Re: Are our lives completely predetermined?
Solipsism is a bit more subtle than that. It isn't just that you accept beliefs that are proven, it's that you accept systems that are consistent with your internal model of the world. The problem, however, is that any consistent system is incomplete or undecidable, which means that solipsistic thinking requires a constant shift of axioms based on what set of beliefs you want to preserve. When the solipsist steps out a level they realize that their system of reality is ultimately held prisoner to its axioms and all systems themselves are absolutely arbitrary. This is the (natural) step from solipsism to nihilism, which I extended to show the statement that nothing is real in an earlier post. Necessarily, the enlightened (in this regard) solipsist rejects all formalization of thought and any weight of knowledge.
This leaves a myriad routes for the nihilistic solipsist to attack free will. First off, you could simply assume that our concept of excluded middle is absolutely arbitrary, and neither free will nor the absence of free will must exist.
Ultimately, though, I think all of this shows that the concept of free will is a very self-referential statement; it's self-referential in the sense that it speaks about the system from which it's originating. Formally, for any statement to speak about itself, it must have been formalized on a system stronger than itself. (For example, in Godel's proofs, the process of Godel numbering takes place in something like MathEnglish, while the system itself where the self-referential processes are being injected is something like Peano Arithmetic, or a Turing Machine). Because of the limitations in human empathy, anything that rests upon a super-perceptual level is ultimately individual, and unconnectable across individuals.
Solipsism is a bit more subtle than that. It isn't just that you accept beliefs that are proven, it's that you accept systems that are consistent with your internal model of the world. The problem, however, is that any consistent system is incomplete or undecidable, which means that solipsistic thinking requires a constant shift of axioms based on what set of beliefs you want to preserve. When the solipsist steps out a level they realize that their system of reality is ultimately held prisoner to its axioms and all systems themselves are absolutely arbitrary. This is the (natural) step from solipsism to nihilism, which I extended to show the statement that nothing is real in an earlier post. Necessarily, the enlightened (in this regard) solipsist rejects all formalization of thought and any weight of knowledge.
This leaves a myriad routes for the nihilistic solipsist to attack free will. First off, you could simply assume that our concept of excluded middle is absolutely arbitrary, and neither free will nor the absence of free will must exist.
Ultimately, though, I think all of this shows that the concept of free will is a very self-referential statement; it's self-referential in the sense that it speaks about the system from which it's originating. Formally, for any statement to speak about itself, it must have been formalized on a system stronger than itself. (For example, in Godel's proofs, the process of Godel numbering takes place in something like MathEnglish, while the system itself where the self-referential processes are being injected is something like Peano Arithmetic, or a Turing Machine). Because of the limitations in human empathy, anything that rests upon a super-perceptual level is ultimately individual, and unconnectable across individuals.
Comment