## Forums - General Discussion - How to disprove free will using basic logic

### Do you agree with me?

 Yes 9 12.00% No. You are wrong but I can't prove it 11 14.67% No. You are wrong and I w... 25 33.33% I'm just confused... 10 13.33% See results 20 26.67% Total: 75

Actually, that would be basic circular logic. Both possible premises contain the assumption you are trying to prove (that repeating events on a single time line equal no free will; and that events not repeating on a multithreaded time line equals random events and therefore not free will). So it is logically fallacious.

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
 Jumpin said:Actually, that would be basic circular logic because both possible premises contain an assum 1. Time travel resulting in

I am surprised that no one has said "In what universe is time travelling considered basic logic?" yet xD

I just used that example to make the question easier to understand, which is: Is there any way we could have made other decisions in the past which would affect our present and future?

- If there wasn't, then the world is determined and there is no free will.

- If there was, then randomness is the reason we made our decisions, which then could have been different. After all, our decisions are directy affected by the past.

 Jumpin said:Actually, that would be basic circular logic. Both possible premises contain the assumption you are trying to prove (that repeating events on a single time line equal no free will; and that events not repeating on a multithreaded time line equals random events and therefore not free will). So it is logically fallacious.

There are more than two possible premises?

 IIIIITHE1IIIII said:  Alright, so those of you who remember my "Fate exists?" thread will probably notice some similarities, but bear with me :)   Let's get right to it with an example where most people would say that a decision has been made, like when some guy decides to rob someone for money. Now, if you were to reverse time again and again (it could be any timespan from years to minutes), do you think that (a) this guy would have decided to rob this person after each time reversal? (As supported by determinism.) Or do you think that (b) each time reversal would have resultet in him making different decisions each time? (As supported by quantum theories.) Those are really the only two possible outcomes that comes to my mind, and this is where the problem starts. If he decides to rob the victum every time, then that suggests that he couldn't possibly have made another choice at the moment, meaning that he has no free will, but follows a predetermined pattern that has already decided all of his future decisions. If the outcome would be different each time, on the other hand, wouldn't that too suggest that he has no free will? If each and every decision you make throughout your life is based on randomness then they might as well have been completely different, suggesting that you never really had control of any of your actions, and thus no free will.   Any thoughts?

I dont really agree with the last paragraph. You're thinking in absolutes. It doesnt have to be different every time, but it can be different everytime. So, the conclusion really didnt make any sense to me. Its safer to say that the order to this chaos is the decision taken, probably based on free will.

It really is a silly argument. You cant travel back in time without beeing able to go through a wormhole to find out.

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
 Jumpin said:Actually, that would be basic circular logic. Both possible premises contain the assumption you are trying to prove (that repeating events on a single time line equal no free will; and that events not repeating on a multithreaded time line equals random events and therefore not free will). So it is logically fallacious.

There are more than two possible premises?

I didn't mean to imply time reversal was possible (it's not as far as I know), but rather the two possible premise 1's that can be extracted from the first post.

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
 Nem said: I dont really agree with the last paragraph. You're thinking in absolutes. It doesnt have to be different every time, but it can be different everytime. So, the conclusion really didnt make any sense to me. Its safer to say that the order to this chaos is the decision taken, probably based on free will. It really is a silly argument. You cant travel back in time without beeing able to go through a wormhole to find out.

Underlined: It is either different every time or the same. There are no other options.

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
 Nem said: I dont really agree with the last paragraph. You're thinking in absolutes. It doesnt have to be different every time, but it can be different everytime. So, the conclusion really didnt make any sense to me. Its safer to say that the order to this chaos is the decision taken, probably based on free will. It really is a silly argument. You cant travel back in time without beeing able to go through a wormhole to find out.

Underlined: It is either different every time or the same. There are no other options.

Even total randomness doesn't mean being different every time. So Nem is correct, it can be different every time but it doesn't have to.

Plaupius said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
 Nem said: I dont really agree with the last paragraph. You're thinking in absolutes. It doesnt have to be different every time, but it can be different everytime. So, the conclusion really didnt make any sense to me. Its safer to say that the order to this chaos is the decision taken, probably based on free will. It really is a silly argument. You cant travel back in time without beeing able to go through a wormhole to find out.

Underlined: It is either different every time or the same. There are no other options.

Even total randomness doesn't mean being different every time. So Nem is correct, it can be different every time but it doesn't have to.

I was talking about the universe as a whole. If it is not determined then it is random.

The birth control pill or condoms are good examples in favor of the free will^^

Plaupius said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
 Heavenly_King said: Off-topic: I think that is impossible, because God´s existance is a Religious Catholic dogma.  He exist, because he exists, and I believe that fact because of my faith.  As written in "some famous catholic ancient book which has the words of God" XD "He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end" :D XD

This is actually related with what I've been saying. If you are religious then there's not a single reason not to believe in the existence of free will.