The Interplay of Free Will and Determinism in Nature

Nature's choices reveal that free will and determinism are ultimately the same, eliminating the notion of "could have been."

### The Interconnection of Free Will and Determinism in Nature
* 🌌 There is no true distinction between free will and determinism; this confusion arises from our **conceptual misunderstandings**.
* 🌱 Nature's actions stem from its essence, meaning that what nature chooses to do is both a reflection of its **desires** and its **inherent necessities**.
* 🔄 Nature cannot will otherwise without changing its fundamental nature, thus its choices are a **direct consequence of what it is**.
* 💭 While we make choices daily, the notion of "**could have been**" is merely an abstraction, as one can only "**choose differently if one were different**".
* 🎲 The idea of randomness does not equate to free will; instead, free will implies that choices are **determined by individual preferences and desires**.
* 🧠 However, our preferences and desires are also shaped by nature, suggesting that even our **sense of free will** is ultimately **determined**.
* ✨ Embracing this perspective allows for a shift from the **pressure of decision-making** to a more **relaxed acceptance of life's unfolding**, highlighting that every choice is a **moment of self-discovery**.
* 🌈 Understanding that "**there is no could have been**" can eliminate regret, offering a more meaningful engagement with our choices and experiences.

there is no distinction between
free will and determinism. We think there is because
of our conceptual confusion. At the level of what truly exists... there is no such distinction. What nature decides to do... is both what it desperately wants to do... 

and what it must do. What nature does is a result
of what nature is. Nature wills what it wills
because it is what it is. And it can't will otherwise
without being something that it is not. But of course it is what it is. 

So it wills what it does. There is no external environment
beyond nature... to impose choices on nature. What nature chooses to do
comes out of itself. Therefore it comes out of its being. It's a result of what it is. 

So nature wills what it must will, given what it is. But it does make choices. It couldn't make different choices
because it isn't different. Nature is what it is
and not something else. It does make choices,
but its choices are a direct consequence... 

of what it is. So from that perspective,
what nature wills is what it must. What nature must is exactly what it wills. So there is no distinction... at the level of nature
between free will and determinism. And that's why we can both say... 

you have free will
because you are part of nature. And nature has free will. But why does nature have free will? Because it's the same as determinism,
and determinism is true. So by the same token, you could also say
everything's deterministic. 

Why? Because free will is true. But free will is the same thing as determinism. So everything is deterministic. That was the point
that I was trying to get across. Of course we all make choices. We are part of nature.

We make choices every day,
thousands of choices every day. Starting from whether you touch the ground
with your left or your right foot... the moment you step out of bed. The idea of determinism does not deny... the obvious empirical fact
that we are always making choices.

What it denies
is the abstraction that we call... 'the could have been'. I could have chosen differently. Then I would say
you could only have chosen differently... if you were different,
but you were what you were. Nature was what it was.

So the 'could have been' is an abstraction. And I think it's a fantasy. And it helps me in a sense
that the opposite of determinism... is randomness, right? And as you put in your essay... that is not what we mean
when we say I have free will.

You don't say it's random. No, you mean it is determined, but it is not determined by... It is determined by what you prefer it
to be determined by. Right? That's that what you like to think?
- Yeah

I want it to be determined by my... my wish to sit down here with Bernardo... made me sit down here with Bernardo. But then again, it is determined, right? It's not random. So that's also where you run
into philosophical problems.

So I think analytically, your point is very clear. I think just psychologically... we left the conversation saying that, I think we quoted Fred Matser... and I got a question also, Tom, I mean, can you choose to disallow being played by the universe?

That's sort of what rang with me. A lot of people are not allowing themselves to be played by the universe. That too is a direct result... of what the universe is because those people are part of the universe. So the universe sometimes disallows itself to be played by itself.

That's part of the natural... unfolding of what is, what exists. It is such that this contradiction can emerge. Nature is sometimes self-contradictory. This is empirically obvious, right? Not only from a mathematical perspective, from those theorems...

...of the theory of the 1930s. But empirically obvious as well. So the point is not that you don't choose. We all choose all the time. The point is there is no 'could have been'. The 'could have been' is a human fantasy.

Again, the point is that everything is ultimately determined. Because the people who are very much into free will... they would also reject the notion that one's choices are random. The throw of dice. There is no meaning in that.

If your choices are random, what meaning is in there? So people who are after free will because they associate it with meaning... they themselves will immediately acknowledge... that what they mean by it is not randomness. Therefore, every choice is determined.

The thing is, human intuition in this regard says the following: 'My choices are free if they are determined by me, and not by nature at large.' What people who are into free will... and what they mean by a free choice

is that the choice they make... Let's say my free will choice, is a choice I make. So it is determined, but it's determined by me. It's determined by that which I identify with. I don't identify with my brain activity.

I have never seen it; I identify with my conscious inner life. I identify with my preferences... my tastes, my goals, things that I experience from within. So if my choices are determined by my preferences, my tastes... my goals, then they are free will choices.

Now, there are two arguments why even this doesn't hold water. One is there is no 'you' separate from nature. One is there is no 'you' separate from nature. A 'you' separate from nature... or a 'me' separate from nature is merely nominal.

It's an artifact of language. It follows the structure of language. But the structure of reality is not the structure of language. Language is defined for convenience, for communication. And not to capture and reflect the ontological structure of nature.

