agree. the difference is between freedom and free will. we can have free will as long as we have the illusion of choice because we cant perceived that there was no other choice possible (deterministic) Or, perhaps more correct, we perceived choices that were never possible.

In the videos I mentioned, they are using a series of thought experiment, including one about repeating the same day over and over again or even the same universe over and over again. And I trully believe that, if everything starts the same, then they should end the same and all choices, all decisions, everything will turned out exactly as it already has been. But still, as we perceived our choices as our own, we can believe in free will, even if it could perfectly be some coping mechanism.

On the last note, about me, myself and I. I also agree on the several "me" inside of me. I believe in an non conscious part of my brain making or influecing way more than I wish to admit (I dont think about breathing or I dont "think" most of the decision I make in a day). I think there is a more conscious me and also that when I say "I think" there is a thinking me and the "I" that observe the one thinking. Well it s complicated

Replying to myself as a true beginner haha. I've just watched two well-made videos on the subject from Monsieur Phi (It's in French, but the English dubs are decent Link 1 & Link 2). I agree with the content but I am just paraphrasing here.

There is a philosophical confusion about freedom and free will. Freedom can be defined as (1) being able to make different choices in the same situation and (2) making that decision without being influenced by any external factors. Therefore, being free means being able to determine yourself in a deterministic world, and that sounds like a godly power. This definition seems to be the classical, enlightenment, view of freedom, not mine. But that definition is a philosophical definition of Freedom and not how it is perceived intuitively by common folks (including philosophers) and it s not the definition of Free will.

Free will is simpler than Freedom. Free will is based on (1) I can exert some control over my decision (2) I can deliberate and choose between different options (and not be forced to pick one ie: at gunpoint).

These 2 definitions seem close but the devil is in the details.

Scenario 1 : I wake up extremely sick on Monday and can't go to work. Not going to work is a decision that was determined by external causes, with no control nor different options to choose from. There was no freedom nor free will in this scenario.

Scenario 2 : I wake up on Monday feeling fine, debate whether or not I should go to work, and decide to stay. I had several real options to choose from, deliberated, and freely choose not to go. We can debate on the Freedom part but there was free will here.

Scenario 3 : I wake up, and debate wether or not I should go, remembered that my boss warned me that I ll get fired if I don't show up again. I had several real options and deliberate but the decision was forced on me. Hence no free will.

Scenario 4 : I wake up, debate whether I should go or not, and decide to stay, but, unknown to me, my car is actually broken and I would not have been able to go even if I wanted to. I had no freedom to choose because either way, I would have had to stay, but still used my free will to decide to stay. This is a Franckfurt case where you believe you can choose even if you really cant.

All 4 scenarios illustrate the grey area between Freedom and free will. In a deterministic universe, true Freedom (in the metaphysical definition as stated above) seems impossible, yet Free will is possible. There is a compatibility between the two (hence, compatibilism). Because there is a place for Free will, there is a use for our moral system and justice overall. We are responsible for our own actions as long as we had some control over them and as long as we deliberate and we can choose between them.

I am no expert on the subject, feel free (lol) to poke holes in my block of text =)

It s 1 am here =) i ll follow up tomorrow with a better explanation of my point. I m new here and glab to have these conversations!

Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder's video about free will (mentioned in the article) was called out by a French youtube channel for the same pitfalls that the article fell into. In short, the article's argument is as follow: 1 The world is Deterministic 2 I am part of the world 3 Deterministic = No free will 4 Hence, I have no free will.

Point 1 and 2 are basics for the deterministic view of the world but 3 is actually far stretch and therefore, 4 is a fallacy. There is a whole branch of philosophy (compatibilism) that argue quite well that you can have free will even in a deterministic world. I ll try to explain it tomorrow if some need the argument (too late for Tonight)

I dunno how deep you are in deterministic philosophy (I am myself still in shallow water) but a short answer may be that you can still make a choice even if the choice you made was pre-determined. And that choice matter because you made it.