u/SquashInformal7468

this argument uses free will as being “ the ability to truly and freely choose between several options independently

Ai use algorithmic thinking.

An algorithm can be defined as a finite set of step-by-step instructions or rules designed to perform a specific task, solve a problem.

So how does this prevent free will?

Algorithms follow a set sequence, which always acts the same. Meaning if we give an algorithm an input, its output to that input will always be the same, despite the seemingly unlimited number of possibilities.

This means that for any particular situation, there is only one given “choice”/output that an algorithm can produce. This defies the “several options” part of the free will definition used.

There was never a choice, as there was only one option.

I am aware that some algorithms use the computer version of “random” meaning they will actuallt generate different outcomes to the same prompt. However if the variable that is being randomly assigned is allowed to change, that means the algorithm is not the same.

Similarly, some may argue that many algorithms do allow for several outcomes/answers. To which I reason this.

Should a given algorithm seem to output several answers, that is effectively one answer in itself. Rather than the answer being a string, it becomes a list, which are both just 1 thing.

Also, some algorithms will generate a pool of acceptable outcomes, and only choose one.

This seems to suggest options or “choices”. However this is not the case, as the sequence of steps used to determine which possible output to use will always return the same thing.

Meaning the only real possible output was the one given, and removing the “choices”. The only way to change this is to use “random” but that means the algorithm is not the same- as I previously mentioned.

Worth a read, could also apply to us as humans too

this argument uses free will as being “ the ability to truly and freely choose between several options independently

Ai use algorithmic thinking.

An algorithm can be defined as a finite set of step-by-step instructions or rules designed to perform a specific task, solve a problem.

So how does this prevent free will?

Algorithms follow a set sequence, which always acts the same. Meaning if we give an algorithm an input, its output to that input will always be the same, despite the seemingly unlimited number of possibilities.

This means that for any particular situation, there is only one given “choice”/output that an algorithm can produce. This defies the “several options” part of the free will definition used.

There was never a choice, as there was only one option.

I am aware that some algorithms use the computer version of “random” meaning they will actuallt generate different outcomes to the same prompt. However if the variable that is being randomly assigned is allowed to change, that means the algorithm is not the same.

Similarly, some may argue that many algorithms do allow for several outcomes/answers. To which I reason this.

Should a given algorithm seem to output several answers, that is effectively one answer in itself. Rather than the answer being a string, it becomes a list, which are both just 1 thing.

Also, some algorithms will generate a pool of acceptable outcomes, and only choose one.

This seems to suggest options or “choices”. However this is not the case, as the sequence of steps used to determine which possible output to use will always return the same thing.

Meaning the only real possible output was the one given, and removing the “choices”. The only way to change this is to use “random” but that means the algorithm is not the same- as I previously mentioned.

this argument uses free will as being “ the ability to truly and freely choose between several options independently

Ai uses algorithmic thinking.

An algorithm can be defined as a finite set of step-by-step instructions or rules designed to perform a specific task, solve a problem.

So how does this prevent free will?

Algorithms follow a set sequence, which always acts the same. Meaning if we give an algorithm an input, its output to that input will always be the same, despite the seemingly unlimited number of possibilities.

This means that for any particular situation, there is only one given “choice”/output that an algorithm can produce. This defies the “several options” part of the free will definition used.

There was never a choice, as there was only one option.

I am aware that some algorithms use the computer version of “random” meaning they will actuallt generate different outcomes to the same prompt. However if the variable that is being randomly assigned is allowed to change, that means the algorithm is not the same.

Similarly, some may argue that many algorithms do allow for several outcomes/answers. To which I reason this.

Should a given algorithm seem to output several answers, that is effectively one answer in itself. Rather than the answer being a string, it becomes a list, which are both just 1 thing.

Also, some algorithms will generate a pool of acceptable outcomes, and only choose one.

This seems to suggest options or “choices”. However this is not the case, as the sequence of steps used to determine which possible output to use will always return the same thing.

Meaning the only real possible output was the one given, and removing the “choices”. The only way to change this is to use “random” but that means the algorithm is not the same- as I previously mentioned.

this argument uses free will as being “ the ability to truly and freely choose between several options independently

Ai use algorithmic thinking.

An algorithm can be defined as a finite set of step-by-step instructions or rules designed to perform a specific task, solve a problem.

So how does this prevent free will?

Algorithms follow a set sequence, which always acts the same. Meaning if we give an algorithm an input, its output to that input will always be the same, despite the seemingly unlimited number of possibilities.

This means that for any particular situation, there is only one given “choice”/output that an algorithm can produce. This defies the “several options” part of the free will definition used.

There was never a choice, as there was only one option.

I am aware that some algorithms use the computer version of “random” meaning they will actuallt generate different outcomes to the same prompt. However if the variable that is being randomly assigned is allowed to change, that means the algorithm is not the same.

