for and against free will

[QuantumT]

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.

It is predictable. However, it is not deterministic.

[Bloodshadow]

It is predictable. However, it is not deterministic.

Meh. Not deterministic in the traditional sense then. What I meant was, everything is still bound by unchanging scientific laws. There is no "true" randomness involved, since quantum randomness is still predictable.

The probability distribution is due to humans lacking infinite knowledge.

No. The particle actually occupies many different quantum states at once. Those states group together to form a quantum wave function. Since one cannot observe something without changing it, the quantum wave function becomes sharply peaked at one point due to its interaction with the, say, the photons you used to observe the atom. At least it works somewhat like this, since it was what I saw on Wikipedia. The rest was too complicated for me to understand until I learn about it in university.

But the point is, the behaviors of everything can be explained and predicted using scientific laws. Thus, we have no free will.

Also, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will

[CCCombobreaker]

I have no idea what you mean by "free will" if it involves neither responsibility nor volition?  The classical sense meant both... that we chose a course and that we are the physical cause of it.  Descartes held such a view, but others found it problematic and Malebranche argued that free will only entailed the choosing (and on his view the physical causes were deterministic - Occasionalism) while Leibniz argued that free will only meant being the physical cause (and that all our "mental" decisions were deterministic).

In both cases their is some aspect of responsibility, either you made a choice and things happened as you chose by not because you chose OR you did not make a decision but your body actually carried out the action. 

If you deny both of these, then in a sense, you are claiming both that there is no entity "you" that can make decisions (the outcome of which cannot be predicted with CERTAINTY even given full knowledge) and that your body isn't actually part of any causal chains.

I think the real problem here is one Hume identified in his Equiry:

"The chief obstacle, therefore, to our improvement in the moral or metaphysical sciences is the obscurity of the ideas, and ambiguity of the terms."

[Neopergoss]

I have no idea what you mean by "free will" if it involves neither responsibility nor volition?  The classical sense meant both... that we chose a course and that we are the physical cause of it.  Descartes held such a view, but others found it problematic and Malebranche argued that free will only entailed the choosing (and on his view the physical causes were deterministic - Occasionalism) while Leibniz argued that free will only meant being the physical cause (and that all our "mental" decisions were deterministic).

In both cases their is some aspect of responsibility, either you made a choice and things happened as you chose by not because you chose OR you did not make a decision but your body actually carried out the action. 

If you deny both of these, then in a sense, you are claiming both that there is no entity "you" that can make decisions (the outcome of which cannot be predicted with CERTAINTY even given full knowledge) and that your body isn't actually part of any causal chains.

I think the real problem here is one Hume identified in his Equiry:

"The chief obstacle, therefore, to our improvement in the moral or metaphysical sciences is the obscurity of the ideas, and ambiguity of the terms."

Free will means we make choices independently from all outside factors. I'm not denying that I'm an entity that makes decisions or that my body is part of a causal chain. I make decisions and my body, as part of a causal chain, executes them. The decision I made is also part of a causal chain -- it is not independent. Our choices are determined by a lot of different factors that we have no control over. Nevertheless, we remain responsible for our actions.

[Nepycros]

I do think that since all actions can be predicted by scientific factors, yet I also feel that that is our form of free will. Even if it can be predicted, note that we are changing one factor to another in the universe. We are causing changes. That is our capability, and whether or not you label it free will, it is still our actions, not the actions of whatever happened to predict the action.

[YoungSot]

Our choices are determined by a lot of different factors that we have no control over. Nevertheless, we remain responsible for our actions.

Not to sidetrack the conversation, but why do you say that? I agree with you, but I don't understand your reasons (other than the fact that society falls apart if we don't hold people responsible).

[Nepycros]

Our choices are determined by a lot of different factors that we have no control over. Nevertheless, we remain responsible for our actions.

Not to sidetrack the conversation, but why do you say that? I agree with you, but I don't understand your reasons (other than the fact that society falls apart if we don't hold people responsible).

