Ελεύθερη θέληση / ελεύθερη βούληση / free will

Do you ("magical soul-unprocedural personhood which acts before biochemistry") define some different physics inside your skull? If not there is no free will, because you come = your selfhood comes after physics acts. The free will question is a very easy thing to answer. Except if you distort the meanings of the words. Imagine having a magical soul-unprocedural personhood which acts before biochemistry (true free will) and living in a small cage. Still in that cage you don't have free will. Imagine having to select between a finite number of lectures to watch. Even if you had a "magical soul-unprocedural personhood which acts before biochemistry" and the options you had were less than infinite, you would have degrees of freedom, but not absolute free will. Any limitation to free will isn't maximal freedom. Any non-maximal freedom is not true freedom, because it changes your true free choices again and again, with limitations not set by you. I examined the erroneous cases of the "magical soul-unprocedural personhood which acts before biochemistry" in order to prove that absolute freedom is impossible even in that fallacious case. Even if God existed, mortals would be limited by death and the parallel universes of God: Paradise, Hell and in some denominations Limbo. 3 options aren't infinite. You cannot have free will if you aren't free and your will doesn't matter. You may have degrees of freedom but not genuine free will if limitations are set by others or the cosmos. According to rigorous physicalism there is no free will at all. According to psychology you should act if you had free will, because being sad harms your choices. Not having free will is a scientific matter and by no means an excuse to be sad or less active. That is a mere misconception.

## comment 1:

Robert Sapolsky is correct on free will (Robert Sapolsky - free will - YouTube) but he repeatedly made a mistake. He doesn't really believe his mistake. It's the result of emotional pressure from people who believe in free will. He claimed that biological randomness in unimportant decision-making is the result of conscious free will originated by the magical soul-unprocedural personhood. He never used my analytical phrasing because he would have understood his fallacy. Robert Sapolsky doesn't believe in supernaturalism = antiphysicalism = free will. He repeatedly made that mistake though (it's not his main view). He gave the example of randomly selecting cups/mugs you don't have a preference for. Neuroscientifically analysed (the particular case) involves neural network randomness, and sense of agency (see: sense of agency), because you believe you personally moved your own hand (it's not self-evident in brain science).

## comment 2:

The ability to make your own decision about studying (building and inaugurating your own university with building materials and professors which still aren't infinite) and not selecting between finite options (other universities) created by others. Some people believe that having free will is to be a slave, merely because slaves were allowed to move within huge but limited fields. But any slavery-lover is a criminal. / Can you choose your self or is selfhood the result of natural laws? Does your personality magically pre-exist brain function? Do you personally rewrite the laws of biochemistry in a different manner each time? If you consciously made a permanent violation of physics inside you and you never retune it, you're the slave of your past self. Do your memories affect you? Do you control brain function = biochemistry = physics?

## comment 3:

Even if God had free will to act satanically and never did even once, his behavioural inhibition acts as a limiter. Thus he necessarily has no free will, because freedom has to be exhibited and not be permanently unexpressed. Thus God by not having free will, doesn't meet the prerequisites for his existence, and necessarily doesn't exist.

## comment 4 (superdeterminism as infinite subcases of Everettianism):

I don't agree with the way Sabine Hossenfelder finalises her conclusion on superdeterminism. Superdeterminism acts as infinite subcases of Everettianism (manyworldedness; see: Sean M. Carroll). We simply experience one universe (it gets more complex than that because we don't interact strongly will all nearby particles to determine maximally strictly our universe's version). Superdeterminism as a standalone theory is necessarily wrong. As googolplex subcases within Everettianism it is correct. (Strict empiricism is necessarily wrong [because Sabine Hossenfelder might erroneously claim that only strict empiricism matters; it does for us, but that way we will never find how physics including alternative ones are made [physics in plural here]] because it kills the foundations of quantum mechanics, and the deeper foundations of [it and any other possible] substantiality.) Sabine Hossenfelder is a very good mathematician, but Sean M. Carroll is a superior physicist. Also Sean M. Carroll is a philosopher and a better philosopher than others who claim they are philosophers, because he has more layers of rigour. He's not God though; no God exists. Steven Weinberg was extremely and uniquely intellectually precious but he sadly passed away.