u/Par-Adox-9

to assemble one thing is to disassemble another.

the same substrate, the same perpetually moving substance which causes, is the very same substance which becomes the body of the effect.

causality is much stranger then we give it credit, and there is much more to discover then we tend to cover in the determinism vs free will debate.

reality appears to us both completely coherent, clear, potent, and undeniable, yet at the same time, completely foreign, unknowable.

i can clearly feel and see, but what is that feeling, why does it arrises, what is it made of?
questions we don't have answers to, and the closest science has gotten is to say " they are hormones, which are chemicals, which are particles, which are forces, which are...which are?"

and this, is perhaps the biggest indicator we have about at the very minimum, the core condition of reality which encompasses our own perception— that is, that at minimum, reality only acts in accordance to the degree to which it is able to perceive/detect itself.
that a lie can exist, speaks to the fact that even physics itself cant follow its-own rules in so far as it isn't aware of them.

and here is what i mean by " reality cant play by the rules of absolute cirtainty"— its to say that, in order for the entirety of existance to play out as a machiene, it would need to have concrete, fixed, precisely mesured elements, which then interact with eachother under exact rules— but we as humans have never been able to perfectly recreate the same conditions twice— we are allways off by some margin, and however insignificant that margin might appear to us, relative to itself, that margine is huge— i.e. compared to the milky way, i am but a speck, but compared to a quark, i might as well be the milky way in terms of relative size.
which means that, what are small elements to us, are massive elements within the scope of the relationships those small elements are in, with elements proportionally as small compared to them, as we are to those elements.
so a quarks effect is seemingly insignificant to us, but to a thing much smaller then it, those same effects are massive.

what does this mean?
someone might say " well, its only we that arent good enough to understand nature, that is the problem in perception"
but my claim, is precisely that, the very fact that we arent good enough to understand it— the very fact that we can have " incomplete comprehension" speaks to the very incompleteness of the universe we enhabit.

there is nothing to suggest to us, besides gross oversimplification, that the universe can or does account for itsown parts in a machiene like way— infact, what we conceptualise as " machiene like behaviour" is in itself an oversimplified version of what machienes actually act like.
even the closest thing we have to this perfect clockwork universe model— even it, fails in its very inability to have perfect precision.

And perhapse, this is because, there is no such thing as perfect precision— that maybe the universe is still figuring out the rules as it goes along– in the same way that any other object evolves— it is likely that the very core that all other evolution is based on— the core of the universes inner mechanism, is itself operating on a " trial and error" basis.

which means that, no initial condition can perfectly encapsulate later results, because even the initial condition itself cant account for itsown innerworking, and so, it would play out an aproximation of itself, which as it turns through time, those small errors in self detection, increase more and more, untill one day, the results are completely incomprehensible relative to what might have started off as a simple predictable process.

we mustn't forget, that every experiment we do, is framed within every surrounding cause and effect.
our isolation of variables, doesn't isolate variables, it just relates them to other variables in a more ordered way, such that there is less approximation and more precision.

but interestingly— the fact that the aproximation is still coherent, speaks to the fact that, perfection and aproximation are like two value knobs, according to which causality seems to operate.

why am i saying all of this?

im saying it in order to hopefully, open up a conceptual space within which we may continue exploring, rather then prematurely concluding.

yes, lets keep what we prefer, but lets not simply cast out what we dont, just because it doesnt make sense to us. ( and i say this to myself, as much as i say it to a libertarian, a determinist, and even a compatabilist, which i myself tend to see myself as)

to will is to cause, to want, is to cause wanting.
we cant separate causing from any action whatsoever, so perpetual causation is the root of all that can be observed. — causing, at minimum, in the sense of occurring, whether that causing has an underlying anchor it bases itself on, or whether, it is both the anchor, as well as the chain, the boat, the ocean, and the oceans surface.
— to me, it appears that causation is completely self anchoring.

that it follows the logic " i will because i will"
at the same time, with a logic which forever adds new justification " i will because i dont stop, and i dont stop because if i did, then i would not will, and if i dont will, then i couldnt will, so in order to will, i have to continue to do so"

a kind of unity if duality, a perpetual loop, but a loop which extends to fit more and more into itself.

we exist in a strange and wonderful place— so lets do our best to explore it, and create stuff and experience it as well as possible!

have great day everyone!

ill express my own view, and would love to read what you think about this.( and it relates to the sub, by talking about, what is it that we ground our ideas on)

first i want to prove that all logic systems are circular and regressive.

A = A

if A = B = C
then A = C
therefore C = B = A

any system which evaluates the world evaluates it on the basis of its-own presupposed axioms— before the system existed, there were no axioms it could use to prove itself by apart from another system, which itself was built in the same way.
hence, initial axioms are not proven, they are presupposed without evidence, and proven only after the fact, by using those same axioms on themselves and on the rest of the world— the axioms are entirely self contained and anything which is outside of them is by definition, outside of their criteria of evidence.

