The Instigator
KhalifV
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

We Probably Don't Have Libertarian Free Will

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,377 times Debate No: 58858
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

KhalifV

Pro

Structure:
1. Acceptance
2. Opening arguments
3. Refutation/ new points
4. Further refutation
5. Refutation/ final thoughts

Libertarian free will: "Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature, the laws of physics and free from any predetermination by God."
http://www.theopedia.com...

Good luck to con :).
Mike_10-4

Con

I accept. May we both enjoy a constructive learning experience.
Debate Round No. 1
KhalifV

Pro

Many Worlds Interpretation: The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics holds that there are many worlds which exist in parallel at the same space and time as our own. The existence of the other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory and thus from all physics. Every quantum state is realized, but in a differen't world. So whatever action you take in this world, has been predetermined from the wavefunction of the world.
Imagine Schrodinger's Cat. The cat is both dead and alive even before an observer causes the function to collapse, because in any given world it has been determined.

There Is No Way For You To Come Up With A Reason For Your Thoughts:
Thought Experiment With Color:
Pick a color. (This is literally as free as it gets)

I presume you picked some color, let's see if you freely chose it.
1.Well it's safe to say you did not choose any color you didn't know. Like Nyanza.
2. It's safe to say you did not choose any color that you knew, but did not occur to you. I presime you know the color Fuchsia, but maybe it did not come to you.
3. What about the colors that you knew and came to you but you just didn't pick them. There's no reason. Say you narrow it down to green and blue. If the though "Green", randomly comes to you, then you didn't choose it. If you didn't consciously choose it, then it was an unconscious act. let's say you choose green, because you saw a cool green car yesterday. Well in regards to psychology we can say in confidence, that the green car had nothing to do with anything. Even if it did, there's no reason for why you didn't think "since I saw green yesterday, let's go with blue".
4. I think we have a good basis to say we don't really consciously choose anything, but even when we do, there's no way to gather a reason why. You don't choose what you choose, but even when you do, you don't choose what you choose what you choose. X->X/ X->X->X/ X->X->X->X-> N. There is an unavoidable infinite regression.

Neuro-Physiology:
Your Brain Chooses What You Do:



A subject is to choose a random moment to flick their wrist while the controller measures the associated activity in their brain.
To determine when the subject feels the intention to move, they asked to watch the second hand of a clock and report its position when they felt that they had felt the conscious will to move. originally,Libet found that the unconscious brain activity leading up to the conscious decision by the subject to flick his wrist began approximately half a second before the subject consciously felt that he had decided to move.
So what's all this mean? It means that the mechanism by which a conscious thought is conceived, is unconscious and therefor deterministic. There is no way that you could of not felt the decision to move when you did.

An Omniscient Being:
This is an ironic example. Theists like to say, their worldview is the only one in which free will makes sense. "How can we have free will, if we are just the result of unconscious neurological activity?'. Well if there is an omniscient god there is NO free will.

1)An omniscient god knows the future.
2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.
3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong. An omniscient god knows your actions.
4) You don't have free will.

Given god is omniscient, you have no free will.
Furthermore God has no free will.

1) God knows the future
2) God knows what actions he will perform
3) God can't change his future(if he did, he would have known he would, thus it was part of the original series of events.)
4) God's actions are predetermined
5) God has no free will.

Well I think this is enough to get the conversation started. I look forward to con's arguments and objections ^.^

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
Mike_10-4

Con

Thank you Pro for the education in quantum mechanics. At first I wondered if I was in the right debate. That is, the debate on “Libertarian Free Will.” In Round 1 you set the ground work, of this debate, around the definition of “Libertarian” is relative to theopedia.com.

It seems Libertarianism has its first recorded roots in 1789 (http://en.wikipedia.org...), metaphysics was in high gear, the scientific method was new, quantum mechanics was not heard of. In addition, the site theopedia.com makes no reference to quantum mechanics.

So based on the history and Pro's Round 1 reference point (theopedia.com) of Libertarianism we are working at the macro-level or finite-size level of physics not quantum mechanics.

If Pro wanted to have a debate on free-will relative to quantum mechanics, it should have been known in Round 1.

