Do We Really Have Free Will? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities

DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

Do We Really Have Free Will?

Debate Information

By "free will" I mean the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Free will deniers say the neurons in our brains are not exempt from the laws of physics, and, as such, our "decisions" are an illusion.  They say our choices and actions are the results of a causal chain going back to our birth.

Free will proponents say we have veto power over our thoughts and impulses. We can exercise that veto power or not.

Which side is deserving of your support?



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2506 Pts   -  
    There is no "free will" as we are not (and cannot be) the "uncaused cause of our own thoughts"... 

    Every choice/decision we make (to veto or not), are determined by the environmental contingencies (internal and external) and the sum of knowledge/experience we have at the time of choosing.

    Until anyone can demonstrate that consciousness can exist without any underlying physical substrate (disembodied consciousness), this is the only and inescapable conclusion... 
    LiamThePersonDeeHappy_KillbotTreeMan
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 39 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen
    So if what you say is true, should we punish a bank robber?  If his impulse to rob the bank was predetermined by forces beyond his control, is it fair to punish him?
    Debater123
  • LiamThePersonLiamThePerson 607 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold Yes. Punishment changes behavior. If we punish and rehabilitate correctly, we can change the behavior and make the bank robber a constructive member of society. 
    Happy_KillbotTreeMan
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 39 Pts   -  
    @LiamThePerson
    I think you're saying the bank robber has the free will to choose to change.  Is that correct?
    Happy_Killbot
  • piloteerpiloteer 1281 Pts   -  
    There is no "free will" as we are not (and cannot be) the "uncaused cause of our own thoughts"... 

    Every choice/decision we make (to veto or not), are determined by the environmental contingencies (internal and external) and the sum of knowledge/experience we have at the time of choosing.

    Until anyone can demonstrate that consciousness can exist without any underlying physical substrate (disembodied consciousness), this is the only and inescapable conclusion... 
    I suppose one could take the solipsistic approach and begin their argument right at the point of human consciousness (specifically your human consciousness) as you have, but then we would need to conveniently ignore the fact that you have not the qualia to speak for everybody. This is exemplified by your very own argument. If you ("You" as in "The royal we") have not the capacity to empirically prove that others even exist, then your argument can never take flight beyond that assertion. Your argument is hindered by the fact it is derived from the rudimentary basis of extreme skepticism (solipsism), so you needed to decorate your argument with catchphrases like "determined" to attempt to hide the fact that your argument is only effective at deconstructing all existence. It's like arguing that it's not likely existence is more than an illusion, so since free will is something categorized as existing, it too must not exist. If Emanuel Kant could dispute David Humes entire thesis, it didn't mean Emanuel Kant was a genius, it meant there was something wrong with Humes assertions to begin with.                   

    Another thing we'd need to ignore for your argument to work would be some key indications  which demonstrate that humans, just like all animals, have built in abilities, or built in capabilities before they are born. The fact that a newborn can learn any language faster, and more precisely than any adult can, it does not validate the idea that we are solely destined to be whatever our environmental contingencies have in store for us. 

    Another flagrant aspect of your argument that will most definitely need to be ignored for it to work is the fact that the universe doesn't seem to be functioning in a determined manner. Ever since the prospect of non-locality was first proposed by Newton, he, along with Einstein and a myriad of other physicists have rejected the notion of an anarchic universe, even though all the evidence was becoming more impossible to dispute. Even the many worlds interpretation could not rescue the Copenhagen interpretation from the depths of anarchy. The born rule would not let the many worlds interpretation go any further, and now non-locality stands uncontested. All action is not just reaction. Initial actions still do occur.                  
    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 1281 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen
    So if what you say is true, should we punish a bank robber?  If his impulse to rob the bank was predetermined by forces beyond his control, is it fair to punish him?
    If Plaff were correct, then we would not be able to anything other than punish the bank robber, because we would be destined to punish them. But luckily, Plaff may not be correct this time.  
    Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2506 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold

    That would seem to be the core problem isn't it? What happens to moral responsibility in the absence of free will? 

