Windows 7: Free-Will or Determinism

Determinism is the only rational answer to this at least to most. If free-will does exist and is not an illusion, we would not be able to explain how except randomness and uncertainty. Is there any proof that it does exist?

Interesting. I've gone for the 3rd option, namely that we can't come to any conclusions yet. There are many situations where 2 (or more) options are possible (like the example above), but if there was only one option, the other(s) couldn't exist since each option, by default, also defines the existence of the other(s).

Jim

Notice these are al theories ! ergo not yet proof in any one capacity, I'm with Dwarf on this one.

Free Will.

He mentioned the precision of the path of the electron as evidence of the "clockwork" nature of the universe. When I was at Naval Nuclear Power School one of the things I learned (which I found fascinating) was that in a nuclear reaction, while we could predict with uncanny accuracy the percentage of fissionable particles which would do a certain thing, there was no sure way of predicting the behavior of an individual particle.

Now, I'm not saying that my analogy about fissionable particles proves anything, but by the same token his analogy about electrons doesn't prove anything, either.

Determinism is already a very rational conclusion. The only problem is, we cannot be so certain on to such conclusion. I don't exactly know why that is a problem, perhaps because our knowledge is too imperfect, we shall not delve into a conclusion and it is very absurd, but a lot do assume determinism is true. Free will would be something unexplainable and more absurd to consider. He did say we cannot predict what person will do using his past history. Actually, there are more things to consider aside from a past history. There's too much complexity there that we have to call it random, uncertainty does not suggest freewill. He is right that since our knowledge is still in its infancy, and also since this is a very absurd topic to easily conclude, we should be in the between. We cannot conclude anything.

Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even the uncertainty principle does not suggest freewill, it just says that it is possible in some sense.

I think I'm going to have to go with "can't come to any conclusions yet." Or was that response pre-ordained by some higher power?

I'm going to have to go with free will. I know that I chose what I am going to do or not do.

As far as Physics go, well, speaking on an atomic level, you can't predict how everything will happen. So there are things that happen "randomly". A simple experiment; a tennis ball, a room with no ventilation and a release mechanism. Drop the ball 100 times, it will not go in the same direction, upon bouncing, every time. Things do just happen sometimes.

As far as humans and the way that we interact with one another, well, if we are going to say we don't have free will, how can there be any laws to punish those who do wrong? Is this going to be some kind of "scapegoat" eventually that everyone falls back on? This kind of thinking furthers my belief that mankind has become so weak, timid and frail, that they simply refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

In addition, if there was only a single option then that option couldn't exist because of the lack of other option(s) to prove or otherwise disprove that that option did or did not exist.

1. Randomness does not suggest free-will.
2. Laws punish humans so that they will avoid doing it [punishment] and to prevent them from doing it [prisonment].

We have actually no scientific proof that FreeWill does exist. Being aware of what your decisions does not suggest freewill. :/