Pro, “There Is No Way For You To Come Up With A Reason For Your Thoughts:”
Reason or not, what difference does it make when you have the free will to choose within your life experiences.

Pro, “Neuro-Physiology:”
Pro moves on to “Neuro-Physiology” ending in the following statement, “So what's all this mean? It means that the mechanism by which a conscious thought is conceived, is unconscious and therefor deterministic...”

How electro-mechanics work in the brain at the “Neuro-Physiology” level to develop the metaphysics definition of “Libertarian Free Will” at the macro-level or finite-size level is all interesting, but it has not debunk one’s definition, concept, or experience of free-will.

Pro, “An Omniscient Being:”
Pro moves on to “Omniscient Being” where theopedia.com deals with the idea of God. If Pro wants to go down that path, the BoF (Burden of Proof) of God's existence is on Pro.

Con's position is, free-will comes into existence at the finite-size level dealing with the primitive's of living-systems. That is, once alive “Life,” has the freedom (“Liberty”) in the pursuit of survival; otherwise, there is no life. Survival is a form of positive-feedback, where survival is a prerequisite for the emotion of human “Happiness;” hence, Thomas Jefferson’s discovery of Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The traceability path from Jefferson to the physical Laws of Nature begins with Takac's living-system primitives, which is an outgrowth of Bejan's Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
http://www.amazon.com...
http://www.amazon.com...

With Pro's interest in quantum theory, he should start with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Then, we will have a traceability path from Liberty to quantum theory. In science, it is prudent to establish an inter-physical-law relationship relative to the property of Symmetries whenever possible. But in Pro's case, out of the gate starts with MWI and concludes everything is deterministic via parallel universes, which currently is nothing but theory along the line of metaphysics, yet to be determined scientifically.

Getting back to liberty, During Jefferson's time (the Enlightenment Era) the metaphysics of liberty was in high gear, hence, the writings of William Belsham in 1789, on Libertarianism.

Based on Pro's stake-in-the-ground definition on “Libertarian free will” along with the traceability path of “Liberty” from classical metaphysics to the physical Laws of Nature, Con's position is, We Have Libertarian Free Will. That is, free-will (aka, freedom) at the living-system level is part of the physical Laws of Nature.
Debate Round No. 2
KhalifV

Pro

Nature Of Resolution and BoP: The motion is a negative. I am holding a negative assertion, therefor technically the BoP is on him. However, since I am pro, I will be giving arguments for my position. He is holding we have free will, so he has to offer arguments.
X= resolution
Y=Position
(-X)(-Y)= +
So my opponent is holding a positive assertion, therefor he also has a BoP.

Semantics And Parameters: Con says "we are working at the macro-level or finite-size level of physics not quantum mechanics. " Con says I can not incorporate quantum mechanics in my arguments, however he at the end of his round says: "Con's position is, We Have Libertarian Free Will. That is, free-will (aka, freedom) at the living-system level is part of the physical Laws of Nature."
Quantum mechanics is part of the fundamental laws of nature.

 H \left| \psi (t) \right\rangle = i \hbar {\partial\over\partial t} \left| \psi (t) \right\rangle.
Rebuttals: Con says: "Reason or not, what difference does it make when you have the free will to choose within your life experiences."
The point is that you don't really choose. Any conscious thought you have is determined by unconscious neuro-physiology. Every conscious thought and subsequent action based on that conscious thought are caused by an unconscious mechanism. You didn't choose any of your thoughts or actions. You don't have free will, you have a subjective conscious experience in which it looks like you have free will. To say you could of acted different in any situation, is to literally say: "if you lived in a different universe, you would live in a different universe."


Con says: " How electro-mechanics work in the brain at the “Neuro-Physiology” level to develop the metaphysics definition of “Libertarian Free Will” at the macro-level or finite-size level is all interesting, but it has not debunk one’s definition, concept, or experience of free-will. "
This is to completely miss the point. The definition in the first round has the law of physics and human nature. Human nature: "Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, which humans tend to havenaturally, independently of the influence of culture." All thoughts and actions are the result of unconscious neuro-physiology. So human nature is subsequently deterministic.

