/lit/ - Literature

>>12564161
Whether the processes which shape our universe or the cauldron of existence itself is deterministic or probabilistic, 'free will' is not indiciated, and certainly not necessitated. In either case, our self and behaviour is a manifestation of something we did not author. We are the chicken, not the egg.

I am open to soundly reasoned arguments or definition for free will (none of which have been presented, just a constant attempt to lob the same nondescript ball back into my court).

Given that causality is implicit to our entire experience, I don't see why it would be unlikely for us to also be links in a causal chain or caused bubbles in a probabilistic cauldron. Retreating into epistemological skepticism (requiring absolute certainty) doesn't support either position, so I fail to see the point in that either.

On the other hand, it seems highly unlikely that an ill-defined phenomenon grants us an equally ill-defined state of 'freedom'. It would be far more parsimonious to suppose that the notion of free will is rather the psychological conceit of ego-centric beings who like to feel in control. Parsimony is important, because the more assumptions we have to make, the more likely it is some will be wrong. You free will bois are layering assumptions like it's a metaphysical lasagna.