Is free will illusory?

[Paschendale]

I don't think we really have anything that could be considered free will. We make our decisions based on millions of different factors, many of which we are only aware of subconsciously. We essentially never choose between two completely equal options. Free will is like chance or luck. It's our attempt to understand an incredibly complex system based on our very narrow perspective as human beings. If you get hit by a car while crossing the street, it wasn't bad luck on your part that caused it. That car would have been there at that moment whether you had been there or not.

Now, you made the decision to visit the post office that day, but you only made that decision because you overheard something about stamps getting more expensive next week. Which you only overheard because you were near the coffee maker at work, because you were thirsty. Which is because you ate the salt and onion bagel for breakfast instead of the usual plain bagel, which the shop was out of. Our choices and luck are all just the results of an unfathomably huge number of factors that we're often not even aware of.

Is it a choice or not to like a song when you first hear it? What about one that you like at first, but hear it so many times that you get sick of it. How many times is too many? Did you "choose" which time was one too many? I don't think the classical idea of free will is accurate.

Precisely. Unless God isn't omnipotent, he knew full well that Morningstar would turn, that Jesus would get nailed to a cross, and he knows precisely who will and will not accept Christ and be saved. And he set the events in motion for these to happen knowing the outcome.

And he created Adam, Eve, the garden, the snake, and the tree knowing exactly how it would all go down. All of humanity has been punished for failing a test that god created for us to fail and created us to fail.

If free will was an illusion then I wouldn't be able to give up my faith, because I would not have the free will to do so, unless the controlling factor so determined for me to.

No really. You don't choose to think one thing or another. You learn more information which changes your position. I didn't choose to think that Judaism (the religion of my family) was nonsense. I learned things about it that lead me to think that. I never thought to myself "I've decided that Judaism is nonsense," or "I'd prefer to think that Judaism is nonsense".

 

[Jerry]

I recently had a discussion with a fellow atheist about Sam Harris' book Free Will and I was taken aback by just how hostile my colleague was to the idea that Free Will might be an illusion. I have come to believe that we do live in a deterministic universe and it seems to me the the benefits of thinking this way far out weigh the feelings of desperation my friend so afraid of.

With this in mind I am curious how others feel about this subject.
I welcome people of all creeds to chime in.

If you are an atheist, is this an idea that you have concerned yourself with? Do you find evidence in support of Free Will?

If you are a believer of some shade, do you feel that the loss of free will threatens your belief system or is there some way to reconcile the two? Remember I am asking a hypothetical here, if you suddenly found out beyond any shadow of a doubt that free will is an illusion would you still maintain your faith? On that note is free will something you take on faith?


For anyone, if society as a whole were to adopt this philosophy what benefits do you think we would enjoy? What negative consequences? (ie how would it impact our daily lives? Our system of laws?)

I am not attempting to start a religious debate here, I hope we can talk about free will on its own terms.

If you were not forced to make this thread, free will is real.

 

[maquiscat]

I don't think we really have anything that could be considered free will. We make our decisions based on millions of different factors, many of which we are only aware of subconsciously. We essentially never choose between two completely equal options. Free will is like chance or luck. It's our attempt to understand an incredibly complex system based on our very narrow perspective as human beings. If you get hit by a car while crossing the street, it wasn't bad luck on your part that caused it. That car would have been there at that moment whether you had been there or not.

Now, you made the decision to visit the post office that day, but you only made that decision because you overheard something about stamps getting more expensive next week. Which you only overheard because you were near the coffee maker at work, because you were thirsty. Which is because you ate the salt and onion bagel for breakfast instead of the usual plain bagel, which the shop was out of. Our choices and luck are all just the results of an unfathomably huge number of factors that we're often not even aware of.

Is it a choice or not to like a song when you first hear it? What about one that you like at first, but hear it so many times that you get sick of it. How many times is too many? Did you "choose" which time was one too many? I don't think the classical idea of free will is accurate.

I'm not sure what you are refering to by the "classical idea" of free will. By the way the above is written it implies to me that we don't make any actual choices, that all actions are the direct results of other actions. I don't buy that. I can agree that we can make decisions subconciously or uncounciously, but they are still decisions. There are also events that occur that have noting to do with an individual's decision. The decision is made of when and where to cross the street. SImply becaue that decision is made (via free will) doesn't mean that the plan "executes". Something may move out of the corner of the eye causing a reaction (which is not a decision) which can cause an hesitation, thus the car missing hitting the crosser. But a different decision could place the crosser out of the sight of what moved. That in turn may or may not prevent the car from hitting the crosser as well. Choosing one bagel out of all the other varities when the plain is out still consists of a choice.