Con says:
"Pro moves on to “Omniscient Being” where theopedia.com deals with the idea of God. If Pro wants to go down that path, the BoF (Burden of Proof) of God's existence is on Pro."

Once again, this is to completely miss the point. If con analyzed the context and attitude of my dialogue, he would have realized the purpose. The point of me including that was to show that if there is a god, there is absolutely no free will. I'm showing that the notion of free will makes no sense on any worldview.

On The Nature Of The Mutliverse: Con implies there is no evidence for the MWI. Basically if the MWI is correct there must be a universe for each possible physical state. The multiverse is a consequence of inflation. Inflation states that the universe rapdily expanded after the big bang. However some regions expand faster than others, thus universes evolve from different rates of expanded spaces. Before we get to the evidence for inflation, I think it is important to say we have a good philosophical basis for the multiverse and MWI. If something can happen, it will happen, because if something never happens or never will happen, it is intuitive to say it can't happen.
1. Let's visit the multiverse. The multiverse is a natural consequence of inflation. Via BICEP2 Primordial gravitation waves have been detected, which is almost indisputable proof of inflation.
Inflation accounts for the:
1.Uniformity. The cosmic background radiation is quite uniform. Inflation adequately accounts for the uniformity. A uniform region expanded rapidly, evolving into our visible universe.
2. Mass density. Inflation predicts the omega should be 1. The Planck satellite measures the omega as 1, which means our universe should be flat, which it is.
3.Small non-uniformity. The small non-uniformity in the universe is easily accounted for by quantum fluctuations, which have been observed in the CBR.
As explained the multiverse is a consequence of inflation. All the other predictions have come true. I would say that would constitute a good reason to think the multiverse is true.
Via inflation, some parts of the early universe expanded more than other, created bublbles of space time, which later developed into other universes, and our universe is just a bubble universe

2ND Law Of Thermodynamics: "The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy."

Maybe CON can explain what this has to do with free will, but what I gather from the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that the universe is probably going to return to nothingness.

Free will is no where to be found in the fundamental laws of physics and certainly not in quantum mechanics.
In CON's next round, I hope he will elaborate on thermodynamics and constructural law and their connection to free will.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.space.com...
http://www.universetoday.com...

Mike_10-4

Con

Again, thank you Pro for the education in Quantum Mechanics. And we both know it is part of nature, no argument there. As Pro stated:

“Quantum mechanics is part of the fundamental laws of nature.”

http://physicsforme.files.wordpress.com...

We also know that Ohm's Law E=IR is part of the Laws of Nature. Where E is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. Con gave an equation and described its terms. If Pro is going to use equations in his argument, please have the curtesy to describe its terms and how they relate to the subject at hand. This will help the voting population come to a level of understanding in their “free-will” decision. This is not a contest on who has the bigger or esoteric equations.

Getting back to Ohm's Law, we know that E electrical voltage, and I electrical current, is the way our neurons, throughout the brain, communicate to each other. This phenomena has been empirically measured with the current state of the art in the field of metrology, fulfilling the requirements of the scientific method. The equation of Ohm's Law does not debunk free-will any more than the above equation of Quantum Mechanics debunk free-will. If I am wrong, Pro has the BoP to use the above equation to illustrate his point.

Getting back to Ohm's Law, moments after the Big Bang, which came first? Quantum Mechanics or Ohm's Law? Which came first, the Laws of Aerodynamics (which requires a planet with an atmosphere) or Quantum Mechanics? Which came first, life requiring freedom to survive (which depends on a planet with an atmosphere having the environment to support life) or Quantum Mechanics? The answer to all those questions is Quantum Mechanics which is at the bottom of the food chain. It is proper to use the term food, because Quantum Mechanics is a prerequisite for the existence of your next meal—bon appetite!

Moments after the Big Bang, the Second Law of Thermodynamics kicked in. To simplify this Law, in general high pressure has the tendency to flow to a lower pressure. High temperature flows to lower temperatures. Electricity flows from high resistance to lower resistance, and so on, during the expansion of the universe.

