for and against free will

[nerd1]

i am both for and against free will for a reason. you are not your own person, just a conglomerate of of atoms and sub atomic particles, but since probbability dictates that eventually we will be able to go back in time, or travel through other universes, environmental factors will be so random they wont really matter. your take on the subject?.

[Neopergoss]

i am both for and against free will for a reason. you are not your own person, just a conglomerate of of atoms and sub atomic particles, but since probbability dictates that eventually we will be able to go back in time, or travel through other universes, environmental factors will be so random they wont really matter. your take on the subject?.

If you're "just a conglomerate of atoms and sub atomic particles," then your behavior is the result of various complex chemical reactions, not free will as it is typically understood. The influence of environmental vs genetic factors is not relevant here.

[Rutarete]

I am for free free will, but my belief of possibility being a dictator conflicts with that.

[OldTrees]

I try to double think this topic.
There is lots of 'illusion' that makes Free Will seem obvious, however Science keeps finding deterministic explanations for events in our chemistry.
Plus the environmental factors that do exist try to 'make' me believe in Free Will.

[tyranim]

my take on time travel? or free will? the question is a little confusing. for time travel: i hope to f***ing hell its possible before i die. as for free will: f*** that, im in control of you all! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Bloodshadow]

I do not believe in free will, for reasons Nerd1 already stated. Quantum randomness is still deterministic.

[QuantumT]

I do not believe in free will, for reasons Nerd1 already stated. Quantum randomness is still deterministic.

But it isn't really. If I give you a single radioactive atom, you can't tell me when that single atom will decay. You can only give me a probability distribution.

[CCCombobreaker]

While free-will is an incredibly difficult (perhaps impossible) position to prove... I find it very interesting that it is equally impossible to live a life devoid of seemingly volitional decisions.  And while many deny the existence of free will with their words, they still think and behave as though they are responsible for their actions.  Perhaps free will is of the epiphenominalist sort.  Even then, when one refrains entirely from making decisions they become paralyzed.  As you sit at your computer and read this, and contemplate posting a reply, you should realize that even if free will is just an illusion, it is the most pervasive and unavoidable illusion you have ever encountered.

[Neopergoss]

While free-will is an incredibly difficult (perhaps impossible) position to prove... I find it very interesting that it is equally impossible to live a life devoid of seemingly volitional decisions.  And while many deny the existence of free will with their words, they still think and behave as though they are responsible for their actions.  Perhaps free will is of the epiphenominalist sort.  Even then, when one refrains entirely from making decisions they become paralyzed.  As you sit at your computer and read this, and contemplate posting a reply, you should realize that even if free will is just an illusion, it is the most pervasive and unavoidable illusion you have ever encountered.

One can believe in responsibility for one's actions without believing in free will. I just got finished with a long discussion with OldTrees about that. You can also make decisions without free will. I think it's less pervasive than you would think.

[Bloodshadow]

But it isn't really. If I give you a single radioactive atom, you can't tell me when that single atom will decay. You can only give me a probability distribution.

So? The behaviors of the radioactive decay of that atom is described by the probability distribution. In a sense, it's still predictable.

[Rutarete]

But it isn't really. If I give you a single radioactive atom, you can't tell me when that single atom will decay. You can only give me a probability distribution.

So? The behaviors of the radioactive decay of that atom is described by the probability distribution. In a sense, it's still predictable.

Predictions are not absolute.

[RootRanger]

I do not believe in free will, for reasons Nerd1 already stated. Quantum randomness is still deterministic.

But it isn't really. If I give you a single radioactive atom, you can't tell me when that single atom will decay. You can only give me a probability distribution.

The lack of perfect predictions by humans exists in a world with no randomness because humans do not have the intelligence to make perfect predictions.
In that world, however, something with infinite knowledge could predict when it will decay.
The probability distribution is due to humans lacking infinite knowledge.
I think that there is a reason behind seemingly random actions, such as the decay of a radioactive atom, and thus there is no true randomness or free will.