bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:21 pm
I have an argument in favor of free will: A Thought precedes the related act. This means that the thought and the act cannot coexist at the same point therefore there exist a point between them, mute point or decision point, at which one neither think nor act. The point is mute therefore it cannot be consciously affected by thoughts. Therefore the decision is made at the mute point is free.
Good argument. It is actually identical in form to the Intermediate Value Theorem. Did Calculus remind you of this?
P.S. to all: I'm just beginning to read this thread and this is a response to only the first few posts. But I need to point out the OP is also an excellent argument. Now can BOTH not be true, ....or could they? I say this IS the case. Quantum Mechanics' via the Copenhagen Interpretation says that all odds lie in one space but that they collapse to become a distinct unique one of all possibilities only. Thus, space is indeterminately 'free' to choose options from.
But this then can be redressed by the alternative: that the space doesn't hold more than one one option but is uniquely one of any set of possibilities greater than one ....AND....that each possibility can still exist in distinct worlds of which we can only see one reality at at time. Thus as a whole, this shows that for EACH possibility, there is a unique corresponding Universe. Thus within our own world among the potential infinite set of possibilities, one world seems Relatively indeterminate or 'free', AND every free relative choice covers all possibilities where distinct worlds exist. This means reality as a greater whole is still determinate.
Both are true,
relatively, as it depends upon actual perspective distinctly able to be observed in isolation but still be true of the whole.