We Probably Don't Have Libertarian Free Will

I must say I'm learning a lot about Quantum Mechanics from you however, Pro has yet demonstrated the connection of Quantum Mechanics to free-will. On the other hand, Con made the evolutionary connection from the Big Bang, to Quantum Mechanics, to Second Law of Thermodynamics, to Constructal Law, to freedom (aka free-will), relative to our current knowledge from today's empirical scientific evidence. Con will start with Pro's following ending statement and work backwards, “Remember the definition: “Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature, the laws of physics and free from any predetermination by God. "What is “human nature? ” Wikipedia has a good overview (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Scientific American has a good article on “human nature” (. http://www.scientificamerican.com...). There are many articles on “human nature” referenced through Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy (. http://plato.stanford.edu...). Con searched through a number of articles and could not find reference to suicide. Yet humans are known to have free-will to commit suicide. Even if suicide is part of “human nature,” the act of suicide removes one from “human nature;” hence, resulting in the freedom “from the determination or constraints of human nature. ” As for free-will relative to the laws of physics. For example, if one decides to go against the Laws of Aerodynamics, one cannot fly. As for the free-will “from any predetermination by God,” the BoF is on Pro to prove there is a God. As we continue backwards Pro stated, “My opponent has not addressed my arguments, he has only dismissed them. He denies the reality of unconscious neurophysiology and dismisses quantum mechanics as purely speculative(which it's not). ”I hope my rendition on free-will relative to “human nature … laws of physics … predetermination by God,” in Pro's above and opening definition on “Libertarian free will” addresses one of his arguments. Con does not “dismiss quantum mechanics! ” Con started at the opening of my last argument in Round 3 with the following, “And we both know it [Quantum Mechanics] is part of nature, no argument there. ” Quantum Mechanics is the foundation to the elements found in the Periodic Table, the fabric between all the known forces and yes, like Pro, there exist a community of scholars who argue about Quantum Mechanics pertaining to “free will” (. http://www.scientificamerican.com...).The last sentence of the conclusion of the Scientific American article titled, “The Quantum Physics of Free Will” states the following, “. .. even in a fully deterministic universe, we can be said to have free will. ” Well there you have it. In a deterministic universe, we “have free will. ”As for Pro's arguments “of unconscious neurophysiology,” what difference does it make, if we live in a deterministic universe and still “have free will? ” We cannot overlook the fact the concept of conscious and unconscious is still metaphysical (aka philosophy) no matter how many in the community agree. Once there was total consensus the earth was at the center of the universe. It does not matter what us humans philosophize about, it is only through the scientific method that brings us closer to understanding the machinery of nature. This is what happens when you get into the weeds of frontier research, especially when the field of metrology is not fully matured to deal with all the speculation, theories, philosophy, while the terms and definitions of the language is evolving. My recommendation to Pro, keep it simple, read up on the Constructal Law, study the finite-size mechanics until the quantum folks figure out their mechanics. On the other hand, it would seem Pro has an infatuation with the quantum field, and Con would encourage Pro to pick up a few degrees in the field of physics. Continuing backwards, Pro does his usual dance with esoteric equations making no connection to free will. Why bother? Pro missed the point Con was making about finding the lowest price supplier in the shadow of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Con also made the point in the ending sentence of that paragraph, which Pro failed to mention, “Of course there are exceptions, because we have free-will to do so. ” In other words, one has the free-will to buy from a higher price supplier. What is generally stopping one to buy at a higher price? The answer is related to our bio-program (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) having the desire for more freedom. That is, in a culture where freedom, in part, is a function of money, that is, the more money you have the more freedom you have to buy and do things. And in that light, one would find ways to increase or save money to preserve as much freedom as possible; hence, the evolution of free-markets, the seed to technologies, food production and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example when our Unalienable Rights are free to operate within the awesome machinery of Nature. How much we owe to the reality of freedom, aka free-will. On the other hand, if one does not like this reality, one has the free-will to commit suicide. Con addressed most of Pro's “arguments. ” Con is still waiting for BoP from Pro “We Probably Don't Have Libertarian Free Will. ”