Existence of Human Freewill

Response to “Why Determinism is Wrong” Determinism is the idea that all reactions are caused by previous reactions. Indeterminism is the concept that reactions are entirely random. My opponent makes a valid point that everything “seems orderly because of the interference of wavefunctions”.However, Pro then states the basis of his argument as “since we are the ones that collapse our wave functions, we are the ones who decide our decisions.” A valid possible solution does not imply that that solution is correct. If humans could collapse their wavefunctions the concept of freewill could be justified. Yet, why are we to assume humans have the ability to collapse wavefunctions. An example of why this logic is erroneous: Two men are contained in identical rooms situated next to each other. A one inch by one inch hole is drilled between the wall in between these two rooms. Every 24 hours an inspector checks in on both of the men. One day the inspector checks-in to find the first man dead. He suggests that the second man could have taken a gun and shot the first man through the hole in the wall, thus the first man was murdered by the second man. Just because something is a possible solution does not mean it’s true. The same logic applies the idea that humans collapse wavefunctions to create free-willed thought. There is no reason to assume humans have the ability to manipulate wave functions, thus we cannot assume humans have freewill. Response to “Finite Influence on Free Will” My opponent argues that “the Universe is finite, and thus the agents inside of it that could influence a person’s decisions are finite”. Simply stated, this assumption is illogical. For example; the variable of a person being exposed to a paper with a number written on it affects that person’s behavior. This might not be drastic in the long run effect on that person’s life but this paper could change a decision. This paper could have an infinitive range of numbers written on it, thus possibility for an infinite number of variables regarding this single piece of paper. Alone this is a minor concept, yet if you can arrive at an infinite number of possibilities for a single piece of paper, it is easy to justify the grand effect the aspects of the universe a person is exposed to, has on that person. Thus, this point still stands. Pro also states; “this assumes the human brain has a capacity for all of these variables to begin with, which, simply put, is a ludicrous claim”. Pro seems to think that a human brain must keep track of all of its influences, this is an invalid assumption. If humans were mere computers with variable inputs for all the data we take in Pro would have a point. However, the human mind presumes it must create an action based on the circumstances it is exposed to. Since the human mind draws on presumed knowledge as supposed to keeping track of a massive list of the prescribed action for circumstances, it is illogical to worry about the human brain’s capacity. Thus, Pro’s objection must be dismissed. A Note on the “Reminder” I now realize that pro has been arguing for freewill, but has failed to provide positive evidence for his claim. Pro’s argument for freewill has been this: A. The universe is capable of random actions, “wavefunctions” B. By closing these wavefunctions free-willed thought is created C. Humans can close wavefunctions thus they have freewill The collapse of this argument is that Pro has yet to provide any evidence that humans do indeed have the ability to close wavefunctions. Because of this I urge all voters to vote Con. Indeterminism http://www.informationphilosopher.com...