Sammich

Am I correct in interpreting that your "=T" notation represents "= True"?

This is way better than work tho! Here is the link to the rotating black hole dissertation that has the energy in empty space calculation if you're interested. It's less techincal then you'd think, and the guy has run simulations on the blackholes. It's highly fascinating: youtube.com/watch?v=o6K9fzOp020&;

I am soon done at work, so I won't be back until monday, but if you want to further discuss this, or discuss why you believe free will holds at all, you can add sammich_maker in discord, and we can discuss there. Thank you for the conversation, I greatly enjoyed it.

I don't think I am able to find an argument for hard free will in this, but a degree of control given to the OTB should be possible. It can maintain logical consistency, and is currently excluded from being provable in any other way than maths, since we are limited by our local sphere.

So everything that's established in our local sphere of the universe is determinate, both for us and naturally the OTB, but at the edges, it can alter its direction at will, as it is the only area where cosmological evolution is possible?

In relation to your "pure unqualified alternating possibilities", this would seem like OTBs free will would be scalar? In that the further out from the middle we are, the more free will the OTB can express?

(Small sidenote, the spontaneity at the edge of the universe is a really good way of putting it. I saw a recent PhD dissertation that has calculated the energy of empty space and shown that the fluctuations necessarily creates particles)

Hard free will is just the opposite of hard determinism. The latter has no room for free will, as the total state of the universe is defined by the previous state. While hard free will means that at any point the OTB could do whatever it wanted. So it could move Jupiter millions of miles in any direction, because it is not governed by the physical laws physicists are trying to interpret.

I'll add this since I spent sometime formularting it: i'll try to clarify my confusion: If the OTB encapsulates the entire universe, it is either limited to this universe, or our universe is limited to it. If it is the prior, it would have to be able to defy its own nature to have free will. If it is the former, our universe's laws is governed by it, it acts entirely outside our understanding, and there cannot be incoherent states that we could define.

As in, your definition of the OTB is a being that is wholly unaffected by its "internal process" if you will+

Do you define Hard Free Will for the OTB as "the OTB can do whatever it wants whenever it wants"?

Stackexchange was guilt-tripping me to move it into a chat, so i did. We could also move it into discord or wherever if you want extended discussions since we are interestingly polar in our view of will, but seem quite equal in terms of morals.

@KristianBerry This is great. I hold in many ways the opposite position of yours, in that I can agree to an "OTB", but I reject free will. Anyway, I think that you need to define how conflict arising in biological creatures on earth equates to conflicts for the OTB. Similarly to (but not equal to) how "God is good" and "Some people do evil" can be reconciled by proposing that we cannot understand "good" and "evil" in the way God does. I hope that makes sense, and that I haven't come of as rude in my comparison.

@KristianBerry Would the answer not depend on how you interpret human conflicts as genuine conflicts within the OTB? Do you see the conflict between a wilderbeest and a lion hunting it, as a critique, if not on the same level, at least on the same scale as a human-to-human conflict?

@KristianBerry Thank you for clarifying. If I am interpreting you correctly, it seems you equate the OTBs "will" with how us humans express the concept of will. Do you mean that the free will of the OTB is manifest in us, and since we have conflicts, the conflicts are a part of the OTB, and your question arises from this? Really enjoyable idea if I am interpreting it correctly(?).

Could you elaborate on where/how you see these conflicts arising?

@PhilipKlöcking Human life is only richer in the eye of the human experiencing it. Even if you could get other humans to agree with your statement, how can you decide if their acknowledgement is either a representation of our species "richness", as you claim, or an in-group reinforcement, as those who agree will also count you as part of their group? How do you exclude an octopus or an orca from having a richer internal experience than just having a physical body? What you describe in terms of human experience is an explanation of physical events, and free will does not arise from it.

In attempting to address your reply, I get stuck on your challenge of conciliating free will and determinism. If I take what the sciences, particularly physics and biology, are saying about how the world and humans operate, there is no room for the concept of free will, as the different concepts we have attributed to it can be traced back to neurological responses and external processes. Therefore, the conciliation happens automatically by way of freeing us from the concept entirely. Am I misunderstanding your answer, or do you believe the argument is not sufficient in removing free will?