1. A matrix is just a means of describing things. Anything can be described in a matrix. Even numbers are just 1x1 matrices.

Even if we aren't living in a computer simulation type matrix ala The Matrix, reality is easily described using a 3d matrix of spatial coordinates with material values attached to said coordinate systems. One implementation of that is how 3d games work: surfaces defined in a 3d matrix.

2. If everything flows from precedent to antecedent, free will is an illusion, from the viewpoint of determinism.

And I don't think it would matter if people came to that realization. People will do what they will do because that's the point of consciousness.

On the other hand, if you have a reality without causation, you could have free will, but then reality would not be cogently formed. And everything would essentially be undefined and the concept of free will would just be an abstraction or question, rather than a fact. Well I guess it is either way.

Cause at least it could be thought that as a conscious entity in a determined universe, your actions are meaningful to you, even though they are confined by physical laws, nature, environment, genes, etc. So in a sense we can at least consider relative degrees of free will.

3. In a reality without causation, choice is at least as much of an illusion as in hard determinism.

4. I do not want to be right on the subject. I can careless about that. I just want to hear one logical point against hard determinism. So far not one point against it has made sense.

5. Hard determinism is too protean to be disproven. But you can consider the consequences in a Pascalian wager.

If true, then there was and is nothing you can do about it. Believing in it or not, not only has no effect on anything, it's completely beyond your control whether you do or not.

If hard determinism isn't true then not believing in it is beneficial, but believing in it will kill your ability to have agency. You will throw yourself away.

Choose to dismiss it, and its truth value becomes irrelevant.

The only way it can do you harm is if you believe in it.

6. Reason is to ideas what causes are to the material world...so a reasonable case for free will would be self defeating, probably.

I think the only way that free will might be real, is if there's some sort of 'pull' from the future, as opposed to a 'push' from antecedent events...and the instant of choosing would happen on the crest of the wave of the present, a sort of aligning of the self, which influences the direction that you're propelled in by the impending billiard ball.

7. Originally Posted by mark esparza
I do not want to be right on the subject. I can careless about that. I just want to hear one logical point against hard determinism. So far not one point against it has made sense.
To reiterate the point @Hephaestus is making, let me quote myself from one of the other threads...

Originally Posted by Sistamatic
If you have no free will you have no choice in whether or not to believe you have free will, but if you do have free will, you have nothing to lose by acting as if you do and nothing (that I can think of) to gain by acting as if you do not. Therefore, if you are not sure whether you have free will or not, the most logical course of action is to act as if you do, assuming you are free to do so.

8. you are incapable of believing anything else no matter how much you try.

9. the same goes for me. the only way my belief would change is if I were to understand something different.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•