We Probably Don't Have Libertarian Free Will

Quantum Mechanics:In regards to quantum mechanics, con says :"“. .. even in a fully deterministic universe, we can be said to have free will. Well there you have it. In a deterministic universe, we “have free will. ”Well remember con is arguing for libertarian free will. Now let'see what con's article says(it actually argues in my favor). Quote 1:" Also, at a deep level, quantum mechanics is not random at all. Schrödinger’s equation is completely deterministic and time-symmetric. Carroll feels much the same". THIS BLATANTLY ADVOCATTES DETERMINISM. Quote 2: "Her paper suggests that there is a third way between determinism and randomness: what she calls “free-will functions,” whose outputs are fully determined but unpredictable. Only those who know the function know what will happen. "This establishes free will as an illusion. This means that because we don't know the function, it seems that we have free will, however if the function was known we could predict all actions with a 100% accuracy. So on this view, we also have ZERO free will. Quote 3: " If we lack free will, the coordinated outcomes can be explained without any nonlocal connection. The reason is that the setup of the experiment assumes the outcomes are independent of the measurement settings. If the two are somehow synchronized, that might produce the illusion of nonlocality. In the video, that would mean Mary did not exercise any free choice in her choice of whether to say “left” or “right. ” It was all set up at the big bang to ensure compatibility with the answers that John and I give. "So this concerns nonlocality. This depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. I argued for the MWI, which con did not refute, so as aforementioned, if the MWI is true, then free will does not exist. Quote 4(the last sentence of the article): " That is, there is no free will because you chose ALL, but in each case, you have the perfect illusion of free will because the universe (that this copy of) you experience is the one (that this copy of) you chose. "Once again con's own source says free will is an illusion. So if we care about quantum mechanics and how the universe works, then there is no libertarian free will. Unconscious Neurophysiology: Con's dismissal of Neurophysiology stems from his lack of understanding of quantum mechanics. Con says: "what difference does it make, if we live in a deterministic universe and still “have free will? ” . Well, too bad for con, because in a deterministic universe, we don't have free will. IT'S AN ILLUSION. Con goes on to say:"We cannot overlook the fact the concept of conscious and unconscious is still metaphysical (aka philosophy) no matter how many in the community agree. " Now is this true? Let's conduct a simple experiment and see:1. Pay attention to your actions.2. Observe if there are actions you are commiting, that you are not consciously choosing to do.3. If there are , then there is an empirical reason to believe that an unconscious mind exists. If there was only a conscious mind, then all actions would be made consciously. Neuroscience via FMRI has shown that thoughts are the result of neurophysiological states. Seeing that you don't consciously choose those states, you don't consciously choose your thoughts. Just because you become conscious of your thoughts, does not mean that you chose them. So does this follow the scientific method? question: does the unconscious mind exist? hypothesis: If the unconscious mind exists, it influences actions. prediction: If the unconscious mind influences actions, then one would not consciously chooses all of one's actions. If there is no unconscious mind, then one would consciously choose all of one's actions. testing: My experimentanalysis: Through attentive observation of one's actions, it becomes quite evident that one does not consciously choose one's actions in the entirety. Subsequently, an unconscious influence is present in the causation of one's actions(one does not consciously choose one's unconscious causations). Seems to me we can come to a conclusion throught the scientific method, that the unconscious mind exists. Con did not refute the unconscious argument against free will derived from my color thought experiment, he merely dismissed it as speculative,however I provided sources to substantiate my assertion that the unconscious mind exists. Also I just devised a very simple and cogent experiment, that follows the scientific method, that establish the presence of an unconscious force. God: Once again I don't think a god exists, it was included as a preemptive refutation to an argument from god. More On The Constructural Law: Now I do know about the Laws Of Thermodynamics. I understand the concepts and equations. I and most physicist agree that it has nothing to do with free will. Con says: "” In other words, one has the free-will to buy from a higher price supplier. What is generally stopping one to buy at a higher price? " I maintain Ceteris paribus, one can't knowingly pick the higher priced product. Why do I think this, well because the constructural law. "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. "This quote from con perfectly argues my point. Con says:"Of course there are exceptions, because we have free-will to do so. " I don't think so. BoP is on con to show Ceteris paribus, it is possible for one to act in a way contrary to the constructural law. I don't think your brain will let you, ceteris paribus, buy the higher priced product. Con says: "My recommendation to Pro, keep it simple, read up on the Constructal Law, study the finite-size mechanics until the quantum folks figure out their mechanics. "The multiverse is not finite. Also you attacking quantum mechanics isn't a refutation. Suicide: Given one naturally acts in a way that potentially promotes well-being, one is bound to come into conflict with others doing the same. This will result in a failure. If one fails enough, one is bound to have a negative value in regards to well-being. If one has a net- negative value for well-being and will continue to have a net-negative value for well-being, it then becomes preferable to commit suicide. See "Antinatalism" and"Efilism". there is also biological pre disposition for suicide. More than 90% of people who commit suicide suffered from a psychiatric disorder, mostly a mood disorder (Mann,2003). There is consistent evidence suggesting that genetic factors play an important role in the predisposition to suicide and suicidal behaviors. Closing Thoughts: I have offered two arguments:1. MWI/multiverse2. Unconscious motives. In regards to number 1, con merely did not think it was important. This is false because our universe is governed by quantum mechanics. The Schrodinger is deterministic. If the MWI is true,which I argued on the basis of a multiverse and the ineveitable occurence of a physical state if such a state is possible. He tried to say in a determinstic universe, there is free will. I refuted this using his own source. If the universe is deterministic free will is an illusion.2. He doubted the existence of unconscious motives, so he did not address this argument. I showed, through the literature, and simple experiment, the unconscious exists.3. His argument does not imply free will, it merely shows we are determined to attempt to act in accordence with the constructural law. Sources:. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...Thanks to con for a good/ interesting debate ^. ^.