An opinion about free will, that I quite enjoy is, I believe, from Leibniz (not sure about the author though).
It states, that the world is deterministic and an all-knowing omnipotent being (god) can know exactly what will happen.
Humans however are not all-knowing and in this lack of knowledge lies the free will. Since we ourselves do not know all the factors that influence our decisions, we can “decide” the remaining factors and our decision is free within that space, even though a more knowledgable being could determine our decision before we take it.
In this sense free will is basicly just ignorance of determinism.
2 Likes
Which is why Einstein famously rejected quantum mechanics with the line “God does not play dice.” It didn’t fit well with his determinism. It should be obvious why the philosophical status quo of physics would have been hardline determinism prior to the widespread acceptance of quantum mechanics, and not a whole lot has changed because quantum mechanics doesn’t disprove material determinism, it merely opens the window for doubt.
Einstein later in life became more accepting of quantum mechanics and less rigidly determinist. I agree with older Einstein. I view quantum mechanics as a credible and viable attack on determinism, albeit short of a disproof, I don’t think it’s reasonable to favor determinism over non-determinism, and I view the “heavy hitters” dismissal of credible critiques of determinism as bias — confirmation and/or social desirability, take your pick.
And in my view “balance” in an asymmetrical game is basically just ignorance of the one optimal strategy. This doesn’t mean balance doesn’t exist or even that it’s a bad thing.
Actually I am not biased, I don’t believe it’s settled. There are a lot of people acting as though it is.
It’s not as simple as a debate between quantum and classical physics, it’s how things we see at a quantum level are interpreted and we have an incomplete understanding, which gives rise to multiple theories.
Also quantum fluctuations aren’t significant enough to alter our day to day macro outcomes. We only see their effects in macro systems at massive scales.
1 Like
you’re aware that it doesn’t mean anything, right? 
a seance of what?
A seance is typically an attempt to communicate with otherworldly beings. You must be careful, however, to not elicit a demon. They are pretenders, and will act like the person you’re trying to reach, but they are superbly dangerous!
I appreciate the feedback on something that happened 40 years ago.
nope, seance only means session, session of what?
Wikipedia
A séance or seance is an attempt to communicate with spirits. The word séance comes from the French word for “session”, from the Old French seoir, “to sit”.
Oxford
Seance
noun
a meeting at which people attempt to make contact with the dead, especially through the agency of a medium.
Cambridge
séance
noun
a meeting where people try to talk with dead people
Mirriam-Webster
Séance noun
Definition of séance
1: SESSION, SITTING
2: a spiritualist meeting to receive spirit communications
Shakou, master linguist, amateur googler
seance only means session
1 Like
or just a guy with a brain, if you like to misuse a word, it’s your right, it isn’t my problem
The word clearly has a different meaning in english than in french. Feel for the polish who have to deal with fart.
Fart (Polish): Stroke of luck
Fart (English): emit wind from the an*s.
because of people who misuse it, it isn’t the only misused word though (it reminds me of douchebag for example lol, it is an insult for no reason)
If language didn’t evolve, we’d all be grunting.
Grunt grunt. Grunt. Grunt grunt grunt!
Also it was appropriated over 200 years ago 
Time to let it go!
This thread has an parabnormal amount of replies.
BRB watching Paranorman.