Existence of Human Freewill

Pro

I thank my opponent for his interesting argument! I will take a moment to refute my opponent's claims.

Rebuttal 1: Determinism

This argument has completely fallen apart since the advent of modern physics. In Newton's time, and really until quite recently, everyone viewed the Universe and the bodies within as inherently deterministic: everything moved, everything acted, but some sort of equation. Gravity was of course bound by Newton's equation, light by Maxwell's equations, even the fundamental nature of energy and matter was described by Einstein in his works on Relativity. Your argument would be compeltely correct if this was the way nature acted.

However, as physicists began to study deeper and deeper, they began to find that at the smallest levels,quantum levels, nature acted randomly. I hope I won't confuse anyone here because I will just be giving a brief overview of this randomness.

At the smallest levels, particles are not particles -- they are waves of probability. Where nineteenth century scientists viewed a particle as a tiny bit of matter at a certain position in space, we now know that particles are really described by what is called a wavefunction -- a wave that can only tell you where a particle might be, and not where it is.¹

It is not until this wavefunction is observed that the particle is forced to become the tiny bit of matter I described earlier. When we observe the particle, and yes, it is merely the act of observation, we collapse the wavefunction and make it one hundred percent probable a particle will be at a certain position.² Before this, however, a particle is only described by probability -- a superposition of all possible outcomes in a wave. We know this mathematically by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: ΔxΔp ≈ h, or in other words the change in position and the change in momentum is roughly equals to Planck's Constant -- one is indeterminite, uncertain, if we know the other.

Before the randomness of quantum physics was discovered, you could say that if we knew everything about the brain, everything about each particle in the brain, we could effectively determine what decisions a person would make, because we could determine the motion of the chemicals and how that related to the outside environment (even if it was nearly impossible to do the mathematics, the point was that it was calculable. When physicists discovered the wavefunction, and the randomness at the smallest level, they discovered that predictability was impossible.

I really don't mean to confuse anyone with scientific jargon. This is the reason why determinism falls apart, and it is the reason why humans have free will; the wavefunction is uncertain until we collapse it.

Rebuttal 2: Illusion of Independence

This is a very interesting point. If I understand my opponent correctly, he is saying that because the environment has an effect on the human, the human's free will is reduced. This is an erroneous statement, and is a very famous philosophical debate: nature versus nurture. Nurture may have an influence; in fact, it does, but that only reduces the free will, not obliterate it.

While a person may have grown up in a 1930's Germany, and been influenced by Nazi propaganda, that only reduces their free will. It impacts them and their will to make decisions, but it is still them who make the decisions. The propaganda may influence the decision they make, but to reiterate, it is still people themselves that make the decision.

References

1. http://www.britannica.com...
2. http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr...

Con

Response to “Why Determinism is Wrong”

Determinism is the idea that all reactions are caused by previous reactions.

Indeterminism is the concept that reactions are entirely random.

My opponent makes a valid point that everything “seems orderly because of the interference of wavefunctions”.However, Pro then states the basis of his argument as “since we are the ones that collapse our wave functions, we are the ones who decide our decisions.”

A valid possible solution does not imply that that solution is correct. If humans could collapse their wavefunctions the concept of freewill could be justified. Yet, why are we to assume humans have the ability to collapse wavefunctions.

An example of why this logic is erroneous:

Two men are contained in identical rooms situated next to each other. A one inch by one inch hole is drilled between the wall in between these two rooms. Every 24 hours an inspector checks in on both of the men. One day the inspector checks-in to find the first man dead. He suggests that the second man could have taken a gun and shot the first man through the hole in the wall, thus the first man was murdered by the second man.

Just because something is a possible solution does not mean it’s true. The same logic applies the idea that humans collapse wavefunctions to create free-willed thought. There is no reason to assume humans have the ability to manipulate wave functions, thus we cannot assume humans have freewill.

Response to “Finite Influence on Free Will”

My opponent argues that “the Universe is finite, and thus the agents inside of it that could influence a person’s decisions are finite”.