(if you want to skip the rest, there are 3 examples of this at the bottom, marked " EXAMPLES")

given that at best, all that we know, is known through feeling, which filters thought which itself is qualia, as is sight and hearing and so on— given that certainty is always built upon a mountain of
half-answered questions, wither looping or infinitely regressing— and given that, to be a thing, is not the same as to represent a thing— what is the advantage to overcommitting one's own thinking strictly to one singular philosophical position?

given all thease limits, how is it not a transcendental claim, to assert a perfect clockwork universe?

given the same limits, how is it not a transendental claim to say that the universe is definately probabilistic and approximate?

is all we see and know, all that there is?
and can we discover anything more without a leap of faith whareby we say " hey, idk if this is the case, and the evidence is lacking, but lets try anyway because I'm interested in seeing what happens.
— after all, this was the exact same way in which we were able to learn to speak at all.
a baby didn't have logic to justify its-own positions, all it has is esthetic preference, on itsown qualia, pleasure, pain, apathy, and calm— and on those pillars of feeling, we made a leap of faith as we got conditioned.

and then to go from there, and to lock ourselves out of our ability to make leaps of exploration, which are leaps of faith, (i mean, they cant be justified before the fact, right? )— i think there is a great danger in locking ourselves out of posibilities like this, because its simply a closure of sight.

if i can see a perspective from within, i can evaluate when i would like to use it, if ever— but if i close it as utterly impossible, then no matter if its true, if its useful, if its even necessary as something that would improve my life— i just wouldn't be able to go there, because i would have a priori decided that it is impossible— its not the thing which is impossible, its me who has deemed it impossible by virtue of my-own current understanding.
understanding is after all something we produce, not something which is out there in the world for us to passively consume.

and lets think then to what end did we close off possibility?
what is the benefit?
simply, its to give us a feeling of cirtainty— thats it, because reducing the possibility of something down to 0, is like ripping my eyes out because i think that the rest of the senses are enough.

and obviously none of this is to say that we should therefore reduce cirtainly to 0, or that we shouldnt have ourown preferences, or that we cant disagree.
Infact, its the very thing which allows us to have a genuine disagreement by pining philosophies against oneanother— by the ability of the person to be able to pin theirwon prefered philosophy, against the one they dont prefer but understand in and out, and to be able to see how the one they dont prefer, has an upper hand if they are both evaluated on the basis of the presumptions of the one we dont prefer, as well as according to the one which we do.

inversely, judging the one we dislike by the standards of what we like, is the full extent of our analysis when we operate in the absolutist regime of analysis— its like judging whether hard rock is done right by the standards of techno— obviously it wont hold up, and neither will techno hold up by the standards of hard rock.

is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?
if i ate an apple but no one knows it, did i not eat the apple?

what is the advantage to certainty when relative agnosticism is a perfectly feasible, and in-fact, id argue, is a more practical position for our ability to explore, be curious, create, and ultimately to discover new evidence.

its one thing to have a preference, but quite another to feel absolutely certain in its validity.

philosophy, dear philosophy enthusiasts, isnt a team sport — its meant to allow us to think, to allow us to understand, to allow us to take not only ourown presuposed axioms and see the world through it, but to take the axioms of the very thing we opose, and to evaluate the world and even ourown prefered axioms, according to itsown merits, in and of themselves.

determinism wasn't made to be scrutinized by libertarianism— it presupposes a different set of assumptions.
the same can be said of libertarianism, which itself wasnt made by the axioms of determinism— so why would we expect that they would conform to each-others standards of evidence?

start from either one, and you will reach yourown cirtainty— it makes no actual difference— each is the better one to itself, so how then do we evaluate which one is actually better?
is there such a thing as actually better, or is that dependent on the particular relationship it is applied within?
and i would claim that this is precisely what is the case— that, a philosophy, is always correct on itsown terms, always incorrect on the terms of its oposition, and so the mesure of which is better is seen practically in the world— which one actually produces better results for the life of the user.

philosophy is a tool, the truth is lived , and only indirectly perceived.

and so the point of philosophy, isnt to one day go " oh yeah, free will is correct and determinism is definately wrong"
its to have both of thease in a perpetual dialogue in which they refine eachother, by challenging eachother with, hopefully harder and harder questions.

we so often use philosophies as bumper stickers we apply to ourselves, in order to define what we are, but whatever we are, and whatever the world is, we are so much more then can be encapsulated with any outside representation we stick onto it.

the molds of philosophy aren't who we are— they are molds which restructure our awareness towards particular goals, actions, preferences, choices and qualia states of being.

would we want to live a world in which everyone only embraces one philosophy?
in which only determinists

this is why im a relativist
compatabilis, because it isn't just about blending both perspectives, its also about showing the necessity of both perspectives.
Since both are able to be coexistent, then they have their own local independence as phenomenon.