No really. You don't choose to think one thing or another. You learn more information which changes your position. I didn't choose to think that Judaism (the religion of my family) was nonsense. I learned things about it that lead me to think that. I never thought to myself "I've decided that Judaism is nonsense," or "I'd prefer to think that Judaism is nonsense".

You still choose to accept that what you learned was true or not when making that decision. Whether one is making an uninformed decision or an informed decision, it is still a choice.

 

[opendebate]

I recently had a discussion with a fellow atheist about Sam Harris' book Free Will and I was taken aback by just how hostile my colleague was to the idea that Free Will might be an illusion. I have come to believe that we do live in a deterministic universe and it seems to me the the benefits of thinking this way far out weigh the feelings of desperation my friend so afraid of.

With this in mind I am curious how others feel about this subject.
I welcome people of all creeds to chime in.

If you are an atheist, is this an idea that you have concerned yourself with? Do you find evidence in support of Free Will?

If you are a believer of some shade, do you feel that the loss of free will threatens your belief system or is there some way to reconcile the two? Remember I am asking a hypothetical here, if you suddenly found out beyond any shadow of a doubt that free will is an illusion would you still maintain your faith? On that note is free will something you take on faith?


For anyone, if society as a whole were to adopt this philosophy what benefits do you think we would enjoy? What negative consequences? (ie how would it impact our daily lives? Our system of laws?)

I am not attempting to start a religious debate here, I hope we can talk about free will on its own terms.

Define Free Will.

As for your friend, many people are very uncomfortable with or fearful of chaos. They prefer to impose our limited human definition of order on the world around them to keep the chaos at bay.

 

[ZapFinch42]

First thank you all for your thoughtful responses. It took me a while to get back to this thread so let me respond to some of the questions and comments that caught my eye.

If you were not forced to make this thread, free will is real.

The brevity of this might suggest some facetiousness. If it is sincere, however, I would say that "forced" is too strong a word here. I am not arguing that there is some proactive power that "forces" us to make a choice. Rather, as a result of Universal Causality we are only ever able to make the choice we... well... choose. This is a result of the myriad circumstances of our existence (IE where and when we were born, the friends we have had, the events we've experienced.) I hope that clears it up for you a bit.

By the way the above is written it implies to me that we don't make any actual choices, that all actions are the direct results of other actions. I don't buy that.... Choosing one bagel out of all the other varieties when the plain is out still consists of a choice.

To the first part: This is precisely what I am mean when I say "we do not have free will". It isn't that other choices are not available to us, more that the circumstances of our existence would always only allows us to make the decision we ended up making.
That bagel analogy reminds me of one that might help to make you more comfortable with this concept, please play along.

Think of a city, any city in the world and picture it in your head. Take note of how the experience of choosing feels.

Notice that this is as free a choice as you will ever make in your entire life. If free will does not manifest itself here, it probably can't exist at all.

Now assuming you have your city in mind.
Obviously, we must set aside all the cities whose names you don't know. You never would have picked those anyways, right?
Then there are all those cities you do know but simply didn't pop into you mind this time.

Now consider this: Were you free to chose that which did not occur to you to choose?

Do we have free will in this choice? For it to be a truly free choice, we would have to have been able to literally pick any city in the world

Define Free Will.

I will use the definition Sam Harris laid out in his book as I find it to be rather all encompassing:

Free will implies that each of us was free to behave differently than we did in our pasts and secondly that we are the conscious source of our thoughts and actions.

 

[opendebate]

First thank you all for your thoughtful responses. It took me a while to get back to this thread so let me respond to some of the questions and comments that caught my eye.
Free will implies that each of us was free to behave differently than we did in our pasts and secondly that we are the conscious source of our thoughts and actions.

Based on that definition I would have to say that I consider free will an illusion.

While we do have the capacity to make different choices based on what we learn we do not all have the capability and even those who do have the capability are not always capable. I also struggle with the notion that we are the conscious source of our thoughts and actions. If I am understanding you correctly it implies that we can know ourselves wholly which I do not believe is possible. So because there are somethings unknown (our subconscious and biology) that unknown could influence or even control our choices.

