Yes, for example, utopians and fundamentalists have justified their brutal actions for the sake of the future well-being they were seeking to create. What're a few murders compared to the ideal communist state or an eternity in heaven?

I'm quite confused on what the basis of the word "freedom" means in the context of this argument, as it can be broad. Is it freedom from financial obligations required in most of our lives? Is it freedom to express thought without consequence?

[removed]

> valuing utility above all else can lead to morally perverse outcomes, as many hypotheticals have shown.

Does the real world show it, or just made up utility monsters?

[removed]

[removed]

> Metaphysical is still part of 'everything', innit?

Opinions vary. A lot of people (some of them otherwise genuinely "smart") seem to believe that it does not even exist, that it "is" "woo woo".

> Way we see it, physics cannot study or discuss what it does not experience, yet it can - and ought to - acknowledge the possibilities.

No disagreement here, but the fan base seems to have not gotten the message. Maybe that scientists rarely knowledge that science does not even try to study the entirety of reality (while often implying that it does) has something to do with it. Personally, I doubt most scientists even have a strong understanding of the genuine complexity involved.

> in real science, anything may be challenged, and often is

I wonder how much real science still exists on the planet. It's an interesting idea to contemplate.

> Differing approaches are fine;

Opinions vary, and strongly!

>... differing levels of credibility ought to have actual, articulable reasons beyond " I am just going with what is widely accepted in acedemia." - because academics makes mistakes too.

Many do, but aren't widely distributed. And that which is not known has a way of appearing to not exist.

> Obedience does not bring victory, & calibraka may want to understand that before echoing what they were told without reflecting on whether it was accurate, perhaps?

Shall we ask of others that which we cannot do ourselves?

[removed]

Differing approaches are fine; differing levels of credibility ought to have actual, articulable reasons beyond " I am just going with what is widely accepted in acedemia." - because academics makes mistakes too.

Obedience does not bring victory, & calibraka may want to understand that before echoing what they were told without reflecting on whether it was accurate, perhaps?

That is a good question.

Metaphysical is still part of 'everything', innit? Way we see it, physics cannot study or discuss what it does not experience, yet it can - and ought to - acknowledge the possibilities. The blindspot of any thought-science devised by sentients is that sentients' own inability to address that which is can not detect, yet may exist anyway (i.e., Dark Matter/Energy).

How a scientist meets the unknown reveals a lot about the habits they've been practicing - absolutism has few places of validity; in real science, anything may be challenged, and often is.

Summary: Is freedom valuable because it lets us pursue utility, or is utility good because free people would pursue it? I argue the latter, grounding morality in freedom rather than utility.

First, valuing utility above all else can lead to morally perverse outcomes, as many hypotheticals have shown. These thought experiments can be satisfactorily resolved by valuing freedom instead. Second, utility arises as part of an amoral biological process of evolutionary adaptation. Something amoral cannot create something moral. Third, since utility is subjective, its utility is shaped by our freedom. How we choose to experience something determines its value to us. Freedom therefore grounds utility.

[removed]

I realize that. I believe you may have missed my point.

>So the difference is that you set lower standards for aspiring philosophers than for aspiring physicists, and the problem is somehow with the field?

Physics is known to be deterministic, metaphysics seems to be otherwise. So, different approaches may be appropriate.

>Physics is the study of how everything works.

Does it encompass the metaphysical realm?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Well said.

[removed]

The conclusions of scientific knowing are superior to all other forms of knowing and hence more trustworthy.Theoretical scientific knowledge is empirically verified knowledge.Logical positivism

diluted this verification and created metaphysics.

I agree that logic alone doesn't say anything about free will or determinism. Logic is all about language and pure reasoning. We make some rules and see what follow from these rules. Logic is not about causality. If you come up with a logic (formal system), all the consequences of that logic are instantaneous and eternal, the formal system didn't 'cause' those logical consequences -- they have always been there, just not known. Logic is not about cause and effect through time, it's about timeless truths from assuming concepts.

In physics, not all things have a 'cause', 'virtual particles' pop up from existence and disappear without detection, and their energy has been measured. Physical entities are different from abstract entities. Abstract ones are timeless (an And function, numbers,...) and physical ones are bound by time. The universe behaves in a certain way but for all we know it could have been different. To find the truth about free will, we need to learn more about the rules of the reality we exist in -- what rules does our reality follow?

Good day. I watched this YouTube video from then & now https://youtu.be/C5mf_G-U8nw. What do you think of it is equality natural?