# Would you give up free will for world peace? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 28, 2023, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800 "2023-09-28T01:17:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/201 "2023-10-02T22:30:27Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > The argument from selection is that the illusion of free will provides adaptive behavior, hence, it is selected for. But that is only true if nothing else provides the same adaptive behavior. But there are such things. Exactly the same flawless logic as : when I ride the bus, it cannot be for the purpose of getting to the store, because I could have driven a car to the store. But what if I don’t have a car, and it’s too far to walk. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Suppose we were in the situation where we instead had a feeling that we are irresistibly compelled to act in whatever way we do. You’d make the argument that, because this provides an adaptive behavior, we evolved to have this compulsion. There certainly isn’t any realistic case to say that in such a case, you’d rather claim that since it seems so unlikely we’d evolve such a compulsion, our behavior can’t be due to selection. The two cases are exactly symmetrical, yet the argument yield opposite conclusions. First of all, I have been very clear that I do not have a strong view that the illusion of free will is adaptive. I am pushing back only against your spurious claim that it _cannot_ be adaptive. Anyway, what are you claiming is an “opposite conclusion” here? It seems to me that my conclusion would be exactly the same. In both cases we observe a subjective mental state. In one species a feeling of free will, in the other hypothetical species a a feeling of compulsion. My view would be exactly the same for both species. Clearly any subjective mental state _can_ influence behavior, so in each species it is _possible_ that their subjective mental states are adaptive. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/202 "2023-10-02T22:43:26Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > On _our_ planet, when discussing living things that are part of _our_ tree of life, you simply cannot ignore context like that. I’m not ignoring the context, I’m pointing out we don’t know the context. Maybe we were locked into a basin of attraction that leads to the evolution of an illusion of free will from the very first amoeba on; but maybe we were locked into a basin leading to a feeling of irresistible compulsion regarding all our actions, and only the intervention of alien genetic engineering got us to where we are. But _assuming_ we were on the first trajectory just assumes the argument’s conclusion from the outset: it tells us nothing about why an option was chosen if we stipulate there was no other choice from the beginning. If we stipulate there _was_ choice, on the other hand, the argument simply fails, because the choice could not have been made on the basis of differential selection. > [@Babale](#): > > The fact that it _has_ seems like pretty good evidence that it _could_. Again, you know more than me. I don’t know such an illusion has evolved. For one, the feeling of freedom might not be an illusion. For another, it might be, but just due to the whims of the programmer whose simulation we inhabit. And so on. > [@Riemann](#): > > when I ride the bus, it cannot be for the purpose of getting to the store, because I could have driven a car to the store. But what if I don’t have a car, and it’s too far to walk. Again, if I stipulate from the outset that taking the bus was the only option available, then the argument isn’t going to tell us anything about why that option was chosen, since there was no choice in the first place, an we just put our desired outcome in at ground level. > [@Riemann](#): > > Anyway, what are you claiming is an “opposite conclusion” here? It seems to me that my conclusion would be exactly the same. In both cases we observe a subjective mental state. In one species a feeling of free will, in the other hypothetical species a a feeling of compulsion. My view would be exactly the same for both species. Clearly any subjective mental state _can_ influence behavior, so in each species it is _possible_ that their subjective mental states are adaptive. So if we were members of a species that felt a compulsion for their actions, you’d argue that we couldn’t feel differently, because of natural selection. And if we’re members of a species that feels an illusion of freedom, you argue that we couldn’t be otherwise due to natural selection. Do I have that right? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/203 "2023-10-02T22:51:45Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > So if we were members of a species that felt a compulsion for their actions, you’d argue that we couldn’t feel differently, because of natural selection. And if we’re members of a species that feels an illusion of freedom, you argue that we couldn’t be otherwise due to natural selection. Do I have that right? Huh? A possible adaptive explanation for a trait is not a claim that the trait is _inevitable_ or _necessary_ in all (or any) species. The fact that there are large elephants and small mice does not imply that size cannot be an adaptive trait in both species. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/204 "2023-10-02T22:52:04Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > > [@Babale](#): > > > > The fact that it _has_ seems like pretty good evidence that it _could_. > > Again, you know more than me. I don’t know such an illusion has evolved. That’s because you seem to be afraid of using logic. