Neither Determinism nor Free Will exists

[bahman]

Do you not think that biological organisms have more free will than physical objects

No.

[bahman]

Determinism is evidence that we have no free will, because A leads to B which leads to C. So ultimately, A caused C.

Our will to do whatever we like is not free; It is determined by our brain, which is affected by the rest of the body and the environment/surroundings. Stuff that we cannot do anything about, and even if we did something about it, even if it was indeed our will to do so, the concepts of "will" and "like" although true, cannot be free, because they are governed by external forces ultimately created from Big Bang.

Again, A (Big Bang) caused B (formation of stars, planets etc.) caused C (life, brain activity, will and likes and dislikes).
Simplified, of course (there are lots of steps in-between, but you get the picture).

In short, our lives and our genes and our will and likes and dislikes as well, were all determined since the big bang as a chain-reaction.

Then came Quantum Mechanics, which states that there is no such thing as determinism. Set aside the de-Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory, the Copenhagen Interpretation along with Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle means that the universe is chaotic, probabilistic in nature.

But this still does not do away with the LACK of free will.
Our brains might be a result of quantum fluctuations and uncertainties, but even if we live in a multiverse split for every action, our actions are still dertermined by quantum fluctuations and probabilities, not a soul with a free will.

No matter how you look at physics, you cannot argue in favor of a free will.

The free will itself in principle is a logical impossibility.

We realize options. This means that we have freedom of will. You need a decider to overcome such a situation. Therefore you are free. Determinism is real since the reality is structured. There is no conflict between free will and determinism. I have a thread on this in here.

[Belinda]

Logik wrote:

How do you conceptualise the difference between free will and freedom of choice?

Phenomenologicaly I think it is the same concept.

I suppose that Free Will if it existed would feel the same as a high level of freedom of choice.

I understand the difference to be that while Free Will belongs in the dualist frame, determinism is monist. Freedom of choice within the monist frame is as you describe a continuum and there is no such thing as absolute Free Will. Absolute Free Will is a concept that religions of the afterlife depend upon.

Given the nature of our reality (no absolutes).

Even monism and dualism are choices. They are just interpretive frameworks.

I am looking for more of an empirical distinction.

The only empirical distinction between Free Will belief and determinism belief is that people who believe that people have Free Will possess a rationale for behaving punitively. People who believe that Free Will does not exist can theoretically find unlimited extenuating circumstances that excuse crimes, faults, sins, and failures.

[Logik]

Logik wrote:



I suppose that Free Will if it existed would feel the same as a high level of freedom of choice.

I understand the difference to be that while Free Will belongs in the dualist frame, determinism is monist. Freedom of choice within the monist frame is as you describe a continuum and there is no such thing as absolute Free Will. Absolute Free Will is a concept that religions of the afterlife depend upon.

Given the nature of our reality (no absolutes).

Even monism and dualism are choices. They are just interpretive frameworks.

I am looking for more of an empirical distinction.

The only empirical distinction between Free Will belief and determinism belief is that people who believe that people have Free Will possess a rationale for behaving punitively. People who believe that Free Will does not exist can theoretically find unlimited extenuating circumstances that excuse crimes, faults, sins, and failures.

So the distinction is behaviouristic?

[Logik]

I agree that determinism does not imply prediction except in the case of a being that knows everything including the present and the future and the unspeakably large array of causes and effects.

But determinism and Free Will are discontinuous. You conflate Free Will and freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is a continuum.

How do you conceptualise the difference between free will and freedom of choice?

Phenomenologicaly I think it is the same concept.

Free will is the ability to decide in a situation with at least two options. Freedom of choice is about actuality of choices.

Elaborate on “actuallity”?

Is the choice illusionary or do both options lead to the same destination?

[Belinda]

Given the nature of our reality (no absolutes).

Even monism and dualism are choices. They are just interpretive frameworks.

I am looking for more of an empirical distinction.

The only empirical distinction between Free Will belief and determinism belief is that people who believe that people have Free Will possess a rationale for behaving punitively. People who believe that Free Will does not exist can theoretically find unlimited extenuating circumstances that excuse crimes, faults, sins, and failures.

So the distinction is behaviouristic?

You asked for an empirically visible distinction between Free Will and determinism, and the only one I can think of is the different behaviour that results . I feel that the behaviour that results from belief in determinism is better morally, as I don't like punitive behaviour, and although the high ideal of unlimited extenuating circumstances as applied to wrongdoers is impossible in practice it's the moral guiding light of what what we often call the "civilised" way to deal with wrongdoers.

[bahman]

How do you conceptualise the difference between free will and freedom of choice?

Phenomenologicaly I think it is the same concept.

Free will is the ability to decide in a situation with at least two options. Freedom of choice is about actuality of choices.

Elaborate on “actuallity”?

It means that both options are real and approachable.

Is the choice illusionary or do both options lead to the same destination?

It is real because we want it. We first experience options. We are sure that both options exist, this happen when we want or need to decide. We then put attempt to reach to what we want.

Options do not lead to the same destination since they each lead to a different chain of causality.