We don't have freedom and free will.

Greetings, before we meddle in semantics I'd like to set some definitions as you haven't (Please agree or disagree) Free will: the ability to choose between different possible courses of action I am not saying that some of our actions cannot be influenced by something psychological, but that we have some sort of decision in our choices. As of now, I am indecisive as it does boil down to a subjective thought. I'd like to first make the statement that free will has little to nothing to do with quantum fluctuations. Humans, for the most part, are wildly unpredictable beings (Like most macroscopic systems). Hence, our actions have nothing to do with microscopic determinism. Quantum mechanics is governed by probability dynamics. The equation of quantum fluctuations does not in any way constitute exactness of the situation, but the probability. In other words, they certify that the violation of determinism is strictly random. This is in direct contradiction with the definition of freedom or free will. So, If human freedom to choose was reducible to quantum indeterminism, then we should conclude that human choices are strictly regulated by the chance. It's comparable to throwing a coin flip, we act accordingly off of that so it is determined by chance, not presupposed in any way. It is at this point that it does boil down to subjectivity and exactly why I did post definitions so we wouldn't meddle with semantics. If one considers an element of randomness to be sufficient enough to substitute as "free will" then they are free to choose so. However, there are already many sources of uncertainty, entirely independent of quantum mechanics. Just one example is the microscopic atomic dynamic inside of everyone. It's influenced by everyday events (random) Thought experiment: - Also, consider the fact that quantum indeterminism disappears quickly when considering macroscopic objects. - Consider the idea that it is room temperature where the thermal motion of molecules is random. The water that fills the molecules inside our brain will serve as a source of indeterminism for the simple idea of it being hot. This alone serves as a serves as a higher indeterminism than that of a quantum one. We can now conclude that free will and determinism cannot be satisfied via quantum physics, hence we are given the question: If there are influences (like macroscopic dynamics) that are subject to microscopic indeterminism (like the thermal one given above), then what exactly helps us determine how to judge free will? Now that we've established that Quantum mechanics shows little to no validity in the argument of free will, we can apply philosophy to the argument. This, being purely hypothetical of course (Just for fun because I love systems of ethics). Take the idea that a man is walking his dog. He would, naturally, think of two solutions: "Should I walk the dog?" or "Should I not walk the dog?". The best choice of action in his mind is to not walk the dog, as it may be chilly outside or for the pure reason of his laziness. Regardless of his reasoning, we can assume that if human actions are influenced by the rational capabilities of that individual, that an agent can successfully carry out a choice. Whereas I must notate that there are many flaws in such logic, mainly determanism, I would like to simply continue a more philisophical argument rather than one that is scientific.