Pro will argue for an existence of freewill.

Burden of Proof is shared.

1st Round is for acceptance.

This is not a semantics argument but the definition of freewill is provided below.
Freewill-"capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various
alternatives", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Report this Argument

Pro
I accept this debate. This seems like a fun topic. I will be arguing that free will does indeed exist.

I accept your definition and look forward to an interesting debate!
Report this Argument


Con
Determinism and Occam's Razor
All physical actions occur due to a previous reaction. Since thought is merely a chemical process
of synapses firing, physical restrictions apply. Because thought is a matter of physics, a substance
must be unbound by physics, yet have the ability to influence physical reactions. Occams Razor
suggests whatever theory makes the least assumptions is the most likely to be true. Since
determinism makes no assumptions other than the validity of empirical evidence, the logic of
science, it must be assumed true when it is juxtaposed with another theory with a vast number
of assumptions. Freewill makes a vast number of assumptions so Determinism must be assumed
true.
Illusion of Independence
All human behavior is influenced by the existence of other forces. For example, the force of
paradigm: A child raised by their parents assumes many of their parents values. These values

effect the childs behavior, thus the will to commit behavior is not originating from the child.
Humans live multidimensional lives and thus have many outside variables influencing their
behavior.

Occam's Razor http://www.britannica.com...;
Determinism http://www.britannica.com...;
Report this Argument

Pro
I thank my opponent for his interesting argument! I will take a moment to refute my opponent's
claims.

Rebuttal 1: Determinism

This argument has completely fallen apart since the advent of modern physics. In Newton's time,
and really until quite recently, everyone viewed the Universe and the bodies within as inherently
deterministic: everything moved, everything acted, but some sort of equation. Gravity was of
course bound by Newton's equation, light by Maxwell's equations, even the fundamental nature
of energy and matter was described by Einstein in his works on Relativity. Your argument would
be compeltely correct if this was the way nature acted.

However, as physicists began to study deeper and deeper, they began to find that at the smallest
levels,quantumlevels, nature acted randomly. I hope I won't confuse anyone here because I will
just be giving a brief overview of this randomness.

At the smallest levels, particles are not particles -- they are waves of probability. Where
nineteenth century scientists viewed a particle as a tiny bit of matter at a certain position in
space, we now know that particles are really described by what is called a wavefunction -- a
wave that can only tell you where a particle might be, and not where it is.
1


It is not until this wavefunction is observed that the particle is forced to become the tiny bit of
matter I described earlier. When we observe the particle, and yes, it is merely the act of
observation, we collapse the wavefunction and make it one hundred percent probable a particle
will be at a certain position.
2
Before this, however, a particle is only described by probability -- a
superposition of all possible outcomes in a wave. We know this mathematically by Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle: xp h, or in other words the change in position and the change in
momentum is roughly equals to Planck's Constant -- one is indeterminite, uncertain, if we know
the other.

Before the randomness of quantum physics was discovered, you could say that if we knew
everything about the brain, everything about each particle in the brain, we could effectively
determine what decisions a person would make, because we could determine the motion of the
chemicals and how that related to the outside environment (even if it was nearly impossible to
do the mathematics, the point was that it was calculable. When physicists discovered the
wavefunction, and the randomness at the smallest level, they discovered that predictability was
impossible.

I really don't mean to confuse anyone with scientific jargon. This is the reason why determinism
falls apart, and it is the reason why humans have free will; the wavefunction is uncertain until we
collapse it.

Rebuttal 2: Illusion of Independence

This is a very interesting point. If I understand my opponent correctly, he is saying that because
the environment has an effect on the human, the human's free will is reduced. This is an
erroneous statement, and is a very famous philosophical debate: nature versus nurture. Nurture
may have an influence; in fact, it does, but that only reduces the free will, not obliterate it.

While a person may have grown up in a 1930's Germany, and been influenced by Nazi
propaganda, that only reduces their free will. It impacts them and their will to make decisions,
but it is still them who make the decisions. The propaganda may influence the decision they
make, but to reiterate, it is still people themselves that make the decision.
References
1. http://www.britannica.com...
2. http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr...

Report this Argument

Con

Determinism


My opponent misconstrues Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle saying that because the effect of
a quantum particle cannot be calculated, this quantum particle cannot affect something. This
statement is obviously erroneous. Furthermore, modern quantum mechanics simply
acknowledge the possibility of random behavior of particles that are so small they dont
necessarily have mass in all instances. If pro intends to debunk the idea thought is caused by
previous reactions by arguing that some reactions are random then he is arguing that human
thought is merely random. Since this point actually weakens Pros argument for the existence of
freewill, it is rendered irrelevant.