During this expansion, eventually atoms formed making up stars, planets and life. During all these stages of evolution the flow from the Second Law of Thermodynamics generates a common pattern throughout nature at the finite-size level described by the Constructal Law. These patterns form tree structures that are found throughout nature both animate and inanimate. Please see the following video short on the Constructal Law.
https://www.youtube.com...

The Constructal Law states:
Given freedom, for a finite-sized flow system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve in such a way that provides easier access to the currents that flow through it.

At the living-system level, once alive “Life,” has the freedom (“Liberty”) in the pursuit of, or flow in easier access, to survive; otherwise, there is no life.

From an operational standpoint, all living-systems has the freedom to flow (aka move) in the pursuit of survival. At the living-system level, Constructal Law is a bio-program or dynamic interface with nature, where all “Life” has a craving to sustain itself, with the desire to increase freedom (“Liberty”), while decreasing the energy (providing easier access) in “the pursuit of” an objective, and in the process, exploring new levels of positive-feedback (“Happiness” for us humans). This becomes the foundation for the “Natural Selection” process; the machinery of evolution for life, social systems, technology, markets, etc.

Hence, Thomas Jefferson’s polished version known as Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This is the evolutionary path from the Big Bang to Quantum Mechanics to Constructal Law to “Liberty” (aka free-will, freedom) all part of the Laws of Nature, for humans are a product of the Laws of Nature. This evolutionary path, for the most part, is based on empirical evidence within the limits of the current state of the art in the field of metrology, via the scientific method.

Since we are a product of the Laws of Nature, there should be no surprise, of empirical evidence showing us humans flow in the shadow of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We have a tendency to migrate from the high resistance of tyranny to the low resistance found in freedom. When purchasing an item we select the lower price from multiple suppliers having a higher price. Going with the flow of traffic is easier and safer than going against it. There is a desire to move from a high emotional pressure to lower pressure. Moving from higher taxed areas to lower taxed communities. And so on. Of course there are exceptions, because we have free-will to do so.

On the other hand, Pro is in the weeds with the bleeding-edge of research in theoretical physics, convoluted with philosophy with little emphasis on the scientific method needed for BoF. The problem with theoretical physics is the Heisenberg principle limiting the field of metrology needed in the scientific method to confirm a theory or hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Therefore, most of Quantum Mechanics is philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The best they can do, in regard to any form of metrology needed for the scientific method, is to build very expensive colliders (http://en.wikipedia.org...). And in saying that, they are still looking for the “God particle” (http://en.wikipedia.org...). However, some physicists “believe they have discovered” it (http://www.usatoday.com...).

While Pro is keeping his balance on the “bleeding-edge” of Quantum Mechanics, he also relies on the philosophy or hypothesis of the conscious- and the unconscious-mind with his free-will argument. The concept of these different parts of the mind came about in the 1700s by the German philosopher Friedrich Schelling, and have yet been located or proven scientifically, therefore, they remain as philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Con's focus on free-will is the traceability path via empirical science, where Pro's assumptions are on theoretical physics in Quantum Mechanics (at the bottom of the food chain) and philosophy.
Debate Round No. 3
KhalifV

Pro

I Guess I'll explain Schrodinger's equation at the end of this round. It's rather complicated. However, I included that equation just to show quantum mechanics is relevant. You're trying to disregard quantum mechanics, which is crazy because our universe is governed by quantum mechanics.(What I posted wasn't the Schrodinger equation, it's the time evolution).
But first let's recap and examine. Con has one argument for his position, which is the constructural law. I will explain later why this does not give us free will. I have two arguments: all actions and thoughts are determined by unconscious neurophysiology and the MWI and multiverse. In response to neurophysiology, con says: " he also relies on the philosophy or hypothesis of the conscious- and the unconscious-mind with his free-will argument. The concept of these different parts of the mind came about in the 1700s by the German philosopher Friedrich Schelling, and have yet been located or proven scientifically, therefore, they remain as philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org......). "
My response is basically: " are you kidding me?". This displays a lack of knowledge of psychology. Note that con did not address the argument, he merely dismissed it as purely speculative. Even if it was purely speculative, he would still have to offer a refutation.


