Moral Nihilism

[Edwardo Piet]

If free will is such an assumption, how is "not free will" any less of an assumption?

I need a reason to believe in this 'free will' thing - I would think NO 'free will would be the default. Because there's already evidence for physics and the mechanics of the universe. But no evidence (as far as I know) that we can influence THAT other than what we are doing simply BECAUSE of it whether we like it or not. In which case we don't really influence stuff 'ourselves' because we are PART OF it. We are bound by the same things as far as I know; either we are determined like the rest of the universe (determinism) or we're not (indeterminism) and we're more random. This applies to the rest of physics - what evidence is there even remotely that it isn't exactly the same for US? I know of no evidence that PHYSICS ITSELF has 'free will' - why would we be any different?


The fact people merely believe that GOD exists or is present in the universe is not even remotely evidence that he exists - why would it be different for free will? And if we need evidence FOR GOD's presence/existence first why wouldn't we for free will too?

As far as I see it, we have the evidence for free will, which is that we make choices (at least we think we do), and other people can observe us making choices.

See above. How is that even remotely evidence?

How is the fact we BELIEVE we have free will remotely evidence for it's existence? If we DIDN'T believe in free will would that be evidence that it DOESN'T exist?

So are all the people who DON'T believe in free will evidence against it? if not then how on earth are those who DO believe in it evidence FOR it? And don't we need some reason to believe it DOES exist or DOES have some presence in the universe first?

The fact people merely BELIEVE that GOD exists or is present in the universe is not even remotely evidence that he exists - why would it be any different for free will? And if we need evidence FOR GOD's presence/existence first why wouldn't we for free will too?

Don't you need evidence FOR the existence of something first? Like evidence for the existence of something that gives us any reason to believe whatsoever that we choose our own thoughts? Why ELSE would we believe it? Just because it's common to believe that we do? (and has been throughout history).

If 100% of people in the world BELIEVED they had 'free will' that in itself would not be evidence of free will. How WOULD it be? If it WAS evidence then what would it be like if people believed in free will but it DIDN'T exist??

We're of course not just in the universe, but part of it - so we are just as bound by physics as everything else. And physics doesn't have 'free will' as far as I know because there's no evidence of that so where's the evidence that we do or that we'd be any different? Where's the evidence that we are a special case? There is evidence that at least some of us BELIEVE we are and/or BELIEVE we have 'free will' but this is not even remotely evidence for the TRUTH of it - how could it be??

To say "there is no free will" is tantamount to saying that all information in the universe has sprung from nothing, that because our choices are not choices, everything we have ever written, invented, etc is all predetermined from the moment we are born (and retrospectively the moment life emerged).

'no free will' is the default right? Because: there is evidence for physics whether it's indetermined or determined. Our thoughts happen, they are physics. We believe that we MAKE them happen...but I know of no evidence of the truth of this actually happening whatsoever. As far as I know they 'just happen' and are simply influenced by other thoughts and the environment and genetics, etc. There actually IS evidence for the environment and genetics - and I would at least think there is also evidence that our thoughts effect each other.. your thoughts are (at least) often based on other thoughts you just thought. You develop 'a train of thought', etc...

...There is evidence for THOSE things. But I do not know of any evidence that we physically choose our own thoughts...how would we do that? What evidence is there for that?

And choices and decisions of course...are thoughts TOO - so if thoughts 'just happen' because 'that's the way the physics bounce' (indeterministic) or because they're determined (determinism) - where's the choice in that? I know of no evidence that we have any more 'free will' than an atom. We just commonly BELIEVE we do. Sure we have more EVITABILITY - more capability - but do we have any more real 'choice' in the matter? I don't believe so. Because I know of no evidence of that whatsoever. Our thoughts and decisions ultimately 'just happen because of physics' whether we like it or not, whether we take credit for them or not and whether we believe we have any 'free will' or not.

It means that William Shakespeare was "destined" to become a writer and poet, and that his choices didn't make him what he became.

You're talking about determinism. Which does indeed make 'free will' impossible. I do not know of the evidence on either side for determinism or indeterminism. I just know that although the universe being determined makes free will IMPOSSIBLE - that I know of no reason to believe whatsoever that INdeterminism does anything more than perhaps open a possibility for it?

Determinism='free will' is impossible.

INdeterminism='Free will' is now perhaps, possible - but as far as I know no more probable other than the fact the mere possibility is perhaps open. I STILL know of no evidence that we actually make decisions other than the fact we (at least those who believe in free will) merely believe we do. INdeterminism just means the universe isn't determined; i.e. physics is more random... How does more random remotely give any evidence of or reason to believe in 'free will'

A dice is random. Does it have any more choice in how it gets thrown than if the dice were rigged? Just because there are more possibilities?

The view that others here seem to be presenting is not one of "no free will", but one of "limited free will", which is one I can understand. It is a compromise between the two, saying that because we are simply "gene machines" some of our actions are based solely on instinct and internal decisions, whilst the apparent presence of consciousness and self-awareness means that some decisions are made in the conscious mind.

I am well aware that us humans, with awareness - often BELIEVE we make our decisions. But I know of no evidence that we do other than that we 'do things' or 'think things through' - which is bloody obvious and applies both WITH or WITHOUT free will.

The thing is, where is the remote evidence that we have any choice in what we 'think though'? Our thoughts are just entirely influenced by other factors and each other and the thoughts themselves - where is the evidence that they can choose what they are? None that I know of anyway! As far as I know thoughts just happen as the physics go (whether determined or indetermined, whether like rigged dice or normal UNrigged dice) - I know of no evidence to believe in anything MORE.

There is a distinction between the two, but as I've already said, I think "not free will" leads to ridiculous conclusions when you take it back in time.

Determinism implies no free will. This is what you seem to be speaking of...

But if determinism is that the future is determined like the dice are rigged....

And INdeterminism is that it's NOT like the dice are NOT rigged, they are normal UNrigged dice....

Then how does UNrigged dice have any more freedom in how they are thrown and what they land on? It simply has more possibility or evitability. How does INdeterminism give people any more freedom whatsoever? It just means there are more possible futures - I know of no evidence whatsoever that more possible futures equates to any choice in the matter whatsoever...

Where is the evidence or reason to believe whatsoever that normal UNrigged dice have any more CHOICE in the outcome than RIGGED dice? -there's simply more possibilities! Right?

Where is the evidence that any agents in an INdeterministic universe have any more CHOICE in the outcome than in a deterministic universe? - there's simply more possibilities! Right?

EvF