Accept that there is no god

>If you make rational decisions it means you have free will.
>If you make rational decisions it means you have free will.
>If you make rational decisions it means you have free will.

How else would you define free will?
Free will is about ability to make decisions.
If you cannot make rational decisions and are forced to make other decisions, it means something like mental illness limits your free will.

>I have free will because I think I have free will
>mental illness limits your free will
How about you google even one argument against free will before you make a fool out of yourself.

Free will would not exist if you could meet these two requirements:
+ Possess ALL the information of the universe (impossible due to entropy)
+ Have an intellect about a million times greater than the smartest man who ever lived (john von neumann)

Then you could calculate all events that will happen and have happened with 100% accuracy, even including QM shenanigans.

In reality though, we dont know all the variables, and we never will, therefore statistics and probability comes into existence, and along with that comes "free will," the ability to make decisions that cannot be predicted with 100% certainty.

there is no such thing as "the universe"

>I have free will because I think I have free will
I've never said that, it wouldn't make any sense.
I said that I have free will because I can make rational decisions.
>mental illness limits your free will
Of course. You can't say someone who can't perceive world normally and is force to act certain way has free will.
>How about you google even one argument against free will before you make a fool out of yourself.
Well, it's OP who think free will doesn't exists. Why would I search for arguments to support his theory?

There are events in quantum physics that results cannot be predicted, no matter how much information you have.
Also intelligence is not quantifiable so "intellect about a million times greater" doesn't make much sense.

>Also intelligence is not quantifiable so "intellect about a million times greater" doesn't make much sense.
autism must be tough.

>accept that there is no god
>accept that there is no free will
>literally believes in predestination
>thinks he's any better than a religiousfag
lol

>Why would I search for arguments to support his theory?
SO YOU DON'T CONTINUE TO MAKE A GODDAMN FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF.

In simpler terms: You might do better arguing against a viewpoint if you have a single fucking clue how that viewpoint frequently argues against the inane simplistic bullshit you are suggesting.

It's called debate, you fucking tool.

Let me give you a hint: People who believe they do not have free will continue to believe they are capable of making rational decisions in spite of it. Contradicting the entire argument you have presented so far.

I'll give you a response since you used a fake lol

predestination implies a subject-independent reality. it is not synonymous with free will

I never said anything about being better. you're more religious if think you have free will because this supposes special significance to yourself.

but I don't blame you. It's defense mechanisms. I am me and you are the story you're told.

What makes you think everything isn't essentially predetermined?

Jeez, calm down all this ad hominem.
>People who believe they do not have free will continue to believe they are capable of making rational decisions in spite of it.
Yes, but if someone thinks he has free will, it doesn't mean he really do have it.
I've never said that everyone who does irrational things, but think that they are rational have a free will. It's the same as trying to prove we are or aren't living inside a simulation, this isn't always possible from within it.

Quantum physics.

It's not really a question of having the knowledge though, nor the variables. It's the question of whether or not the constant evolution of time is truly linear. I.e. the past is written and the present exists, but the future is yet to be rendered. That is in fact how we see it, but not necessarily how it is. What predeterminism asks is: is the past, the present, and the future all extant from a focal point; essentially can you view the future physical model of something that at any given point in time hasn't happened yet. And yes, but it isn't a provable hypothesis, though physics as it stands provides a firm foundation.

You stopped forming proper sentences, I have no idea what you just said.

>It's the same as trying to prove we are or aren't living inside a simulation, this isn't always possible from within it.
You seemed pretty confident otherwise.

>Quantum physics.
Try learning some chaos theory to see how extreme sensitivity to initial conditions can produce apparently-but-not-truly random outcome. Quantum physics woo is not automatic proof of free will. It may work, it may not.

accept that you don't understand the concept of god
accept that you don't understand consciousness
accept that your ego will die

Even the evolution of quantum models can and will become predictable at some point in time, which means they have mathematically reducible rules like the rest of physics and even pure fucking entropy will become predictable since all matter and energy obey rules. Because they do this not only can we formulate physical predictions of the real world we can also determine that because all of the data in the known universe obeys rules that we are nothing more than a predictable physical evolution no matter how hard it may be to grasp.

youtube.com/watch?v=J3fhKRJNNTA

It's late I'm kinda tired and misunderstood you. One more try
>People who believe they do not have free will continue to believe they are capable of making rational decisions in spite of it.
Yea, but even if he believes he doesn't have free will, it doesn't mean he really doesn't have it. Free will is not something you have only if you claim to do so, it's a capability.

>Quantum physics woo is not automatic proof of free will.
Yes, but it's proof that everything isn't essentially predetermined.

I'm not sure if I get what you mean, but there are events in quantum physics that are and will always stay random. It's not matter of inaccurate sensors or models, but the way these events are.

>Yea, but even if he believes he doesn't have free will, it doesn't mean he really doesn't have it.
I was explaining that your argument is literally the first thing that anyone would suggest, and that is why you should look for existing arguments to the contrary, because clearly anyone who believes otherwise has thought of that argument.

>Yes, but it's proof that everything isn't essentially predetermined.
Exactly what I said is that it is not proof. In fact, the existence of the classical limit might suggest that despite the appearance of otherwise, it is still predetermined. I'm not entirely satisfied as it is very reminiscent of hidden information, but QM is far from fully understood.

>but there are events in quantum physics that are and will always stay random
Yet there is never an accumulated "error" in macroscopic "classical" systems. They are deterministic.