and frankly, in my view, it can very well also accommodate for hard determinism as well, albeit in as an occasional temporary structure, and can even accommodate for the possibility of what i call incoherentism– which is the idea that nothing is actually knowable but it only appears to be.

im a relativist compatabilist not because i think its the absolute truth, but because it gives me the means to genuinely explore the subject without
overattaching myself to only one position, thereby allowing me to temporerally comit to any position, which allows me to explore it as it was intended on its own terms.

but how can we have consistent beliefs this way?
we can, because at each situation im guided by the new evidence, but also by the posibility that the evidence is incomplete.

hell, i say, if you feel like it, try it out— and its not hard to actually do once you realise that every philosophy, every belief presuposes itsown axioms, and itsown conclusion, so to enter any belief, all thats needed is a leap of faith, and confidence that no matter what, you will try to use the best of whatever you'll learn.

EXAMPLES:

" ill eat the smaller fish so i become a big fish so that there are less biger fish to eat me— but by eathing the small fish, im doing the same thing to them, that im afraid will happen to me, thereby motivating the small fish i want to eat, to also want to become bigger, which would then increase my chance to be eaten too"

the fear of being eaten, is the same structure which produces the fear of being eaten.

the logic of determinism — everything is predetermined, therefore everything that appears indeterminate must have been accounted for by the prior causes, because if it weren't accounted for, it wouldn't be determined, therefore it cant be undetermined.

the same structure that makes things determined, makes them unable to be undetermined or freely willed.

there is no way to loop out, it closes in on itself.

there exists free will, this everything in the world is freely willed " but what about things that i didn't will " well if you didn't will them, how could they happen when everything is freely willed? so you must have willed them" and also, being able to will freely, means that you can freely willed your ability to be unable to freely will— which means that if you believed that there are things you couldn't will, then by your-own free will, thats what would have happened"

so by having free will, you have free wont, and the free wont makes you able to experience things without having freely caused them, by revoking your-own causal power and giving it to something else.
like signing a contract which says that all contracts from here on out will be signed by other people and not yourself.

circularity is not a bug of logic, its a feature of every logic.

which begs the question— is any one logic sufficient to understand and represent the world?
to which i would answer— is only algebra enough to represent the world?
or do we sometimes need also fractions, and calculus, and geometry and set theory.

is one house plus one house, the same as one bike plus one apple? or is it different?

well, its both— there isn't only one perspective we can see things with, as i hope ive proven throughout this post.

and if you want a practical methodology of how to utilize this perspective more fully, feel free to DM me( its simpler then this post might make it appear)

have a lovely day everyone

The past only had causal power when it was the past, i.e. when it existed as matter.

Causal power transfers from the present moment to the next present moment, it doesnt stay back, because causal power is in the very essence of matter.

To will is to cause in the present according to ones own inner nature.

An indirect causal relationship, is not the same thing as causation itself.

The past doesnt cause anything now, it is what the present has become.
It only caused when it was the present itself.

The outside of you and the inside of you cause eachother– its not only one or the other— it cant be– if whats outside of us causes us, then whats inside of us causes it.
Its a colaborative process of simultanious action and reaction.

There are no absolutely innert unmoving objects which are to be moved from the outside.
To be innert, isnt to be unmoving, its to be looping in a self contained locality.
A thing is innert only in relation to its abuility to move linearly(straigh), relative to another objects inability to move linearly, but abuility to move circularly.
Its not about " one thing not moving and the other moving it" its about direction of movement.
Everything moves at the same speed— the speed of the present moment— light is only talked about as the fastest in relation to its direction relative to the direction of other objects.

A humans bodys matter reverberates in roughly the same area, its not racing too move perpetually straight.

Any interaction, requires all parties in that interaction, to act themselves.

Thisnis the compatibilist argument.

All things that exist, that we know of, exist in the present moment.

The effect, is the very same matter which the cause was, when it used to have causal power.
Now, this effect is itself a cause and as such contains causal power.

The past doesnt create the present— the present creates the next present moment.

Things never arrive at " the future" — the future is the thing which is perpetually one step ahead, and the past, the thing that is perpetually one step behind.
Matter doesnt become the past, and it doesnt become the future— it allways stays the present moment.

Things are only " the future" when they are uncaused, and are only " the past" once they had cauaed and lost causal power.
Reality only appears to us in the present moment.

This is what phisics tells us about causality.

Have a good day

And why or why not?

Oh also, if you had absolute god like free will, what would you do?

Lastly— if you were wrongfully imprisoned in solitary confindment, for 50 years minimum, with no external stimuli other then the blank red brick walls, and a window too tall to see from, and a meal of your chosing per day—how would you spend your time, and what do you think would you do to not go crazy from sensory deprivation?

Have a good day