No Free Will? Is this a viable philosophy?

[Divine Insight]

Most people dismiss solipsism as simply being unworthy of consideration. Solipsism holds that only one person is having an experience and everything else (including all other people) are just an illusion in the mind of the one single person who is imagining life to exist.

Solipsism can't be disproved. We have no way to determine whether other people are actually having an experience. Yet, dispute the fact that it can't be disproved most people dismiss it as simply being a highly unlikely hypothesis. It just seems more rational to believe that all humans and even animals are actually having an experience just like us.

And this is a very rational position to take.

~~~~~

So now, what about the question of "Free Will"?

Is it rational to dismiss the concept and demand that there can be no such thing as "Free Will"?

Well, we can ask what that would mean.

If there is no such thing as "Free Will", then J.R.R. Tolkien had no choice but to write "The Lord of the Rings" precisely as he wrote it. He could not be credited with having any creativity because ultimately he didn't even come up with it. He was just doing what he deterministic had no choice but to do. Frodo Baggins and Gollum were determined to be characters in this fantasy billions of years ago. Potentially it was carved in stone at the Big Bang according to hardcore determinism.

Not only that, but the same it true of everything, including the Christian Bible. Every jot and tittle of the Bible would have needed to have been determined by the universe long before humans (who have no free will of their own) would be determined to write it out precisely as we see it today, including all of disagreeing versions.

Same is true of Greek mythology too, of course, and everything else that any human has ever done. Every song, comedy act, you name it. Everything would have needed to be predetermined from the dawn of time.

Question for debate, "Does this make any more sense than solipsism?"

Is it even remotely reasonable to hypothesize that humans have no free will, meaning that everything they do has already been determined ahead of time?

[Miles]

[Replying to post 57 by Miles]

But we aren't talking about a lot of photons, just one. Just as the Wikipedia article on Wave-Particle Duality does when it says.

"Wave–particle duality is the fact that every elementary particle [singular]or quantic entity *[singular (this would include a single photon)] exhibits the properties of not only particles, but also waves."

*"A photon is a single quantum of (visible) light as well as all other forms of electromagnetic radiation and can be referred to as a "light quantum".

The last entry is a definition of a photon, it does not say that the double slit experiment proves that ONE photon produces a wave interference pattern.

Yup. Put it there for clarification. Thought it might help you understand that a photon qualifies as a quantic entity. But if my misplaced * threw off your reading comprehension, I'm truly sorry for including it.

The first quote is not what is to be found on the page you provide. Here is the actual quote that isn't altered to suit your claim:

"Wave–particle duality is the fact that every elementary particle or quantic entity exhibits the properties of not only particles, but also waves. It addresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. "

Other then your extension of the quote, it's the same. You do understand don't you that bracketed words in a quote indicate additions made by the one providing the quote?

Here is a link to the page you are referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%8 ... le_duality

I won't be debating this any longer. If we use a source, it would be best to not change the words and add some that aren't there.
I have little patience for such shenanigans.

I guess you don't. Sorry that your ignorance of proper formatting has led you astray

FYI
From the Purdue Online Writing Lab.

"Adding or omitting words in quotations

If you add a word or words in a quotation, you should put brackets around the words to indicate that they are not part of the original text.

Jan Harold Brunvand, in an essay on urban legends, states, "some individuals [who retell urban legends] make a point of learning every rumor or tale"
source

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 60 by instantc]

Well, consider this example. If you see a tree, you can be certain of the fact that you had an experience of seeing a tree, while you cannot be certain that the tree actually exists.

Well, how about if you ran up to the tree head first and then bashed your head into it, would that help you decide if the tree really existed or not?

It all depends on what you mean by "exist". Most people think that trees exist, in general. We aren't perfect, of course, so there's always a bit of room for improvement. Especially, after a short nap under a possibly non-existent tree.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 60 by instantc]

Well, consider this example. If you see a tree, you can be certain of the fact that you had an experience of seeing a tree, while you cannot be certain that the tree actually exists.

Well, how about if you ran up to the tree head first and then bashed your head into it, would that help you decide if the tree really existed or not?

It all depends on what you mean by "exist". Most people think that trees exist, in general. We aren't perfect, of course, so there's always a bit of room for improvement. Especially, after a short nap under a possibly non-existent tree.

I didn't say that trees don't exist. I said that the knowledge of an experience is more imminent and certain than any other knowledge. Hence, nothing's more real than an experience.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 63 by instantc]

Well, consider this example. If you see a tree, you can be certain of the fact that you had an experience of seeing a tree, while you cannot be certain that the tree actually exists.

Well, how about if you ran up to the tree head first and then bashed your head into it, would that help you decide if the tree really existed or not?

It all depends on what you mean by "exist". Most people think that trees exist, in general. We aren't perfect, of course, so there's always a bit of room for improvement. Especially, after a short nap under a possibly non-existent tree.

I didn't say that trees don't exist. I said that the knowledge of an experience is more imminent and certain than any other knowledge. Hence, nothing's more real than an experience.

I am very happy to know that you believe in trees. Instead of bashing your brains out on one of them, perhaps you might consider giving one a great big hug. I hear it's therapeutic.

However, putting our love for trees aside for a second, you seem to go from KNOWLEDGE of an experience to the experience itself in two breezy sentences. So, right now, you have me confused as to whether you are talking about what we can know or what we can experience. I am also wondering why you might think that an experience of a tree is more real than the tree you may be experiencing.

Now, I am sad, because I do not understand.

[instantc]