He does the same thing for quantum mechanics. Con basically says, no one in quantum mechanics really knows what they're talking about. Now, I'm sure those who actually study quantum mechanics, know it's a real science. It is based of evidence, it just isn't super concrete like geology. Note again, con doesn't refute my quantum mechanicial/ cosmological multiverse argument, he just dismisses it.
My arguments still stand.

Constructural Law:
" The Constructal Law states:
Given freedom, for a finite-sized flow system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve in such a way that provides easier access to the currents that flow through it.

At the living-system level, once alive “Life,” has the freedom (“Liberty”) in the pursuit of, or flow in easier access, to survive; otherwise, there is no life. "

Well first if this is a law, we have to follow it. There is no way to avoid it. "Given freedom" is how it starts off.
Freedom: " the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." Now this is the definition of begging the question. This is basically saying if you have freedom, you have freedom. I believe I have reasonably demonstrated through my arguments that there is not freedom, especially in regards to the aforementioned definition of freedom. So freedom is an assumption of the argument. I would like con to substantiate this assumption. To exemplify his argument, con gives the following analogy: "When purchasing an item we select the lower price from multiple suppliers having a higher price." Now where is free will in this? Given this law, it is impossible to knowingly choose the higher priced product. Just because one is determined to make beneficial choices, does not mean one is not determined.

Schrodingers Equation (easy derivation):
E=KE+PE
E=1/2mv^2+u
E=p^2/2m+u
ψ= e^i(km-wt)
dψ/dx=ike^i(m-wt)=ikψ
d^2ψ/ dx^2= (ik)^2ψ
k= P/h(reduced planck's constant)
(k=2π/λ
p=h/λ
p=hk/2Π
p=h(reduced planck's constant)k)
d^ψ/dx^2= -(p^2/h^2)^ψ
(-h reduced Plack's constant^2)(d^2)ψ/dc^2=p^2(ψ)
E=p^2/2m+u
Eψ=p^2ψ/2m+uψ
Eψ=(-h^2/2m)(d^ψ/dx^2)+uψ


Time Independent Schrodinger Equation= ( -h(reduced plack's constant)^2/2m)( d^2ψ/dx^2)+ uψ=Eψ
(I have a feeling my mathematical symbols are not going to transfer over to my post. I'll clarify with a comment if I must).

Conclusions: My opponent has not addressed my arguments, he has only dismissed them. He denies the reality of unconscious neurophysiology and dismisses quantum mechanics as purely speculative(which it's not). Even if these were rational points, he would not have refuted my arguments, maybe con will care to refute my arguments, instead of dismissing them.
His argument seems to establish that we will act in ways that are more beneficial to us. This does not have to do with free will. His argument using this law also commits the "begging the question fallacy". It's basically: "given freedom, you have freedom". He seems to perfectly demonstrate my point. Remember the definition:"Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature, the laws of physics and free from any predetermination by God." His argument proves that our actions are determined by evolution and the laws of physics.


Some Unconscious mind research: http://violet.berkeley.edu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Empirical experiments in Quantum Mechanics:http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://medium.com...
http://people.whitman.edu...




















Mike_10-4

Con

Thank you Pro for your response. I must say I'm learning a lot about Quantum Mechanics from you however, Pro has yet demonstrated the connection of Quantum Mechanics to free-will.

On the other hand, Con made the evolutionary connection from the Big Bang, to Quantum Mechanics, to Second Law of Thermodynamics, to Constructal Law, to freedom (aka free-will), relative to our current knowledge from today's empirical scientific evidence.

Con will start with Pro's following ending statement and work backwards,

“Remember the definition: “Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature, the laws of physics and free from any predetermination by God."

What is “human nature?” Wikipedia has a good overview (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Scientific American has a good article on “human nature” (http://www.scientificamerican.com...). There are many articles on “human nature” referenced through Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu...). Con searched through a number of articles and could not find reference to suicide. Yet humans are known to have free-will to commit suicide. Even if suicide is part of “human nature,” the act of suicide removes one from “human nature;” hence, resulting in the freedom “from the determination or constraints of human nature.”

As for free-will relative to the laws of physics. For example, if one decides to go against the Laws of Aerodynamics, one cannot fly.

