Humans possess free-will

Free-will is fundamentally a contradiction; and in demonstrating how, I will show that it can be rationally deduced to non-existence as a meta-physical phenomenon. The only thing that needs hereafter be assumed is the fundamental rule of observed physical laws. But a physical law, in many ways is limited to human understanding and process. The truth is, there are two factions of science that differ in how they describe the movement of time and relationship between matter and time. One theory, under classic physics, suggest there is a single world in the universe, exiting in one perfectly determinable chain of cause and effect. A single, contained, space-time continuum. Each particle in space has only a single possible way it can move through time. A consequence of this model would be that there is no randomness in the movement of matter/energy across time, and all motion is perfectly determined (that is to say, where a particle be in the future is decided from the very beginning of time, a sort of physics equivalent of 'fate'). Then, there is the theory of quantum physics, coupled with its "indeterminacy" conclusion. This view of physics differs in that it suggests that on a sub-atomic level, it is demonstrably impossible to predict precisely how a particular particle or wave will behave, but a range of possibilities can be observed. It is commonly deduced that there multiple universes, each splitting off from one another as events occur at the quantum level, where each individual possibility manifests into its own, unique world, mirroring and branching as time passes. To use a common metaphor, each quantum particle is like a dice, in that it has multiple possible faces to land on when tossed. The moment a particle passes to the next unit of time, it's as though it's been thrown, and instead of one face being landed on, all six are, but each in its own separated world. There is one world split off from the previous moment where the dice lands on 1, another branching from the same instant of time where it lands instead on 2, etc. In this way, you can see that it is impossible to know which world we will be 'tossed' into until it happens, there is no way to precisely predict it ahead of time. In this way, the world would not technically operate 'randomly', since each possibility is guaranteed to occur, but in independent worlds. The world you happen to land into isn't 'chance', because you had to be in this world, since you were part of the set of possibilities for each and every one. Better than 'randomly', is the word 'indeterminately', which means it is not possible to know how a particle will behave ahead of time (and thus, which world you will occupy)[1]. One could however imagine a randomness as a possibility. If the quantum indeterminacy remains to be true, but the multiworld theory false, it would follow that particles occupy a single, isolated continuum, or one-world, where in each moment of passing time, each particle expresses itself randomly from a set of possibilities. I. Hard determinism. Determinism is the philosophical meta-physical position that mirrors the classical physics position described above. Determinism states that there is only a single possible future, past and present for all things in the universe. In other words, given enough information, any and all events beyond the present moment could be calculated with absolute precision. A hard determinist believes that while holding to determinism, free-will is not possible. The obvious reasoning is that with only a single, fixed possibility for the future, man may have a will but utterly no freedom. II. Compatibilism. Compatibism is the belief that both determinism and free-will can co-exist. The following is the compatibilist theory as to how this might be [2]: "the agent had freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." As much as I professedly admire Schopenhauer, this is one of those instances where he committed a grave and egregious error. The obvious flaw in this logic is directly admitted, "man cannot will what he wills", meaning he is not 'free' to choose the thing that binds his decisions. Stating that we are unable to choose our will is the most blatant, express admission that will is not free I've ever heard from an argument that supposedly supports the same very thing. III. Indeterminism. Its been established quite plainly and obvious how man lacks free-will in the classic-physics model of determinacy, but what of the radical new revolution quantum physics has to offer on the subject? Surely, being that we widely believe the world to be, on some scale, 'indeterminable', that means we have free-will? Unfortunately I have to report that it doesn't. Not knowing the future doesn't alter that it can't be elected by the will of the agent. Sub-atomic particles are responsible for the 'randomness' or indeterminable flow of quantum. At no point does this translate to man's will being 'free', it is only a slave to a dice roll dealt by physics. This will conclude my opening case against free-will, as I will include a discussion on theological terms if my opponent wishes to take the debate in that direction. Until then, I will assume the materialist axiom is suitable for us and the audience. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...