 

[RGacky3]

Take God out of it even, and free will still cannot exist.

Our brains are made up of molecules and atoms that follow the laws of nature that on a atomic level and higher are deterministic, 100% deterministic, no room for agency, since it's all mechanical and works simply like that. On a subatomic level we may not know, but even if its indeterminant, then it's just random, not free will.

Since every decision is a result of brain activity, and since all brain activity is physical activity, and since physical activity is determined by the laws of nature, then all of our decisions are determined by the laws of nature.

 

[maquiscat]

To the first part: This is precisely what I am mean when I say "we do not have free will". It isn't that other choices are not available to us, more that the circumstances of our existence would always only allows us to make the decision we ended up making.
That bagel analogy reminds me of one that might help to make you more comfortable with this concept, please play along.

Think of a city, any city in the world and picture it in your head. Take note of how the experience of choosing feels.

Notice that this is as free a choice as you will ever make in your entire life. If free will does not manifest itself here, it probably can't exist at all.

Now assuming you have your city in mind.
Obviously, we must set aside all the cities whose names you don't know. You never would have picked those anyways, right?
Then there are all those cities you do know but simply didn't pop into you mind this time.

Now consider this: Were you free to chose that which did not occur to you to choose?

Do we have free will in this choice? For it to be a truly free choice, we would have to have been able to literally pick any city in the world

The lack of knowledge to choose something does not mean a lack of ability or freedom to choose it. I simply cannot see where the inability to choose all choices or all available choices, depending on how one is looking at it, shows a lack of free will. Is it your (or anyone else's that asserts free will doesn't exist) assertion that I am lacking free will because I am unable to choose to understand the point you are trying to make? Or that I have no real choice in my disagreement with you.

I will certainally agree that events outside of one's self will influence one's decisions. Information both concious and subconcious are the means by which we make our decisions.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Take God out of it even, and free will still cannot exist.

Our brains are made up of molecules and atoms that follow the laws of nature that on a atomic level and higher are deterministic, 100% deterministic, no room for agency, since it's all mechanical and works simply like that. On a subatomic level we may not know, but even if its indeterminant, then it's just random, not free will.

Since every decision is a result of brain activity, and since all brain activity is physical activity, and since physical activity is determined by the laws of nature, then all of our decisions are determined by the laws of nature.

This materialist viewpoint is not sustainable once you take quantum mechanics into the equation.

With habits, experience, genetics and upbringing; much of our lives are "determined" by these factors... However, we do have the free will to act in a way that would defy these "causes", you can choose vanilla ice cream when your habits and preferences and upbringing tell you that chocolate is your preference....

Then there are other motivations where you will give up some of that free will....

While minimizing the diatribe, you have free will, but that free will must be exercised or you will act deterministically.

 

[RGacky3]

This materialist viewpoint is not sustainable once you take quantum mechanics into the equation.

With habits, experience, genetics and upbringing; much of our lives are "determined" by these factors... However, we do have the free will to act in a way that would defy these "causes", you can choose vanilla ice cream when your habits and preferences and upbringing tell you that chocolate is your preference....

Then there are other motivations where you will give up some of that free will....

While minimizing the diatribe, you have free will, but that free will must be exercised or you will act deterministically.

All quantum mechanics add is randomness NOT free will ... a unweighted dice has nomore "free will" or "choice" than a weighted dice.

You cannot "choose" vanilla ice cream, since that "choice" is caused by material going ons in the brain, which are either macro, and thus deterministic, or quantum and thus totally random or probabilistic, you don't have agency.

You're preferences and habits may by toward chocolate as far as you know, but something caused you to choose ice cream, and you have no control over whatever that cause was.

You don't "choose" to act freely or deterministicly, your brain acts according ot the laws of nature, certain brainstates coem with the illusion of consciousness and choice, but ultimately the brain does what it does and it's determined by the laws of nature, be them deterministic (on the macro level) or quantum randomness (on the micro).

 

[MoSurveyor]

In the cosmic way of things, a god's omnipotence totally trumps mutual exclusivity. Just because we do not have the capacity to understand how it can be done certainly does not mean that it cannot.

You can't even show god's or any omnipotent being's existence. Your argument fails until such time as you can show it/them to exist.

