N. said:
Why do we apologize to people we hurt?

We make mistakes.

Jerry N. said:
Why do we ask for forgiveness for sins?

Because every act of sin is first preceded by believing something untrue + because grace flows downstream = "Forgive me my trespasses even as I forgive others".

Jerry N. said:
Why do all religions have a standard for right and wrong which somewhat overlap?

Because objectively it's asymmetrical.

Jerry N. said:
I realize that some things are based on social standards, but I don’t believe that is always the case. Empathy doesn’t answer the questions, since some people don’t have it. Environment doesn’t answer the question, since some children are aware of right and wrong that is contrary to parents and environment.

Objectively we all understand comfort/discomfort as flesh beings who experience both pain and pleasure. The asymmetry of morality/immorality is realized in sacrificing self for others/sacrificing others for self; and this is exhibited in the symmetry of love others as you would want to be loved.

These are all easily answerable questions, so they are rhetorical.
Every line is shaped like a question, but each one is actually a premise meant to imply:

“Because we feel guilt, have justice systems, apologize, etc., therefore free will must exist.”

Those questions are rhetorical, but they all assume that guilt, justice, apology, and moral norms require libertarian free will. They don’t. They’re features of human relational life inside the determinant structure. In monotheism, the deeper issue isn’t whether we have multiple ultimate options; it’s which image is the true one. The serpent‑image produces guilt and the illusion of choice; the Christ‑image restores faith and Agapē. The temporal world reveals that contrast.”

childeye 2 · Apr 26, 2026

Bradskii said:
Then again, the fact that you believe that the government is good for us determines your decision to pay taxes.

Assuming that that is an accurate description of your belief then with no further input, no more information, no changes to the policies of the government which caused you to believe that they are good for us, then now decide to believe that they are not.

That's simply not possible. All the info that you have received about the government has determined your belief that they are good. You've just stated as much.

All you have done is kick the can down the road.

So how many likes have you had in this thread?

childeye 2 · Apr 26, 2026

Jerry N. said:
I can’t tell if you believe in a limited free will or not.

But I can't answer if I don't know what limited free will means to you. I told you the meaning of the free will I believe in. I identified a positive/negative asymmetry, so that I could then precisely articulate that I believe only in the positive direction of a will as being objectively free. I do that in the moral/immoral context which is about character.

So, I can see that sometimes you are referencing a positive free will and sometimes you're referencing a negative free will and sometimes a neutral free will. I can infer that according to the syntax and modifiers in your expressed words.

But as people lump all three free wills together into two subjective words (free will) they don't realize that objectively the will to raise children to cook them and eat them is NOT the same will that nurses and nurtures its loved ones. They lose sight by calling them both free. So, when you ask if I believe in a limited free will, I don't even know how to reply because you're just seeing a choice/option and calling it a free will.

I believe in the positive free will (free from lies=led by truth), but you don't make that distinction. We need to see eye to eye on the objective meanings and the subjective meanings of the terms to parse the semantics involved.

Grip Docility · Apr 26, 2026

Bradskii said:
Steve is saying that the colour red isn't real. It's simply how our mind operates. So we act as if it's real. And then says that free will is the same. He literally says 'The same with free will...'

I've explained at length my position that it's not real, but we all act as if it is. And he's just used that exact same position to argue that it exists. That's...bizarre.

And I'll address your question regarding resposibility in due course. It may take a longer post than the brief one I was going to post yesterday. The answer is ridiculously short. But the explanation might need a little...how shall I say...justification.

(Doubt is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one: Voltaire)
(One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision: Bertrand Russell)
- quotes people that make fun of certainty
(Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution: Theodosius Dobzhansky)
- exalts person that has certainty

MaKe It MaKe SeNse! PLEASE!

Bradskii · Apr 26, 2026

Jerry N. said:
So you used your free will to embrace determinism?

One's views are a reflection of the information that one has available. Input changes output. I used to believe in free will. Then I started reading more about it and...I need to be very specific here: I didn't change my view. Rather my view was changed by what I read.

