Why 'Free Will' is Logically Impossible

[Rational Atheist]

Here is a simple, yet powerful, argument against the idea that we 'freely' choose our actions.

1. Our thoughts determine our choices.

2. We do not freely choose our thoughts.

3. Therefore, our choices cannot be free.

I don't think anyone would object to premise 1, especially those who believe in free will, since by definition, a "free" choice, if it could exist, requires a person to consciously make it, which by definition involves thought. Premise 2 may be controversial to some, but with a simple thought experiment, it can be proven to be true. If a person could freely choose their thoughts, then they would have to be able to consciously choose what they were going to think before actually thinking it. In other words, there would have to be a time before a person thinks a thought that that thought was consciously chosen by a person, which literally entails the necessity of being able to think a thought before one thinks it. This, of course, is a logical contradiction. Ergo, free will does not exist.

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #270]

My understanding is that radioactive decay is random. As in, if you have a block of material that has a half life of a minute, you know that within a minute, half of the atoms will decay. But you can't predict which atoms they will be, nor can you predict what order they will decay in.

An omniscient omnipotent being could predict which atoms they will be, and what order they will decay in. These things would not appear random to such a being.

[Miles]

My understanding is that radioactive decay is random. As in, if you have a block of material that has a half life of a minute, you know that within a minute, half of the atoms will decay. But you can't predict which atoms they will be, nor can you predict what order they will decay in.

So far as we know one's inability to predict an outcome has nothing to do with it's lack of a determinate state. If I can't predict how the flip of a coin will turn out does that mean its final position was not determined? Of course not. If we lack the ability to predict which atoms will decay, or predict what order they will decay in" does this mean their decay is uncaused? Of course not. HOWEVER, if radioactive decay is utterly random, with absolutely no cause whatsoever, until this can be proven we have no basis for asserting it as fact. . What we can say is that such decay is unpredictable---and as of today that is a fact.

But anyway, if you are correct and true randomness doesn't exist, then I have to wonder why Miles specified this vague notion of "unseen considerations" if it was not an attempt to leave a back door open to get out of a logical inconsistency in his position.

Please try to understand that in as much as I am not, and never have been, omniscient and omnipotent I have no idea of what other considerations may be needed in order to know with 100% certainty what will happen on January 1, 2023. I am a mere human speculating on such a being's abilities, which is why there may well be other considerations that need to be taken into account that I'm unaware of. Hence my caveat : "Barring some unforeseen consideration, Yes." ..Make sense? I hope so.

.

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #270]

My understanding is that radioactive decay is random. As in, if you have a block of material that has a half life of a minute, you know that within a minute, half of the atoms will decay. But you can't predict which atoms they will be, nor can you predict what order they will decay in.

An omniscient omnipotent being could predict which atoms they will be, and what order they will decay in. These things would not appear random to such a being.

I don't see why omnipotence has anything to do with this.

In any case, if the decay is truly random, then all the omniscience in the universe wouldn't be enough to allow such a being to make such a prediction.

[Kylie]

My understanding is that radioactive decay is random. As in, if you have a block of material that has a half life of a minute, you know that within a minute, half of the atoms will decay. But you can't predict which atoms they will be, nor can you predict what order they will decay in.

So far as we know one's inability to predict an outcome has nothing to do with it's lack of a determinate state. If I can't predict how the flip of a coin will turn out does that mean its final position was not determined? Of course not. If we lack the ability to predict which atoms will decay, or predict what order they will decay in" does this mean their decay is uncaused? Of course not. HOWEVER, if radioactive decay is utterly random, with absolutely no cause whatsoever, until this can be proven we have no basis for asserting it as fact. . What we can say is that such decay is unpredictable---and as of today that is a fact.

But anyway, if you are correct and true randomness doesn't exist, then I have to wonder why Miles specified this vague notion of "unseen considerations" if it was not an attempt to leave a back door open to get out of a logical inconsistency in his position.

Please try to understand that in as much as I am not, and never have been, omniscient and omnipotent I have no idea of what other considerations may be needed in order to know with 100% certainty what will happen on January 1, 2023. I am a mere human speculating on such a being's abilities, which is why there may well be other considerations that need to be taken into account that I'm unaware of. Hence my caveat : "Barring some unforeseen consideration, Yes." ..Make sense? I hope so.

.

I'm not asking if you can do it.

I'm asking, "If you had sufficient knowledge and computational ability, could it, in theory, be done?"

This is a simple yes or no.