Besides which, as I have explained, just because we know ahead of time that I will win each debate does not mean you do not have the free will to take the other side anyhow.

Again, you assume free will without having shown it. Another failure.

 

[MoSurveyor]

If you were not forced to make this thread, free will is real.

Is a ball "forced" to drop if it goes off the edge of the table?
Is the train that can't stop for the car in it's tracks "forced" to hit the car?


If you answered "yes" to both of the above then, yes, he was "forced" to make this thread.

 

[ChezC3]

Leaving the theistic element out of it, yes free will is illusory.

Free: Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
Will: Intend, desire, or wish

Why? Causality.

Any choice you make sets about a series of events not under your control which then presents you with another set of options to choose from. At best it can be considered a paradox where you are both master and servant to the world you're in. You are both active and passive. Your choosing sets about events which demonstrate your will is in control however, you choosing is passive in that it is a response to a previous series of events in which you may or may not had any role in.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

You can't even show god's or any omnipotent being's existence. Your argument fails until such time as you can show it/them to exist.

A predictable future and free will are mutually exclusive.

Wrong.

God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is simply not how it must go [ so it is not, in this case, predetermined ]. All one must do is argue your own statement, since you brought up a "predictable future". A predictable future which presumes a God for there to be a predictable future. So you have already conceded, for the sake of your original argument [ see above], God [ being omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent among the many of his/her other perfect attributes...see wiki article above].

You indicate a predictable future and free will are mutually exclusive. Whether a god actually exists or not, that was your statement. And being all powerful certainly, as stated before, trumps whatever it is that we might currently believe, with our limited knowledge, to be mutually exclusive.

Again, you assume free will without having shown it. Another failure.

And as you can clearly see, another loss of a debate, even though imminently predictable, does not deter you. You just keep choosing to choose the losing side. Totally predictable and yet who is making you do it? Not me. It is your faulty free will to do so, to keep doing so. Take the credit or take the blame. It is not God's fault, surely.

And...

God does not happen to be on my side, either. Rather, I am on his.:mrgreen:

 

[BmanMcfly]

All quantum mechanics add is randomness NOT free will ... a unweighted dice has nomore "free will" or "choice" than a weighted dice.

Hang on a second, it's not "randomness" that is introduced, it is uncertainty... And deals in the probabilities of certain results, and it's predictions are EXTREMELY accurate.

You cannot "choose" vanilla ice cream, since that "choice" is caused by material going ons in the brain, which are either macro, and thus deterministic, or quantum and thus totally random or probabilistic, you don't have agency.

But you do... You can default response to your conditioned choice, or you can break with that conditioning at the last moment and decide on something new... But this is without ignoring the deterministic elements, which is like a "default". I also believe that regardless of all the "free choices" you make, you will still find your "destiny"...

You're preferences and habits may by toward chocolate as far as you know, but something caused you to choose ice cream, and you have no control over whatever that cause was.

You don't "choose" to act freely or deterministicly, your brain acts according ot the laws of nature, certain brainstates coem with the illusion of consciousness and choice, but ultimately the brain does what it does and it's determined by the laws of nature, be them deterministic (on the macro level) or quantum randomness (on the micro).

The purely materialistic viewpoint you are asserting lacks, especially when you look at the implications of those commonly known experiments and especially with some of the more recent experiments to test the quantum effects in the macro world, and the results defy the materialist viewpoint.

Especially when you get into the issue of non-locality, the reason Einstein wanted to abandon quantum theory outright...

That said, it's only a weak free choice, but it can make a world of difference...

Take the story of twins born to an abusive father that had multiple stints in jail.... Find the two twenty-five years later and you might find one who has followed in his fathers footsteps and the other might be a successful entrepreneur... If you asked them how they got where they are could very well say "look at my father, what other choice did I have?" yes, purely anecdotal, but there is more to you then simply the biochemical reactions within your brain.

 

[MoSurveyor]

God does not happen to be on my side, either. Rather, I am on his.:mrgreen:

Ah, yes, moral superiority. Not an uncommon ailment in superstitious clans like yours.

Wrong.

God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is simply not how it must go [ so it is not, in this case, predetermined ]. All one must do is argue your own statement, since you brought up a "predictable future". A predictable future which presumes a God for there to be a predictable future. So you have already conceded, for the sake of your original argument [ see above], God [ being omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent among the many of his/her other perfect attributes...see wiki article above].