As for the free-will “from any predetermination by God,” the BoF is on Pro to prove there is a God.

As we continue backwards Pro stated, “My opponent has not addressed my arguments, he has only dismissed them. He denies the reality of unconscious neurophysiology and dismisses quantum mechanics as purely speculative(which it's not).”

I hope my rendition on free-will relative to “human nature … laws of physics … predetermination by God,” in Pro's above and opening definition on “Libertarian free will” addresses one of his arguments.

Con does not “dismiss quantum mechanics!” Con started at the opening of my last argument in Round 3 with the following, “And we both know it [Quantum Mechanics] is part of nature, no argument there.” Quantum Mechanics is the foundation to the elements found in the Periodic Table, the fabric between all the known forces and yes, like Pro, there exist a community of scholars who argue about Quantum Mechanics pertaining to “free will” (http://www.scientificamerican.com...).

The last sentence of the conclusion of the Scientific American article titled, “The Quantum Physics of Free Will” states the following, “... even in a fully deterministic universe, we can be said to have free will.” Well there you have it. In a deterministic universe, we “have free will.”

As for Pro's arguments “of unconscious neurophysiology,” what difference does it make, if we live in a deterministic universe and still “have free will?” We cannot overlook the fact the concept of conscious and unconscious is still metaphysical (aka philosophy) no matter how many in the community agree. Once there was total consensus the earth was at the center of the universe. It does not matter what us humans philosophize about, it is only through the scientific method that brings us closer to understanding the machinery of nature.

This is what happens when you get into the weeds of frontier research, especially when the field of metrology is not fully matured to deal with all the speculation, theories, philosophy, while the terms and definitions of the language is evolving.

My recommendation to Pro, keep it simple, read up on the Constructal Law, study the finite-size mechanics until the quantum folks figure out their mechanics.

On the other hand, it would seem Pro has an infatuation with the quantum field, and Con would encourage Pro to pick up a few degrees in the field of physics.

Continuing backwards, Pro does his usual dance with esoteric equations making no connection to free will. Why bother?

Pro missed the point Con was making about finding the lowest price supplier in the shadow of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Con also made the point in the ending sentence of that paragraph, which Pro failed to mention, “Of course there are exceptions, because we have free-will to do so.” In other words, one has the free-will to buy from a higher price supplier. What is generally stopping one to buy at a higher price?

The answer is related to our bio-program (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) having the desire for more freedom. That is, in a culture where freedom, in part, is a function of money, that is, the more money you have the more freedom you have to buy and do things. And in that light, one would find ways to increase or save money to preserve as much freedom as possible; hence, the evolution of free-markets, the seed to technologies, food production and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example when our Unalienable Rights are free to operate within the awesome machinery of Nature.

How much we owe to the reality of freedom, aka free-will. On the other hand, if one does not like this reality, one has the free-will to commit suicide.

Con addressed most of Pro's “arguments.” Con is still waiting for BoP from Pro “We Probably Don't Have Libertarian Free Will.”
Debate Round No. 4
KhalifV

Pro

I'd like to thank con for addressing one of my arguments.
Quantum Mechanics:
In regards to quantum mechanics, con says :"“... even in a fully deterministic universe, we can be said to have free will. Well there you have it. In a deterministic universe, we “have free will.”
Well remember con is arguing for libertarian free will. Now let'see what con's article says(it actually argues in my favor).
Quote 1:" Also, at a deep level, quantum mechanics is not random at all. Schrödinger’s equation is completely deterministic and time-symmetric. Carroll feels much the same".
THIS BLATANTLY ADVOCATTES DETERMINISM.

Quote 2: "Her paper suggests that there is a third way between determinism and randomness: what she calls “free-will functions,” whose outputs are fully determined but unpredictable. Only those who know the function know what will happen."
This establishes free will as an illusion. This means that because we don't know the function, it seems that we have free will, however if the function was known we could predict all actions with a 100% accuracy. So on this view, we also have ZERO free will.

