We Probably Don't Have Libertarian Free Will

I Guess I'll explain Schrodinger's equation at the end of this round. It's rather complicated. However, I included that equation just to show quantum mechanics is relevant. You're trying to disregard quantum mechanics, which is crazy because our universe is governed by quantum mechanics.(What I posted wasn't the Schrodinger equation, it's the time evolution). But first let's recap and examine. Con has one argument for his position, which is the constructural law. I will explain later why this does not give us free will. I have two arguments: all actions and thoughts are determined by unconscious neurophysiology and the MWI and multiverse. In response to neurophysiology, con says: " he also relies on the philosophy or hypothesis of the conscious- and the unconscious-mind with his free-will argument. The concept of these different parts of the mind came about in the 1700s by the German philosopher Friedrich Schelling, and have yet been located or proven scientifically, therefore, they remain as philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org......). " My response is basically: " are you kidding me?". This displays a lack of knowledge of psychology. Note that con did not address the argument, he merely dismissed it as purely speculative. Even if it was purely speculative, he would still have to offer a refutation.He does the same thing for quantum mechanics. Con basically says, no one in quantum mechanics really knows what they're talking about. Now, I'm sure those who actually study quantum mechanics, know it's a real science. It is based of evidence, it just isn't super concrete like geology. Note again, con doesn't refute my quantum mechanicial/ cosmological multiverse argument, he just dismisses it.My arguments still stand.Constructural Law: " The Constructal Law states:Given freedom, for a finite-sized flow system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve in such a way that provides easier access to the currents that flow through it. At the living-system level, once alive “Life,” has the freedom (“Liberty”) in the pursuit of, or flow in easier access, to survive; otherwise, there is no life. "Well first if this is a law, we have to follow it. There is no way to avoid it. "Given freedom" is how it starts off.Freedom: " the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." Now this is the definition of begging the question. This is basically saying if you have freedom, you have freedom. I believe I have reasonably demonstrated through my arguments that there is not freedom, especially in regards to the aforementioned definition of freedom. So freedom is an assumption of the argument. I would like con to substantiate this assumption. To exemplify his argument, con gives the following analogy: "When purchasing an item we select the lower price from multiple suppliers having a higher price." Now where is free will in this? Given this law, it is impossible to knowingly choose the higher priced product. Just because one is determined to make beneficial choices, does not mean one is not determined.Schrodingers Equation (easy derivation):E=KE+PEE=1/2mv^2+uE=p^2/2m+uψ= e^i(km-wt)dψ/dx=ike^i(m-wt)=ikψd^2ψ/ dx^2= (ik)^2ψk= P/h(reduced planck's constant)(k=2π/λp=h/λp=hk/2Πp=h(reduced planck's constant)k)d^ψ/dx^2= -(p^2/h^2)^ψ(-h reduced Plack's constant^2)(d^2)ψ/dc^2=p^2(ψ)E=p^2/2m+uEψ=p^2ψ/2m+uψEψ=(-h^2/2m)(d^ψ/dx^2)+uψTime Independent Schrodinger Equation= ( -h(reduced plack's constant)^2/2m)( d^2ψ/dx^2)+ uψ=Eψ(I have a feeling my mathematical symbols are not going to transfer over to my post. I'll clarify with a comment if I must).Conclusions: My opponent has not addressed my arguments, he has only dismissed them. He denies the reality of unconscious neurophysiology and dismisses quantum mechanics as purely speculative(which it's not). Even if these were rational points, he would not have refuted my arguments, maybe con will care to refute my arguments, instead of dismissing them.His argument seems to establish that we will act in ways that are more beneficial to us. This does not have to do with free will. His argument using this law also commits the "begging the question fallacy". It's basically: "given freedom, you have freedom". He seems to perfectly demonstrate my point. Remember the definition:"Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature, the laws of physics and free from any predetermination by God." His argument proves that our actions are determined by evolution and the laws of physics.Some Unconscious mind research: http://violet.berkeley.edu...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Empirical experiments in Quantum Mechanics:http://en.wikipedia.org...https://medium.com...http://people.whitman.edu...