Your Reasons Why Free Will is an Illusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Avalon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Free will
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of free will as an illusion, with participants debating the merits of determinism. Key arguments include that free will equates to randomness and unpredictability, suggesting that if choices can be traced to specific causes, they are not truly free. The deterministic nature of the universe is supported by the ability to predict many natural phenomena, although quantum mechanics introduces complexities that challenge this view. Philosophical perspectives, such as Hume's argument, highlight that while we may perceive choices, we lack direct impressions of free will itself. The thread emphasizes the need for concise, strong arguments against free will, while also critiquing the philosophical nature of the debate. Overall, the discussion reflects a blend of scientific reasoning and philosophical inquiry into the nature of human agency.
Avalon
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Your Reasons Why "Free Will" is an Illusion

Cmon all you determinists. Provide me with your reasons and I will pick the best one. We are having a debate in my class and I need some thoughts.

POST AWAY!

I am looking for the best reason.Criteria for argument:

-Short

-Simple

-Strong

The Three S'(s).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


You will pick the best one? I.e. who is "most" right? Then what are the criteria for a good argument against free will?

By the way, is the fact that I'm posting in this thread while I think it's actually a waste of my time a good reason, or just empirical evidence (to which no induction can be applied).
 


CompuChip: Fail

NEXT.
 


OK, how about: Quantum mechanics tells us so?
You can pick any interpretation of QM (or make up your own).

Ow, you are looking for determinist reasonings. In that case I further refrain from the discussion.
(I've failed already anyway; which reminds me why I prefer science over philosophy :wink:)
 


I can usually argue both sides of anything but in this case my lack of free will is compelling me to tell you that can't be argued because it isn't an illusion. Sorry, wish I was free to give you a reason that free will is an illusion.

You are being forced to argue against free will even though you can't think of a reason to support that idea? Hmmm, sounds like you don't have free will.
 
Last edited:


Come on, it was just a movie. Besides, no fish could ever be that big.
 


jimmysnyder said:
Come on, it was just a movie. Besides, no fish could ever be that big.

This argument cinches it for me.
 


Avalon said:
CompuChip: Fail

NEXT.
Sounds more like Avalon: Fail.

(Do your own homework!)
 


For a nontechnical person, has determinism objection been proven?
 
  • #10


Philosophical paradoxes are the illusion.
 
  • #11


Hume's argument is as follows: even if I grant that all of your sense impressions give you accurate information about the world, you still do not have any sense impressions of free will itself.
 
  • #12


This thread = YAWN.
 
  • #13


Avalon said:
Cmon all you determinists. Provide me with your reasons and I will pick the best one. We are having a debate in my class and I need some thoughts.

POST AWAY!

I am looking for the best reason.


Criteria for argument:

-Short

-Simple

-Strong

The Three S'(s).
FREE WILL refers to the fact that, in general, we can't specify the causes for the choices we make. Where you can specify the causes, then, by definition, your choice wasn't FREE.

So, FREE WILL means essentially the same thing as RANDOMNESS which means UNPREDICTABILITY. And neither FREE WILL nor RANDOMNESS tell us anything about whether or not Nature is DETERMINISTIC.

The fact that we are able to predict lots of natural phenomena suggests that nature is deterministic. The fact that quantum theory is able to predict the statistical results of a large number of experimental phenomena suggests that nature is deterministic. The fact that we still can't predict lots and lots of stuff suggests that our knowledge of Nature is incomplete.
 
  • #14


When I saw this thread title, I wondered why it wasn't posted in Philosophy ...

Avalon said:
Criteria for argument:

-Short

-Simple

... until I got to that part :smile:
 
  • #15


Redbelly, isn't the alternative definition
Threads with more than 25 posts and no (sensible) mathematical symbols, formulas or anything resembling a scientifical statement
equally good and applicable to this thread?

(I have included the mathematical symbols / formulas part to exclude certain long mathematics threads)
 
  • #16


CompuChip said:
Redbelly, isn't the alternative definition

Threads with more than 25 posts and no (sensible) mathematical symbols, formulas or anything resembling a scientifical statement

equally good and applicable to this thread?

(I have included the mathematical symbols / formulas part to exclude certain long mathematics threads)

Well heck, I completely forgot about that. And it's clearly stated in Section 8-12.1, paragraph 7 of our By-laws!
 
  • #17


Redbelly98 said:
Well heck, I completely forgot about that. And it's clearly stated in Section 8-12.1, paragraph 7 of our By-laws!

Well well, I didn't even know that.
I tried to read them, but I didn't get past Section 6. My ISP informed me that I had reached my monthly download limit. But it's March 1 now, so I can read another 6 sections.
 
Back
Top