Quote 3: " If we lack free will, the coordinated outcomes can be explained without any nonlocal connection. The reason is that the setup of the experiment assumes the outcomes are independent of the measurement settings. If the two are somehow synchronized, that might produce the illusion of nonlocality. In the video, that would mean Mary did not exercise any free choice in her choice of whether to say “left” or “right.” It was all set up at the big bang to ensure compatibility with the answers that John and I give."
So this concerns nonlocality. This depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. I argued for the MWI, which con did not refute, so as aforementioned, if the MWI is true, then free will does not exist.

Quote 4(the last sentence of the article): " That is, there is no free will because you chose ALL, but in each case, you have the perfect illusion of free will because the universe (that this copy of) you experience is the one (that this copy of) you chose."
Once again con's own source says free will is an illusion.
So if we care about quantum mechanics and how the universe works, then there is no libertarian free will.

Unconscious Neurophysiology: Con's dismissal of Neurophysiology stems from his lack of understanding of quantum mechanics. Con says: "what difference does it make, if we live in a deterministic universe and still “have free will?” .
Well, too bad for con, because in a deterministic universe, we don't have free will. IT'S AN ILLUSION.
Con goes on to say:"We cannot overlook the fact the concept of conscious and unconscious is still metaphysical (aka philosophy) no matter how many in the community agree." Now is this true? Let's conduct a simple experiment and see:
1. Pay attention to your actions.

2. Observe if there are actions you are commiting, that you are not consciously choosing to do.
3. If there are , then there is an empirical reason to believe that an unconscious mind exists.
If there was only a conscious mind, then all actions would be made consciously.
Neuroscience via FMRI has shown that thoughts are the result of neurophysiological states. Seeing that you don't consciously choose those states, you don't consciously choose your thoughts. Just because you become conscious of your thoughts, does not mean that you chose them. So does this follow the scientific method?
question: does the unconscious mind exist?
hypothesis: If the unconscious mind exists, it influences actions.
prediction: If the unconscious mind influences actions, then one would not consciously chooses all of one's actions. If there is no unconscious mind, then one would consciously choose all of one's actions.
testing: My experiment
analysis: Through attentive observation of one's actions, it becomes quite evident that one does not consciously choose one's actions in the entirety. Subsequently, an unconscious influence is present in the causation of one's actions(one does not consciously choose one's unconscious causations).
Seems to me we can come to a conclusion throught the scientific method, that the unconscious mind exists.
Con did not refute the unconscious argument against free will derived from my color thought experiment, he merely dismissed it as speculative,however I provided sources to substantiate my assertion that the unconscious mind exists. Also I just devised a very simple and cogent experiment, that follows the scientific method, that establish the presence of an unconscious force.

God: Once again I don't think a god exists, it was included as a preemptive refutation to an argument from god.

More On The Constructural Law: Now I do know about the Laws Of Thermodynamics. I understand the concepts and equations. I and most physicist agree that it has nothing to do with free will.

Con says: "” In other words, one has the free-will to buy from a higher price supplier. What is generally stopping one to buy at a higher price?"
I maintain Ceteris paribus, one can't knowingly pick the higher priced product. Why do I think this, well because the constructural law. "Since we are a product of the Laws of Nature, there should be no surprise, of empirical evidence showing us humans flow in the shadow of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We have a tendency to migrate from the high resistance of tyranny to the low resistance found in freedom. When purchasing an item we select the lower price from multiple suppliers having a higher price."
This quote from con perfectly argues my point.


Con says:"Of course there are exceptions, because we have free-will to do so. " I don't think so. BoP is on con to show Ceteris paribus, it is possible for one to act in a way contrary to the constructural law. I don't think your brain will let you, ceteris paribus, buy the higher priced product.

Con says: "My recommendation to Pro, keep it simple, read up on the Constructal Law, study the finite-size mechanics until the quantum folks figure out their mechanics. "
The multiverse is not finite. Also you attacking quantum mechanics isn't a refutation.


Suicide: Given one naturally acts in a way that potentially promotes well-being, one is bound to come into conflict with others doing the same. This will result in a failure. If one fails enough, one is bound to have a negative value in regards to well-being. If one has a net- negative value for well-being and will continue to have a net-negative value for well-being, it then becomes preferable to commit suicide. See "Antinatalism" and"Efilism". there is also biological pre disposition for suicide.More than 90% of people who commit suicide suffered from a psychiatric disorder, mostly a mood disorder (Mann,2003).
There is consistent evidence suggesting that genetic factors play an important role in the predisposition to suicide and suicidal behaviors.

