## 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
 BasilZero said: If everything happened for a reason ONLY , than there is no free will, if everything happened for NO reason than there is no free will. Therefore the end result would be, things happen for a reason AND for no reason which end up being resulted in "Free Will". Its like day and night / light and darkness, one cannot exist without the other.I think (from the striked through paragraph I made) I was trying to say Randomness itself is a result of free will, otherwise if nothing random occurred in real life, than it would be plain, boring and predictable, therefore no free will.Edit : Either I am right or I just confused myself XD

Bolded: That's a pretty funny equation. (no offense ;)

Underlined: Think about this: When the big bang occured, there was not a single life-form. No decisions could be made, thus either randomness or determined patterns made materials move and finally shape planets and eventually life. If the free will is what shapes randomness (which I really, really don't believe) then you just proved that there is a god. I'd say that it's the other way around though, and that randomness/determined events is what shapes the free will.

Around the Network
 pariz said:Schopenhauer wrote the best thing I ever read about determinism ( a theory to which I feel inclined). Now, before you tell me that the quantum theory wasn't postulated when he wrote this and blah blah blah, just let me tell you that I don't care about it. I believe that the theory that defends the existence of infinital quantity of universes, and more so, the "logical" problems extracted out of that theory are plain stupid... A product of a ridiculous deduction that's been supported year after year based on a quantum empirical fact (that may or may have not yet been fully understood). Anyway, what I intended to defend was the idea that we may do "what we will" but we cannot decide the nature of that "will" cause if fact, that's what we are. Time and space (and cause effect) are the "ground" in which the Will manifest itself (by Will, in a ontologic sense, we should understand the real being, regardless of how it appears in time and space). Pff... this is hard to explain in little sentences, in a second language and hey, when you talk about this kind of things people tend to get defensive because the implications of such affirmations collide with the cosmovision each of us have of the world (and therefore affects us because we are defined to ourselves by the place we understand we occupy in the world we represent to ourselves). This is just as sensitive as religion because it affects the very same things. My opinion: what we do is already written by a beingless writer in a paper called law of cause effect. There's no way in the world a subjective being or a group of them can mathematically predict in all extent what will happen because the variables are infinite and our methodoly and tools imperfect. Therefore, our sense of freedom is guaranteed. As rational beings, we have a saying in what we do, but that rationality does not scape the very same laws of the physical world (cause effect or even a quantum law if you please).

This is by far the best comment in this thread so far, and I completely agree.

(I don't believe in quantum effects myself, but I had to include it as it hasn't been disproven)

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
 BasilZero said: If everything happened for a reason ONLY , than there is no free will, if everything happened for NO reason than there is no free will. Therefore the end result would be, things happen for a reason AND for no reason which end up being resulted in "Free Will". Its like day and night / light and darkness, one cannot exist without the other.I think (from the striked through paragraph I made) I was trying to say Randomness itself is a result of free will, otherwise if nothing random occurred in real life, than it would be plain, boring and predictable, therefore no free will.Edit : Either I am right or I just confused myself XD

Bolded: That's a pretty funny equation. (no offense ;)

Underlined: Think about this: When the big bang occured, there was not a single life-form. No decisions could be made, thus either randomness or determined patterns made materials move and finally shape planets and eventually life. If the free will is what shapes randomness (which I really, really don't believe) then you just proved that there is a god. I'd say that it's the other way around though, and that randomness/determined events is what shapes the free will.

No offense taken, it was just an opinion, I have no way of proving or disapproving what I said. Its just what I personally believe.

Well as a matter fact....I didnt think of it that way, but yes I do believe in a higher being = a.k.a. God

But seriously, I believe it goes both ways, for you to make a decision, it had to be because of a certain event, that event in itself was a result of someone or something's decision (free will decision), an earthquake for an example doesnt just happen for a particular reason, it can occur by some random chance or it can occur because of a reason such as Underwater volcanoes etc.

Everything can be explained, but only if you grasp the knowledge or the means of understanding what happened.

Even if things were pre-determined by a higher being to occur such as a Earthquake (for an example), dont you think you in the end have the say/free will to decide on what action should you do, and in that would end up as a result of whether what decision you make could either make you a survivor or a victim? (I probably worded this wrong, hope you understood what I meant XD).

 Kantor said:No. In the first scenario, it is perfectly possible that he's already decided to rob a bank. There's no reason why rewinding time should automatically change your mind so that your actions are random. Which makes his actions determined by the past. They are not free. The second scenario wouldn't really happen, but if it did, it would be because quantum theory made some significant change which caused him to freely change his mind.  If his mind was changed because of randomness then it isn't free. It is random.

So if he makes a different decission it's randomness? That doesn't make sense to me, he made a different decission.

If you reverse time to just before the robbery, he'll probably (but not surely) do it again, as the circumstances will be 99.99% similar before the robbery. If you reverse time to several days before, the robbery probably won't happen. This also ties with chaos theory, a small change has huge effects on the long term.

That doesn't mean it's randomness though. There is a complex system behind it, humans are making decissions all the time and those decissions affect the system, which affect other decissions. Of course those decissions are going to be influenced by society, one's upbringing, etc., but all those factors are also made by human decissions.

No troll is too much for me to handle. I rehabilitate trolls, I train people. I am the Troll Whisperer.

Around the Network

You're taking a very strict view of the meaning of free here. It's all about what free means.

free will must exist on some level because it depends on someone else for example the man he robbed had many choices he could stop the robber or shake his hand and that ultimately changes fate, or even you trip on the curb and think "what am I doing" then decided not to rob the house. we are bound by threads and every action we take changes the world in some way.

@OP: You should really play the Witcher 2

 pezus said:You're taking a very strict view of the meaning of free here. It's all about what free means.

Is that a response to me o.O?

I should of chose "I'm confused" on the poll but I misclicked ;p

BasilZero said:
 pezus said:You're taking a very strict view of the meaning of free here. It's all about what free means.

Is that a response to me o.O?

I should of chose "I'm confused" on the poll but I misclicked ;p

Nope, to OP