Existence of Human Freewill

Why Determinism is Wrong I do believe my opponent misinterpreted my argument. He states I am "saying that because the effect of a quantum particle cannot be calculated, this quantum particle cannot affect something." That is not what I am saying. I was responding to your argument that our decisions can be calculated, and I used the randomness of quantum physics to reinforce that argument. Of course quantum physics has an affect on our decisions -- that was my whole point, that they cannot be calculated. I used the Uncertainty Principle as a mathematical representation of the indeterminate nature of the Universe at the smallest levels, because that is exactly what it is -- it describes the uncertainty of the quantum state of particles, because one cannot be certain of one of the two (position and momentum) without being uncertain of the other. My opponent goes: "...modern quantum mechanics simply acknowledge the possibility of random behavior of particles that are so small they don’t necessarily have mass in all instances." No. Quantum mechanics has shown us that quantum particles are absolutely random -- they just get less random as they interfere with each other. This does not change the fact that they are still random. Everything in the Universe is random, it just seems orderly because of the intereference of wavefunctions. Later: "If pro intends to debunk the idea thought is caused by previous reactions by arguing that some reactions are random then he is arguing that human thought is merely random." I am arguing, based on current scientific research, that all reactions are random, because all particles are represented by a wavefunction of probability, and are not predictable. Yes, I am arguing that human thought is random, but I am arguing that since we are the ones that collapse our wavefunctions, we are the ones who decide our decisions. My opponent then quotes himself, "a substance must be unbound by physics, yet have the ability to influence physical reactions," which he stated under the assumption that the Universe is determinate. Since the Universe is indeterminate due to the probability of wavefunctions, this argument is negated. Finite Influence on Free Will I never said that free will wasn't limited, so thisis not a concession. I merely stated that free will is reduced by environmental factors, but, in the end, it is still the human that makes the decision. My opponent apparently believes there are an "infinitive [sic]" number of variables that, when added up, reduce the free will to zero. There are not and I repeat, not, an infinite number of variables. I apologize for going into science again, but in order to refute your supposed infinite number of variables, I will have to. Have a look at some of these statistics about the Universe: 1. The diameter of the Universe is about 93 billion light years.1 2. There are about 4×1079 atoms in the Universe.2 Of course, this is the extreme; I am just trying to show that the Universe is finite, and thus the agents inside of it that could influence a person’s decisions are finite. When we actually try to determine how much of these agents actually affect a person’s decision, we must cut this number by an infinitesimally small amount, still a very finite number – leaving an amount for free will (this assumes the human brain has a capacity for all of these variables to begin with, which, simply put, is a ludicrous claim). As I have shown, there is simply no way there are an infinite number of variables that could influence a person’s free will. Sure, there are advertisements, there are natural factors of the environment; we are even bound by our genetic code, but those are still very finite variables in their amount and in their influence. Response to the Reminder Well, there you go. They are no longer labeled as rebuttals. References 1. http://books.google.com... 2. http://www.madsci.org...