Expert's Debate competition R1: On balance, free will is more likely to exist than not

Instead, I will summarize and clarify where needed. Also, I would like to thank my opponent for an enlightening debate and the judges for taking the time to read it. Causality the Prerequisite for Free Will The essential problems of determinism remain even with quantum mechanics That free will is compatible with causality and that causality can be a part of free will is entirely insignificant. There is no reason anyone should contest it. The actual problem that causality poses to free will is much more complex. My opponent's case requires quantum probability. So, while it is true that a world without causality would be a problem for free will, it is also true that a completely determined world would leave no room for pro’s free will either. Pro's case only works with quantum uncertainty. Why does this matter seeing as I've already complied to indeterminism in the quantum realm? Well, my whole case from round 1 was that the essence of the deterministic argument against free will remains even with quantum indeterminism because quantum uncertainty only refutes the deterministic claim that all events are determined, but not its essential problem to free will. Determinism may be technically false in one way, but the technical blunder does not give us free will. Pro's free will requires both causality and uncertainty. This world has both. The only problem is that the problems posed to free will in a completely deterministic world are untouched by the uncertainty discovered in quantum mechanics. In other words, it does not matter that not all events are determined. Those events that are uncertain bare no weight to whether free will actually exists. Quantum uncertainty cannot be an argument for free will In a determined world, all events are 100% certain. In this world there are exceptions. Pro's definition does not allow for free will to exist in a determined world because the basis of his model is that our neurophysiology is quantum based. My contention is that quantum physics adds nothing. Quantum uncertainty is mere chance. It has nothing to do with the control of choice necessary for free will. If my opponent allows that the uncertain position of an electron is material to which shoe he puts on, then he proves my point. It is not free will when some quantum event happens one way over the other by chance. As my opponent tells us, free will requires control. What control exists in chance? If our choices are governed by quantum uncertainty, then free will is all the more evidently false. Chance disallows any control over quantum outcomes but free will requires control. Quantum probabilities have not been demonstrated to enter into the realm of choice Maybe the quantum realm provides the foundations to neural activity, but pro has never shown how the uncertain events in this area are specifically material to a person’s actual choice. Pro says that the uncertainty of an electron is relevant to his choosing what to put on his hot dog. It is relevant in a way because it allows his brain to operate, but we still have reason to remain skeptical of the claim that multiple courses of action are possible because of these quantum events. Quantum events entail uncertainty in the quantum realm. I’m unaware of how they cause uncertainty in something as massive as choice. On the macro scale, quantum uncertainties add up to almost nothing. It is not enough to show that it underlies the behavior of neurons. That in itself does not imply that the uncertainty in quantum events amount to something in decision making. In other words, my choosing what to put on my hot dog (an elementary choice in itself) is far too complex for quantum uncertainty to make it an uncertain choice. Also, as stressed, even if they do enter into decision making, it does not support free will as chance, much more than causality, cannot be a part of free will. The role of consciousness The conscious mind only makes decisions to an extent. Consciousness allows us to evaluate the most preferable course of action and in the end it is sometimes the final process leading up to a choice. However, as I have continually stated, all choices are themselves determined by things that go beyond conscious awareness. We may think and evaluate, but whatever we choose is entirely up to our chemistry. Our personality, rational ability, physical state and environment still determine the choices we make long before conscious awareness comes into play. Yes, indeed, not all events are determined but that does not change things. First, quantum indeterminism amounts to essentially nothing on the macro scale and thus everyday choices are not affected by it. Second, even if they are, chance has nothing to give to free will. It's the very refutation of free will as explained. So we’re left to our “choices” being decided before they ever became ours. The key to my argument is not predictability. Perhaps someone could conceive of a world where free will exits and all actions are predictable, but those actions would not be causally constrained. There would have to be something else. In this universe it is causal determinism that allows actions to be predicted. It is not the prediction that matters but that before a person even becomes conscious about what he is going to do, it was already inevitable he would do it do to his mechanistic nature and the environment. Self-causation There is no such thing as self-causation. What the conscious mind does is already decided before conscious awareness comes into play. Self-causation implies that the conscious mind is the sole originator of the decision which is entirely false. It was determined long ago how the conscious mind would react. The self is part of the process in every day actions, but so are a many other things none of which have any degree of free will. The only difference with the self is that it is conscious, but this does not give it any special exception, or at least, pro has shown us none. Predictability and control Pro’s correct in saying that free will requires a degree of predictability, but incorrect that this lets him get away with determinism. Free will requires freedom. Causal determinism is the opposite of freedom. It constrains actions. There’s no such thing as choice under determinism because only one outcome is possible in all events. Quantum uncertainty provides no freedom either because, while it is not constrained, it escapes the control necessary for free will. This is why I said free will is impossible and incoherent. It requires a physical realm not found in this universe. Pro also seems to contradict himself. Some of the time he refutes my case by saying free will must be predictable. The rest of the time he shows how choices are not predictable. The contradiction can be clearly demonstrated with his statement, “Choices are not inherently predictable”, and his latter claim that, “Free will should be predictable”. According to pro free will should be predictable and is not. This cannot be anything other than a self-refutation. Conclusion Quantum physics adds nothing to the free will case. Quantum uncertainty is due to randomness or probability. One cannot make decisions based on a chance event in the brain. It wouldn't be a decision, it would be chance. There's no way to connect the two. To purposefully choose one thing over another because one event happened by chance over another cannot be called free will. A determined world would contradict free will (assumed by pro). This is not a determined world, but the exceptions to determinism do not refute the problems that determinism offers to free will. Thanks for the debate!