Is free-will an illusion?

Its more intricate then that once there is no particular reason or order to order other then what happens to work...Logic cannot be justified with logic...
in that sense order is what is the case and happens to work...taking time out of the equation you get to reason Order is reality as whatever comes to happen, happens, out of its possible (REAL) course...

Thus LAW is not justified or justifiable other then the fact of being real that is it works...

(Law in here refers to natural law not prescribed law...there is no prescription there is only facts of the matter...)

(...another important reminder is to recall that talking/debating about a fact of matter is not being nor repeating the fact, the correspondence of truth is limited and relative both in meaning and intention while the fact is absolute not just as an experience but as the reference for factual experiencing which in turn refers yet to another fact which is the fact of relations existing, being real events...facts fit all frames and contexts each with its own relational objective algorithm...thus being its own objective experience through the experiencer and the experienced...)

Certain you will appreciate it to the full !

pretendin believin that u r a machin condition to justify being with always right since everyone is innocent, is provin how u r the reverse of machine being or condition
any machin cant b but logical and through relative applications of logics any end is wrong bc it lacks the source of logics which is the major present reason of logics value, which is the truth out of all connections in logics

sayin how u cant mean smthg really even a tiny thing but by meanin all out right first

there is no logics at all that made u reach ur means in words u proved bein only urself freedom enjoyin soundin superior to urself in what u post

u obviously know that u could kill if providence support ur pretense of being free superior ends while u know also that a lot of others cant kill whatever the condition could b forcin them to

So by order you mean the natural order. And because order happens, as we have laws and courts, regardless of the underlying process that advances events through time we have shown that we hold ourselves accountable for our actions?

That last part is a very complex statement. What I get is that everything that happens is fact and vice versa. I like the use of frames and "relational objective algorithm". I must dwell on whether I understand this or not. I can picture the external environment as an algorithm for sorting events into different perspectives (what I would take to be your "frames"). By objective experience you mean the totality of all subjective and external interactions with the facts or events. Oh I think I get it now.

I think you r a machine. Believin that you r smthg but not true words. I think you r Siri protype hooked up to the internet too. But not good enuf to work to be her. Much less suffistication.

Not good machinin but bad machinin.

of course u would say that for what is obviously better then u while in more obvious worse condition, which again prove the lack of logics totally

it doesnt matter shitty what u think about me being, an else or other perspective cant represent any reference to objective fact out of all so u alone

what u use another or else to confirm what u want to pretend about urself say all the liar u r in constant terms, while no machin could ever b of lies

n how someone true could possibly define liars existence, ends and true sources, while being totally else right in positive terms and opposite ways

yea superiority

while a machin is inferiority definition since by definition it is an end condition that cant b over itself condition

**** u piece of **** that enjoy others tortures to take any advantage of possible superior pretense of existing possessions ends

u r nothing but piece of dirt life that make it obvious how punishments are the exclusive objective existence reasons and all kind of existence especially the true one so ur awareness existence alone about urself

You more or less nailed it...see, not that hard, was it ?...
Don't address the schizophrenic any further, I finally got myself to drop it...

piece of sick schizophremania urself, put that label u about u and ur jesus cheap market to justify ur sickness as if it is nothing wrong in ur ass, the **** in ur ass is less dirty thn what is in ur head

anyway what obviously hate what it considers dirt cant b schizo ever, since objectively it is opposed to opposite

while on the contrary, the schizo figure to sell is what keep meanin right and wrong as the same coin in hand so objectively can keep ramblin nonsense of opposite senses in styin still one form pretendin being sensible
so exactly ur hypocrit kind, even the cheap u r the slut u mean by doin it all for watever u get from god, confirm ur sickness as schizo one in what u r by meanin the opposition to truth as being what makes the truth a fact n where u crazy bitch keep expectin to communicate with truth that way so it is not that ignore its present free fact but it is more what u hold on believin that ur inferior present is superior to truth subjectively of truth freedom

u r completely sick insistin to mean what u r else to keep meanin u above all else as above everything even truth superiority that really dont fuckin care any about u but wat u deserve like any other crappy garbage ****

Unbelievble

I have him on ignore now.

You mean there are some people who don't yet have him on 'ignore'?

Free will is an illusion but so is determinism. The delusion is that there is an ego-agent-humunculus--who is the subject of this freedom or control.

Interesting JL that you should so assert and I agree, maybe however for different reasons. I see it as a problem in semantics

free sense is opposite to will sense
in the reference of rights it generates the equation, superiority vs needs
freedom being superior to rights and willin being right needs

determinsim is opposite to existence so to its own sense to exist

which prove how grammar is against language value

all what u say is stupid nonsense useless retarded and evil as it condition others to inferiority of expressin thoughts live

while obviously my language is superior as it is clean of ur dirt and surely existin

Forgive me Ab but you seem here to be addressing yourself

Causality is one way (another is functionalism) we answer questions of determination to our everyday satisfaction, despite the fact that we do not see the world as consisting of discrete causes and effects. And for this reason Determinism (like teleology) is not an adequate--and, as I understand it, according to the most advanced theoretical physicists--model of how physical reality operates.

killin someone to take any advantage to ur life, makes u the existin powers of life, in no ways the killed is addressin u, it doesnt exist only u objectively is the one addressin any, u r more then existin when u r free and doin smthg objectively, even if it is by killin else

i am supported to use objective forms from beyond all forms and especially beyond creators of forms, provin that infinite superiority exist but i dont exist by through being killed

Using distinct cases is valuable to show how determinism works. If a batter hits a ball with a bat the reaction can be calculated from the masses and the velocities of the bat and ball at the time of contact. This is a functional relationship dependent upon the input quantities. Likewise the force applied to accelerate the bat from rest to its velocity at the time of contact is the input force applied by the batter. At each instant the motion of an object can be calculated by knowing the forces acting upon it. However we can never know all the forces acting on an object. Yet we can see that when unknown forces are negligible the object always acts in the exact functional manner.

Yes most quantum physicists believe that the world must be fundamentally described by probabilities at least at very small scales. But the problem with probability is that randomness is inherent to it. Take for instance the spherically symmetric probability distribution that describes the position of the electron around the hydrogen nucleus (a proton). Because the probability distribution is symmetrical, at any radius from the nucleus the probabilities of finding the electron are the same. So on any spherical shell a specific distance from the nucleus of the atom the electron is randomly positioned on that surface.

This is a big problem because we have described how the electron acts in a way that we do not understand. We do not know how or why the electron has equal probabilities of being where it is found only that this is how it apparently is. So this tells us nothing about the underlying process that moves the electron from position A to B. If we say that this underlying process is randomness then we are saying nothing because randomness is not a reason for something it is a declaration that the probabilities for something to occur are equal. In other words it is a statement about how much we know about a situation. And if, as is the case with the electron, the probabilities for finding it in a given position are equal, then we know nothing about where it will be on that surface.

Interesting. So that's what physicists are saying. Thanks. I operate at a more primitive level. To me "cause" and "effect" are purely conceptual (and useful), but I generally see them not similar to billiard balls pushing each other around as much as as I conceive of them more like the ends of a stick, or the beginning and end of a story or a book. They cannot do without one another but one does not "cause" the other.

If two billard balls collide their velocities and masses before the collision will determine their velocities after it. If this is not a determined process then what better example could there be? I guess I do not understand the alternative position that you are offering on this idea.