If I punch you, I can't blame a lamp for punching you. I was a cause, and the effect was you being punched. The cause:effect relationship holds whatever is the cause to be responsible for the effect.

[OldTrees]

Our choices are determined by a lot of different factors that we have no control over. Nevertheless, we remain responsible for our actions.

Not to sidetrack the conversation, but why do you say that? I agree with you, but I don't understand your reasons (other than the fact that society falls apart if we don't hold people responsible).

If I punch you, I can't blame a lamp for punching you. I was a cause, and the effect was you being punched. The cause:effect relationship holds whatever is the cause to be responsible for the effect.

Case 1: I swing a lamp at you. The lamp is not responsible?
Case 2: I swing a person at you. The person is not responsible?
Case 3: Predetermination swings a human at you. The human is not responsible?

[Nepycros]

Our choices are determined by a lot of different factors that we have no control over. Nevertheless, we remain responsible for our actions.

Not to sidetrack the conversation, but why do you say that? I agree with you, but I don't understand your reasons (other than the fact that society falls apart if we don't hold people responsible).

If I punch you, I can't blame a lamp for punching you. I was a cause, and the effect was you being punched. The cause:effect relationship holds whatever is the cause to be responsible for the effect.

Case 1: I swing a lamp at you. The lamp is not responsible?
Case 2: I swing a person at you. The person is not responsible?
Case 3: Predetermination swings a human at you. The human is not responsible?

You could say that the beginning of the universe is the reason for all our problems, but we determine the responsibility to be the one who expends the energy that leads to the effect.

[OldTrees]

Our choices are determined by a lot of different factors that we have no control over. Nevertheless, we remain responsible for our actions.

Not to sidetrack the conversation, but why do you say that? I agree with you, but I don't understand your reasons (other than the fact that society falls apart if we don't hold people responsible).

If I punch you, I can't blame a lamp for punching you. I was a cause, and the effect was you being punched. The cause:effect relationship holds whatever is the cause to be responsible for the effect.

Case 1: I swing a lamp at you. The lamp is not responsible?
Case 2: I swing a person at you. The person is not responsible?
Case 3: Predetermination swings a human at you. The human is not responsible?

You could say that the beginning of the universe is the reason for all our problems, but we determine the responsibility to be the one who expends the energy that leads to the effect.

Conservation of energy. The energy was first spent in the causal chain at the beginning. (or the lamp is responsible for transferring its kinetic energy)

[CCCombobreaker]

Free will means we make choices independently from all outside factors. I'm not denying that I'm an entity that makes decisions or that my body is part of a causal chain. I make decisions and my body, as part of a causal chain, executes them. The decision I made is also part of a causal chain -- it is not independent. Our choices are determined by a lot of different factors that we have no control over. Nevertheless, we remain responsible for our actions.

Independently from all outside factors?  I hope not.  I wouldn't even want that free will.  That amounts to a random decision maker.  Free will is the ability to weigh all outside factors and make a decision based upon them.  The important part of it being "free" is that the individual could receive the exact same factors and make different decisions.  The factors still play an important role in the decision, but how they are weighted by the person can vary.  I'll quote Leibniz's reply to this problem:

We have said that the concept of an individual substance includes once for all everything which can ever happen to it and that in considering this concept one will be able to see everything which can truly be said concerning the individual, just as we are able to see in the nature of a circle all the properties which can be derived from it. But does it not seem that in this way the difference between contingent and necessary truths will be destroyed, that there will be no place for human liberty, and that an absolute fatality will rule as well over all our actions as over all the rest of the events of the world? To this I reply that a distinction must be made between that which is certain and that which is necessary.

(§13, Discourse on Metaphysics)

A lot of those terms are rather technical to his comprehensive philosophy, but so you don't have to look it all up (unless you want to!) I'll summarize the last part:
It is Necessary that any effect has a cause, but not all causes lead Certainly to a specific effect. 

[Astrocyte]

I'm generally for "Free Will," it's a pretty good song. But "Limelight" is actually my favorite. So if they were in competition, I guess I'd be against "Free Will."