Free will vs. Determinism

Free will and determinism are like complex, intertwined and interdependent discussions like nature and child rearing, or even an ancient question whether it is a chicken or an egg. Philosophers have considered this problem for many years, but I am not satisfied with the answer. When discussing which topics to suggest for this assignment, I asked philosopher friends questions about free will and determinism. As anyway it does not affect our behavior, he feels this question is not worth asking.

Discussion of free will is classified / marked in most cases as a discussion between "free will and determinism". This means that if determinism is incompatible with free will (if it is the case), it just needs to indicate that determinism does not necessarily apply, so that automatic possibilities are automatically opened It is a misunderstanding. In other words, when someone opposes free will, many people return to the idea that the universe may not be deterministic, denying this free will becomes their free will and savior. In the philosophical world, the concept that uncertainty contributes to liberation of free will is called free will of liberals (not to be confused with economic / political standpoint). On the other hand, people who accept determinism but still believe in free will be called compatible, and in most cases do this through a defined shift of the term "free will".

Discussion is often called "free will and determinism", but this is a wrong dichotomy. In other words, if the universe is deterministic, such a rule can exclude free will, and if the universe is not dominated by the determinism of free will, this is not true . This is not a fact. Such lack of certainty opens up "possibilities" for free will. This means that the label of "free will and determinism" is not sufficient for discussion about free will. That is why I have marked myself as a discrepancy not as a solid determinist. Not just determinism