That if matter was created.

Interesting, and I think I get what your saying. Does this response make sense?

Why are you engaging in a worthless (on earth) behavior (by that I mean talking about these "internal realities?") and what not unless you think it serves a higher purpose that you don't know about on earth. Especially considering that because of natural law (especially a finite amount of time alive) your, IMO, pointless action is taking away from your real life.

That was pretty incoherent...or maybe I haven't had my coffee yet. Try again though. Do you know the difference between the 3 "free will" positions? Between "hard" determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism?

1 and 3 hold the "incompatibility" thesis where if determinism is true, then there's no responsibility. 2 is "compatibilist" since it thinks that if determinism is true, then there is still responsibility (at least in some form).

Yeah, I agree... sort of. In that I don't think randomness implies any kind of free will. But you keep saying that it's a 'terrible way', which implies that you think there is at least a cogent argument to be made in favour of that notion - even if it's wrong. I'm just wondering what that argument is, since I don't see what it possibly could be.

Maybe I should rephrase - does there exist a school of philosophical thought which considers the existence of true randomness sufficient for the existence of free will? And if so, what is it?

I do not know about those things. I'm asking why, in "external reality" any of it matters (other than if your trying to figure out your best self-intrested decision in "external reality"). And if it doesn't, and only matters is in "internal reality," what's the purpose of this "internal reality?"

I honestly thought you were talking about the libertarian political party. LOL

To which All In Flynn will respond:

"I still have no idea what you mean when you say that randomness gives us free will. What is the connection between free will and randomness. I don't care if it's a good connection or not, or if it relates to some libertarian philosophy or whatever. I'm simply curious as to what the connection is between randomness and free will."

For example, if I flip a coin, it can land heads or tails, and there's randomness to that. Does the coin have free will? If not, what else is required.


(Edit: he actually responded before I could fake respond)

My opinion is that the people who are hopeful of quantum indeterminacy as being sufficient to plausibly seat libertarian free will in a physicalistic system are barking up the wrong tree...it doesn't get them what they want. I think that they haven't really thought it through...

I have already explained that randomness =/= free will. Isn't that clear? Just because the coin is random doesn't mean it's free...if our behaviours and decisions are only unpredictable because of quantum indeterminacy = random, then I don't think that that's sufficient for libertarian free will. I've been very clear about that.

That's basically the incompatibility thesis...if there's no libertarian free will, then nothing "matters."

Any way you can explain this to me logically?

I mean that the only thing that "matters" is YOUR life on earth.

You are really going to stick to the position that we are a fixed set of the same particles?

Really, it is this simple: Your claim is that "you" are "you" if you're the same particles.

But you're not. You're not the same particles today that you were an hour ago, let alone the same as when you were 5 years old.

And even if you recreated "me" atom by atom to be exactly the same as I am this very instant, the very atoms you would use to do so are different atoms than I am made of. No two atoms are the same atom. They may have similar properties, but they are distinct particles.

Thus your claim is inherently contradicted. And discussion of matter being created or destroyed is irrelevant.

Now if you want to continue this fantasy and say "birth/death" of the universe implies recreating everything with exactly the same particles and exactly the same way, then have at it. I don't see the point of discussing such a fantasy any further because it has already been pointed out that an eternal cycle of universe creation/destruction does not imply that things are replicated exactly the same infinite times, and thus your entire point has been riddled with additional implicit assumptions that have been painfully pointed out, and now we're left with the full argument which has no physical or philosophical significance worth pondering. Imo.

If there's nothing that "you" can do to influence what actions you take, what thoughts you have, who you kill (or don't) and who you "love"...then does it really "matter"?

This "matter"ing presupposes free will.

And you think that you have the capability to figure out the answer to this question?

OK. Just understand that I agree - I don't think randomness implies free will.

What I'm asking is: What are the 'people who are hopeful of quantum indeterminacy as being sufficient to plausibly seat libertarian free will in a physicalistic system' hopeful of?

As in, let's pretend that there's an imaginary person in this thread who holds that position - who does think QI can seat libertarian FW in a PS. This person can only talk through you. What does this person say?

Show me where I said that.

I think they're bat**** crazy, don't ask me to speak for them I don't know what they're thinking...they need unpredictability to have free will, and they are also physicalists...so they see QI as a way of getting the job done...but it doesn't because it throws the baby out w/ the bath water. You divorce action from reasons by doing that.

So, these people, then. They exist?

I didn't mean that in a stand-offish way. I meant it literally. Sorry for the miscommunication.

I claim that "you" are "you" in any form of identity if all other circumstances are exactly the same, I don't understand how I can accept that something extremely different than the actual "me" in a different circumstances is "me", like the 5 years old kid, and not the one who is exactly the same in exactly the same circumstances.

I tried not to use atoms the most I could because they are huge, we don't even know how matter really is at its fundamental level, and atoms are very far from the fundamental particles (If there are “particles”)... Of course, if you shuffle the earth and mars you will probably see something being “destroyed”, but at fundamental level the only thing we have about something that can be considered destruction is anti-mater, not the rearrangement of particles that form a atom… (It’s obvious that one atom is different than the other, no new information here).
If the cards don't wear out one day you will get 8h4h if you keep shuffling, that goes without any more saying.

If the universe is entirely “slowed down” let’s say 50%, we won’t perceive any difference since the references would also “slowed down”, so we can accurately say that we still at the same speed, right? So time is a mind construction based on references, isn’t?

We wouldn’t even perceive if the universe stopped or gone rewind.

What the **** is the point of this exercise?

I didn't read the other pages just op main post, and that was basically Buddhism believes,shakyamuni Buddha says that we all lived several lifes and we always rebirth, and we rebirth in different kingdoms according each one karma, if the karma is a bad karma u rebirth in bad places, if the karma is good u have a life with less suffering, and we all are in invisible jail called Samsara, the only way to get out of Samsara is achieving Nirvana.So based on Buddhism i can give op some answers,there's a meaning in rebirth, find a path that leads u to Nirvana, each life that u live must bring progress to your learn process, karma is not fate, but same time have a great influence on your life.

I believe more in reincarnation than living forever

What would be doing the repeating to make it such that what I most fundamentally would consider "myself" (namely, my subjective experience of mental states corresponding to this physical body) would "live forever"?

If the physical universe is infinite in the time dimension, yet my subjective self is clearly limited in its experience of the physical, do we not also need to assume a second time dimension? Or can we make sense of this with just relativistic physics?
Do we assume this demon also has full knowledge of the system in which the free will agent was constructed and in which it operates, or are we assuming a demon limited to only one level of existence (for lack of a better term, the "physical")?

Or is the agent that produces free will in our shared physical system not itself in any way determined or constructed in its own system?

Personally, I can't comprehend such an entity, so any insight you could shed on your reasoning here would be much appreciated. This has always been my primary issue with libertarianism: if it exists within a logical metaverse, it should boil down to determinism at its highest (least-removed from agency) level.