[Miles]

My understanding is that radioactive decay is random. As in, if you have a block of material that has a half life of a minute, you know that within a minute, half of the atoms will decay. But you can't predict which atoms they will be, nor can you predict what order they will decay in.

So far as we know one's inability to predict an outcome has nothing to do with it's lack of a determinate state. If I can't predict how the flip of a coin will turn out does that mean its final position was not determined? Of course not. If we lack the ability to predict which atoms will decay, or predict what order they will decay in" does this mean their decay is uncaused? Of course not. HOWEVER, if radioactive decay is utterly random, with absolutely no cause whatsoever, until this can be proven we have no basis for asserting it as fact. . What we can say is that such decay is unpredictable---and as of today that is a fact.

But anyway, if you are correct and true randomness doesn't exist, then I have to wonder why Miles specified this vague notion of "unseen considerations" if it was not an attempt to leave a back door open to get out of a logical inconsistency in his position.

Please try to understand that in as much as I am not, and never have been, omniscient and omnipotent I have no idea of what other considerations may be needed in order to know with 100% certainty what will happen on January 1, 2023. I am a mere human speculating on such a being's abilities, which is why there may well be other considerations that need to be taken into account that I'm unaware of. Hence my caveat : "." ..Make sense? I hope so.

.

I'm not asking if you can do it.

I'm asking, Barring some unforeseen consideration, Yes.
This is a simple yes or no.

Sure you are. In theory or not; YOU asked: "If you [that's me] had sufficient knowledge and computational ability, could it, in theory, be done?"

And what did I answer? I said "Barring some unforeseen consideration, Yes"

Ah ha, moving the goal posts and a whole other statement: If this was a true question what do you think my answer would be?

This is a simple yes or no.


And have a good day.

.

[Kylie]

My understanding is that radioactive decay is random. As in, if you have a block of material that has a half life of a minute, you know that within a minute, half of the atoms will decay. But you can't predict which atoms they will be, nor can you predict what order they will decay in.

So far as we know one's inability to predict an outcome has nothing to do with it's lack of a determinate state. If I can't predict how the flip of a coin will turn out does that mean its final position was not determined? Of course not. If we lack the ability to predict which atoms will decay, or predict what order they will decay in" does this mean their decay is uncaused? Of course not. HOWEVER, if radioactive decay is utterly random, with absolutely no cause whatsoever, until this can be proven we have no basis for asserting it as fact. . What we can say is that such decay is unpredictable---and as of today that is a fact.

But anyway, if you are correct and true randomness doesn't exist, then I have to wonder why Miles specified this vague notion of "unseen considerations" if it was not an attempt to leave a back door open to get out of a logical inconsistency in his position.

Please try to understand that in as much as I am not, and never have been, omniscient and omnipotent I have no idea of what other considerations may be needed in order to know with 100% certainty what will happen on January 1, 2023. I am a mere human speculating on such a being's abilities, which is why there may well be other considerations that need to be taken into account that I'm unaware of. Hence my caveat : "." ..Make sense? I hope so.

.

I'm not asking if you can do it.

I'm asking, Barring some unforeseen consideration, Yes.
This is a simple yes or no.

Sure you are. In theory or not; YOU asked: "If you [that's me] had sufficient knowledge and computational ability, could it, in theory, be done?"

And what did I answer? I said "Barring some unforeseen consideration, Yes"

Ah ha, moving the goal posts and a whole other statement: If this was a true question what do you think my answer would be?

This is a simple yes or no.


And have a good day.

.

And you failed to say what such "unforeseen circumstances" could be. I even pointed out that if you did have such a level of omniscience and computational ability, then there should be no such thing as "unforeseen circumstances."

Also, "you" does not need to specify directly to YOU. I could say, you can fly past the rings of Saturn, but that doesn't mean that YOU can actually do it.

I'm beginning to think you are being deliberately stubborn.

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #273]

I don't see why omnipotence has anything to do with this.

It was brought up and I simply moved with the idea.

In any case, if the decay is truly random, then all the omniscience in the universe wouldn't be enough to allow such a being to make such a prediction.

Why would you think that?

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #273]

In any case, if the decay is truly random, then all the omniscience in the universe wouldn't be enough to allow such a being to make such a prediction.

Why would you think that?

Because if it could be determined ahead of time, it's not random, is it?

Random = It literally could be anything, and we won't know until it actually happens.

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #278]

What has "true randomness" got to do with "free will"? Can you tie it into the thread topic?

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #278]

What has "true randomness" got to do with "free will"? Can you tie it into the thread topic?

If there is any event that is truly random, then such an event can play a part in our decisions. As such, the future is inherently unpredictable.