There is no free will

Sadly, I forgot to request at the beginning that whoever chooses to participate in the debate refrains from bringing irrationalities like faith into the debate, and from making up stuff. Anyway, I would like to thank Con for clarifying my definition. ===== Cons arguments were the following: ===== "Pro has failed to prove that everything must be either deterministic or random. "I claimed that the state of every object in the universe (metaphysical object included, even welcomed) is the result of either (1) the state of the universe the moment before, or (2) a random process (or a combination, which can be broken down to single deterministic or random components). Con argued that this logic is flawed, as there is no proof that the list of explanations for an event is only (1) deterministic process and (2) random process. There is no flaw in the logic, and shall I demonstrate that by (A) analyzing the 3rd explanation for an event that Con called "Free will", and by (B) showing that even if such thing existed it would not make a difference. -------A. Con made up the 3rd explanation, and it does not make sense Con says that some phenomena aren't results of either (1) deterministic process or (2) random process. According to Con, the real list of explanations should (or at least could) be: 1. Deterministic process 2. Random process 3. "Free will" But hey! Why should we call the 3rd explanation "free will"? What a boring name. Lacking creativity, thoughtfulness or any kind of ability to choose cool slogans... I have a better idea! Let's call it magic! or better, let's call it watermelons... You know what? If we are already at it, we might as well include both in the list. According to Con's convoluted logic, we could say that the list of explanations is really: 1. Deterministic process 2. Random process 3. Magic 4. Watermelons Or, in other words, it is rediculous to expect Con's attempt to derail this debate to be taken seriously. I could make up things like souls, gods, Pegasuses, waterfruits (Gee, I wonder what those would be like...) and anything really, and deduce from those cool creation, with which my wild imagination is to be credited, that there is, or isn't, free will. -------B. The Free Will that Con describes, is an object in the universe, therefore subject to the axion "everything has a reason" Let's divide all the objects and things in the universe to two categories: (1) objects that are subject to the rules that govern the universe, and (2) objects that are not subject to the rules that govern the universe. Which category does that "free will" that Con invented go into? The answer to this question is that it doesn't matter, because either way there is no free will: ---If it goes into category one: The "Free Will" is subject to rules. Therefore - it is either the result of something, or it is random, like everything else in the universe. Being subject to rules means that there is some system determining how that object will react in certain situations, and how other object will react to it. If free will is subject to rules it is like anything else in the universe, and, once again, it's not free. ---If it goes into category two: Free will is not subject to rules. If the "free will" is so "free" that it is free from the laws of physics, how does it affect anything? How can I as an entity utilize my "free will"'s freedom in order to be free? Because it is not subject to rules, I can't influence it! If I want to through an apple in the air, do that by giving the apple some upward momentum and releasing it. It works, because the apple is subject to the laws of physics! Now I want to "make" the "free will" choose what I want. But the "free will" Con make up is not subject to rules!!! I can't apply pressure on it, generate momentum to it, or interact in whatever fashion with the so called "free will"... That ultimately "free" object that Con is calling free will is external to any entity's existence and could not be in any way utilized in order to achieve true, real free will. ===== Con attacked my example of choosing deserts, excellently choosing a critical, right on clash issue (I'm being totally serious...). Con says that "Pro speaks about a biological reason for choosing the cake. What is that reason? If it is deterministic it can be predicted. This is not a cause this is a rationalization of the action. It is a post how explanation; it can not help us predict future action more than we can predict the weather. If we can not predict or statistically model a human action it is a huge leap of faith to say that human actions are deterministic or random." I shall show how every statement in the paragraph above is either an assertion, or just false. -----A. "If it is deterministic it can be predicted" - Assertion! Prove that there is an exclusive correlation. Also, it's not true. According to modern physics many qualities of matter (especially speed, direction and position of near light-speed near-zero-mass particles, see http://en.wikipedia.org...) cannot be calculated to 100% precision, despite being deterministic particles, parts of deterministic processes. -----B. "This is not a cause this is a rationalization of the action. It is a post how explanation; it can not help us predict future action more than we can predict the weather." - Assertion! Who says we can't model human action. On the weather issue, I don't know about wherever you live, but here in New York before leaving home in the morning I look at something very cool - a weather prophesy - using which I decide whether or not to take an umbrella with me. We can predict the weather fine, and the only reason we can't predict it accurately for long periods of time that we don't have the computer power or sensory power to take all the factors into consideration. As for the brain: We can predict what output a computer algorithm will generate for the input 1+1. We can even predict what the results of running a word indexing algorithm on this very webpage would result in, but doing it would require some time. Going even further, we can predict what will happen when running a super complex computer program, like, for instance, windows 7. Doing this would require even more time, resources and effort. The Human brain is just a very complex system, some super advance computer hardware+software . We may not have the capacity to model to perfectly just yet, but this is no reason to assume that it runs on some watermelon-magical-ridiculous-made-up-non-existent free will, rather than laws of physics. -----C. "If we can not predict or statistically model a human action it is a huge leap of faith to say that human actions are deterministic or random." - the same assertion that we can't predict or statistically analyse. Also, I refuse to care about faith. I'm sorry it's hard for you to believe that there is no free will. But while it's a leap-of-faith conclusion, there is a perfectly well defined chain of thought, list of logical links, behind the leap. If I need to utilize all the flexibility of my "faith" in order to maintain logically consistency, so be it. I did not fail to show logical links and proofs for my claim, despite what Con says. Sorry about the length.