Is free-will an illusion?

I'm sure it is and I'm sure you did and I apologize for my reluctance to review the entire thread while I readily concede that yes, it leaves me puzzled, and sure, Tomr could be dead wrong too

It's just hard to believe that math, being purely an exercise of the humanoid mind, can somehow conclusively validate the concept of freewill. Somebody else still, needs to step in and explain the idea in terms acceptable to the Average Clod (me, not Tomr)

The only way humans are able to apply math to "free will" is to understand that from a multitude (pick any number) of options, we have a choice to choose one or many. Otherwise, I find it a practice in futility.

We really don't need "math" to make our choice, but some people may consider the potential for "higher" income.

Thank you Cis for that analysis. But does it mean that only we have a choice

I have only misinformed him if I have been misled. If I do not understand the construction it is because you have not been clear enough. You can search all day for Ughaibu's definition of mathematical randomness and you will not find it. Even if you use the internet. The closest thing I have found is something called Kolmogorov randomness. If that is what you are talking about by classical mathematical randomness please tell us. If not please provide a link to a source so that we can fully understand what you are saying. Computation is a vast and complicated field. Terms like "countability" in mathematics or "prefix" have very specific meanings as I have shown.

By the way, no one understands the construction. And by not providing a link to resources like a definition for mathematical randomness it looks you'll be the only one. I think you like keeping everyone in the dark.

it is amazin how far u insist on the term choice
how freedom is about choice ?? how what u will do alone is a choice ??

before meaning mathematics proofs u must explain ur choice

how do u need to choose anyway, it looks like u mean to question the possessed u think being, as the exercice of bein a conscious, very weird

dont think about exercisin any, just get to the point u mean by lookin to any animal on earth so existin on its workin body, does ur pets have a choice or not?? wat do u think, isnt that what u need to know

anyways freedom is never identified by possessions, ur insistin ways to think by opposites say it all how u never mean to think anything at all

existence truth is continuous progress as the exclusive justification to objective constant fact, while that fact is what prove free will, since progress need essentially freedom to realize it and continuous need freedom to b constant fact too

Of coarse not, but humans have the most choices.

It seems to me in my naivete that numbers (i.e., abstract digits) are in principle limitless but that what they may refer to (e.g., all volcanos) are not.

How do we know that other planets don't have volcanos?

I don't know what you mean by "validate the concept of freewill", and in any case, nobody has shown anything invalid about the concept. The argument under discussion demonstrates that freely willed actions are not incompatible with mathematical randomness. This is in reply to an assertion that there can be no free will in a nondetermined world. As stated, several times, this claim is false for at least two reasons:
1) a nondetermined world need only include some randomness and that randomness need only be mathematical. These are straightforward consequences of the definitions.
2) we can generate the prefix of a real number from freely willed actions, without those actions entailing that prefix, and it is a matter of mathematical proof that the probability of the expansion of a real number being random is one.
So, quite clearly free will is not incompatible with a nondetermined world.
There is nothing that I've written here which isn't just repetition, if you don't understand it, look things up, because I don't know how to make things simpler than they already are.

Has anyone understood Ughaibu's construction? If you have looked it up and found anything please tell me.

It's a bunch of words put together that only he seems to understand.

Chaos within the laws of physics can be modeled as recursive. A condition that can be modeled as a Mandelbrot plot. Then there is the game rule that everything acts in its own interest--even gawd.

I'm not an atheist, but I was raised in a religion that believes in dogma. I was initially repulsed by the concept of predestination. I still don't buy the concept--I do recognize that the rules of physics govern everything from economics to atoms.

The universe is a binary tree, but many branches (choices) will lead to extinction. This result in branch clumps creating recursive branch clumps.

We see the similarity in the patterns.

Rap

All too deep for me but thanks for the effort Ugh

I suppose he never had any intention of clarifying anything he thrives from the opposite, that is, casting vagueness and doubt on well known concepts...he for instance very probably distinguishes randomness as a result from chance as a process such that there can be random results coming out from determined processes or chance processes that may produce non random outcomes etc etc...his motto is thriving from muddling the waters...
Say for instance you do a survey questioning all 7 year old's about their tastes on toys, you can in principle get a random outcome distribution of taste with no defined pattern from a determined process of selection of a target audience although of course while you are informed on the variety of taste of 7 year old's if no product on a given list especially had a particular appeal, you are not informed on whether the agent had or had not any free will once none of that as anything to do with agency which is what is being debated here...Ughaibu has shown that hardly he can be moved by any other relevant factor other then a personnel political motivation on this matter and that suffices to given a fair account of his biased approach to the matter...one just has to pay attention to his disruptive style of engaging debate to get to that conclusion...

I'd agree, Cis, intuitively

Tho I'd reword it as "humanoids have the best chance for choice"

Simply put, if by Free will one just means being able to do what one wants then we have free will, but if meaning the ability to do otherwise then we don't...obviously clarifying to the best of our ability what we mean with it should be the main focus for a fruitful debate !

Thanks Fil for that comment

However the idea of Freewill is such a vague concept and so at odds with the apparent deterministic leanings of the physical sciences that I still maintain the entire discussion is a purely semantic issue

From what I have read from Ughaibu's account there is only a single relevant sentence of his that really gives away what he thinks on the matter and that was something along saying "causation" is merely explicative and has a neutral ontological status...once that has been said and admitted, any fair common sense or idea of true agency is completely ruined...

it is the reverse, if free will is what one wants then noone has free will, this is obviously what everyone is conscious about since everyone seem clearly to mean free will as getting smthg, things are conditionned in absolute ways so a thing is like everything, and what contradict that principle objectively is clearly of evil life powers that enjoy abuse distorsions it can force on absolutes rights

but if freewill is the true freedom move mean out of everything then anyone can witness its fact existing
even as i said a pet that cant mean of course willin anything, react to things accordin its free will movin as happy state or movin back more rejectin the fact

Fil my way of looking at it, for what it's worth, not much around here to be sure, is that the idea of absolute determinism is very persuasive though intuitionally repulsive and maintains simply that the Entire Megillah is laid out in advance

But if it even if it proves not to be, I don't see how a little randomness could free us up