The notion that free will does not exist.

Starting with a brief overview, the claim you make is that if all events can be determined with physical law, then free will does not exist. On this point we both agree. The difference arises when we question the existence of something indeterminable and random which would allow the presence of free will. I claim that such things do exist, while you claim they do not. In the case of a series of random numbers, you claim that they are not truly random. In most cases, this is true. But hypothetically, a random series could be generated. The random number generators that are created have some memory to correct themselves if the string of numbers is not random according to the machine. This, of course, eliminates true randomness. However, if there are a million or so computers not connected to each other in any way, and each one generates a single number with a random number generator, then I believe a random set could be created. I also mentioned the randomness that exists in quantum physics. You rightly point out that our work in this field is far from complete. But to say "that there is little or no certainty in this area of science" is an understatement. Quantum physics has been around for years. It began with Einstein's quantum theory of light, and by the 1920's quantum mechanics abandoned the causality of traditional physics. Since that time, we have performed many experiments and came to some conclusions that are inconsistent with Newtonian physics, but consistent with experimental results. The most important of these is known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This principle states that both the position and momentum of a particle cannot be determined. One of the two can be determined, but never both. Even in the other explanations for the weird quantum effects observed, uncertainty still remains in ALL of the interpretations. This principle is so widely accepted in the field of science that it would be unjust to classify it as a "silly notion" simply because the quantum world operates differently from the macroscopic world in which Newtonian physics takes precedence. I would also like to mention that although the work in quantum physics is not yet complete, we do have data and empirical evidence that has been continually gathered for more than three quarters of a century. To ignore this vast amount of data in order to conclude that all events can be pre-determined is not logical. My classification of some of the newer interpretations as pseudo-science is not really in the realm of this debate. However, I will briefly mention that there is a huge difference between these interpretations and the things you mentioned (the Earth being round, Earth revolving around the Sun). This difference is that even when such notions were rejected (and the Earth being round was never rejected by all) there was still EVIDENCE for such claims. Evidence is what separates science from pseudo-science. In that same vein, we have plenty of evidence from experimentation to support the ideas of quantum theory. They may seem crazy and illogical, but experiment after experiment continually confirms these notions that the quantum world behaves differently. Acknowledging all of this evidence, it is hard to classify the ideas as "assumptions and guesses to new discoveries." They are verified and have predictive power. I agree that the physical laws of the macroscopic world follow determinism. But choices cannot be defined as macroscopic or microscopic. You give an example of a teenager and make it fairly cut and dry (with some minor variables thrown in). By this example you wish to show that all choices are guided by determinism. However, I tend to disagree. In the field of Cognitive Psychology there have been numerous studies done on decision making. In trying to determine the choices people would make, all efforts have failed. Time and time again, it has been shown that the values of a single individual fluctuate from one moment to the next. Predictability becomes impossible. There are many tests done on this and if you wish to look them up you may refer to the following studies in this area: (Fishoff, B. (1991) Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 46, 835-847. Payne, J., Bettman, J., & Johnson, E. (1992) Behavioral decision research. ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, 43, 87-131. Slovic, P. (1990) Choice. (found in Osherson & Smith)AN INVITATION TO COGNITIVE SCIENCE: THINKING (pp. 89-116)) I stated in the previous argument that rejecting free will is also impractical. The point being that if everyone is basically "forced" to execute the actions they do, then they cannot be held accountable. On this point you concede that it does eliminate responsibility, but state that it will not change anything. Perhaps this view you have makes sense when you state that our conviction of criminals and us imposing jail sentences on them would also be considered "forced" and so we would feel no guilt. The part of this argument that doesn't jive comes when you state that this new perception would change the way in which we rehabilitate criminals. You state "This theory would show that what is more important and more solely needed is to show criminals why they are a certain way and fix those faults that society deems necessary to fix. Psychiatry works much the same way and is more effective than punishment in fixing criminals." The problem I have is that this seems contrary to your view of determinism. If some method we have is able to "fix" a criminal or change a criminal's behavior, then the choices we make and the lives that we lead are not as written in stone as you claim. The very admission that a criminal may change their behavior with help shows that you yourself don't fully believe in this idea you put forth. In fact, stating that we would have the option to actually change the way we deal with criminals also shows choice. And finally, asking the voters to think this debate through and vote with reason shows some lack of faith in your idea. According to you, all of the voters actions are already pre-determined. We are not bound to Newtonian physics in regards to the decisions we make. Will power is intangible, and as such it cannot be said to follow the strict laws of cause and effect. Psychologists have not been able to predict all of the choices we make, and quantum physics shows us that even the tangible physical world is not always bound by determinism. Free will can and does exist. The pre-existing factors you mention may make one choice more likely than another, but it can never be written in stone.