That was when the penny dropped for me. Then it began to make sense. But I didn't choose to believe or disbelieve anything. That's just not possible.

As regards determinism, I didn't choose to believe in it. I looked at any and all events and they all had a cause. I couldn't, and can't, find anything that doesn't. If literally all the evidence I can find points to determinism, then I have no choice but to accept it. I can (and still do) allow for the fact that I may be wrong. So the OP says 'IF existence is deterministic then free will is an illusion...' not 'Because existence is deterministic...'

If someone says 'I don't believe the world is deterministic' then what on earth are they basing that position on? It's certainly not the evidence. What you will almost always find is that they reverse the argument. So it's not 'if the world is deterministic then there is no free will'. Their position is that they refuse to deny free will (because, gee...it's so obvious - look, I just decided to raise my hand) so it becomes 'free will exists, therefore the world cannot be deterministic'.

Apart from being a logical mess (they are starting with the conclusion), it denies literally everything that they have ever experienced.

Bradskii · Apr 26, 2026

Grip Docility said:
(Doubt is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one: Voltaire)
(One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision: Bertrand Russell)
- quotes people that make fun of certainty
(Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution: Theodosius Dobzhansky)
- exalts person that has certainty

MaKe It MaKe SeNse! PLEASE!

Scientists (like Dobzhansky) don't, and shouldn't have to, preface everything they say with an 'If'. It's implied by the very fact that they are scientists. They can be as certain as they could possibly be that 'because of A then B', but science isn't logic. You should always read it as 'If A then B'.

I'm not a scientist, but as you can see from the post above, despite me being absolutely certain that existence is deterministic, my position is 'IF existence is deterministic...'

I wouldn't have thought that that needed to be explained.

Bradskii · Apr 26, 2026

childeye 2 said:
So how many likes have you had in this thread?

I think that's up for the Non Sequitur Of The Week award.

Neogaia777 · Apr 26, 2026

I used to be a huge proponent of free will as well.

God Bless.

Jerry N. · Apr 27, 2026

childeye 2 said:
Because it violates our conscience. But the conscience itself can be wrong

Because people cannot be allowed to murder and pillage. It doesn't mean that fear of punishment can instill goodness.

Because it's fair to do so and unfair not to.

We make mistakes.

Because every act of sin is first preceded by believing something untrue + because grace flows downstream = "Forgive me my trespasses even as I forgive others".

Because objectively it's asymmetrical.

Objectively we all understand comfort/discomfort as flesh beings who experience both pain and pleasure. The asymmetry of morality/immorality is realized in sacrificing self for others/sacrificing others for self; and this is exhibited in the symmetry of love others as you would want to be loved.

These are all easily answerable questions, so they are rhetorical.
Every line is shaped like a question, but each one is actually a premise meant to imply:

Those questions are rhetorical, but they all assume that guilt, justice, apology, and moral norms require libertarian free will. They don’t. They’re features of human relational life inside the determinant structure. In monotheism, the deeper issue isn’t whether we have multiple ultimate options; it’s which image is the true one. The serpent‑image produces guilt and the illusion of choice; the Christ‑image restores faith and Agapē. The temporal world reveals that contrast.”

That is very thoughtful response. Thank you. As I stated before, I avoid discussions of free will and predestination. If you accept predestination, your responses are consistent.

Jerry N. · Apr 27, 2026

childeye 2 said:
But I can't answer if I don't know what limited free will means to you. I told you the meaning of the free will I believe in. I identified a positive/negative asymmetry, so that I could then precisely articulate that I believe only in the positive direction of a will as being objectively free. I do that in the moral/immoral context which is about character.

So, I can see that sometimes you are referencing a positive free will and sometimes you're referencing a negative free will and sometimes a neutral free will. I can infer that according to the syntax and modifiers in your expressed words.