That's not what language is about. So there is no 'you' separate from nature. There is no 'me' separate from nature. So there is no choice I make that is determined exclusively... by the linguistic 'me'. Because the 'me' is just molecules in the ocean of nature.

It's determined by nature. Another answer is, even if your choices are free in the sense of being always determined by your will, your preferences are determined by your plans. Who determines your will? Your preferences and your plans? Is it you? Of course not.

If you could choose what you want, you would be the happiest person in the world. Whatever your circumstances, you would simply choose to want precisely the circumstances you happen to have. We don't determine those. So our view is literally not free in the sense that we can just change our wills. We fall in love for who we fall in love with. We don't choose who we fall in love with. Otherwise, we would all fall in love with the person who is available. That's not how reality works.

We don't choose our tastes. We don't choose our preferences. We don't choose even what we want to do in our lives. These things are chosen by nature, you know. Yeah, and I think... Yeah, and I think... What is the business of free will? What is the point...

What do people mean? I'm starting to get you, and I'm just afraid that this will trigger again... The same comment, but that is not a problem. I have something, I think experientially, to bring in. I mean, after a video, I tried... It rang with me, right?

So I, I tried to just live it a bit for a month now, I'd say. What I tried doing is to stop focusing a thinking attention on all the choices I can or cannot make in my life. But just more consciously be aware of how life unfolds, right?

And... I had moments... Not all, but I had moments where it felt
extremely relaxing... to see, okay this is what's now being played out. And what I can bring to it... But I know that's
maybe not the right word.

It's just conscious attention
to just see and experience it and that... sort of got more valuable for me than... than the whole idea of me
making the right or wrong decision. So it's also a shift, I think, at least
from focusing on...

free will making decisions to... to more consciously
being present in the moment. Right? And that helped me. I really like that. I can share how I apply this
to my own life. I'm not saying that this is... I can't make an objective argument
that this is the way to go.

It's just my own way of living my life. For me, every choice I make, and we all make choices... Determinism
does not say that we don't make choices. It is silly. We are always making choices. It is silly. We are always making choices.

Every choice I make for me... is a moment of self-discovery. It's a moment when I reflect and think. I am the entity
who is disposed to make this choice, right now. Every single choice
I make, is a moment of self-discovery.

It's an opportunity for self-insight. It's a revelation, a continuing revelation... of what I am, what I truly am. Which is not Bernardo Kastrup. And that's how I see
meaning in the future. It's the first time
that nature is discovering that...

it has those dispositions. It is the thing that makes those choices. Whether those choices are good choices
or bad choices... particularly the bad ones,
tend to be more meaningful. When you make a self-destructive choice,
reflect upon it.

You are the thing that has the disposition
to make that choice. I have made many self-destructive choices
for a period of 15 years. I was absolutely making
self-destructive choices. So going forward, this notion... that free will and determinism
are the same thing, they are not distinct.

They're not even compatible... because for two things to be compatible,
they first need to be two things. And then what I'm saying
it isn't two things. The first thing it gave me... was this idea that going forward... every choice is a moment of self-discovery
and going backwards.

And going backwards... The notion
that there is 'no could have been' . eliminates regret from your life. That's amazing. That's amazing. That's amazing. That's amazing. And I think also just to people watching this, if you have like... 

intellectual objections, please comment
and we can further discuss it. But I'd suggest a little test. Just try and live it for a while
and see how it feels.

Why Free Will & Determinism Are The Same | Bernardo Kastrup PhD

Essentia Foundation

Free will and determinism are not distinct concepts.

There's a conceptual confusion about the difference between free will and determinism.

Nature's actions are both willed and determined by its inherent nature.

Nature's choices originate from within itself, not from an external source.

Nature's choices are a direct consequence of its being; what it wills is what it must.

Humans have free will because they are part of nature, and nature's free will is equivalent to determinism.

Determinism and the concept of 'could have been'.

Determinism doesn't deny that humans make choices.

The 'could have been' is considered an abstraction and a fantasy.

Free will is not randomness; it's determined by preferences.

Choices are determined, not random, leading to philosophical problems.

Can one choose to disallow being played by the universe?

The question of whether one can choose to disallow being played by the universe is raised.

Disallowing oneself to be played by the universe is a result of the universe's nature.

Nature can be self-contradictory, which is empirically obvious.

The key point is the absence of 'could have been'; it's a human fantasy.

Human intuition and the definition of free choice.

Human intuition suggests choices are free if determined by oneself, not by nature.

Free will choices are determined by one's preferences, tastes, and goals.

There is no 'you' separate from nature; the 'me' is just molecules in nature.

Even if choices are determined by will, preferences and plans are determined by nature.

We don't choose our tastes, preferences, or life goals; these are chosen by nature.

A personal approach to living with determinism.

A personal experiment of not focusing on choices but being present in the moment is described.

Consciously experiencing life's unfolding is more valuable than focusing on right/wrong decisions.

This approach is a personal way of living, not an objective argument.

Every choice is a moment of self-discovery and self-insight.

Meaning is found in self-discovery through choices, even self-destructive ones.

Consequences of accepting the equivalence of free will and determinism.

Accepting the equivalence eliminates regret.

A suggestion to try living with this perspective and observe the experience.