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > For one, the feeling of freedom might not be an illusion. You’ve never explained how it could not be. Which isn’t your fault - there’s no coherent explanation possible. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > For another, it might be, but just due to the whims of the programmer whose simulation we inhabit. And so on. If it makes things easier for you, then from now on unless one of my posts specifically says that I am arguing from the perspective of presuming that we are living in a simulation or a world artificially created by a deity or any other counterfactual, that I am operating from a materialist framework. I concede that it might be true that we live in a simulation that was constructed to obey materialistic rules, or that we could live in a world where a deity micromanages every particle interaction while hiding His presence completely. But since either of those scenarios are indistinguishable from a materialist framework from within the simulation, I feel free to ignore these possibilities 99% of the time. If you ever find some evidence that refutes the materialist worldview, let me know. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/205 "2023-10-02T23:02:15Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > That’s because you seem to be afraid of using logic. If you’re that desperate to resort to such cheap shots, you should maybe step away for a bit and reconsider your position. > [@Babale](#): > > You’ve never explained how it could not be. Which isn’t your fault - there’s no coherent explanation possible. Huh? I’ve given an explicit mechanism above? > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Here’s a simple mechanism: take a device capable of traversing infinitely many states in finite time, like [Thomson’s lamp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_lamp). Then, use it as the basis of a recursive computation of your future actions: in order to decide whether you do x or y, you need to first decide whether you want to do x or y. Then iterate infinitely (this is to overcome [Schopenhauer’s regress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Freedom_of_the_Will), the only real problem for free will)… The result is clearly not deterministic: just as with Thomson’s lamp, the initial conditions don’t imply the outcome. It’s also clearly not random: there’s a simple mechanism by which it comes about. Furthermore, it’s also not determined by anything but that mechanism. This makes free will a kind of supertask, but so is super-Turing computation generally thought to be, and there plausibly are examples of that in the real world (in fact, true randomness generation is one, so if your ontology admits that, then it seems to also have the resources for free will of the above type—which of course doesn’t mean it actually exists). > [@Babale](#): > > If it makes things easier for you, then from now on unless one of my posts specifically says that I am arguing from the perspective of presuming that we are living in a simulation or a world artificially created by a deity or any other counterfactual, that I am operating from a materialist framework. And that still doesn’t imply that free will is an illusion. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/206 "2023-10-02T23:05:21Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > The fact that there are large elephants and small mice does not imply that size cannot be an adaptive trait in both species. But it does mean that you can’t say that being large is adaptive. But that is what the argument from selection claims: that we have the illusion of freedom because it is adaptive. And for that to be true, there need to be no small mice, so to speak. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/207 "2023-10-02T23:07:36Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > But it does mean that you can’t say that being large is adaptive. But that is what the argument from selection claims: that we have the illusion of freedom because it is adaptive. And for that to be true, there need to be no small mice, so to speak Being large and being small are both adaptive (to different lifestyles - and as it turns out, there are no herds of mice roaming across the Serengeti and no elephants in the cupboard at work). ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/208 "2023-10-02T23:10:17Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I’ve given an explicit mechanism above? Forgive me for finding a “mechanism” that is really a thought experiment that relies on infinities to create an apparent paradox unconvincing as an explanation for… a phenomenon that isn’t observed. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/209 "2023-10-02T23:11:30Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Being large and being small are both adaptive (to different lifestyles - and as it turns out, there are no herds of mice roaming across the Serengeti and no elephants in the cupboard at work). Finally! Yes, that’s exactly right. So, it makes no sense to say that elephants are large because being large is adaptive. Likewise, it makes no sense to say that we have the illusion of freedom because it is adaptive. Hence, the argument from selection fails. If anybody could point to some set of circumstances in which that illusion was adaptive, then we’d have an argument. But nobody can. And just claiming that we might be in such a circumstance is vacuous, as it just assumes the desired conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/210 "2023-10-02T23:11:33Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > > [@Babale](#): > > > > You’ve never explained how it could not be. Which isn’t your fault - there’s no coherent explanation possible. > > Huh? I’ve given an explicit mechanism above? > > > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > > > Here’s a simple mechanism: take a device capable of traversing infinitely many states in finite time, like [Thomson’s lamp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_lamp). Then, use it as the basis of a recursive computation of your future actions: in order to decide whether you do x or y, you need to first decide whether you want to do x or y. Then iterate infinitely (this is to overcome [Schopenhauer’s regress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Freedom_of_the_Will), the only real problem for free will)… The result is clearly not deterministic: This is not an explicit mechanism, unless you can show that a Thompson’s Lamp exists in the real world and is the method by which we make decisions. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > > [@Babale](#): > > > > If it makes things easier for you, then from now on unless one of my posts specifically says that I am arguing from the perspective of presuming that we are living in a simulation or a world artificially created by a deity or any other counterfactual, that I am operating from a materialist framework. > > And that still doesn’t imply that free will is an illusion. Free will cannot exist in a materialist framework in the sense that anything you choose to do is determined by a combination of things that are all causally connected. You can make a choice (depending on how we define “you” and “choice”) but you could not have chosen differently unless your past or your internal state had been different. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/211 "2023-10-02T23:12:57Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > But it does mean that you can’t say that being large is adaptive. But that is what the argument from selection claims: that we have the illusion of freedom because it is adaptive. And for that to be true, there need to be no small mice, so to speak. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Finally! Yes, that’s exactly right. So, it makes no sense to say that elephants are large because being large is adaptive. Again, when your reasoning has led you to the preposterous conclusion that large size in elephants cannot be adaptive, perhaps that should give you pause? ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/212 "2023-10-02T23:14:42Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Finally! Yes, that’s exactly right. So, it makes no sense to say that elephants are large because being large is adaptive Elephants are large because being large is adaptive to their lifestyle. Mice are small because being small is adaptive to _their_ lifestyle. Our sense of free will is an adaptation to _our_ lifestyle (or at least, our ancestors’ lifestyle). ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/213 "2023-10-02T23:24:53Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Forgive me for finding a “mechanism” that is really a thought experiment that relies on infinities to create an apparent paradox unconvincing as an explanation for… a phenomenon that isn’t observed. First if all, the phenomenon is at least as reasonably inferred as causation is. Second, as (of course, and without any effect) already pointed out above, it’s the same as what’s needed to produce genuine randomness, so there’s no cause for believing in the latter, but not in free will. > [@Babale](#): > > This is not an explicit mechanism, unless you can show that a Thompson’s Lamp exists in the real world and is the method by which we make decisions. As noted, the powers of this mechanism are exactly those that are needed for the production of genuine randomness. If you think that’s possible, you should not have an troubles with free will, save for those brought on by ideology. Whether that’s actually used in the production of our decisions, I don’t know, of course. Neither do I know that we have free will. In fact, when I look at most of my decisions, they don’t seem all that free to me. > [@Babale](#): > > Free will cannot exist in a materialist framework in the sense that anything you choose to do is determined by a combination of things that are all causally connected. If the mechanism I gave above is sound, it can. And other ways have been proposed. > [@Riemann](#): > > Again, when your reasoning has led you to the preposterous conclusion that large size in elephants cannot be adaptive, perhaps that should give you pause? I’m honestly at a loss as to what it is you’re not getting. If both large and small sizes are possible without fitness loss, then plainly, large size is not adaptive. Sure, it might be you’re in a situation where there is only the pathway to large size open; but to suppose we were already on that path is (again, again and again) to assume one’s conclusion. > [@Babale](#): > > Elephants are large because being large is adaptive to their lifestyle. Mice are small because being small is adaptive to _their_ lifestyle. Yes, yes and yes. > [@Babale](#): > > Our sense of free will is an adaptation to _our_ lifestyle (or at least, our ancestors’ lifestyle). And this I once again simply don’t know. The same lifestyle would be possible with a feeling of compulsion, or unconnectedness to one’s choices. You’re claiming you know that such a feeling wasn’t in the cards. I don’t know that, but even if it’s true, then the argument from selection doesn’t tell us why we have a feeling of subjective freedom, the stipulation that from the point of origin of our ancestors the only direction was to evolve towards such a feeling does. