How to disprove free will using basic logic

[Plaupius]

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Plaupius said:

I understand your argument, and I think it is the case of changed definition. So, please, define free will again as you understand it now.

And, just for clarity, I'm not arguing that free will exists or does not exist, as that is totally irrelevant. If you want to prove the free will does not exist, then you have to define it in such a way that you can actually prove it. Your current, outspoken definition does not seem to support proving that.

That is the sad truth.

It does seem to me though, that I have disproven everyone elses (well, almost) definition of the free will which, again, is the purpose of this thread.

I don't think there have been much attemps by others to define free will in this thread. There have been attempts to prove that free will exists, some better and some (most) worse. I think I have shown that using the definition of autonomous and independent, it is possible that free will exists and hence you can't use it to prove that it doesn't. Now it's up to you to go further in the process and define free will more precisely.

However, I believe that the premise you seem to have now, that free will must exist at all levels of complexity of the universe, is wrong and leads to a dead end, or to the disproval of much more than just free will. I think you must incorporate the system view into your definition to go forward.