Free will

A religious hon. does think that we have free will. It is not true that in science it is customary to say otherwise. What is true is that there are quite a few scientists who think so, but this is their personal assumption and not a scientific finding.
Obviously, if and when we understand everything we will be able to decide the question, but for now that is not the case and I don’t see it happening in the near or distant future. Of course there is always the possibility that it will happen anyway, and then we will know. In the meantime both determinists and libertarians are expressing a philosophical view and not a scientific opinion.
I explained all of this very well in my books on the science of freedom. There I also explained why it doesn’t seem like it will happen in the foreseeable future, if at all. There I also made several arguments that say that even if it does happen, we will have to reject these findings, because determinism means that we have no discretion and therefore we cannot seriously adopt this thesis itself. It is forced upon us and therefore it is not necessary that it is true.

——
Asker (another):
Good week, Your Honor, I recently read your following quote: “I explained all of this very well in my books on the science of freedom. There I also explained why it doesn’t seem like it will happen in the foreseeable future, if at all. There I also made several arguments that say that even if it did happen, we would have to reject these findings, because determinism means that we have no discretion, and therefore we cannot seriously adopt this thesis itself. It is forced upon us, and therefore it is not necessary that it is true.” The argument seems logical to me. But a question occurred to me: Does the fact that a way of thinking is forced upon me mean that the conclusions I will reach are incorrect? Doesn’t it simply mean that I had to reach those conclusions and nothing more? It may be that I had to reach this understanding that there is no choice, and I was obliged to use certain inference tools, but that does not mean that the conclusion is incorrect. For example: If I were obliged to use the laws of mathematics, would that mean that I would not trust my conclusions? And certainly when we see that our use of reason yields positive results. I guess the example is not that precise, but I hope my point is understood. Why does it mean that if the judgment is forced upon me, it is not correct? Thank you very much and have a good week.
——
Rabbi:
I didn’t say it’s necessarily wrong, but you have no way of knowing if it’s right. Once something is forced upon you, even if it wasn’t right, it would still be forced upon you and you would think it. So you have no way of knowing whether it’s right or wrong. In practice, it could certainly be right (and it could also be wrong). In the book there, I detail these appeals and answer them.

——
Asks:

But let’s say I am forced to use the laws of logic. I can see that I am acting according to them and reaching a conclusion. It is not possible that I was wrong along the way. Perhaps I am forced to think according to the specific laws of logic, but I cannot be wrong in concluding from them. And we see in reality that those who acted, for example, according to such and such formulas came out of it blessed. Isn’t that a sign that it is necessarily true?
Can I give an example of something that I think is correct and may not be correct? I can’t think of anything like that. Is it possible that the laws of mathematics are incorrect? What does that mean? The laws of mathematics, for example 1+1=2. From there I continue in a clear line to 1+2=3. Do you mean that I may think I am consistent but maybe there is some “demon” that is deceiving me and my thinking in general is inconsistent here? And it only seems that way to me?
thanks.

——
Rabbi:
The laws of logic are not forced upon you, but you know they are true. You have discretion and you understand that they are true. This is not coercion and has nothing to do with determinism. And is everything I think is true forced upon me?
——
Asks:

I’m talking about “their method.” If determinism is true, then was your criticism also directed towards my conclusions in mathematics, for example? That proofs that I have proven in mathematics I cannot now know if they are really correct because I was forced to reach them? Even though I work in an orderly manner and come from arguments to conclusions. Where could I be wrong here?

——
Rabbi:
I’ve already answered that, and I’ll come back to it again. The laws of logic are not imposed on you. You decided they were correct (and rightly so).
——
Asks:
So if determinism is true, what is it that is forced upon me? Which conclusions are you criticizing and which are not? Sorry for the difficulty in understanding…
thanks
——
Rabbi:
If determinism is true, then everything is forced upon you. Something else makes decisions for you. Therefore, every decision, whether 2+2=4 or whether it is now dark outside or whether you think it is now light outside, is all forced upon you. You do not make the decision and therefore have no ability to criticize it. On the other hand, if determinism is not true, then none of this is forced upon you, but you make your own decisions. 2+2=4 is true because you understand that it is true. It is now dark outside because you decided that it is now dark. And so on. Everything is the result of your decision.
You are mistakenly confusing the statement that a certain claim seems to you to be true with certainty (2+2=4), with the statement that this claim is forced upon you by an external factor. These are completely different things.
——
Asks:
Sorry, but again. Let’s assume that the determinists are indeed right and that everything is indeed forced upon me. So would it be correct to say that I cannot trust anything I have achieved, including logical conclusions? I’m not talking about now, when you and I know that it is not true, and therefore it is clear that the logic is correct. If determinism were true, would your criticism also be directed at logical conclusions? Which do seem logical, but they were forced upon me and therefore I cannot know whether they are correct?
And if so, can you explain to me where I might be wrong in concluding that 2+2=4. If the premise is that 1+1=2, that would by definition confuse me into 2+2+4, wouldn’t it? How can having logic forced upon me change the fact that this conclusion is true?
thanks
——
Rabbi:
Hello.
I’ll try one last time. If it doesn’t work, then I probably can’t explain my intentions to you and with your permission we’ll have to part ways as friends.
If you live in a deterministic world, you won’t be able to criticize the argument that you yourself have made here (that you proved 2+2=4). It is also dictated to you. Therefore, the fact that it is proven has no meaning. Proofs and reasoning are addressed to those who can criticize them, reject them, or accept them. When you talk to a machine, there is no point in reasoning and proving things. Just program it accordingly. The very fact that you examine things and make arguments means that you believe in freedom and discretion and are not forced to conclusions.
Within a deterministic framework, you will also adopt the argument 2+2=17.3 if it is forced upon you. And no proof or argument will be of any use. At most, if you are structured correctly (and you have no way of knowing this, of course) your fuses will blow because you have run into a contradiction.
Therefore, even conclusions derived from valid logical inference are subject to the same criticism, as long as they are within a deterministic framework.
——
Asks:

thanks. Happy Holidays. Can I get a link to the pages in the book that discuss the argument? Or at least the name of the chapter?

——
Rabbi:

See Chapter 4, page 120 to the end of the chapter.