You indicate a predictable future and free will are mutually exclusive. Whether a god actually exists or not, that was your statement. And being all powerful certainly, as stated before, trumps whatever it is that we might currently believe, with our limited knowledge, to be mutually exclusive.

And as you can clearly see, another loss of a debate, even though imminently predictable, does not deter you. You just keep choosing to choose the losing side. Totally predictable and yet who is making you do it? Not me. It is your faulty free will to do so, to keep doing so. Take the credit or take the blame. It is not God's fault, surely.

Just another religious zealot trying to sell me ignorance and superstition. Time to hang up the phone ...

 

[MoSurveyor]

Hang on a second, it's not "randomness" that is introduced, it is uncertainty... And deals in the probabilities of certain results, and it's predictions are EXTREMELY accurate.

Only within a large enough set of individual events.

The purely materialistic viewpoint you are asserting lacks, especially when you look at the implications of those commonly known experiments and especially with some of the more recent experiments to test the quantum effects in the macro world, and the results defy the materialist viewpoint.

Any given event in quantum mechanics cannot be predicted, which in no way shows free will is at work. There is nothing "guiding" quantum mechanical outcomes except (non-intelligent) physical laws.

Of course, none of this stops a train when a car is stalled across the tracks and the train has too much momentum to avoid it. The train will hit the car.

Especially when you get into the issue of non-locality, the reason Einstein wanted to abandon quantum theory outright...

Quantum entanglement had nothing to do with free will or consciousness. :roll:

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Ah, yes, moral superiority. Not an uncommon ailment in superstitious clans like yours.

Thanks. Being moral is superior, cannot argue with that. Of course, I did not evolve from a rock, so thank god for God. See how we have evolved, within species only, certainly.

Just another religious zealot trying to sell me ignorance and superstition. Time to hang up the phone ...

Not a religious zealot at all, just a logical conclusion one derives by taking a good look around, doing the logic. Heck, I have always been a rather horrible salesman, could not sell water in the dessert, besides which trying to sell those to you would be like trying to sell ice to an Eskimo in winter, you seem to have already cornered those markets.

I am just a decently good debater and willing to do the hard work. BTW, I have the feeling that phone was never plugged in. Ever even get a dial tone?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Only within a large enough set of individual events.

Ya, it's weird like that... But makes sense when you are thinking of waves and possibilities interfering with each other.

Any given event in quantum mechanics cannot be predicted, which in no way shows free will is at work. There is nothing "guiding" quantum mechanical outcomes except (non-intelligent) physical laws.

Which would remain potentialities if not for observation...

Of course, none of this stops a train when a car is stalled across the tracks and the train has too much momentum to avoid it. The train will hit the car.

Right, and why would it?

Quantum entanglement had nothing to do with free will or consciousness. :roll:

Yes, your consciousness is a non-local phenomenon entangled with the brain in a hierarchical self-reference structure that is capable of collapsing the potential waveforms to create the objects subjective experience.

The problem is how you go from potentialities coming into actuality in a way that allows a consistent universe across individuals.... That can be addressed too.

 

[RGacky3]

Hang on a second, it's not "randomness" that is introduced, it is uncertainty... And deals in the probabilities of certain results, and it's predictions are EXTREMELY accurate.

Fair enough, but that doesn't give you agency either .... my dice illustration sstands.

But you do... You can default response to your conditioned choice, or you can break with that conditioning at the last moment and decide on something new... But this is without ignoring the deterministic elements, which is like a "default". I also believe that regardless of all the "free choices" you make, you will still find your "destiny"...

Not at all, because something CAUSED you to break with that conditioning, some brain activity which, because it's physical, follows the laws of nature, just like a brain tumor can change your whole personality, everything you do is caused by brain activity and the brain is a physical object and like ALL physical object is 100% determined by the laws of nature.

The purely materialistic viewpoint you are asserting lacks, especially when you look at the implications of those commonly known experiments and especially with some of the more recent experiments to test the quantum effects in the macro world, and the results defy the materialist viewpoint.

Especially when you get into the issue of non-locality, the reason Einstein wanted to abandon quantum theory outright...

That said, it's only a weak free choice, but it can make a world of difference...

