Free will

My opponent initiated the debate contending, "... I am arguing that free will does not exist and that all events, past present and future, were determined at the big bang." He further declared, "my basis of thinking is that if one knows the location and velocity of every particle in the universe as well as a complete understanding of the laws of physics he would be able to perfectly predict all future events." Even though my opponent named himself "Con" he clearly affirmed a resolution having two parts: (1) free will does not exist, and (2) all events have been predetermined. In Round 1, I cited five aspects of nature known in modern physics that contradicted my opponent's contention that all events were determined at the Big Bang. Events are unpredictable from any given state of the universe because (1) particle decay is inherently unpredictable, (2) radioactive decay is unpredictable, (3) quantum states, including particle locations and velocities, exist only as probabilities, (4) quantum fluctuations producing interacting particle are unpredictable, and (5) wave/particle duality makes the paths of particles unpredictable. I referenced the scientific literature in support of each of these contentions that demostrate unpredictability is inherent in the nature of the universe. I further offered expert scientific opinion that Laplacian determinism, the second part of the resolution, is dead. Con offered no referenced science contradicting my contentions nor any referenced scientific opinion to the contrary. He asserted repeatedly that while the experiment that would show determinism could not be conducted, that the principle of determinism remains valid. It is a basic mistake to claim that determinism can exist hypothetically. It cannot exist even hypothetically, because it would contradict the laws of nature. At the outset, Con declared he, "would ask that my opponent avoid self evident facts, if you can not prove it the only reason you have to believe it exists is your belief itself," yet he did not provide a single reference in the entire debate supporting his belief that determinism in any form is possible. It is not possible to duplicate a situation in a different place, at a different time, or in a hypothetical parallel universe and expect an identical outcome. That is because what is being duplicated is inherently probabilistic, so the duplicate would necessarily present a new roll of the dice. The impossibility of determinism in any form creates a problem with the definition of free will. As the initiator of the debate, my opponent has the responsibility of making a meaningful resolution. His opening argument implicitly defined "free will" by means of the alternative he offered. He proposed that either there is free will or determinism. With determinism gone, my opponent also lost his definition of free will. In the fourth round, he offered a new definition, that "Free will is the ability to make different choices to an identical situation at the same time." That does not scape the loss of determinism, because it is not possible, even in theory, to have an identical situation. Any supposed duplicate would have uncertainties that could lead to different results. Con's resolution is therefore meaningless. I pondered the construction of a new definition of free will., and concluded that no meaningful definition was possible in an inherently uncertain universe. However, it is Con's task to provide a resolution that has a meaning, and he failed to do so. Con affirmed a two part resolution, affirming that there was no free will AND that the universe is determined from the moment of the Big Bang. The deterministic universe is clearly disproved by modern physics. But without the possibility of a deterministic universe, the definition of free will also fails, and no replacement definition could be found. The resolution that Con affirmed therefore is negated. Pro prevails.