2 upvotes, 4 direct replies (showing 4)
View submission: /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 10, 2025
I was just throwing ideas at a page and arrived at this. These aren't fully argumented ideas, more personal notes I found insightful enough to share.
I don't believe in free will, as it can be logically derived from the law of the excluded middle: every mental event is either random or causal, leaving no room for true autonomy. It can’t be neither nor both as there is no way to make sense of something not random nor causal.
Without free will, blame and accountability lose their meaning; people act as they must, shaped by forces outside of their control.
If you lived according to that principle, you would transcend forgiveness. If no one is truly responsible for their actions, there is no one to forgive. From this perspective, compassion becomes the logical extension that naturally arises from seeing reality for how it is.
This insight stems from the law of the excluded middle (logic), causation/randomness, and the illusion of free will as developed by our evolution (observing the natural order).
By uncovering the reality of existence, one finds that living in accordance with it naturally leads to what we call "goodness". This is where piety is found. Not through scripture, but through the gospel of nature, including our human nature.
If one wishes to live a good life in a deterministic universe, one ought to accept the unavoidable nature of the universe but actively create meaning within it, unbound by societal expectations or herd morality. The acceptance of fate could be seen as not about giving up on action but about realizing that the will operates within the constraints of the universe, where the forces outside one's control shape outcomes. In this sense, freedom becomes the ability to act with full engagement despite knowing the outcome is shaped by those forces, to live authentically within a determined world.
Be a true pessimist. See reality for what it is, and accept that you are radically free, yet caged at the same time. Focus on this feeling of freedom, as it will serve as a source of strength that you need to live a life worth living.
Meditate on this duality.
Mimetic desires cause all the non-animalistic desires. Mimetic desire doesn't invalidate the desire itself or the pleasure that comes from fulfilling it. It’s just about being aware of their origin.
Memento mori is embracing death denialism and using it to empower your will, rather than it undermining our will. Accept the natural course of life and death, and use it as energy. Wu wei.
I'm just the observer of my thoughts, that all other attempts at defining oneself (name, age, what you like and dislike) aren't you. I'm a reflection of the universe, since everything I am goes through my senses, and my senses are built by evolution which exists only due to how the universe is.
Comment by junkytoo at 18/02/2025 at 00:38 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I’ll be honest this is exactly what i’m reaching to answer with this: IFEM interacts with these ideas in a way that refines the epistemic approach to understanding them, particularly by applying structured knowledge refinement to concepts like free will, piety, and existential meaning.
Determinism and the Role of Epistemic Refinement
You argue that free will is an illusion because every mental event is either random or causal, leaving no room for autonomy. This conclusion follows from the law of the excluded middle and aligns with deterministic interpretations of human behavior. IFEM would engage with this by asking: •Does the refinement of knowledge lead us closer to a more stable understanding of free will? •If epistemic refinement shows a trend toward determinism, does that mean determinism is an Ideal Fact?
IFEM suggests that knowledge asymptotically refines toward stable epistemic attractors—patterns in knowledge that become more resistant to contradiction over time. If determinism is a genuine attractor, it would mean that, as our understanding of neuroscience, physics, and causality progresses, the case for determinism becomes increasingly difficult to refute.
At the same time, IFEM would recognize that our cognitive structures evolved for survival, not truth, so our perception of “choice” might be a functional illusion. The question then is not whether free will exists metaphysically, but whether the concept of free will refines toward an epistemic attractor (e.g., agency as an emergent phenomenon within deterministic constraints).
Piety, Goodness, and the “Gospel of Nature”
Your argument that compassion naturally arises from seeing reality as deterministic aligns with an IFEM perspective in an interesting way. If Ideal Facts exist as stable truths that knowledge refines toward, then: •Is morality also subject to epistemic refinement, where some moral principles (like compassion) become more resilient to contradiction over time? •Does living in accordance with reality (accepting determinism) lead to an emergent moral framework that is more stable than religious doctrine?
IFEM would assess whether certain ethical principles—such as forgiveness, non-retributive justice, and acceptance of causality—are objective in the sense that they emerge across multiple philosophical traditions as knowledge refines. In other words, if the rejection of free will necessarily leads to an increase in compassion across historical, scientific, and philosophical frameworks, then compassion may be an Ideal Fact of ethical knowledge.
