The Instigator
Skept
Pro (for)
The Contender
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI
Con (against)

We don't have freedom and free will.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 437 times Debate No: 105158
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Skept

Pro

Freedom and free will are illusions. Physical actions determine our actions. Physical actions determine physical actions. (And Those actions are probabilistic by quantum theory)
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI

Con

Greetings, before we meddle in semantics I'd like to set some definitions as you haven't (Please agree or disagree)
Free will: the ability to choose between different possible courses of action
I am not saying that some of our actions cannot be influenced by something psychological, but that we have some sort of decision in our choices. As of now, I am indecisive as it does boil down to a subjective thought.
I'd like to first make the statement that free will has little to nothing to do with quantum fluctuations. Humans, for the most part, are wildly unpredictable beings (Like most macroscopic systems). Hence, our actions have nothing to do with microscopic determinism. Quantum mechanics is governed by probability dynamics. The equation of quantum fluctuations does not in any way constitute exactness of the situation, but the probability. In other words, they certify that the violation of determinism is strictly random. This is in direct contradiction with the definition of freedom or free will. So, If human freedom to choose was reducible to quantum indeterminism, then we should conclude that human choices are strictly regulated by the chance. It's comparable to throwing a coin flip, we act accordingly off of that so it is determined by chance, not presupposed in any way.
It is at this point that it does boil down to subjectivity and exactly why I did post definitions so we wouldn't meddle with semantics. If one considers an element of randomness to be sufficient enough to substitute as "free will" then they are free to choose so. However, there are already many sources of uncertainty, entirely independent of quantum mechanics. Just one example is the microscopic atomic dynamic inside of everyone. It's influenced by everyday events (random)
Thought experiment:
- Also, consider the fact that quantum indeterminism disappears quickly when considering macroscopic objects. -
Consider the idea that it is room temperature where the thermal motion of molecules is random. The water that fills the molecules inside our brain will serve as a source of indeterminism for the simple idea of it being hot. This alone serves as a serves as a higher indeterminism than that of a quantum one.
We can now conclude that free will and determinism cannot be satisfied via quantum physics, hence we are given the question: If there are influences (like macroscopic dynamics) that are subject to microscopic indeterminism (like the thermal one given above), then what exactly helps us determine how to judge free will?
Now that we've established that Quantum mechanics shows little to no validity in the argument of free will, we can apply philosophy to the argument. This, being purely hypothetical of course (Just for fun because I love systems of ethics).
Take the idea that a man is walking his dog. He would, naturally, think of two solutions: "Should I walk the dog?" or "Should I not walk the dog?". The best choice of action in his mind is to not walk the dog, as it may be chilly outside or for the pure reason of his laziness. Regardless of his reasoning, we can assume that if human actions are influenced by the rational capabilities of that individual, that an agent can successfully carry out a choice.
Whereas I must notate that there are many flaws in such logic, mainly determanism, I would like to simply continue a more philisophical argument rather than one that is scientific.
Debate Round No. 1
Skept

Pro

It's proper to correct 'by quantum theory' into 'by principles of physics.'

However, It is a truth that quantum mechanics influence the macroscopic world. And It's false to argue that 'If human freedom to choose was reducible to quantum indeterminism, then we should conclude that human choices are strictly regulated by the chance.'

Of course, probabilities always exist.(that is irrelevant to person's will) But the world also shows us a strict causal law that is not a coincidence. Let's say P(n) is an nth set of physical actions. P(n) is the indetermined case as we accept, so Laplace's Demon can't predict P(n+1).(You should not confuse the undetermined situation with situation undetermined by physical acts.) Anyway, P(n) causes P(n+1). That is all. Even though You think you 'choose between different possible courses of action,' It is P(n) that genuinely induces your moves and thoughts.
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI

Con

Pro seemingly missed my point and asserted something to be true. He did not refute my point in the second paragraph and avoided the argument
He also ignored a part of my argument that notated that there were many factors to
"Just one example is the microscopic atomic dynamic inside of everyone. It's influenced by everyday events (random)
Thought experiment:
- Also, consider the fact that quantum indeterminism disappears quickly when considering macroscopic objects. -
Consider the idea that it is room temperature where the thermal motion of molecules is random. The water that fills the molecules inside our brain will serve as a source of indeterminism for the simple idea of it being hot. This alone serves as a serves as a higher indeterminism than that of a quantum one."
He makes assertions that have not been proven by him, points that I already refuted in previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Skept

Pro

In the first paragraph, I already agreed that 'microscopic atomic dynamic,' 'thermal motion of molecules' also affect indeterminacy. Did you read comparing first and second round opinion? Do you think I refute only depending on quantum theory?

In the first sentence of paragraph 2, I considered you will conclude like that if you have ever pondered quantum mechanics. So I did not give any additional explanation. Indeterminacy principle doesn't disappear when you observe macroscopic objects. Things good to overlook and nonexistent things are different. Quantum impact quark and lepton. Those impact protons, neutrons, and electrons. Those impact atoms. Those impact molecules. Those impact matter. Can you refute this?

Did you read the third paragraph? In that, I proved the second sentence of paragraph 2. As mentioned previously, humans are affected by quantum mechanics. But our life is not a random number. I think that your expression 'reducible' is so bold. We are not quantum, but consists of quantum.
Also, I revealed how can determinism be compatible with undetermined reality. That is a primary point.(Or do you want to debate more about the followings? Quantum mechanic influence reality. Principles of physics constitute the undetermined world.)
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ThePrimordialBaobab 7 months ago
ThePrimordialBaobab
I would be really happy if someone could explain to me.
1/ Why determinism deprives us from freedom?
2/ Why people use quantum physics to explain a philosophical concept?
My understanding of determinism is that we are presented with a set of options that lead to a predetermined set of consequences...*cough cough* roughly.
This implies that each choice leads in a specific result, thus the lack of freedom comes from the number of pre designated options/consequences. Is that right?

I thought it makes sense somehow but then I heard about Solipsism.
Metaphysical solipsism argues that 'SELF' is the only existing reality and that all other realities, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence. I think this is a form of determinism because according to this theory, our actions and other people's actions are directly dependent on the 'SELF'? Similar to a dictatorship of the mind. This makes me think that we are deterministic in front of other people's action but not or own, simply because through the 'SELF' we can set the parameters of other realities with ours....
I have a hard time articulating this and I feel that something is missing but here are my thoughts.
Posted by KostasT.1526 8 months ago
KostasT.1526
Although I find thinking that way pessimistic, you are absolutely right. Everything one will do is, in some manner, predetermined by the probabilities of quantum mechanics.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.