Closing Thoughts: I have offered two arguments:

1. MWI/multiverse
2. Unconscious motives.
In regards to number 1, con merely did not think it was important. This is false because our universe is governed by quantum mechanics. The Schrodinger is deterministic. If the MWI is true,which I argued on the basis of a multiverse and the ineveitable occurence of a physical state if such a state is possible. He tried to say in a determinstic universe, there is free will. I refuted this using his own source. If the universe is deterministic free will is an illusion.
2. He doubted the existence of unconscious motives, so he did not address this argument. I showed, through the literature, and simple experiment, the unconscious exists.
3. His argument does not imply free will, it merely shows we are determined to attempt to act in accordence with the constructural law.

Sources:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks to con for a good/ interesting debate ^.^.

Mike_10-4

Con

I thank Pro for his philosophy on the subject of free-will.

In regard to philosophy, imagine a straight-line segment having two end points. Label one point Myth the other point Science. The distance between those points is Philosophy. For lack of a better term let's call this line segment our Philosophy Spectrum.

Professor Bjorn Brembs is working on the science side of our Philosophy Spectrum to prove that “Free Will as an Evolved Brain Function” (http://vimeo.com...).

Professor Brembs' lecture is based on empirical research where he also defines a spectrum. On the left side of his spectrum is Deterministic, the right side is Stochastic, where the distance between those ends is the Free-Will zone.

Professor Brembs is using the scientific method in trying to establish a Burden of Proof to settle all the competing philosophical views on “Free-Will.” Perhaps, at the same time he may find the unconscious.

Pro took on the challenge of the Burden of Proof that “We Probably Don’t Have Libertarian Free Will.” It would seem Pro will need to wait until folks like Professor Brembs, complete their research, using the scientific method to come to an indisputable conclusion.

Pro presented a long list of equations yet failed to establish a mathematical relationship of Free-Will as a function of those terms. Pro made a good effort in selecting parts from competing arguments by the scholars, to justify his argument using the Dialectic Method, where Con's focus is on the Scientific Method.

For example, Pro went as far to diagnose the free-will of choice pertaining to suicide as some “biological predisposition,” not covering the power-of-myth by flying planes into buildings, becoming a suicide human bomb, or from the event of heroism, taking one's life to save others, etc. It is Pro's free-will selective approach to advance his argument, by filtering out those free-will cases that went against his position. He then used this selective diagnose argument to embrace his point of view to establish his version of truth. When dealing with science one needs to consider all empirical events within the scope of study. Filtering out events to favor a particular philosophy, one's career in experimental science will be short-lived.

In closing, I find a constructive debate a learning experience that is more important than victory, more informative and memorable than a class lecture, better feedback than a test, the foundation to the scientific method, last but not least, the evolution of ideas. You do not find those dynamics in a static text book, where the text book are results from past debates and used as references or building blocks in future debates. And in saying that, I look forward to meeting Pro again on the debating floor.

Thank you Pro, for the learning experience, from my own endeavor in reviewing many sources, including Pro's references, over the confusion of free-will in the quantum community. I now understand why Pro used the term “Probably” in the debate title, for he himself, is not sure.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Excellent opening by Pro. Can't wait to see how Con will refute this.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
Thanks for the bounce back.

You do not have to change it. I think I could work with your definition.

Let"s have some fun in learning from each other.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
I know. I added it because physics is often added to the notion. If you think it is an unjustified addition we can change it.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
I would take this debate however, your definition of "free will" differs from the theopedia.com definition. Theopedia mentions only "human nature," where your definition includes "the laws of physics." Therefore your definition is not that of "Libertarian free will."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
KhalifVMike_10-4Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made several cases for determinism and a lack of Libertarian free will, the most convincing being the neuro-physiology, that Con didn't refute but instead just dismissed. Pro used a number of reliable sources, and Con used a source that seemed to work against them.