    In talking about moral responsibility there are 2 main approaches: Backward-looking (desert-based as in "deserving" blame or praise), forward-looking (consequentialist-based)... 

    Backward-looking perspectives to moral responsibility (retributivism), justify punishment by ascribing responsibility on motives prior to action... If you did something deemed wrong, you "deserve" punishment without any regard to the good or bad consequences of applying the punishment... It implies one has libertarian free will, the "culpable" is assumed to have the ability to have done otherwise... 

    Forward-looking perspectives to moral responsibility justify punishment by focusing on the beneficial consequences that can be obtained by said punishment (Moral formation, deterrence, etc). Agents are considered proper targets of reprobation or punishment for immoral actions on the grounds that such treatment will, say, prevent the agent (or other agents) from performing that type of action in the future.  The Norwegian model is of this type of forward-looking stance on punishment...

    Moral responsibility skeptics (from Spinoza, Voltaire, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Paul Edwards, to the more recent Galen Strawson, Derk Pereboom, Bruce Waller,  and Gregg D. Caruso), make an argument that makes no appeal at all to determinism or indeterminism, and maintain that free will and ultimate moral responsibility are incoherent concepts, since to be free in the sense required for true moral responsibility we would have to be causa sui (or “cause of oneself”) and as this is impossible, we should therefore reject all backward-looking approaches...

    Most skeptics find forward-looking approaches to be valid (in being compatible with determinism). So under MRS (Moral Responsibility Skepticism), punishment cannot be said to be "deserved" but can be "warranted" in order to protect other people rights (to safety, property, etc), such a warrant being justified by things like moral education theory (which maintains that punishment can be justified only if it benefits the person being punished), I guess it could be said that the correct terminology would be "treatment" rather than "punishment" though...  
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • LiamThePersonLiamThePerson 607 Pts   -  
    @LiamThePerson
    I think you're saying the bank robber has the free will to choose to change.  Is that correct?
    Incorrect. I am saying the bank robber is induced to change through punishment. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2506 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    Solipsism is foundationless, in theory and in fact.  As a theory, it's completely incoherent...  Solipsism is irrelevant to my argument, in no way do I derive my argument from solipsism... 
    Another flagrant aspect of your argument that will most definitely need to be ignored for it to work is the fact that the universe doesn't seem to be functioning in a determined manner. 
    It most certainly is...  You decorate your argument with catchphrases like "non-locality" and the "Born rule" to attempt to hide the fact that your argument is irrelevant to the current discussion... Born's rule only states that the probability density of finding a particle at a given point, when measured, is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wavefunction at that point. It's thus also irrelevant to this discussion about free will...

    Quantum physics has not disproved determinism at all. Many will cite Bell's theorem as proof QM disproves determinism, but Bell's theorem is only about the immeasurable nature of quantum physics and humans needing to imply hidden variables to deduce attributes of the particle. If we could measure without effecting the state of the particle, Bell's theorem would be a simple logical mathematical artifact that wasn't applicable to anything. Just because we can't measure the particles doesn't mean they are non-deterministic.

    And, considering the vast amount of scientific evidence that shows QM to behave predictably (every single piece of modern technology, from toasters to GPS depends on it being predictable), it's quite safe to say that determinism is still a thing. 

    We're not "destined" to be anything, I reject notions of "Destiny", and nothing is "predetermined" either... Both of those notions are not entailed by determinism at all... As I wrote elsewhere :
    Probably not the best analogy but picture it this way, imagine our universe as a giant incredible marble machine, all the uncertainty principle and QM in general does, is add marbles randomly... And the fact that marbles can be added randomly doesn't change the deterministic nature of the machine and what happens within as it's running...

    So even if, as it appears, our universe is built on a substrate of probabilistic quantum phenomenon, it does not change the deterministic nature of the universe...

