We Probably Don't Have Libertarian Free Will

And we both know it is part of nature, no argument there. As Pro stated:“Quantum mechanics is part of the fundamental laws of nature. ” . http://physicsforme.files.wordpress.com...We also know that Ohm's Law E=IR is part of the Laws of Nature. Where E is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. Con gave an equation and described its terms. If Pro is going to use equations in his argument, please have the curtesy to describe its terms and how they relate to the subject at hand. This will help the voting population come to a level of understanding in their “free-will” decision. This is not a contest on who has the bigger or esoteric equations. Getting back to Ohm's Law, we know that E electrical voltage, and I electrical current, is the way our neurons, throughout the brain, communicate to each other. This phenomena has been empirically measured with the current state of the art in the field of metrology, fulfilling the requirements of the scientific method. The equation of Ohm's Law does not debunk free-will any more than the above equation of Quantum Mechanics debunk free-will. If I am wrong, Pro has the BoP to use the above equation to illustrate his point. Getting back to Ohm's Law, moments after the Big Bang, which came first? Quantum Mechanics or Ohm's Law? Which came first, the Laws of Aerodynamics (which requires a planet with an atmosphere) or Quantum Mechanics? Which came first, life requiring freedom to survive (which depends on a planet with an atmosphere having the environment to support life) or Quantum Mechanics? The answer to all those questions is Quantum Mechanics which is at the bottom of the food chain. It is proper to use the term food, because Quantum Mechanics is a prerequisite for the existence of your next meal—bon appetite! Moments after the Big Bang, the Second Law of Thermodynamics kicked in. To simplify this Law, in general high pressure has the tendency to flow to a lower pressure. High temperature flows to lower temperatures. Electricity flows from high resistance to lower resistance, and so on, during the expansion of the universe. During this expansion, eventually atoms formed making up stars, planets and life. During all these stages of evolution the flow from the Second Law of Thermodynamics generates a common pattern throughout nature at the finite-size level described by the Constructal Law. These patterns form tree structures that are found throughout nature both animate and inanimate. Please see the following video short on the Constructal 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. From an operational standpoint, all living-systems has the freedom to flow (aka move) in the pursuit of survival. At the living-system level, Constructal Law is a bio-program or dynamic interface with nature, where all “Life” has a craving to sustain itself, with the desire to increase freedom (“Liberty”), while decreasing the energy (providing easier access) in “the pursuit of” an objective, and in the process, exploring new levels of positive-feedback (“Happiness” for us humans). This becomes the foundation for the “Natural Selection” process; the machinery of evolution for life, social systems, technology, markets, etc. Hence, Thomas Jefferson’s polished version known as Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. ” This is the evolutionary path from the Big Bang to Quantum Mechanics to Constructal Law to “Liberty” (aka free-will, freedom) all part of the Laws of Nature, for humans are a product of the Laws of Nature. This evolutionary path, for the most part, is based on empirical evidence within the limits of the current state of the art in the field of metrology, via the scientific method. Since we are a product of the Laws of Nature, there should be no surprise, of empirical evidence showing us humans flow in the shadow of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We have a tendency to migrate from the high resistance of tyranny to the low resistance found in freedom. When purchasing an item we select the lower price from multiple suppliers having a higher price. Going with the flow of traffic is easier and safer than going against it. There is a desire to move from a high emotional pressure to lower pressure. Moving from higher taxed areas to lower taxed communities. And so on. Of course there are exceptions, because we have free-will to do so. On the other hand, Pro is in the weeds with the bleeding-edge of research in theoretical physics, convoluted with philosophy with little emphasis on the scientific method needed for BoF. The problem with theoretical physics is the Heisenberg principle limiting the field of metrology needed in the scientific method to confirm a theory or hypothesis (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Therefore, most of Quantum Mechanics is philosophical (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). The best they can do, in regard to any form of metrology needed for the scientific method, is to build very expensive colliders (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). And in saying that, they are still looking for the “God particle” (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). However, some physicists “believe they have discovered” it (. http://www.usatoday.com...). While Pro is keeping his balance on the “bleeding-edge” of Quantum Mechanics, 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...). Con's focus on free-will is the traceability path via empirical science, where Pro's assumptions are on theoretical physics in Quantum Mechanics (at the bottom of the food chain) and philosophy.