Take the story of twins born to an abusive father that had multiple stints in jail.... Find the two twenty-five years later and you might find one who has followed in his fathers footsteps and the other might be a successful entrepreneur... If you asked them how they got where they are could very well say "look at my father, what other choice did I have?" yes, purely anecdotal, but there is more to you then simply the biochemical reactions within your brain.

What are the quantum effects in the macro world? I've never heard of that, as far as I understood because the probabilities in the quantum world add up they end up making an essencially deterministic macro world.

But what I don't get is how any quantum phenomenon gives you any kind of agency?

As for the story of the twins, EVERYTHING they do has to do with their brain, and theri brain acts and reacts with the enviroment and the brain states they are in based 100% on the laws of nature, that's IT, obviously they can talk about their choices, but their choices are simply a result of brain activity, which they didn't choose (obviously), which were a result of previous brain states and external stimuli.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Fair enough, but that doesn't give you agency either .... my dice illustration sstands.

Well, there's a part that is like a dice roll, but it's still a "decision" to "observe" and so collapse the randomness into an actual.

Not at all, because something CAUSED you to break with that conditioning, some brain activity which, because it's physical, follows the laws of nature, just like a brain tumor can change your whole personality, everything you do is caused by brain activity and the brain is a physical object and like ALL physical object is 100% determined by the laws of nature.

Actually not quite; there were studies that were done, the one that showed that your brain made the decision to act in the microseconds before the actual act. That made a case against free will, but with a small tweak, by telling the person to change their mind about the action at the last second, and the brain activity reflected the choice building up until the "choice" broke with that and made a different action.

What are the quantum effects in the macro world? I've never heard of that, as far as I understood because the probabilities in the quantum world add up they end up making an essencially deterministic macro world.

Well, there was a study in the early 90's, where a group of meditators over 4 weeks would intend to lower crime, murder rates did not drop but with all violent crime they dropped the crime rate by about 20%.

Another one, look up quantum SQUID...

Even the studies where it was shown that intention has an impact on random number generators, and then expanding that to reflect the "delayed choice" experiment.

But what I don't get is how any quantum phenomenon gives you any kind of agency?

The simplest way would be to say that, just like how matter is probabilistic and uncertain (without observation), our brains operate indeterminately based on probabilities rather than the determinism of materialism.

As for the story of the twins, EVERYTHING they do has to do with their brain, and theri brain acts and reacts with the enviroment and the brain states they are in based 100% on the laws of nature, that's IT, obviously they can talk about their choices, but their choices are simply a result of brain activity, which they didn't choose (obviously), which were a result of previous brain states and external stimuli.

Ya, but they both have the same genetics and virtually the same upbringing, the only difference was the meaning they took from their lives that set them on a different path...

Either way, I don't see that deterministic viewpoint as being sustainable in light of the new physics.

 

[Jerry]

Is a ball "forced" to drop if it goes off the edge of the table?
Is the train that can't stop for the car in it's tracks "forced" to hit the car?


If you answered "yes" to both of the above then, yes, he was "forced" to make this thread.

Gravity has nothing to do with this topic. You have no argument.

 

[ZapFinch42]

Yes, your consciousness is a non-local phenomenon entangled with the brain in a hierarchical self-reference structure that is capable of collapsing the potential waveforms to create the objects subjective experience.

The problem is how you go from potentialities coming into actuality in a way that allows a consistent universe across individuals.... That can be addressed too.

Gravity has nothing to do with this topic. You have no argument.

It is actually a very apropos analogy.

Objects behave predictably due to the laws and circumstances of this universe. That is exactly the claim we are making when we say Free Will is an illusion.
Frankly, not only is Free Will an illusion but it is impossible to even hypothesize how a universe with free will would behave. It just cannot possibly exist. The Universe either behaves according to the deterministic principles of cause and effect OR (on the subatomic level) it behaves randomly as suggested by modern quantum theory. No combination of those two spontaneously births the commonly accepted definition of Free Will.

Free Will simply cannot exist in this Universe

 

[Jerry]

It is actually a very apropos analogy.

Objects...

People are not objects. Thank you for proving that gravity has nothing to do with anything and you have no argument. I accept your surrender.

 

[ZapFinch42]

People are not objects. Thank you for proving that gravity has nothing to do with anything and you have no argument. I accept your surrender.

Someone has apparently never heard of an analogy before...

You might want to look in to that before you get into a debate...