Similarly, some may argue that many algorithms do allow for several outcomes/answers. To which I reason this.

Should a given algorithm seem to output several answers, that is effectively one answer in itself. Rather than the answer being a string, it becomes a list, which are both just 1 thing.

Also, some algorithms will generate a pool of acceptable outcomes, and only choose one.

This seems to suggest options or “choices”. However this is not the case, as the sequence of steps used to determine which possible output to use will always return the same thing.

Meaning the only real possible output was the one given, and removing the “choices”. The only way to change this is to use “random” but that means the algorithm is not the same- as I previously mentioned.

*this argument uses free will as being “ the ability to truly and freely choose between several options independently*

Ai uses algorithmic thinking.

An algorithm can be defined as a finite set of step-by-step instructions or rules designed to perform a specific task, solve a problem.

So how does this prevent free will?

Algorithms follow a set sequence, which always acts the same. Meaning if we give an algorithm an input, its output to that input will always be the same, despite the seemingly unlimited number of possibilities.

This means that for any particular situation, there is only one given “choice”/output that an algorithm can produce. This defies the “several options” part of the free will definition used.

There was never a choice, as there was only one option.

I am aware that some algorithms use the computer version of “random” meaning they will actuallt generate different outcomes to the same prompt. However if the variable that is being randomly assigned is allowed to change, that means the algorithm is not the same.

Similarly, some may argue that many algorithms do allow for several outcomes/answers. To which I reason this.

Should a given algorithm seem to output several answers, that is effectively one answer in itself. Rather than the answer being a string, it becomes a list, which are both just 1 thing.

Also, some algorithms will generate a pool of acceptable outcomes, and only choose one.

This seems to suggest options or “choices”. However this is not the case, as the sequence of steps used to determine which possible output to use will always return the same thing.

Meaning the only real possible output was the one given, and removing the “choices”. The only way to change this is to use “random” but that means the algorithm is not the same- as I previously mentioned.

*this argument uses free will as being “ the ability to truly and freely choose between several options independently*

Ai uses algorithmic thinking.

An algorithm can be defined as a finite set of step-by-step instructions or rules designed to perform a specific task, solve a problem.

So how does this prevent free will?

Algorithms follow a set sequence, which always acts the same. Meaning if we give an algorithm an input, its output to that input will always be the same, despite the seemingly unlimited number of possibilities.

This means that for any particular situation, there is only one given “choice”/output that an algorithm can produce. This defies the “several options” part of the free will definition used.

There was never a choice, as there was only one option.

I am aware that some algorithms use the computer version of “random” meaning they will actuallt generate different outcomes to the same prompt. However if the variable that is being randomly assigned is allowed to change, that means the algorithm is not the same.

Similarly, some may argue that many algorithms do allow for several outcomes/answers. To which I reason this.

Should a given algorithm seem to output several answers, that is effectively one answer in itself. Rather than the answer being a string, it becomes a list, which are both just 1 thing.

Also, some algorithms will generate a pool of acceptable outcomes, and only choose one.

This seems to suggest options or “choices”. However this is not the case, as the sequence of steps used to determine which possible output to use will always return the same thing.

Meaning the only real possible output was the one given, and removing the “choices”. The only way to change this is to use “random” but that means the algorithm is not the same- as I previously mentioned.

*this argument uses free will as being “ the ability to truly and freely choose between several options independently”*

Ai uses algorithmic thinking.

An algorithm can be defined as a finite set of step-by-step instructions or rules designed to perform a specific task, solve a problem.

So how does this prevent free will?

Algorithms follow a set sequence, which always acts the same. Meaning if we give an algorithm an input, its output to that input will always be the same, despite the seemingly unlimited number of possibilities.

This means that for any particular situation, there is only one given “choice”/output that an algorithm can produce. This defies the “several options” part of the free will definition used.

There was never a choice, as there was only one option.

I am aware that some algorithms use the computer version of “random” meaning they will actuallt generate different outcomes to the same prompt. However if the variable that is being randomly assigned is allowed to change, that means the algorithm is not the same.

Similarly, some may argue that many algorithms do allow for several outcomes/answers. To which I reason this.

Should a given algorithm seem to output several answers, that is effectively one answer in itself. Rather than the answer being a string, it becomes a list, which are both just 1 thing.

Also, some algorithms will generate a pool of acceptable outcomes, and only choose one.

This seems to suggest options or “choices”. However this is not the case, as the sequence of steps used to determine which possible output to use will always return the same thing.

Meaning the only real possible output was the one given, and removing the “choices”. The only way to change this is to use “random” but that means the algorithm is not the same- as I previously mentioned.

*context- this is part of the opening section of a full article exploring determinism, which does seem to provide a “solution” to the problem mentioned here, the article will be linked in the comments for those interested*

Determinism relies on the idea of a preceding cause for every occurrence, but what caused the first occurrence?
Every cause is in itself an occurence. If we go to the beginning of time, we are able to find a first event. Since this is the first thing to exist, it seems reasonable to state that nothing came before it. If nothing came before the first event,then there could be no cause. Meaning that should there be a beginning of time, there is also at least one event that has occurred without a cause. This falls outside the rules of determinism and seems to challenge the idea that every occurence has followed determinism’s laws.

