Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

11
  • 2
    Can you tighten the argument and clean it up? How do you link "free will" (however you define it) with "special, privileged..." for example? Commented Dec 30, 2022 at 17:48
  • 2
    Maybe your "newfound" principle is even simpler to explain away free will than Strawson's "infinite regress" argument discussed in this recent post?... Commented Dec 30, 2022 at 17:58
  • 2
    From William James: the fact that you can decide to not believe in Free will is the proof that Free will exists. Commented Dec 30, 2022 at 20:02
  • 1
    (6) is falsified by the Kochen-Specker lemma, or contrapositively by the Bell inequality; there is experimental evidence that some observable properties of the universe are not objectively determinable by hidden local variables. This leads to the Free Will Theorem. Good luck! Commented Dec 31, 2022 at 13:36
  • 2
    @Corbin I'm not sure we should attempt to reply to such a post with QM - the reason being it gives the impression that physicists have something to say about free will based on results of QM. They may, privately, but no physics program I know studies "free will". There is a mismatch in categories, "free will" is not a topic in physics, and I think it's misleading to make QM say more than it really says. It feeds into layman and media grand generalizations that can feed into an anti-science sentiment (because QM seems to address questions people are passionate about). Commented Dec 31, 2022 at 16:48