Your phrase “the gospel of nature” is particularly relevant here. IFEM would treat natural laws and emergent human behaviors as testable structures, meaning we can observe whether deterministic perspectives consistently produce ethical frameworks that are more coherent, stable, and beneficial.
Living Authentically in a Determined World
Your take on radical acceptance and living fully within constraints closely parallels IFEM’s model of knowledge refinement: •You suggest freedom is acting authentically within deterministic limits, not transcending them. •IFEM suggests knowledge refines within structural constraints, not outside of them.
So the two perspectives converge: just as individuals refine their sense of agency within deterministic limits, knowledge itself refines within a constrained epistemic landscape. If knowledge can still progress toward Ideal Facts within structured limits, then human meaning can also emerge authentically within deterministic constraints.
The connection between existentialism and epistemic refinement is crucial here: •IFEM acknowledges that we are cognitively trapped within certain perspectives. •But refinement still happens, meaning truth is accessible even if our framework is finite. •Similarly, existentialism acknowledges that we are physically and socially trapped within a determined universe. •But meaning is still possible, and even necessary, within that structure.
Thus, your idea that “one must accept both radical freedom and radical constraint” is directly parallel to IFEM’s approach to epistemology: knowledge is both limited by the structure of cognition and refined within those limits toward something deeper.
4. Mimetic Desire and Wu Wei in Knowledge Refinement
Your thoughts on mimetic desire—that we unconsciously imitate others’ desires—echo IFEM’s concern with how knowledge structures evolve socially. •If epistemic refinement happens through historical convergence, are our “frameworks of knowledge�� also shaped by mimetic processes? •Are some ideas resilient because they are true, or because they are socially reinforced?
IFEM would approach this question by examining whether certain knowledge structures (e.g., determinism, scientific realism, mathematical truths) persist due to empirical validity rather than just mimetic reinforcement.
The Wu Wei (effortless action) connection is also fascinating. If epistemic refinement is inevitable, does this mean the best way to pursue knowledge is by aligning with its natural flow rather than forcing it? IFEM suggests that truth emerges from iterative refinement, not from rigid dogma—just as Wu Wei suggests that action emerges naturally from alignment with reality rather than resistance.
5. The Observer and IFEM’s View on Cognition
You say:
“I’m just the observer of my thoughts… I’m a reflection of the universe, since everything I am goes through my senses, and my senses are built by evolution which exists only due to how the universe is.”
This is another direct tie to IFEM’s meta-epistemic structure: •If we are merely observers of our cognitive processes, is our knowledge refinement something we do, or something that happens through us? •Is epistemic progress a discovery of external reality or merely the reduction of our own uncertainty within a deterministic framework?
IFEM would argue that knowledge refinement is not passive observation but an active process where uncertainty is continuously reduced as cognition self-organizes toward stability. This aligns with your idea that we are shaped by the universe, and thus, so is our knowledge.
What I really think: IFEM exactly engages with these ideas
Your thoughts on free will, epistemology, and living authentically in a deterministic universe are deeply aligned with IFEM’s central concerns. If IFEM is about how knowledge refines toward more stable structures, then your argument suggests that: •Ethical frameworks might naturally refine toward compassion when determinism is accepted. •The perception of free will is an epistemic illusion—a concept that persists not because it is true, but because it is useful in certain knowledge structures. •The tension between radical constraint and radical freedom is itself an epistemic attractor—one that every structured system of thought eventually encounters.
Comment by simon_hibbs at 12/02/2025 at 12:23 UTC*
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Without blame or accountability we can't be blamed or held accountable either, for anything we do, for whatever reason we do it. We have no particular reason to behave morally or with compassion.
Comment by Electrical_Shoe_4747 at 12/02/2025 at 09:59 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
These are some interesting ideas. I've got a couple things to suggest.
There's a massive literature with suggests that free will can exist in a deterministic world. Have you considered that idea?
Also, your use of the excluded middle is somewhat incorrect. The excluded middle of "caused" would be "not caused", and not "random". Now, you might want to argue that anything that is not caused is random, and that's fine but that's going beyond the excluded middle! And some Libertarians would disagree with you.
Comment by Hot_Experience_8410 at 12/02/2025 at 08:17 UTC
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
No, you are correct. At current free will does not exist for any functioning human being because no human, to my knowledge, has been raised in complete solitude. And I don’t mean human interaction here but rather a completely empty space, think: a boundless white room. Thankfully agency does exist, but only in relation to both the past and other coexisting entities with the ability to affect their external reality.