To elaborate on my previous argument regarding the absence of freewill, I would like to
emphasize my point that for freewill to exist a substance must be unbound by physics, yet have
the ability to influence physical reactions. Since my opponent has yet to claim that there indeed
is something that is unbound by the laws of physics yet still can factor into physical reactions my
argument still stands.

Illusion of Independence

Pro makes the concession that being influenced by Nazi Propaganda limits the freewill of a
person.

While a person may have grown up in a 1930's Germany, and been influenced by Nazi
propaganda, that only reduces their free will.

The fact that a person is exposed to Nazi Propaganda is one variable that influences a persons
decisions. The fact that one variable can reduce a persons freewill can be applied to the fact
that there are an infinitive number of variables that can influence someone. Since each variable
reduces a persons freewill and there are infinitive variables, a person is therefore left with no
freewill.

Reminder

I would like to remind Pro that since the burden of proof is shared, and Pro has currently yet to
claim anything in support of freewill, there is no reason to assume an existence of freewill.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Randomness in Quantum Physics http://www.britannica.com...

Report this Argument

Pro
Why Determinism is Wrong

I do believe my opponent misinterpreted my argument. He states I am "saying that because the
effect of a quantum particle cannot be calculated, this quantum particle cannot affect
something." That is not what I am saying. I was responding to your argument that our decisions
can be calculated, and I used the randomness of quantum physics to reinforce that argument. Of
course quantum physics has an affect on our decisions -- that was my whole point, that they
cannot be calculated.

I used the Uncertainty Principle as a mathematical representation of the indeterminate nature of
the Universe at the smallest levels, because that is exactly what it is -- it describes
the uncertainty of the quantum state of particles, because one cannot be certain of one of the
two (position and momentum) without being uncertain of the other.

My opponent goes: "...modern quantum mechanics simply acknowledge the possibility of
random behavior of particles that are so small they dont necessarily have mass in all instances."
No. Quantum mechanics has shown us that quantum particles are absolutely random -- they just
get less random as they interfere with each other. This does not change the fact that they
are still random. Everything in the Universe is random, it just seems orderly because of the
intereference of wavefunctions.

Later: "If pro intends to debunk the idea thought is caused by previous reactions by arguing that
some reactions are random then he is arguing that human thought is merely random." I am
arguing, based on current scientific research, that all reactions are random, because all particles
are represented by a wavefunction of probability, and are not predictable. Yes, I am arguing that
human thought is random, but I am arguing that since we are the ones that collapse our
wavefunctions, we are the ones who decide our decisions.

My opponent then quotes himself, "a substance must be unbound by physics, yet have the
ability to influence physical reactions," which he stated under the assumption that the Universe
is determinate. Since the Universe is indeterminate due to the probability of wavefunctions, this
argument is negated.

Finite Influence on Free Will

I never said that free will wasn't limited, so thisis not a concession. I merely stated that free will
is reduced by environmental factors, but, in the end, it is still the human that makes the
decision.

My opponent apparently believes there are an "infinitive [sic]" number of variables that, when
added up, reduce the free will to zero.

There are not and I repeat, not, an infinite number of variables. I apologize for going into science
again, but in order to refute your supposed infinite number of variables, I will have to. Have a
look at some of these statistics about the Universe:

1. The diameter of the Universe is about 93 billion light years.
1
2. There are about 410
79
atoms in the Universe.
2

Of course, this is the extreme; I am just trying to show that the Universe is finite, and thus the
agents inside of it that could influence a persons decisions are finite. When we actually try to
determine how much of these agents actually affect a persons decision, we must cut this
number by an infinitesimally small amount, still a very finitenumber leaving an amount for free
will (this assumes the human brain has a capacity for all of these variables to begin with, which,
simply put, is a ludicrous claim).
As I have shown, there is simply no way there are an infinite number of variables that could
influence a persons free will. Sure, there are advertisements, there are natural factors of the
environment; we are even bound by our genetic code, but those are still very finite variables in
their amount and in their influence.
Response to the Reminder
Well, there you go. They are no longer labeled as rebuttals.

