is there free will?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You misunderstand, I merely meant that random chance is a pre-requisite, i.e. that without a random element in the universe that Free Will would be impossible, the idea can't even get off the ground.

Yes, but I don't see the point in saying that because

1) The are conceptions of free will compatible with determinism
2) randomness is not control

The point about Quantom Theory is that it demonstrates that Physics generally does not actually support a deterministic worldview, as was previously claimed. Ultimately we know very little about how the universe works, we just have a lot of theories that fit the (very limited) data.

Generally, newtonian physics works on the large scale, but not on the micro scale. It seems reasonable to say that determinism is accurate on the large scale.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The are conceptions of free will compatible with determinism.

Name one.

In order for the Will to be "Free" it must be unbound, if it is fettered by fate then it is not "Free".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Name one.

In order for the Will to be "Free" it must be unbound, if it is fettered by fate then it is not "Free".

It's generally called "compatibilism". Many varieties.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's generally called "compatibilism". Many varieties.

That's all you've got? I was hoping for a reasoned argument.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's all you've got? I was hoping for a reasoned argument.

All you made was an assertion

You are saying that free will requires regulative control, i.e. that you have to be able to choose between different alternatives. Other people would argue that you have free will if you have guidance control, i.e. you bring about your actions even if you don't have any alternative. I was talking about this in the ice cream example. Do you define freedom as the ability to do anything? I would think not, because then no one could have free will, since we are all fettered by gravity. Some might say that a freely taken action originates in a certain way from your psychological self.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All you made was an assertion

You are saying that free will requires regulative control, i.e. that you have to be able to choose between different alternatives. Other people would argue that you have free will if you have guidance control, i.e. you bring about your actions even if you don't have any alternative. I was talking about this in the ice cream example. Do you define freedom as the ability to do anything? I would think not, because then no one could have free will, since we are all fettered by gravity. Some might say that a freely taken action originates in a certain way from your psychological self.

Free Will requires options, if you have only one option then your "Will" is being externally directed and is totally unfree. Since it certainly appears we have Free Will (otherwise we would not have started this agument) I tend to think the burden of proof must lie on determinism.

[Andres]

I tend to think the burden of proof must lie on determinism.

Me too.

I decided to post in this thread today. Prove to me that I did not post out of my own free will but that I did it because I was determined to do so. And even if you can prove that everything is determined: does it matter? I certainly don't feel like everything I do is determined. If my free will is but an illusion, then it's a damn good one. Maybe it's so good because it's not an illusion?

Filosophy is nice and fun and it offers good thinking exercises, but it often occupies itself with fruitless questions, "do we have a free will?" being one of them. Who cares if what I'm doing has always been determined or not?

Of course, there are some things we can't control. Some call it "luck" or "bad luck", others "coincidence" and others "destiny", but the fact that there are some things beyond our control doesn' mean that we don't have free will. I have a free will.

Feel free to convince me otherwise.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Free Will requires options, if you have only one option then your "Will" is being externally directed and is totally unfree. Since it certainly appears we have Free Will (otherwise we would not have started this agument) I tend to think the burden of proof must lie on determinism.

I agree that the fact that we started this argument is evidence that we have free will, a certain kind of free will. But I disagree with your definition. It is entirely possible for the world to be deterministic and for us to have started this argument.

With determinism, your actions are merely predictable, not "externally directed". And why would you want to live in a world where your actions weren't predictable? Would you want to be unpredictable? Would you want "I'm perfectly normal now, but could go crazy at any moment if a certain random event occurs"?

Essentially it seems like your concluding determinism to be false based on the assumption that it's incompatible with free will. But why do you assume that?

"It's not my fault that I'm lazy! I was determined to be so!"

That's fatalism.