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 #280]

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

Using the example of your understanding is that radioactive decay is random, can you explain how that event plays a part in your decisions?

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #280]

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

Using the example of your understanding is that radioactive decay is random, can you explain how that event plays a part in your decisions?

Schrodinger's cat would do it. Let's imagine a situation.

I am a scientist with the cat in the box. The atom decays. The cat dies. I write up the results and then go and make my dinner. However, a fault in the cooktop means that a fire starts and the building burns down, killing me.

I am a scientist with the cat in the box. The atom does not decay. The cat lives. I write up the results, then spend some time playing with the cat, feeding the cat and returning the cat to its cage. As a result of all of this work, I decide to get UberEats for dinner. The fault in my cooktop never has the chance to start a fire, since I do not use it. Thus, I live through the night.

Apart from the literal difference between life and death, the issue of whether the atom decays or not is what allows me to decide to play with the cat (I'm obviously not going to decide to play with the cat if the cat is dead).

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #282]

Your example does not show that there is such a thing as absolute random. Only that you have choices which are enacted upon by your freedom to choose in your first example - where the cat dies and decays.

The second example cannot be correct because there is no known circumstance where the cat does not decay - as observing something does not require one's eyes, where one's nose will suffice...

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #282]

Your example does not show that there is such a thing as absolute random. Only that you have choices which are enacted upon by your freedom to choose in your first example - where the cat dies and decays.

The second example cannot be correct because there is no known circumstance where the cat does not decay - as observing something does not require one's eyes, where one's nose will suffice...

You did not ask me to prove that there was anything truly random in the universe. You asked me to show how something that was truly random could have an effect on the choices I made, and I did so. Don't move the goalposts.

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #282]

Your example does not show that there is such a thing as absolute random. Only that you have choices which are enacted upon by your freedom to choose in your first example - where the cat dies and decays.

The second example cannot be correct because there is no known circumstance where the cat does not decay - as observing something does not require one's eyes, where one's nose will suffice...

You did not ask me to prove that there was anything truly random in the universe. You asked me to show how something that was truly random could have an effect on the choices I made, and I did so. Don't move the goalposts.

I asked you to tie in the thread topic to the theory of true randomness.

If you cannot do so, then the subject of true random does not appear to belong in the thread about the subject of true free will.

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #282]

Your example does not show that there is such a thing as absolute random. Only that you have choices which are enacted upon by your freedom to choose in your first example - where the cat dies and decays.

The second example cannot be correct because there is no known circumstance where the cat does not decay - as observing something does not require one's eyes, where one's nose will suffice...

You did not ask me to prove that there was anything truly random in the universe. You asked me to show how something that was truly random could have an effect on the choices I made, and I did so. Don't move the goalposts.

I asked you to tie in the thread topic to the theory of true randomness.

If you cannot do so, then the subject of true random does not appear to belong in the thread about the subject of true free will.

I did so.

If the atomic decay is truly random, then it will affect the choices I can freely make. I clearly explained how this is the case.

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #286]

IF.

So IF not, then where is the tie in?

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #286]

IF.

So IF not, then where is the tie in?

So now you want me to prove there is something truly random? That wasn't what you asked. Back in post 281, you asked me to explain how a random thing could influence my free will, and you specifically granted the example of radioactive decay being random.

So like I said, you are moving the goalposts.

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #288]

So now you want me to prove there is something truly random?

Only if that is a claim you are making. Otherwise, I am happy to accept it as an unsupported statement.

If it is just an unsupported statement, then it does not have to tie in with the thread topic [free will] and I have no more interest if that is the case.

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #288]

So now you want me to prove there is something truly random?

Only if that is a claim you are making. Otherwise, I am happy to accept it as an unsupported statement.

If it is just an unsupported statement, then it does not have to tie in with the thread topic [free will] and I have no more interest if that is the case.

I don't understand how you can say that.

I have demonstrated that the existence of anything that is truly random will influence my free will.

I have also suggested a phenomenon which certainly appears to be truly random to our current understanding.

If you are going to suggest that radioactive decay is not truly random because there could be some underlying order which we are unaware of that makes it predictable, then you are reducing the idea of true randomness to an unfalsifiable claim, since no matter what is ever presented, you can say, "Ah, but we might find something tomorrow that shows that it's not truly random after all!"