But as people lump all three free wills together into two subjective words (free will) they don't realize that objectively the will to raise children to cook them and eat them is NOT the same will that nurses and nurtures its loved ones. They lose sight by calling them both free. So, when you ask if I believe in a limited free will, I don't even know how to reply because you're just seeing a choice/option and calling it a free will.

I believe in the positive free will (free from lies=led by truth), but you don't make that distinction. We need to see eye to eye on the objective meanings and the subjective meanings of the terms to parse the semantics involved.

I would say that “free will” is the ability to make choices between presented alternatives that are not fully predetermined by the physical world. I try to choose what I think is required by God, but sometimes I fail and choose the opposite, and I am responsible for that choice even though I’m forgiven. “Free will” also allows me to choose which beer I will drink, and the physical world and God don’t interfere with that decision except for limiting the options.

Jerry N. · Apr 27, 2026

Bradskii said:
One's views are a reflection of the information that one has available. Input changes output. I used to believe in free will. Then I started reading more about it and...I need to be very specific here: I didn't change my view. Rather my view was changed by what I read.

That was when the penny dropped for me. Then it began to make sense. But I didn't choose to believe or disbelieve anything. That's just not possible.

As regards determinism, I didn't choose to believe in it. I looked at any and all events and they all had a cause. I couldn't, and can't, find anything that doesn't. If literally all the evidence I can find points to determinism, then I have no choice but to accept it. I can (and still do) allow for the fact that I may be wrong. So the OP says 'IF existence is deterministic then free will is an illusion...' not 'Because existence is deterministic...'

If someone says 'I don't believe the world is deterministic' then what on earth are they basing that position on? It's certainly not the evidence. What you will almost always find is that they reverse the argument. So it's not 'if the world is deterministic then there is no free will'. Their position is that they refuse to deny free will (because, gee...it's so obvious - look, I just decided to raise my hand) so it becomes 'free will exists, therefore the world cannot be deterministic'.

Apart from being a logical mess (they are starting with the conclusion), it denies literally everything that they have ever experienced.

That only works if there is no metaphysical world that interacts with the physical world. If there is a metaphysical world and it is connected to the “self,” as somebody mentioned previously; then believing in free will that is not completely limited makes perfect sense.

Bradskii · Apr 27, 2026

Jerry N. said:
That only works if there is no metaphysical world that interacts with the physical world. If there is a metaphysical world and it is connected to the “self,” as somebody mentioned previously; then believing in free will that is not completely limited makes perfect sense.

You're correct. If there is something for which there is no evidence then it might affect the evidence based world in which we live and detract from any evidence bssed argument.

That suggestion has been made very many times in this thread. You should have started with it. It would have saved you a lot of time arguing against the op. Because you don't have to argue against anything from that position.

Jerry N. · Apr 27, 2026

Bradskii said:
You're correct. If there is something for which there is no evidence then it might affect the evidence based world in which we live and detract from any evidence bssed argument.

That suggestion has been made very many times in this thread. You should have started with it. It would have saved you a lot of time arguing against the op. Because you don't have to argue against anything from that position.

There is a difference that has emerged. Your original theorem was as follows:

If everything is determinant, there is no free will.

Therefore, everything is determinant, so there is no free will.

What I am agreeing to is the following:

If everything is determinant, there is no free will.

Therefore, I believe everything is determinant, so I believe there is no free will.

Your belief in all things being determinant does not mean it is objectively true. Just like my belief that all things are not determinant does not mean it is objectively true. You have no way of proving that all things are determinant objectively, nor can I prove the opposite. However, I’m glad we agree that some things can be random. #4404. I also recall that you believe in random selection in evolution, but my memory might be wrong.

Anyway, your theory is a belief system rather than an objective fact.

Neogaia777 · Apr 27, 2026

Multiple universes would allow for other possibilities probably, and whether or not those cross/interact, but we have absolutely no proof of other universes right now currently, or a multiverse right now currently, or if there are other you's in it, or just one you in all of them yet, etc, but it's the only thing that would allow for other possibilities I think probably, etc.

childeye 2 · Apr 27, 2026

Jerry N. said:
I would say that “free will” is the ability to make choices between presented alternatives that are not fully predetermined by the physical world.