Simply stated, this assumption is illogical. For example; the variable of a person being exposed to a paper with a number written on it affects that person’s behavior. This might not be drastic in the long run effect on that person’s life but this paper could change a decision. This paper could have an infinitive range of numbers written on it, thus possibility for an infinite number of variables regarding this single piece of paper. Alone this is a minor concept, yet if you can arrive at an infinite number of possibilities for a single piece of paper, it is easy to justify the grand effect the aspects of the universe a person is exposed to, has on that person. Thus, this point still stands.

Pro also states; “this assumes the human brain has a capacity for all of these variables to begin with, which, simply put, is a ludicrous claim”. Pro seems to think that a human brain must keep track of all of its influences, this is an invalid assumption. If humans were mere computers with variable inputs for all the data we take in Pro would have a point. However, the human mind presumes it must create an action based on the circumstances it is exposed to. Since the human mind draws on presumed knowledge as supposed to keeping track of a massive list of the prescribed action for circumstances, it is illogical to worry about the human brain’s capacity. Thus, Pro’s objection must be dismissed.

A Note on the “Reminder”

I now realize that pro has been arguing for freewill, but has failed to provide positive evidence for his claim.

Pro’s argument for freewill has been this:

1. A. The universe is capable of random actions, “wavefunctions”
2. B. By closing these wavefunctions free-willed thought is created
3. C. Humans can close wavefunctions thus they have freewill

Indeterminism http://www.informationphilosopher.com...

Pro

Why Determinism is Wrong

My opponent gives two definitions, one for determinism and the other for indeterminism. He states that determinism is "the idea that all reactions are caused by previous reactions." I would like to expand on this a little before I explain the wavefunction argument. Dictionary.com tells us that determinism is:

1. the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws.

2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.¹

Additionally, determinism is obviously derived from the word determine, which means, in this context, “to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc.”² Again, determinism is the idea that everything can be determined – basically, everything can be predicted even if it was impractical and painstaking.

This idea is wrong, and has been proven wrong since the study of quantum mechanics, and the waves of probability that they really are. My opponent now states “If humans could collapse their wavefunctions the concept of freewill could be justified.” Well, let us go back to my Round 2 argument:

I said in Round 2, “When we observe the particle, and yes, it is merely the act of observation, we collapse the wavefunction and make it one hundred percent probable a particle will be at a certain position.” I apologise for not making this statement more clear: observation is what causes a wavefunction to collapse from probability to certainty.³

That last sentence is very important, there is actually a debate within the scientific community as to how consciousness plays a role in the collapse of wavefunctions,⁴ because so far our human act of observation is one of the only things that can cause it; and, like I said, since humans collapse wavefunctions to determine the future in an otherwise indeterminate state, we have free will.

Finite Influence on Free Will

My opponent attempts to refute my argument with his analogy of a piece of paper with a single number written across it. He states that: “This paper could have an infinitive range of numbers written on it, thus possibility for an infinite number of variables regarding this single piece of paper.” I am going to be honest, that is a very clever argument, however I will show how it is flawed.

He states that since there are an infinite amount of numbers that could be scribbled on this sheet (which, of course, the ink in a pen is made of atoms, so this is not possible but I will not do in depth on this) there are an infinite number of variables. Ah, but only one number will be written on the sheet, so there is only one agent influencing the person’s decision. The range of numbers that could be written has no influence, it is merely the certain number written that acts on that person’s decision – and again, there are a limited amount of atoms in the Universe, so there is a limited amount of influence on free will.

We then get back into the capacity of the human mind. He incorrectly states: “Pro seems to think that a human brain must keep track of all of its influences, this is an invalid assumption.” No. The human brain does not have to keep conscious track of its influences – but it still has a limited amount of information that can be stored. Consciously or subconsciously influenced, the human mind cannot handle an infinite range of influence on free will.

Conclusion

My opponent states: “yet to provide any evidence that humans do indeed have the ability to close wavefunctions.” Well, read my first section, as well as sources 3 and 4. Human observation is what causes wavefunction collapse.

References

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...

2. http://dictionary.reference.com...

3. http://goo.gl...

4. http://www.generativescience.org...