    It's potential vs actual, call it wavefunction collapse, call it measurement or something else, the process of actualization (from potential to actual) instills deterministic behaviors, everything that is actualized gets instantly entangled with its environment, that is, the whole universe... In this way, it would be incorrect to say that everything was set in stone (predetermined) at the moment of inflation (Big Bang), as each new quantum event actualization slightly alters the original sequence of events, not enough to change the nature of the sequence, but enough to allow some level of randomness in an otherwise completely deterministic system.

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 39 Pts   -  
    @LiamThePerson
    In the USA, 43% of released prisoners become repeat offenders.  Punishment obviously does not induce much change in behavior. 
  • LiamThePersonLiamThePerson 607 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold I don't know how 57% success is "not...much change".
    Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2506 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold
    @LiamThePerson
    In the USA, 43% of released prisoners become repeat offenders.  Punishment obviously does not induce much change in behavior. 
    This is just a testament to the failures of the American system and the notion of "punishment" without regards to consequences... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4919 Pts   -  
    There is a succinct disproof of free will, although the rather sparse definition provided here might make it less applicable as it seems that this definition would lead one to the conclusion that "free will" is just people acting differently, which no one is arguing against.

    The disproof goes something like this: If you have free will, then you have the ability to make choices. However, in order to make a choice, you must choose which choices to choose from. These must have their own choices, and so on ad infinitum. This means that in order for your free will to be enacted upon, an infinite regress might be invoked, which is impossible in a finite period of time. If you do not choose which choices to select from, then you don't have free will because these are populated from some external cause.

    Therefore, free will is false, no need to invoke neurology or physics.
    LiamThePersonPlaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • LiamThePersonLiamThePerson 607 Pts   -  
    There is a succinct disproof of free will, although the rather sparse definition provided here might make it less applicable as it seems that this definition would lead one to the conclusion that "free will" is just people acting differently, which no one is arguing against.

    The disproof goes something like this: If you have free will, then you have the ability to make choices. However, in order to make a choice, you must choose which choices to choose from. These must have their own choices, and so on ad infinitum. This means that in order for your free will to be enacted upon, an infinite regress might be invoked, which is impossible in a finite period of time. If you do not choose which choices to select from, then you don't have free will because these are populated from some external cause.

    Therefore, free will is false, no need to invoke neurology or physics.
    That is literally one of the best arguments I have ever heard.
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 39 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen
    @LiamThePerson

    You seem to be on opposite extremes of the issue of rehabilitation.   Perhaps the basis of a new debate?
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 39 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot
    Could you give a specific example of choices of choices of choices...?
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4919 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold ;
    Could you give a specific example of choices of choices of choices...?
    No, because I can't... That's the point.  ;)

    I can put it into context though. Suppose you are travelling so you stay at a hotel, and want to go out to eat dinner. So, you pull out the local address book and look at the options. Now, in order to say that this address book didn't cause your choice, (since that would imply no free will) you need to assert that you are the arbiter of the decision. However, in order to do this you might go through the list, and maybe reject some options. Say, you don't want Chinese because you just ate it yesterday, maybe you don't like spicy food so curry and Mexican are out, and so on. However, for each of these sub decisions, a choice now has to be made for each. If this is based on anything (like past decisions, personal preference, etc.) then we run into the same problem as before, namely that this would imply your choice was caused. You might then repeat the process for each of these sub choices, and so on.

    This begs the question: At what point was your free will enacted? If your choices where caused by previous states, which where caused by previous states, what is the bottom? This isn't possible unless you invoke an infinite regress, which is impossible in a finite time.

    The second part of this is simply to note that if nothing caused your choices, then in what way can we say they are free? Basically, if there is a first choice, which is uncaused, then in what regards can you claim that you made it as it is causally disconnected from you?

    This paradox proves that free will is impossible.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2506 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold

    I don't think we ( @LiamThePerson and me) are really at odds here, we just express the same thing differently... 

