Free will can be translated as the ability to make choices free from influences we have no control over. — TheMadFool

If you define (ill suppose that by translated you mean to define in a practical sense) free will as you have then free will, can not exist. This is because it would require the agent who acts freely to of had control over every influence that has influenced them. This would include the circumstances of the agents existence at moment the agent came into existence. It would mean in short that the free agent would have to of existed prior to his existence.

This is a necessarily true as if the agent was ever subject to some influence he did not choose to be influenced by then from that point forward the agent would no longer have free will. This would also mean that there can only be at one given time a single free agent. It is impossible for any more than one agent to have free will lest the actions of one agent influence the other. This last sentence doesn't mean much since free will has already defined its self out of existence.

If you define (ill suppose that by translated you mean to define in a practical sense) free will as you have then free will, can not exist. This is because it would require the agent who acts freely to of had control over every influence that has influenced them. This would include the circumstances of the agents existence at moment the agent came into existence. It would mean in short that the free agent would have to of existed prior to his existence.

This is a necessarily true as if the agent was ever subject to some influence he did not choose to be influenced by then from that point forward the agent would no longer have free will. This would also mean that there can only be at one given time a single free agent. It is impossible for any more than one agent to have free will lest the actions of one agent influence the other. This last sentence doesn't mean much since free will has already defined its self out of existence. — Nonsense

How would you define free-will?

How would you define free-will? — TheMadFool

I wouldn't define it, I don't think it exists. I don't think it exists because Its possible to know the future with exact precision, given enough information and a processor powerful enough. It is possible at least in theory to input the mass and velocity of every atom in the universe and calculate exactly how they will interact. If you reverse the velocity of every atom you would see the entire universe travel backward in time to the moment it came into existence. There is no room for free will here.

I do think that free will is an important concept from a legislative and ethical perspective. In short, I don't think free will, can exist, but we should act as if it did. Punishing crimes and such.

What I think most people mean by free will is, The freedom of humans to make choices not obviously predetermined.

I wouldn't define it, I don't think it exists. I don't think it exists because Its possible to know the future with exact precision, given enough information and a processor powerful enough. It is possible at least in theory to input the mass and velocity of every atom in the universe and calculate exactly how they will interact. If you reverse the velocity of every atom you would see the entire universe travel backward in time to the moment it came into existence. There is no room for free will here.

I do think that free will is an important concept from a legislative and ethical perspective. In short, I don't think free will, can exist, but we should act as if it did. Punishing crimes and such.

What I think most people mean by free will is, The freedom of humans to make choices not obviously predetermined. — Nonsense

But everything is obviously determined, according to you.

Kant is seemingly wrong then, because uncaused events have been demonstrated (well beyond Kant's time), although there are interpretations that posit hidden variables (that cannot be known) that are responsible for such things, so it isn't cast in stone I think. As for the structure that seems to be our universe, there's no particular reason why time should or should not be bounded at one end or the other. There's no entropy level to order it outside our own spacetime, so any cause that comes from there is arguably an effect since there's no particular relationship of cause->effect without an arrow of time. There's just potential bounds which can arbitrarily be labeled first and last. — noAxioms

Of course, free will relates to causation/ex-nihilo, contingency, randomness, indeterminacy, and so forth, in the natural physical world. However, consciousness (like in our definition) relates to metaphysical phenomena which by itself, is one reason why we can't figure this out. And as you alluded, the old argument of a timeless unchanging Being existing outside of time, makes it hard to reconcile, in a world of empirical causation as it were.

Similarly, I don't agree with you that Kant was wrong. That statement was intended to be his critique of analytics. And as such, the complexity ensues, for at least two reasons:

1. Our sense of wonderment is metaphysical, not purely of a logical nature.
2. While most all theoretical physics/physical theory's start with synthetic propositions (they make statements about nature that can be tested), 'all events must have a cause' is a synthesis between our a priori fixed/innate sense of wonderment, and our world of a posteriori experiential/logical existence (causation).

Yet, as Kant may as well have concluded, Metaphysics becomes theories about theories concerning physics; not anything that would explain the thing in itself. We can apply our reasoning to things as-we see-them, but that tells us nothing about things-in-themselves. The important point here is, it doesn't address meaning of life issues, and that's what essentially we are talking about, at least in part, when discussing Free Will.

Before we move further, I have a quick question about something you suggested relative to infinite regress and logic (my interpretation anyway). And that is, are you thinking the concept of a 'God' is an infinite consciousness/energy rather than some logical axiom? Which would, in theory of course, make it [consciousness/the Will] metaphysically necessary v. logically necessary.

(Or, the fact that we are volitional, conscious, self-aware creatures makes us metaphysically necessary.)

I believe in it, I won't argue on it, particularily if it's based on a reductionst argument or fallacy.

Before we move further, I have a quick question about something you suggested relative to infinite regress and logic (my interpretation anyway). And that is, are you thinking the concept of a 'God' is an infinite consciousness/energy rather than some logical axiom? — 3017amen

Not really my place to define God, despite me being raised that way. What's that got to do with logic and infinite regress? My philosophy is currently a relational one, so that removes the need to solve any sort of something from nothing sort of scenario.

Which would, in theory of course, make it [consciousness/the Will] metaphysically necessary v. logically necessary.

I don't follow that at all.

I don't know if there is free will or not, but I'm leaning towards it not existing. It logically doesn't make sense to try to explain how free will can exist. There may be true randomness, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there are multiple possible futures.

Free will is the ability to make choices not determined by determinism or randomness.