References

1. http://books.google.com...
2. http://www.madsci.org...
Report this Argument

Con

Response to Why Determinism is Wrong
Determinism is the idea that all reactions are caused by previous reactions.
Indeterminism is the concept that reactions are entirely random.
My opponent makes a valid point that everything seems orderly because of the interference of
wavefunctions.However, Pro then states the basis of his argument as since we are the ones
that collapse our wave functions, we are the ones who decide our decisions.
A valid possible solution does not imply that that solution is correct. If humans could collapse
their wavefunctions the concept of freewill could be justified. Yet, why are we to assume
humans have the ability to collapse wavefunctions.
An example of why this logic is erroneous:
Two men are contained in identical rooms situated next to each other. A one inch by one inch
hole is drilled between the wall in between these two rooms. Every 24 hours an inspector checks
in on both of the men. One day the inspector checks-in to find the first man dead. He suggests
that the second man could have taken a gun and shot the first man through the hole in the wall,
thus the first man was murdered by the second man.
Just because something is a possible solution does not mean its true. The same logic applies the
idea that humans collapse wavefunctions to create free-willed thought. There is no reason to
assume humans have the ability to manipulate wave functions, thus we cannot assume humans
have freewill.
Response to Finite Influence on Free Will
My opponent argues that the Universe is finite, and thus the agents inside of it that could
influence a persons decisions are finite.
Simply stated, this assumption is illogical. For example; the variable of a person being exposed to
a paper with a number written on it affects that persons behavior. This might not be drastic in
the long run effect on that persons life but this paper could change a decision. This paper could
have an infinitive range of numbers written on it, thus possibility for an infinite number of
variables regarding this single piece of paper. Alone this is a minor concept, yet if you can arrive
at an infinite number of possibilities for a single piece of paper, it is easy to justify the grand
effect the aspects of the universe a person is exposed to, has on that person. Thus, this point still
stands.

Pro also states; this assumes the human brain has a capacity for all of these variables to begin
with, which, simply put, is a ludicrous claim. Pro seems to think that a human brain must keep
track of all of its influences, this is an invalid assumption. If humans were mere computers with
variable inputs for all the data we take in Pro would have a point. However, the human mind
presumes it must create an action based on the circumstances it is exposed to. Since the human
mind draws on presumed knowledge as supposed to keeping track of a massive list of the
prescribed action for circumstances, it is illogical to worry about the human brains capacity.
Thus, Pros objection must be dismissed.
A Note on the Reminder
I now realize that pro has been arguing for freewill, but has failed to provide positive evidence
for his claim.
Pros argument for freewill has been this:
1. A. The universe is capable of random actions, wavefunctions
2. B. By closing these wavefunctions free-willed thought is created
3. C. Humans can close wavefunctions thus they have freewill
The collapse of this argument is that Pro has yet to provide any evidence that humans do indeed
have the ability to close wavefunctions. Because of this I urge all voters to vote Con.
Indeterminism http://www.informationphilosopher.com...
Report this Argument

Pro
Why Determinism is Wrong

My opponent gives two definitions, one for determinism and the other for indeterminism. He
states that determinism is "the idea that all reactions are caused by previous reactions." I would
like to expand on this a little before I explain the wavefunction argument. Dictionary.com tells us
that determinism is:
1. the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws.
2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.
1

Additionally, determinism is obviously derived from the word determine, which means, in this
context, toconclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc.
2
Again, determinism is
the idea that everything can be determined basically, everything can be predicted even if it
was impractical and painstaking.
This idea is wrong, and has been proven wrong since the study of quantum mechanics, and the
waves of probability that they really are. My opponent now states If humans could collapse
their wavefunctions the concept of freewill could be justified. Well, let us go back to my Round
2 argument:
I said in Round 2, When we observe the particle, and yes, it is merely the act of observation, we
collapse the wavefunction and make it one hundred percent probable a particle will be at a
certain position. I apologise for not making this statement more clear: observation is what
causes a wavefunction to collapse from probability to certainty.
3

That last sentence is very important, there is actually a debate within the scientific community as
to how consciousness plays a role in the collapse of wavefunctions,
4
because so far our human
act of observation is one of the only things that can cause it; and, like I said, since humans
collapse wavefunctions to determine the future in an otherwise indeterminate state, we have
free will.
Finite Influence on Free Will
My opponent attempts to refute my argument with his analogy of a piece of paper with a single
number written across it. He states that: This paper could have an infinitive range of numbers
written on it, thus possibility for an infinite number of variables regarding this single piece of
paper. I am going to be honest, that is a very clever argument, however I will show how it is
flawed.
He states that since there are an infinite amount of numbers that could be scribbled on this
sheet (which, of course, the ink in a pen is made of atoms, so this is not possible but I will not do
in depth on this) there are an infinite number of variables. Ah, but only one number will be
written on the sheet, so there is only one agent influencing the persons decision. The range of
numbers that could be written has no influence, it is merely the certain number written that acts
on that persons decision and again, there are a limited amount of atoms in the Universe, so
there is a limited amount of influence on free will.
We then get back into the capacity of the human mind. He incorrectly states: Pro seems to think
that a human brain must keep track of all of its influences, this is an invalid assumption. No. The
human brain does not have to keep conscious track of its influences but it still has a limited
amount of information that can be stored. Consciously or subconsciously influenced, the human
mind cannot handle an infinite range of influence on free will.
Conclusion
My opponent states: yet to provide any evidence that humans do indeed have the ability to
close wavefunctions. Well, read my first section, as well as sources 3 and 4. Human observation
is what causes wavefunction collapse.
References
1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://goo.gl...
4. http://www.generativescience.org...