    I think we'd both agree that punishment for the sake of punishing serves no objective purpose...  
    LiamThePerson
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • LiamThePersonLiamThePerson 607 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen
    I think we'd both agree that punishment for the sake of punishing serves no objective purpose...  
    You're correct about that
    Plaffelvohfen
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 39 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot
    Ok, I get it.  Thanks for the illustration. 

    Let's use another food example:  There is one banana and one apple in a fruit bowl.   I choose the apple because I'm tired of eating bananas.  How is this random impulse predetermined?
  • LiamThePersonLiamThePerson 607 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot
    Ok, I get it.  Thanks for the illustration. 

    Let's use another food example:  There is one banana and one apple in a fruit bowl.   I choose the apple because I'm tired of eating bananas.  How is this random impulse predetermined?
    This strategy is basically used by free will proponents whenever they get into a debate. The brain is very complex and it's hard to decide what exact influences went into each action. You can't prove free will by asking these types of questions because there is an answer, but it's a long and complex one, and it's really hard to discern it. 
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4919 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold ;
    Ok, I get it.  Thanks for the illustration. 

    Let's use another food example:  There is one banana and one apple in a fruit bowl.   I choose the apple because I'm tired of eating bananas.  How is this random impulse predetermined?
    I would advise you choose your words more carefully as you undermine your position.

    First off, if there is a reason (or cause) for your choice, then that needed to be caused by something else which has a finite starting point, (or else infinite regress paradox), and this would eliminate the possibility for free will as previously discussed. The very fact that you have a reason: "I'm tired of eating bananas" is itself indicative of not having free will.

    Now let's say that you pick at random, and we will assume this is true random (if such a thing exists), this would make it not predetermined by definition.

    However, that doesn't mean that you have free will, because your actions were still caused by that random action. If someone went around flipping a coin to make their every move, in what way can we say that their actions are free? A stochastic universe is not free either.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 39 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot
    @LiamThePerson
     
    I'm sorry I gave the impression I am a free will supporter.  I'd say I'm largely undecided and still doing research on it.

    So far, this debate tips me slightly to the denialist side. 
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • LiamThePersonLiamThePerson 607 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot
    @LiamThePerson
     
    I'm sorry I gave the impression I am a free will supporter.  I'd say I'm largely undecided and still doing research on it.

    So far, this debate tips me slightly to the denialist side. 
    My apologies for misjudging your opinion. 
  • DeeDee 3941 Pts   -   edited April 29
    I always liked the philosopher Galen Strawsons whole take on the question it to me is pretty much perfectly put and I can add nothing more 

    Check out the full interview in the link provided 


    THE BRITISH PHILOSOPHER Galen Strawson doesn't think much of free will. His argument is fairly straightforward. It goes something like this: 

    1. I do what I do because of the way I am. If I want to eat Honey Nut Cheerios for breakfast, or listen to Blonde on Blonde, it's because I prefer, at this moment, the taste of that cereal and the sound of that album.

    2. If I'm going to be responsible for my choices, then I also have to be responsible for the way I am.

    3. But I'm not responsible for the way I am! At some point, my wants and needs - the stew of factors behind my preferences - are beyond my control. They've been programmed by natural selection and embedded in my genes; they've been influenced by my parents, and shaped by my siblings and peers and all those commercials on television.

    4. Ergo, I can't be ultimately responsible for my choices. I don't want Cheerios because I want them. Instead, my preferences have been shaped by a million little forces that have nothing to do with me. I can't be the cause of myself.

