Venting The Relevations of the System

[19-21-8-5-14-25]

This is my own place for my revelations of the system. You can laugh at me all you want, but I know the truth.
Many have different opinions on how reality has been constructed. Some believe in a God or multiple Gods, some believe in a simulation, others, understandably, just don't know and use what they can observe and see through the usage of physics what reality could be.

The objective reality will never be perceived as to be able to perceive one must have a point of view, be it through life, machinery/technology or even the spiritual sense, but all that these points of view involuntarily assert is that perception ought to be subjective. The mere fact that there are so many ways to perceive is enough evidence that this assertion should not be dismissed.

The way a human sees reality is not any more complete than that of an ant. These two species perceive reality differently, but it does not mean that one perceives reality inaccurately compared to the other. Rather they are different ways (lenses) to perceive the unperceivable objectivity of reality. This subjective nature of perception makes it then of course impossible to objectively perceive reality which would make you believe that it's a lost cause to find the answers that reality hides, or rather, the reality that we can't perceive objectively.

Rather that God constructed reality or the Big bang caused it or even both does not matter for this revelation. What matters is the existence and perception of the human. The human is able to perceive many facets and layers of reality. Think of time or even the behaviour and structure of matter or the fabric of space through mathematics or technological aid, which adds another subjective way to perceive reality and broadens the perception of the universe for humans.

Through these perceptions a revelation has occurred. That revelation shall be named determinism.

Imagine a whole row of standing domino tiles each of these tiles signifies events for this example. Assuming the Big Bang theory commenced the existence of the universe and thus the bubble of reality that humans inhabit that would in the analogy of dominoes be the first tile to have fallen. Obviously those that know about making tracks with one tile after the other know what will follow after the first one. The second one will fall and because the second one will fall the third one will fall as well and this goes on for infinite amount of times. This is the phenomenon that could be called Chain Reacting. Each tile follows a logical and predictable behaviour that one could use to know a couple of steps ahead and/or calculate what ought to occure at that particular stage. Apply this to the universe and each individual atom. Then from each atom to each molecule. Then from each molecule to each cell. Then from each cell to each lifeform.

This is the crux of determinism. The effect of something ought to have a cause for it to occur (The Big Bang theory doesn't contradict this assertion nor does the belief in a God(s), but the simulation theory is the most attractive one of the three if following this assertion wholeheartedly). Just like how with domino tiles the fifth one falls (effect becoming cause) causing the sixth one to fall as well (effect becoming a cause as well).

Applying this to the human condition and it gets quite obvious that the philosophical question of free will is utterly ridiculous.

 

[SergantWallbridge]

The first few sentences made me instinctively brace for unchinged ravings but...this is all pretty standard stuff, no? With regards to the libertarian free will (arguably the most acurate conceptualization of our intuitive sense of agency) you can argue it's fake even granting indeterminism; after all, just the fact that reality fails to be acurately described as a causal process doesn't mean that we can affect it with our will.

With regards to *philosophical* approach to this question though...are you familiar with compatibilism? Amongs philosophers it seems to be the mainstream position. It redifines the concept of free will so that it can better stand to close scrutinity and then claims the existance of such defined free will is entirely compatible with deterministic macro physics.