Free will probably exists in humans.

I am going to attempt to rephrase my core argument to make it easier to understand. I will also address the points in round 2 that my opponent claims I did not address. Determinism If an event is caused by a preceding event, then it is predictable. An entity with free will must be capable of acting unpredictably; but if every even is caused by a preceding event or set of events, then it is predictable. Randomness If an event is predictable, then it is not random. If an event is not predictable, then it is unpredictable. A random event is one which is fundamentally unpredictable, even given all relevant information. Randomness can be seen as the ultimate unpredictability. So for free will to exist, an entity must be capable of acting randomly. However, if an entity is merely selecting a choice in a completely random manner, this is not a free, rational choice. Since randomness (unpredictability) is the only alternative to determinism (predictability), this leaves no other option. Free will cannot exist. A rational actor cannot choose randomly and still be in control. If an outcome is random, then it cannot be ultimately based on any preceding event, or else it would be predictable. So for an outcome to be truly random, it must be ultimately based on nothing. But if it is based on nothing, then the entity has no way of controlling what the outcome is: if the entity tries to control it, then it will be based on something, and will become predictable. In essence, there is no possible way for an entity to be both random and in control. And if an entity is in control, then the entity is predictable, and still not free. "I must have missed this." It was in my second paragraph in round 2. "I apologise that I cannot comprehend what you mean here. An event occurring surely creates new information? Are you using these words in some technical way I do not understand?" I was referring to randomness in terms of information theory. I address the original point just after my randomness paragraph. "Humans behave somewhat differently to integers. Numbers are easy (ish) to predict because they have no free will or even sensory functions, humans are a little more complicated." It begs the question to assume that humans have free will. "So why does point 2 exist?" Just forget about it. "I believe I provided a good example by showing that I can make a choice over what meal to eat, this is random in the sense that my decision is not pre-determined." I apologize for ignoring my opponent's examples before; at the time, I did not feel them worth rebutting. I will offer a more complex rebuttal of my opponent's examples. My opponent chose what meal to eat; maybe the choice was random (more likely it just appeared random due to the butterfly effect [1]); but was it free will? My opponent's example only serves to prove that a decision was made that appeared to be random. Even if it was truly random, it could merely have been a selection made by some sort of random mechanism, and in fact I would say that it would have to have been: as I explain in my "randomness" section above, free will cannot be random since no rational choice is being made. It is worth noting, also, that my opponent's choice of meat probably in fact was pre-determined and only appeared random because so many factors were involved in the decision. Dr. Libet's research has found that supposedly conscious decisions are frequently not conscious; they are made by the subconscious shortly before the conscious mind makes them. This is not meant to serve as a proof; it is merely used to illustrate how it is possible that people seem to be making free, rational choices when they truly aren't. "In terms of people committing completely random acts they do not need to have control in order to exercise free will." Definitionally, the entity must be in control to be exhibiting free will: "the ultimate decision comes down to the rational actor". If the choice is being made randomly, the entity is not in control. "The result of the action may not be controllable but the choice to act in a manner that produces the random result is." Unless the choice to act randomly is itself random, it is predictable. Predictability is not compatible with free will: if an outside entity with absolute knowledge is capable of predicting every move you make, then you're not really choosing freely, are you? "If my opponent wishes to seriously argue that my experience of free will is an illusion and base his theory that free will is impossible around it, then he will have to prove how every decision I make is actually not really my own." This is not at all what I have done, though. I have logically proven that free will is impossible. ******** [1] Butterfly effect (http://en.wikipedia.org...): "Small variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. This is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position."