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/214 "2023-10-02T23:28:39Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > First if all, the phenomenon is at least as reasonably inferred as causation is. I didn’t say it wasn’t reasonably inferred. I said it wasn’t observed. When did you last see anything contracausally _doing otherwise_? And we don’t need a mechanism when there is no observed phenomenon to explain. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/215 "2023-10-02T23:28:59Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > If anybody could point to some set of circumstances in which that illusion was adaptive, then we’d have an argument. But nobody can. And just claiming that we might be in such a circumstance is vacuous, as it just assumes the desired conclusion. **Every** trait that every species has evolved through adaptation. Sometimes traits are vestigial, but it doesn’t seem like our illusion of free will is something that was useful to chimps that we just haven’t lost yet. I guess you never know. Other times traits are not directly selected but arise as a side effect of something else. A number of us have said that it is possible that this is the case - that the illusion of free will serves no purpose, but something _else_ does, and this illusion is either a prerequisite or a side effect of this other thing. Finally, some traits are directly selected, and it is possible that our sense of freedom is providing some crucial function in decision making. [The fact that some other species without this illusion _could have_ come up with a different adaptation is not evidence that this is impossible]. It is true that some traits are none of the above, they are simply the result of genetic drift in a trait where little selective pressure is applied. This is theoretically possible. However, based on ournunderstanding of evolution, this is very unlikely. Complex structures do not arise as a result of genetic drift because it is exceedingly unlikely for all the necessary adaptations to emerge together unless evolutionary pressure is directing the process. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/216 "2023-10-02T23:34:31Z")
Sure. I don’t know the difference. Why the fuck not? ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/217 "2023-10-02T23:42:44Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > When did you last see someone contracausally _doing otherwise_? When did you last see something causing something else? Never, of course. Yet, you have no problem with the notion of causation, even though, if followed through, it leads to the same issues as free will, papered over only by your unwillingness to open the black box in this case. > [@Babale](#): > > **Every** trait that every species has evolved through adaptation. As you note yourself, that’s false. The problem is that it lands you among the following options: either you stipulate that there is only one basin of attraction we could have landed in, that yields us having the illusion of freedom. This might well be the case, but is clearly not something we could know. Consequently, this means we smuggle the conclusion in at the outset: hence, the argument is fallacious. Or there were several possible basins of attraction yielding equivalent behavior, differing only in our internal stance towards our actions. Then, selection couldn’t favor one over the other, and the result has to be due to random chance. Or, of course, our impression of having choice might just be due to having choice. The simplest option here is obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/218 "2023-10-02T23:49:38Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > And this I once again simply don’t know. The same lifestyle would be possible with a feeling of compulsion, or unconnectedness to one’s choices. You’re claiming you know that such a feeling wasn’t in the cards. I don’t know that, but even if it’s true, then the argument from selection doesn’t tell us why we have a feeling of subjective freedom, the stipulation that from the point of origin of our ancestors the only direction was to evolve towards such a feeling does. The current sense of free will I have makes sense causally. My emotions, the things my senses tell me, and my memory of past experiences all add up to make decisions, and I experience this process as consciousness. I have “free will” in the sense that I can choose to do whatever I want; I don’t have real control over this process, in the sense that @Riemann calls contracausal free will, because every factor that could influence my decisions is determined causally. If my consciousness is some kind of data integration and planning tool, it makes perfect sense to say it is adaptive for my ancestors’ lifestyle. Your scenario on the other hand posits a consciousness that is capable of feeling as if it could make decisions - in other words it is a data analysis and planning tool - but somehow it has evolved fully formed without being plugged into the only place where it could possibly be useful. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/219 "2023-10-02T23:56:37Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Or, of course, our impression of having choice might just be due to having choice. The simplest option here is obvious. Only if we toss causality out. Which is a fine thing to do over a couple joints when you really want to flex your philosophy muscles but is rarely useful otherwise. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > When did you last see something causing something else? Never, of course. Yawn. Just because causality is epistemically impossible to truly observe does not mean it does not exist. Now pass the joint. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/220 "2023-10-03T00:00:47Z")
never mind [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800.md?page=12)