Basically we need to be omniscient. — TheMadFool
If we can generate a truly random number we can prove non determinism. — EnPassant
So your arumgent is that since we cannot disprove determinism then we cannot prove freewill.
That is an impossible standard. I also cannot disprove fairies or unicorns. However that neither proves or disproves their existence.
Determinism is what is known as an unfalsifiable claim, it cannot be proven or disproven and consequently cannot be used to prove or disprove, as you don't know if it is real.
On the other hand we can empirically demonstrate freedom of choice.
So given your unfalsifiable claim vs. empirical evidence, I'd say the evidence has a lot more weight and creditability. — Jeremiah
Content-wise it does not make sense to say one could have decided otherwise as this would imply to choose what one did not want to choose and hence negate free will. — Heiko
My thought is that sentient creatures have some limited capacity to make choices. That's about as far as I can go. — Bitter Crank
↪wellwisher I think you have the science wrong. Entropy increases and living systems try and revert to a lower entropy state by utilizing external energy and using the inevitable transition to higher entropy to do useful work. This is what I think makes sense. — TheMadFool
I read that the physicist Boltzmann introduced probability in physics and his explanation turned out to be the correct one. I think thermodynamics was born with Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of physics. — TheMadFool
I understand that if one lowers the standard to "empirical" evidence one can prove/disprove free will but I'm looking for a sound deductive argument to deal with the issue of free will. — TheMadFool
Anyway, I'm saying we can't prove free will exists not that we can't disprove determinism. — TheMadFool
I think you have the science wrong. — TheMadFool
I guess most people would understand it that way. This does not make it true, however: It is the reign of pure reason itself that does not leave any choices. Simply because choosing the one right answer is at the same time one's duty as a rational thinking being. If you would do otherwise you wouldn't act as rational being and thus negate free will.To opt for what one did not want would count as evidence for our ability to resist innate preferences. — TheMadFool
To prove that free will exists or not we'd need to know everything because it isn't impossible that our minds may be affected by the cat next door or an atom's state in a galaxy far far away.
Basically we need to be omniscient.
Omniscience is impossible.
Why?
Think of numbers. We may be able to determine why the number 1 or 12,398,775,489 doesn't matter to the free will question BUT numbers are infinite and so it would require an infinite amount of time to check each number for its effects on our minds, specifically whether it influences our ability to make free choices.
Thus making it impossible for us to know whether we have free will or not.
Your thoughts... — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.