well i think it is like a strategy game, if you make the right choice/pick the right path you succeed, if you make the wrong choice or path you lose and got to face with the consequences of wrong thinking.
so before you make your choice, look at the consequences!
I pretty much agree, though
If I assume the world is like game of life: The initial conditions are the only thing needed to determine the outcome, then there is no āfree willā.
If I assume the world is somehow strange and due to quantum mechanics relies on randomness (Vertiasium argued that way), then I still donāt know where the free will is coming from?!?
So I conclude, since I canāt change the way the world works by thinking, I have no free willā¦ Or: I need a better definition of āfree willā. (or āchoiceā)
A really great game will either provide a rich mine of metaphors and ideas that one can apply to oneās life, or it will be a much appreciated escape from the same.
Thereās no way of knowing how a strategy gameās paths are mapped. There can be many different roads to success. The game can be tight or easy. There can be possibilities of redemption built in, or sudden death. A lot more depends on the game than the choices made.
Actually, the next time you are speaking to someone derail their train of thought by changing the subject. That way you change which electrons are firing in their brain, thereby directly affecting the future.
ā¦now that I think about it, maybe thatās the perfect argument against free will :o
You have a choice about whether or not you want to affect others, while a stream of water does not really have a choice over eroding a mountain.
Not only that but your choices have consequences and since different choices can have different consequences you do have some sort of control over the universe. Since choosing is up to you, you do have free will.
Explain to me how you have thisā¦ āchoiceā. Do you control the electrons and protons in your brain? Iād like to know how you pull that off! Modern science would be all over you and your super-human powers.
I am reminded of why I donāt take part in serious philosophical discussions.
If no one has been able to prove something or theorize a way to prove it for the millenia people have been asking about it, it is unlikely (as in statistically impossible) that anyone that Iām talking to will.