I am also wondering why you might think that an experience of a tree is more real than the tree you may be experiencing.

That's not what I said, read carefully.

When you experience seeing a tree, the most imminent knowledge you gain is that you have experienced seeing a tree. The conclusion that the tree actually exists only comes indirectly through further inference (granted that we do take that inference for granted without giving it a second thought in our daily lives).

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 65 by instantc]

I am also wondering why you might think that an experience of a tree is more real than the tree you may be experiencing.

That's not what I said, read carefully.

I can assure you that I try to read everything as carefully as I can, in my most limited way.

When you experience seeing a tree, the most imminent knowledge you gain is that you have experienced seeing a tree.

Let me try to figure out what that means to me... in words that might not be so technically profound:

Do you mean to say that we know what we know about a tree because we can know what we know about it? Or, in other words, do you mean to say that what we CAN KNOW about a tree is what we can..er.. know about it?

I think I got myself confused. Maybe you can clarify what you mean.

The conclusion that the tree actually exists only comes indirectly through further inference (granted that we do take that inference for granted without giving it a second thought in our daily lives).

Oh again the big words. I didn't take philosophy in school, so in order for that to make any sense to me, I have to translate it into common words. I am going to take a stab at it, even though I really not sure what you mean:

We conclude that a tree exists because we think that it exists because we know that it exists, because we might have bashed our heads against it, or are sitting in it's shade thinking about if it really exits or not.

Is that what you mean?

[sevensealscom]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

Do we have freewill?
You decide (pun not intended) after reading what I write here.
I believe that God(s) is human based on the statement in the Book of Genesis that Elohiym (Gods) created Adam and Eve in their likeness and image.

Since the universe, our world, and everything in them were created in six of our days, Elohiym must be dreaming our world into existence, which would explain the many impossible miracles written in the Bible that aren't possible in a real world

The dreamer(s) of our world have allowed all things to play out from the beginning of our world to its end. Then all things have been replayed in the mind of God(s) from the beginning to the end, except this time God (being Elohiym that made Adam and Eve in their image and likeness) told patriachs and prophets future events. These future events had to be conveyed in writing, so that a Bible could exist in the last days to warn people living the end times of how to be saved from the events that end the world. A Bible is required because the dreamer's own mind no longer allows the dreamer to interact in the dream as in times past, because the dreamer's mind only accepts a logically based world, but in times past the dreamer's mind accepted miracles. Also there is so much for the dreamer to recreate in the latter days, ie technology, more buildings, craft, people, animals than in earlier times of the dreamed world. Hence a Bible is the logical way to communicate with people living in the latter days. Unfortunately for many Bible believers, only one person has the wisdom to understand the written Biblical prophecies that will save people from the events that are about to destroy the world, just as they had done previously.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

Elohiym must be dreaming our world into existence

How did you arrive at this belief?

[sevensealscom]

[Replying to post 68 by Blastcat]

Well, I looked at evidence written in the Bible and the reality of our world.

The Bible states that there is nothing new under the sun, all that is (exists) has already been (happened) Eccl:1:9,10; 3:15. So it is saying that our world is being replayed. Hence the reason that during the replay the prophets can be told of future events that have already happened.

Jesus told Peter in the same night Peter would deny him three times.

The sun was commanded to go backwards and the many other seemingly impossible miracles written in the Bible;

During the replay of our world, God purposely created the universe in six days

God said that we (humans) are also Gods, but children of the most high (God), Psalms 82:6. Well, the only way humans can be Gods and create a universe with worlds, people, animals, etc is in their dreams. I usually create a whole universe and world within a couple of hours after I sleep.

I was also contemplating Why would God need a book/Bible? The logical answer I came to after looking at all the biblical evidence is that God's subconscious mind, where the world is being created in a dream, no longer allows God's conscious mind to interact in the dream as in times of old. The likely reason is that the subconscious mind of God in the latter time of the dream only accepts logical things to exist in the dream, whereas in the past it accepted miracles and manifestations to happen in the dreamed world until the subconscious mind wised up through the progressive new understandings of humans in regards to how things work in the universe, world, technology. Ok, so the only way for the dreamer to communicate with the latter day messenger is via a book called the Bible. This book has the written prophecies that will save the end time belivers from the events of a meteor's impact (star from heaven) that awakened an immense super volcano (bottomless pit) that eventually ended this world.

The evidence of deja vu, ghosts, clairvoyants also gives credence to the idea that events in our world are being replayed. However, if you believe the written prophecies that can only be revealed by one latter day messenger, then you will be saved in this replay when in the previous timeline, every person perished when the meteor's impact opened the super volcano. Check out my video on end time events

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 69 by sevensealscom]

Well, I looked at evidence written in the Bible and the reality of our world.

The Bible states that there is nothing new under the sun, all that is (exists) has already been (happened) Eccl:1:9,10; 3:15.

Pardon me for asking but, so what? Why do you care what the Bible says?

I was also contemplating Why would God need a book/Bible? The logical answer I came to after looking at all the biblical evidence is that God's subconscious mind, where the world is being created in a dream, no longer allows God's conscious mind to interact in the dream as in times of old.

Pardon me for asking, but how did you decide that you know God's subconscious mind by reading what the Bible says ?

However, if you believe the written prophecies that can only be revealed by one latter day messenger, then you will be saved in this replay when in the previous timeline, every person perished when the meteor's impact opened the super volcano.

Pardon me for asking, but why would I believe what the Bible says is true?