    Over at The Stone, Strawson elaborates on this bleak view of human freedom. While most conversations about free will are framed in terms of scientific determinism - we're either constrained by the rigid laws of physics, or those neural circuits that precede conscious awareness - Strawson thinks the worry over determinism misses the point:

    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 1281 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Blonde on blonde is a marvelous album. That's about all that meant anything to me from Galen Strawson's interview. 
  • DeeDee 3941 Pts   -   edited April 29
    @piloteer

     That's about all that meant anything to me from Galen Strawson's interview

    Yes and you need to tell me that why? 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 1281 Pts   -   edited April 29
    @Plaffelvohfen

    I do not refute that the born rule, in and of itself, has no real bearing on the debate over free will as it is just a measurement of probability. It is however considered a scientific truth just like the theory of relatively, the big bang theory, and evolution. The reason the born rule comes into play is because it disproves one of the apex postulates of the many worlds interpretation. The many worlds interpretation asserts that all physical possibilities have an equal probability of being achieved. In fact, the MWI claims all physical possibilities will most certainly be achieved 100% of the time. But those possibilities will split into their own separate dimensions, or worlds. The problem with that is that the born rule proves there are some physical phenomena that will most definitely have a higher probability than other physical outcomes. Even millions, or billions of times more likely. 

    On the surface, that problem that the born rule poses for the MWI is not necessarily the kill shot for many worlds. If the born rule can be effectively employed in ANY of the supposed myriad of separate dimensions that the MWI claims there are, then it rules out the most important aspect of the many worlds interpretation. And if the born rule works at all, then the MWI cannot. So instead of attempting to refute the born rule (because it is a scientific truth), the physicists working on the many worlds interpretation instead need to somehow integrate the born rule into their interpretation. This has failed every single time. The only thing the physicists for the MWI can muster is what is known as an ad-hoc add on, which is a big no- no in the world of physics. One of the most important aspects of the scientific method is to create theories as simple as possible to describe. An ad-hoc add on is basically an extension that is created to purposely try to overcome the road block of another accepted scientific theory. A theory should be able to work in line with all other accepted scientific theories that are considered verifiably true. And even with that ad-hoc extension, the many worlds interpretation becomes so watered down it no longer has any appreciable impact on the free will argument. That is especially true in the many minds aspect of the many worlds interpretation, which is specifically centered on the effects of the MWI on the human mind. Quantum entanglement also refutes the assertion of the many minds interpretation which claims mental postulates (collapse postulates) do not exist. 

    Non-locality (quantum entanglement, or as Einstien called it "spooky actions at a distance") not only allows for "the observer-dependent role in the quantum measurement process" and wave function collapse, it embraces those phenomena, where the MWI opts only to ignore them. Non-locality asserts that matter in the universe is not influenced by waves of motion that dissipate with distance, but that that influence is equally spread throughout the universe. This means that particles that are millions of light years apart can instantaneously affect each other. This means that the outdated concept of all actions being simply reactions is incorrect. Non-locality does not have the same massive road block that MWI has, and non-locality is verifiable through experimentation.

    I firmly stand by my claim that the universe doesn't seem to be functioning in a determined manner.   

    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 1281 Pts   -   edited April 29
    Dee said:
    @piloteer

     That's about all that meant anything to me from Galen Strawson's interview

    Yes and you need to tell me that why? 
    Because I really like Bob Dylan and since you yourself haven't come up with your own argument, and instead opted to base your argument on the quotes of somebody else, I didn't feel the need to elaborate on the other absent aspects of your argument.       
  • DeeDee 3941 Pts   -   edited April 30

    @piloteer


    Because I really like Bob Dylan and since you yourself haven't come up with your own argument,

    I get it you only respond to those who don't quote others which is why I asked you why you responded to me in the first place,I quoted Strawson  because he puts the case simply and very well and I've been on the same page as him for a long time ,but I will remember in future that its only you who  is allowed quote others from your lofty throne of superiority 


    and instead opted to base your argument on the quotes of somebody else, I didn't feel the need to elaborate on the other absent aspects of your argument.  

    Ahhh its my argument now you just said it wasn't?

