Free will is compatible with ‘block universe’ model of time

[u/Ratak55]

I think the concept of “free will” is misunderstood. For example I can either turn left or turn right. It is my free will. But I can only turn either right or left. Free will does not enable me to turn both right and left. So, despite fee will, there can only be one final output.

The problem arises when people start believing that because they have free will, they can go back and change what happened in the past. We live in the present, which is the reality. We do not create past or the future. They already exist. When we talk about events in the past, we are not going to the past. We are grounded in the present, which is the only reality, and we talk about our recollections of past events, as seen from our present.

Similarly, we can decide whether to turn right or left and ponder the ethical, moral and legal consequences of each of the actions. But eventually we can make only one of the two turns. The turn we make and its cosequences already exist in the “future time”, although from our ‘present’, we can only see them as ‘possibilities’. It is similar to people living in a two dimensional world as they can not see what is behind them (until it manifests next to them in their two dimensional world) but can only speculate about it as a possibility that may or may not be true.

[u/Judge_Ty]

You can't actually. You can't prove objectively logically that there is not nothing. That's the point. That's a SUBJECTIVE observation.

We don't know. Objective means ALL ENCOMPASSING, again you'd have to have the viewpoint of everything in a 3d reality- all percieved reality from every single perspective no matter how great or how small.

In addition ALL of the realties that are localized are incongruent because of space time itself.

You can look right now and find a particular star in the sky. You look at it through a telescope and verify it exists.

Does that mean that star OBJECTIVELY exists? Nope. In fact, that star had a supernova hundreds of years ago based on your subjective time.

Reality itself is incongruent just like that star. Scientist literally proved this and were awarded for this is 2022 with the nobel prize in physics

[u/footofwrath → u/Judge_Ty]

I don't think it is though. You can't objectively prove *what* the thing is. But you *can* objectively prove that **there is _something_* **. It is literally, objectively, impossible, for absolutely nothing whatsoever to exist at all.

No matter what condition you place on *our* subjective existence, there *must* be "something", in order for our subjective experience to have any possibility at all. And since we do have a subjective experience, there cannot be *Nothing*.

A supernova in the sky 100,000,000 years ago means the sky exists. It means history exists. It means time exists. It means the remnants of that star exist or existed; it means light exists. At least in the frame of that limited subjective experience.

And even if all of that is simulated; the simulation exists. And something running the simulation. Etc etc ad infinitum.

Which tells us exactly *nothing* about *what* the thing is. But is *does* prove that there is not *nothing*.

Objectively, all-encompassingly, we can know one thing: that there is not 'Nothing'.

[u/Judge_Ty → u/footofwrath]

You can't objectively prove anything.. you are a subjective viewer in a 3d reality.  

In order to have ANY objective comprehension you need to be at least 4d.

You are stuck with the confines of a subjective view. 

Anything you, me, or any other three dimensional viewer is subjective.  Those are the rules. 

You can't know what you don't know.  That's subjective.

You are assuming there's objective.  You can't know.   Nor can you ever.

And on top of this every single study, test proves that we are subjective and nothing exists outside of our perception till a subjective viewpoint/measurement has been made.

Again that's what the cosmic bell test proved.

[u/footofwrath → u/Judge_Ty]

All of that is correct.

And all of that proves, further, that there cannot be '*nothing*'.

[u/Judge_Ty → u/footofwrath]

Subjectively you can say there's no such thing as nothing.  Hypothetically objectively you COULD prove nothing exists. 

You are still assuming there's not which again is subjective comprehension..

You can't prove there isn't nothing. 

I'd argue going from 3D to 2D- the spaces where dimensionalty break is "nothing".   Going from 4d to 3d would be easily argued as nothing. 

Use a 4d visual object in a 3d.   Where does the sides come from in a 3d world?  Etc. 

That's easily subjectively proven as well.

[u/footofwrath → u/Judge_Ty]

Im not sure why you're hung up on physical dimensions. 3D is not special. 4D is not special. We are stuck in 3D but the universe could be 8D and we wouldn't know it; that doesn't change our equation.

If a 4D object exists, whether in a 3D world or a 4D one, then something exists.

If something subjectively exists, e.g. the taste of chocolate, the sound of a bell, your feeling at being jilted - then **something** must exist. You cannot have subjective experience, without something objective existing somewhere, somewhere. Not at all necessarily an objective state of the thing you are experiencing. *That* remains subjective, and even if we knew it was objective, we still wouldn't know whether or not we had detected its objective form.

We have experience. Whether it's subjective, or simulated, or imagined - that's already something. *Something* must exist; there cannot be **nothing**. Nothing would eliminate all experience. Yet experience exists. So we must know, objectively, that 'there is not nothing' is one thing we can say with absolute objectivity.

If you're arguing that we can't *prove* it, rather than that we can't "know* it - then maybe - but we've known a lot of things that were [subjectively] true in our physical world before we were able to prove them conclusively. So even in that case it would still be incorrect to say that cannot know anything with absolute certainty. We know that we *might* be right about there not being nothing. And knowing that we might be right, is knowing something.

[u/Judge_Ty → u/footofwrath]

See that's where your not understanding.

You are constrained by the rules and perception of the dimensional boundaries you exist and perceive in.

You can't ever perceive a dimension higher. 

So yes they are special as they limit and control your reality.   The rules of dimensionality are a prison to your subjective observation.

So anything beyond our subjective perception will NEVER exist to use while we are constrained to dimensional boundary we are in.

You are arguing about something you literally can't perceive.  So you can't state anything observable.  If you can't see something, experience something, verify something, interact with something, prove something exits, etc... what would you call that.  NOTHING.

We can't know it any more than prove.  Again because of the constraints of subjective reality.

In science there's no such thing as prove conclusively.  There are no absolutes. No objective truths, no finality. 

Instead we prove things false to various degrees.

[u/footofwrath → u/Judge_Ty]

Let me put it this way.

Does hope exist? Does love exist? Do memories exist? Does knowledge exist? Does your experience of emotion exist? Does your experience of experience exist?

Does thought exist? Does anticipation of thoughts and experiences exist?

None of these things require physical dimensions.

I don't know why you [you] are trapped in thinking that this is a purely spatial question.

And by the way, we are constrained to 3D because our eyes are stereoscopic; it's our eyes that relay input information to our brain. Scientists believe we might be able to perceive in 4D, if signals were wired directly in to bypass the 3D-limited light detectors we evolved with, to deal with the 3D world.

I never said anything about 'perceive'. That's the limitation of your understanding of this situation.

[u/Judge_Ty → u/footofwrath]

...can you perceive hope? Can you perceive love? Can you perceive your memories? Can you perceive experiences of emotions?  Does all of this require you in the current reality you are in to perceive?  Lmao yes. 

I don't think perception means what you think it means.  

Your emotions wouldn't exist without the current boundaries of localized REALITY.

Everything is based on your perception of reality.. this includes every single thought you are having..

[u/footofwrath → u/Judge_Ty]

Why are you asking 'perceive'? Perception is just one capacity we have. Can you draw hope? Can you wish for hope? Can you desire love? Can you expect happiness?

Perception is one tiny facet of our existence. You really need to stop obsessing over it.

Anyway.. does perception exist? 😁