Beginning at the end of your comment and working backward, what do you think of Gödel Escher Bach or even Logicomix? It isn’t really a matter of debate that you cannot use logic as a universal construction toolkit for a rational reality, it has already been proven. Gödel vs Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead etc.
How do you propose causation emerges exactly? You are a kind of relationist?
You seem to be conflating “doesn’t have reasons” with “is random” because your basis seems be something like a relational rationalist perspective, which I don’t know of as a thing that exists. I don’t believe I have encountered it before.
I can see that some aspects of your perspective make sense, but I don’t see how the aggregate holds together.
edit: I forgot to answer “how so”: your argument against free will seems to be that any choice is in response to a cause, and causes infinitely regress, therefore free will cannot exist.
Both move the choice (or the cause), out of you or me and into the origin of existence. It doesn’t cease to exist, really, it just moves. But your argument, used to argue for the lack of existence of choice, can be used to argue for the lack of existence of cause, because every cause is caused. The term becomes meaningless then, one static continuation.
My argument is that the infinite regress ends in you (and me), because of the details of our construction.
How do you propose causation emerges exactly? You are a kind of relationist?
You seem to be conflating “doesn’t have reasons” with “is random” because your basis seems be something like a relational rationalist perspective, which I don’t know of as a thing that exists. I don’t believe I have encountered it before.
I can see that some aspects of your perspective make sense, but I don’t see how the aggregate holds together.
edit: I forgot to answer “how so”: your argument against free will seems to be that any choice is in response to a cause, and causes infinitely regress, therefore free will cannot exist.
Both move the choice (or the cause), out of you or me and into the origin of existence. It doesn’t cease to exist, really, it just moves. But your argument, used to argue for the lack of existence of choice, can be used to argue for the lack of existence of cause, because every cause is caused. The term becomes meaningless then, one static continuation.
My argument is that the infinite regress ends in you (and me), because of the details of our construction.