*rest of article linked in comments *

I am aware these things are ultimately not what matter, but I want discussion surrounding what I write and to interact with like minded people which requires the audience.

-I started the page around a month ago but got banned within the first week by ai and have only just been unbanned

What I write about:
Philosophy in long form articles

Approach to distribution:
-upload snippets of articles with links to relevant subreddits
-post notes directly on Substack that promote my articles by summarising key points or posing the questions at hand, I’ve began attaching links to articles in the comments
-linking articles in chats of larger newsletters that occupy slightly related fields (on Substack)

Outcomes so far:

10 free subs and around 20 followers
Some rigorous engagement in comments (few and far between)
Lots of engagement all be it usually shallow and without a way or retaining readers here on Reddit

Does anyone have any advice?

I will link my page in the comments for those interested

Thanks to those who have read this far 😄

*context-this is a part of the opening segment to a full article, which in itself provides “solutions” to the problem at hand,the article will be linked in the comments for those interested*

Determinism relies on the idea of a preceding cause for every occurrence, but what caused the first occurrence?
Every cause is in itself an occurence. If we go to the beginning of time, we are able to find a first event. Since this is the first thing to exist, it seems reasonable to state that nothing came before it. If nothing came before the first event,then there could be no cause. Meaning that should there be a beginning of time, there is also at least one event that has occurred without a cause. This falls outside the rules of determinism and seems to challenge the idea that every occurence has followed determinism’s laws.

*full article in comments,eager for thoughts*

*context-this is a part of the opening segment of a much larger article which also seems to provide “solutions” to the problem at hand, it will be linked below for this Interested*

Determinism relies on the idea of a preceding cause for every occurrence, but what caused the first occurrence?
Every cause is in itself an occurence. If we go to the beginning of time, we are able to find a first event. Since this is the first thing to exist, it seems reasonable to state that nothing came before it. If nothing came before the first event,then there could be no cause. Meaning that should there be a beginning of time, there is also at least one event that has occurred without a cause. This falls outside the rules of determinism and seems to challenge the idea that every occurence has followed determinism’s laws.

*full article linked below*

*context-this is part of a larger article which seems to provide solutions to the question at hand,but ultimately the problem may still prevail*

Determinism relies on the idea of a preceding cause for every occurrence, but what caused the first occurrence?
Every cause is in itself an occurence. If we go to the beginning of time, we are able to find a first event. Since this is the first thing to exist, it seems reasonable to state that nothing came before it. If nothing came before the first event,then there could be no cause. Meaning that should there be a beginning of time, there is also at least one event that has occurred without a cause. This falls outside the rules of determinism and seems to challenge the idea that every occurence has followed determinism’s laws.

Obviously I’m aware that the numbers are not “important” but it’s through the numbers you get the interactions which are what I seek. For context I write about philosophy and publish relatively long form content. I’m also totally inexperienced in philosophy but😄

*context-this is an extract from an article I wrote exploring the problem as a whole, the extract serves to show the argument for how determinism could survive the regression problem, the full article will be linked in the comments*

This existence has always existed
Relative to our own existence, this is obviously true. However using the timeframe of our own existence as the only timeframe within the grand -scheme of things is seemingly limited.

Think of a computer program made within our world, once launched,the only time that has ever existed for that program is what has passed during its existence. Relative to itself, it has always existed.
However in our world, it has not, there was a time before it existed.

Now think of our world in a similar way to the computer world, if our reality originates from a different existence-perhaps a more “true” or “real” one, then time has likely existed before us.

If this parent reality was to “create” ours, then that creation would be the original cause, with our realities “laws” assigned during the process.
Effectively removing the need for the original cause to stem from our reality,whilst still existing. Meaning the time regression problem would no longer exist.

For us to exist, that was always going to happen, so the predetermination of the first cause (creation) is valid, it just stems from an existence beyond our own.

This means that determinism would be possible, with the caveat of accepting that this reality we occupy stems from another which is responsible for creating ours, and assigning its laws.

The issue with this is that it seems to only serve to move the “first cause” problem back into the parent existence. However this “problem” relies on the parent existence following the same laws as our own, and is also irrelevant when discussing the laws of our own universe as a closed system.

Do some actions justify society forever seeing someone as “bad” even if they have completely changed? How do we actually interpret people’s character as a society? Do we look at people as their overall net actions, or just more recently? Are any of these more justified than the others?

Do some actions justify society forever seeing someone as “bad” even if they have completely changed? How do we actually interpret people’s character as a society? Do we look at people as their overall net actions, or just more recently? Are any of these more justified than the others?

.

.