<< Determinism >>

I apologize for the forfeit as I simply lost track of time. Remember, a forfeit only affects the conduct vote. . . ==> D E F I N I T I O N S <== Self-determination: Free will; the free choice of one's own acts without external compulsion [1] ==> R E F U T A T I O N S <== PRO: "Con states that my argument is supported by no evidence, but since when is simply observing the world around us not evidence? We know that there is cause and effect; everything we know in the world operates under" Question begging. You can't assume the conclusion to form your argument. PRO: "Everything, as far as modern science can tell, operates under rules – rules that are constant. Seeing how we, as beings, operate under the same rules of physics as anything else in the world" I have already provided evidence to the contrary in my first round which you have failed to refute. I demonstrated that under the Copenhagen Interpretation, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and David Bohm's hidden variable theory, particles are INDETERMINISTIC and/or SELF-DETERMINED. PRO: "there is no evidence that we have a free will. If we do, and you assert that there is something more, then it is up to you to provide evidence." It would seem as if I have the burden of proof, however, my assertion rests on an observable phenomenon as we all at least experience the feeling of free will. We both have the burden of proof in this debate because you are making as much of an assertion than me. To argue otherwise would be to delve into solipsism which would defeat all purposes of this debate. ==> Q U A N T U M - M E C H A N I C S - A N D - I N D E T E R M I N I S M <== PRO: "Everything, as far as modern science can tell, operates under rules – rules that are constant. This is why we can perform the same experiments time and time again, and they work out the same each time, because the underlying rules stay the same. We may not know every rule, but we do reasonably surmise that there are rules that apply to everything" This is a false assertion. There are in fact many scientific reasons as to why things do NOT operate under a deterministic set of rules. Observer Effect: "Changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics." [2] Superposition: "[In quantum mechanics], if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once." [3] Quantum States: "In quantum theory, even pure states show statistical behaviour. Regardless of how carefully we prepare the state ρ of the system, measurement results are not repeatable in general, and we must understand the expectation value (A)sigma of an observable A as a statistical mean. It is this mean that is predicted by physical theories." [4] Wave Particle Duality: "All energy (and thus all matter) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties." [5] Wave particle duality is particularly interesting because the classical view of particles acting like billiard balls (cause and effect) no longer applies. Everything truly exists as a wave and only appears as a particle when we observe or measure it. If everything is a wave, the view of cause and effect becomes less plausible and even inconceivable. ==> S E L F - D E T E R M I N I S M <== PRO: "What CON is trying to say is that, because we do not understand the rules by which certain particles operate and we can only apply probability to them at this point; this means there are no determined rules behind these tiny particles. This, however, is a bogus argument." Yes, but the hidden variables theory already accounts for that. Even if the Uncertainty Principle was only due to our ignorance of the underlying laws that govern their movement, we would then have to resort to the hidden variables theory of quantum mechanics. These would be the uttermost elementary particle that determines the behavior of all the other larger particles. However, even these underlying particles would themselves be self-determined as clarified by Bohm himself. **To keep asserting determinism is to end up in an infinite regress. He says that quantum particles are determined, but determined by what? Smaller particles? What determines these particles? Even smaller particles? You see, determinism inevitably leads to an infinite regress. There must be an elementary particle of all reality that is determined by nothing else but itself. PRO: "Now you're just operating on the mere speculation of one guy who does not even know if smaller particles exist." It doesn't matter if the smaller particles exist or not. His point is that whatever the smallest particle is, it is and must be self-determined. PRO: "Are you saying these smaller particles have free will? If you are implying that a "self" determines anything, you are implying free will; however you still have provided no evidence of free will." To be self-determined is to be free. I am merely asserting the law of identity, A = A. Are you really going to dispute that? If these particles are self-determined, they are indeed free because nothing determines their behavior. PRO: "My argument still follows, yet you haven't shown any evidence that indicates that we have free will. At most you've shown that science doesn't understand the rules of elementary particles." This is akin to an argument from ignorance. You are going against what has been demonstrated and observed and simply asserting "Unpredictable particles aren't possible! There must be some underlying rule that determines it, we just don't know what it is yet." Did you ever think that perhaps what scientists have observed is actual reality? However, despite all that, I have still provided logical proof for indeterminism. Your assertion of determinism will always lead to an infinite regress of deeper elementary particles/variables that determine some larger particle. The only way to avoid an infinite regress is to reach the most fundamental elementary particle of reality. So far, from what we have observed, nothing indicates that there is an infinite regress of smaller particles that determine everything else. ==> C O N C L U S I O N <== Conclusion: I have effectively refuted all of my opponent's arguments regarding deterministic laws and particles of the microcosm. All of my arguments for self-determination (which were successfully affirmed) are affirmative arguments for free will because they are one in the same. Unfortunately, Pro had not even attempted to even address any of my arguments of the macrocosm which supported the existence of free will. Thank you for reading. Resolution NEGATED. [1]http://www.answers.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...