My Best Argument Against Free Will

[Jay-qu]

biology is a by-product of physics, as is chemisty. Physics states the laws from the smallest parts, the rest are just higher level derivations.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The best argument against free will is to ask those who believe in free will to provide empirical evidence that supports free will.

 

No.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

biology is a by-product of physics, as is chemisty. Physics states the laws from the smallest parts, the rest are just higher level derivations.

 

And physics at it's most basic level is not deterministic. The universe is not a clock, it's workings are uncertain. In fact, chaotic systems appear quickly even in well defined, well bounded situations - gas particle movement, fluid dynamics, etc.

 

You brain is a pretty complex piece of equipment - I'd wager to say it's at least an unpredictable system.

 

Furthermore, free will is self evident. Someone will read this thread and choose not to respond to it. Someone will read it and choose to respond to it.

 

If free will is an illusion, it is an illusion so complete that it is utterly indistinguishable from reality at all points, and there is no place where you can point to and say - "here the illusion is incomplete." In fact, if there is no way to tell the illusion is an illusion, what is the functional difference between illusion and reality?

 

Or have you never chosen anything?

 

TFS

[Jay-qu]

And physics at it's most basic level is not deterministic. The universe is not a clock, it's workings are uncertain. In fact, chaotic systems appear quickly even in well defined, well bounded situations - gas particle movement, fluid dynamics, etc.

 

We dont know that for sure, what looks like total disorder at first may be just the result of extremely complex lower order stuff.

 

Think about using windows, sometimes it does some random stuff, spits errors, other times it works fine. There is nothing quantum mechanical about its programming, it is completely determined, has a finite amount of possible outcomes that are determined by your input, for a given input it 'should' always work the same way. When it doesnt its not a random act its just the result of lower level complex actions that you and me have no understanding of.

 

This could be the case with quantum mechanics, we have only scratched the surface of string theory and while it may turn out ultimately wrong, there may be a new determined theory that lies below it. :shrug: can we ever really be sure we have hit rock bottom of our fundamental understanding, methinks not :eek_big:

[ughaibu]

If things can not be fully understood, how can one claim that there is determinism?

[Tarantism]

If things can not be fully understood, how can one claim that there is determinism?

well, i think taht we have ample evidence to show that most of the physical universe is governed by certain, defined laws and peramiters. these peramiters build the playing feild for the players in probability, which plays out according to traits of space-time and the things inside of it. would you say that this is accurate, and do you think that it is unrasonable to think taht the rest of the universe is governed my similar laws, even if we have not given them a name yet?

[ughaibu]

Evidence arises from human perception and no matter how bizarre the mathematical manipulations applied to that perception, the result must reflect to human perception in order to be confirmable. By their nature, physical laws are predictive, so any physical law can only describe logically consistent phenomena available to human perception. There are some problems arising from complexity theory and satisfiability, that place severe constraints on what humans can know or understand, given such a situation I feel no temptation to make any conclusions about unknowable things. One might argue that the complexity of the universe is such that it cant "know" itself and thus that any deterministic effects are purely local.

[Jay-qu]

given such a situation I feel no temptation to make any conclusions about unknowable things.

 

I agree.. at this point I just have to throw up my hands and say I dont know :beer: but its still fun to make speculations

[Kriminal99]

I think another way of saying some things said here is:

 

A) There's only so many things a person can physically do. You can't fly away (without the aid of any device) in response to someone attacking you. Because people can't fly. The nature of the world dictates that only certain things can be done. So if there was free will, it would be limited to physically possible acts.

 

:lol: People are driven by emotions and by their subconsious mind/intuition (if you think emotions and intuitions are different, I do not) to do certain things. This further limits people's actions and therefore any free will. You would not board a train to toronto and then jump off of the train and climb a tree in response to a hot girl smiling at you. Why? Because it doesn't make sense and/or it's not something anyone would want to do. Do you determine what makes sense or what you want? No.