Your definition pragmatically treats free will as the power to dictate local future events, but it doesn’t distinguish between presented options and actual decisions. That makes the claim that alternatives are both “presented” and “not pre‑determined” difficult to comprehend.

childeye 2 · Apr 27, 2026

Bradskii said:
I think that's up for the Non Sequitur Of The Week award.

Hmmm. Consider it an observation that this thread is approaching 4500 posts.

Bradskii · Apr 27, 2026

Jerry N. said:
Your belief in all things being determinant does not mean it is objectively true. Just like my belief that all things are not determinant does not mean it is objectively true. You have no way of proving that all things are determinant objectively...

Correct. Which why I used the phrase 'If determinism is true...' And not 'Because determinism is true...' It's inductive reasoning. And therefore can't be proved. The sun has just risen in the east. It is inductive reasoning to say that it will rise again in the same place tomorrow. It can't be proved that it will. But it can be shown that it hasn't.

I'm losing count of the number of times I have to repeat myself. I've said this and explained this directly to you a number of times. Why are you still repeating yourself and forcing me to repeat myself?

Jerry N. said:
...nor can I prove the opposite.

Yes, you can. And yet again I am repeating this (it was explained last literally in the post prior to the one I'm responding to, for heaven's sake). All you have to do is show me that the sun hasn't risen in the east on any given morning. Or, in this case show me an event that had no cause. That will mean that determinism doesn't hold in every case. My position then fails.

Jerry N. said:
However, I’m glad we agree that some things can be random. #4404.

I'm using random in the colloquial everyday sense. Perhaps if I said arbitrary then it might be clearer to you what was meant. I sincerely doubt that there are any random events. But if you make a choice for no reason, then it is, in the everyday sense, a random choice. As in 'I chose this beer at random'. That is, nothing caused you to pick this one as opposed to the other. As I said, think of it as an arbitrary choice if you prefer. The meaning is the same.

Jerry N. said:
I also recall that you believe in random selection in evolution, but my memory might be wrong.

Evolution as a theory is not random. It might be considered that aspects of it such as mutation of the dna could be classed as such, and almost always is. But see above regarding that term.

And yet again, I have no idea why you keep invoking randomness. It dismantles the idea of any free will choice.

Jerry N. said:
Anyway, your theory is a belief system rather than an objective fact.

It's a proposal based on inductive reasoning. To logically reject it you would have to show that the inductive reasoning is wrong. See above.

Bradskii · Apr 27, 2026

childeye 2 said:
That makes the claim that alternatives are both “presented” and “not pre‑determined” difficult to comprehend.

Exactly right. If some facts are presented then, by definition, they will form part of the reason why a particular decision was made.

Bradskii · Apr 27, 2026

childeye 2 said:
Hmmm. Consider it an observation that this thread is approaching 4500 posts.

Yes. It lies fallow for a while and then someone makes a comment and we're off to the races again. Only one more to go...

As regards positive responses, I'd say that maybe 2% have been such and 98% have been along the lines of 'If you think that then you're an idiot'.

childeye 2 · Apr 27, 2026

Grip Docility said:
(Doubt is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one: Voltaire)
(One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision: Bertrand Russell)
- quotes people that make fun of certainty
(Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution: Theodosius Dobzhansky)
- exalts person that has certainty

MaKe It MaKe SeNse! PLEASE!

Any reasoning that is based on something false, ends in a contradiction. A person has to believe something untrue before choosing something morally wrong. That’s a structural point, not a personal claim of moral authority.

In pragmatics, there’s a well‑known constraint: we can’t reason symmetrically inside a dichotomy that is defined by its asymmetry. Truth and falsehood form that kind of asymmetry; truth is a presence, and a lie is a deviation of it. If we try to treat them as interchangeable, we collapse the objective meaning of the distinction.

YEAAAAH, post# 4500!

Free will and determinism

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member

Similar threads