    I never asked you to address Strawsons take on the  argument, I quoted the man as I like his take on the whole question , so you can run along now and remember never quote another on here as it may upset someone ....that is of course unless its P who would never dream of quoting Einstein ,Hume or Kant 


  • @JulesKorngold

    Yes, we have the ability to assert intentions without cost or restriction. I like honey nut cereal, I like coffee, the free will exists to eat honey nut cereal with coffee and not milk, the price is set by expense outside the variation made between milk and coffee. Free will can also apply to dislikes equally as well. I do not like cereal, I do not like coffee, I have eggs and honey with nuts. Physics displays free will by addressing Pi as a ratio. A process is used mathematically to create a number of approximate proportions but lacks a necessary range and precision. The cost is null by acceptance of the consistent relative guess as being acceptable and we have free will to overlook all ratio requires that a mathematic range be established.
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 39 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    Physics displays free will by addressing Pi as a ratio.

    Please explain how Pi proves free will.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4919 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold ;

    You should know that John_C_87 is a debate champion and always says things that make both perfect sense and are well thought out. If it seems to be randomly generated text, incomprehensible, or complete nonsense you should be aware that this is not a failure on John's behalf, but rather a failure of the remainder of the human race to process & comprehend his vast and unfailing intellect.
    DeePlaffelvohfenLuigi7255LiamThePerson
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 3941 Pts   -   edited April 30
    @JulesKorngold


    Please explain how Pi proves free will


    You really shouldn’t have asked , you’re in for it now ......
    PlaffelvohfenLuigi7255
  • @JulesKorngold
    Pi doesn't prove free will Physics proves free will by addressing Pi as a ratio.
  • @JulesKorngold
    I was taught any ratio needs more than one number otherwise it is a proportion, a single proportion does not need to be precise but it is more helpful.
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 39 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    Ok, I'll play.  How does a precise ratio prove free will?
  • @John_C_87
    Ok, I'll play.  How does a precise ratio prove free will?

    The principle of ratio addresses only physics as being a participant of free will.
    There is a choice made ratio or approximant proportion. It is a method to show only that physics is subject to free will as it works with mathematics, just as people are subject to free will while they interact with life.
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 39 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    I'd say the exact opposite.  The coherence and consistency of physics and mathematics are strongly correlated with a deterministic universe negating free will.  Physics is not subject to free will at all.  We can't "will" gravity to disappear.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • anarchist100anarchist100 491 Pts   -   edited May 1
    @JulesKorngold
    We should not punish a bank robber, because it is not immoral to rob a bank.
    LiamThePersonPlaffelvohfen
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 39 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    Really?  How many banks have you robbed?
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1524 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold ;

    You should know that John_C_87 is a debate champion and always says things that make both perfect sense and are well thought out. If it seems to be randomly generated text, incomprehensible, or complete nonsense you should be aware that this is not a failure on John's behalf, but rather a failure of the remainder of the human race to process & comprehend his vast and unfailing intellect.

    ...and here I thought it was just postings from a random phrase generator.
    LiamThePerson
  • @JulesKorngold

    I'd say the exact opposite.  The coherence and consistency of physics and mathematics are strongly correlated with a deterministic universe negating free will.  Physics is not subject to free will at all.  We can't "will" gravity to disappear. If a theory of gravity

    Physics had no theories?


  • anarchist100anarchist100 491 Pts   -   edited May 1
    @JulesKorngold
    None, but it's still not immoral, the money owned by banks is stolen money, when the bank gives a person a loan it comes at no expense of their own, credit is just numbers on a computer screen, and yet the bank demands that the loan be paid back fully with interest or they will take your property, property is the fruits of a person's labor, since I own my self I own the results of my labor, because of this my property is not the bank's property.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 39 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    If credit is just numbers on a computer screen, then property is just a bunch of atoms.

    Don't worry about it.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 491 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold
    What I'm trying to say is that property is the fruits of a person's labor, credit is just created on the spot, when you take out a loan, it doesn't cost the bank anything.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch