<< Determinism >>

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 this principle. One thing causes something else, and everything we have known of so far works by a set of rules – rules that we do not always know or understand, but rules none the less. There is no evidence that we, as organic (or spiritual) beings are outside of these rules of cause and effect. CON: "I assume he is referring to the laws of physics and by "religion" he means "God" or "divine law." First of all, which is it? You haven't even chosen your side. Is the Universe predetermined by the laws of physics or is it determined by God?" My side in this debate is determinism. The presence that initiates these preset rules is irrelevant to the argument of freewill. If there is such a thing as physics or God then the rules is set – even if they are completely off the wall, the rules – as shown by any scientific experiment, aren't made up as we go. 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; 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. And, of course, if there were a God (defined as an omnipotent being), then he would have omniscience (a part of omnipotence), hence he would know exactly what would happened before it happened. If it knows what you're going to do before you were even born, then it would be paradoxical to say you ever had free will. CON: "As I addressed in my first rebuttal, he hasn't proven that everything falls under these preset laws, nor has he proven that these laws are factual and absolute. There really isn't much else that can be said here because this is merely a bare assertion with no reasoning or evidence to support it." 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, because given the exact same circumstances, we find that anything can be repeated. CON: "The Copenhagen Interpretation (standard interpretation) of Quantum Theory holds that the laws of nature are indeterministic and probabilistic. [4] In this interpretation, a small particle swerves in a particular direction at a particular time and can only be described by probabilistic equations. However, the movement of the particle is indeterministic." In classical physics, the future motion of a particle can be exactly predicted or determined based on physical laws. However, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle contradicts this and we find that quantum particles are unpredictable and indeterministic. The future motion of a particle cannot be known, but only a range of possibilities. It is also true that the position and momentum cannot even be precisely measured. [5]" 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. Let me give you an example of something else that we can only apply probability to – the weather. So CON, because we cannot accurately predict the weather, because we can only assign probabilities to it, does that mean the weather, too, doesn't operate under defined rules? Is the weather indeterministic? I think it's clear that everything we know does appear to operate under present rules, even if we do not yet understand those rules. Making assertions based on what science does not yet completely understand doesn't constitute an argument in any sense of the word. CON: "these variables themselves would be *self-determined* even as admitted by David Bohm himself. Self-determination is antithetical to determinism and supportive of free will." Now you're just operating on the mere speculation of one guy who does not even know if smaller particles exist. 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. CON: "'Of course, the precise manner of fluctuation of the field is determined by the infinity of deeper field variables not taken into account, but in the context of the level in question, NOTHING DETERMINES THIS PRECISE BEHAVIOR.' - David Bohm" Apparently this is contextual, so I don't know the rest of what he was saying, but what evidence does he have that nothing determines this precise behavior? That goes against everything we have ever known – everything we know is determined by something – be it by physics or anything else, if it weren't determined there would be no cause for an effect. CON: "In principle, every new moment could be entirely unrelated to the previous one—it could be totally creative." Everything we know is interrelated in some form or another, so asserting that these movements aren't, again, is mere speculation. It isn't evidence of free will, it is evidence that modern science clearly doesn't yet understand the rules of the quantum realm; which makes complete sense seeing as we can't directly observe any of it. CON: "So it can be concluded, that absolutely, on a small scale, determinism is demonstrably false. My opponent would have to deny Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which is observably true, in order to have a case for a Universe governed by entirely predeterministic physical laws." Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle doesn't prove anything except that we don't have the technology to accurately observe particles. 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. Also, Heisenberg's principle does demonstrate cause and effect – the basis of determinism. Saying, "hey, we don't know the rules regarding elementary particles yet" in no way furthers the argument that the rules, which there demonstrably ARE, do not apply to humans. Conclusion: You're going to have to prove that free will exists in order to prove that free will exists. It is quite clear that constant rules do exist, even if we do not understand them all. There is no evidence that these constant rules don't apply to us as well, but plenty of evidence that they do.