*snip*
actually hang on
Nature is incredible, it is possible that there is some sort of weird property we have never encountered before which would provide a mechanism for free will. It is not impossible, it just seems unlikely given our current understanding.
Literally every advancement in the history of science consisted of discovering weird properties we have never encountered before. Abandoning the very concept of self-determination on the basis of 'current understanding' is therefore insane (especially given its proven capacity to improve your life). Not, like, in a derogatory way -- that's just nuts though. Anyway back to the bigger picture:
snip
I keep starting and stopping. Here's my blunt assessment -- the concept is (1) unsupportable, (2) unscientific, (3) useless, (4) self-defeating, (5) insincerely held, (6) vapid, (7) ....you get the idea I don't care for it. Let's tick off the list so far and see if I feel compelled to continue.
1 (and a bit of 2)
The theory is, "if I knew everything I could tell you what happens next." Well what happens next? "I don't know everything. But if I did, I could." Well, find out more, then tell me what happens next. "I tried -- but I couldn't learn everything. But if I could...." Unsupportable. You've attached it to biology for some reason, instead of galactic gravitational wave patterns -- I'm not sure why you picked the one versus the other, but I'm
entirely certain it wouldn't make a lick of difference no matter what you picked as the determinant characteristic.
2
It's unscientific because nowhere in the theory have we arrived at anything we could ever conceivably test or observe, short of constructing a sympathetic control omniverse against which to compare our findings here. Your assessment of 'biochemistry' is akin to a god, only instead of holy texts you're basing it on stoner psych. Perhaps that's preferable -- your call. But it damned sure ain't scientific, not in the least.
3.
In what ways (if any) is the distinction between "free will" and "the illusion of free will" useful? There is no pragmatic value. I mean unless you count the positive fee-fees when you can say "oh bless his heart, it wasn't his fault his ancestor had a mutated 912d chromosome" (I do not know how to fake a chromosome). But then we're right back to "this is a religion, based on nothing."
4.
When you "know everything, every atom, every quark," etc. doesn't the same logic hold that those are only
illusions of atoms and quarks, and you still know nothing john snow? And where is it written that the governing laws of the hyperverse are consistent and homeostatic anyway -- maybe we're not in a lake, but in a toilet bowl circling the drain, and the governing laws are inherently temporary. Maybe the toilet-bowl metaphor is just a toilet-bowl-ILLUSION metaphor illusion of illusory purposes.
The point of the theory is not that someday all this hypothetical bullshit will amount to a complete understanding of 'fate' -- the point is, no matter what,
it will never matter and nobody will ever know anything ever. But you can't be sure, because.... anyway.
5.
But you could be wrong, so hedge your bets -- aka, it's a scam, bail immediately.
6.
sorta already covered the vapidity of it all in my various other responses. In what way is
any of this remotely relevant to
anything? "If I had ten billion dollars I'd eat a giraffe tomorrow." Equivalent statement. Why in the living
fuck would anybody assign a single iota of significance to that?
