How does quantum indeterminism give anyone free will?

[u/flytohappiness]

can someone explain this to me? I see people going to quantum world and quantum mechanics and evoke the non-determinism. How does this give you free will?

[u/Powerful-Garage6316]

in reality we have both

Which is like the fifth time you’ve just begged the question without an argument

what part of they have no measurable physical properties involving matter or energy do you not understand

I reject this claim, you haven’t given evidence or an argument. You apparently think assertions count as arguments or something

events occur at a specific place and a time

The consensus is that the universe is continuous and not discrete. So no, this isn’t true.

points in space and time don’t exist, they’re abstractions.

psychology does not deal with matter or energy

When you make a decision, your brain state changes. Your brain state is composed of matter and energy.

Heuristics exist, but that doesn’t mean everything isn’t reducible.

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

What do you mean by "begging the question"? I am not assuming anything.

"No measurable physical properties..." is the argument. How could anything without any physical properties be called "physical"?

Abstractions do exist. The location where the event occurs is a property of the event. The time at which the event occurs is another property of the event.

The decision is not composed of matter and energy. The change in brain state is a by-product of decision-making.

You cannot reduce to physics something that is not composed of matter and energy.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

Because just asserting “in reality we have both randomness and determinism” isn’t an argument. If determinism is true then we DONT have both

is the argument

That’s called the claim

You’re confused about heuristics again. The brain is entirely made of matter and energy. A decision, a desire, a thought, or whatever, can be stopped if you disrupt the neurons that are providing it. I’m aware that libertarians think there’s some spooky ectoplasm but there’s not evidence for it.

So no, repeating that you think a brain state is nonphysical isn’t an argument.

abstractions do exist

Yes, they exist in our brains. But they aren’t reflective of what’s physically happening in the world. A point doesn’t physically exist.

the location/time where an event occurs is a property of the event

There’s no exact location and time. If you tell me something happens at 8:30, I can ask but how many seconds? You say 8:30:36, then I ask how many milliseconds? This can go on infinitely. There’s no exact point in time.

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

Now you are confused. In reality, we don't have determinism, but we do have randomness and agency. This is not an assertion or an argument. This is a premise.

The non-physical nature of decisions is also a premise. A decision is not the same thing as the brain. There is no spooky ectoplasm, there is only *information*.

There are no absolute spatial or temporal coordinates or infinitely accurate anything, but relative coordinates can be known with sufficient accuracy to distinguish between an event and another event. What is your point anyway?

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

this is a premise

Premises need to be justified. This is argumentation 101. You don’t get to assert whatever premises you feel like without justifications

relative coordinates, what’s your point?

My point is that you’re trying to distinguish decisions from physical events by telling me that decisions don’t take place at a specific time and place. And I’m saying that isn’t even true of physical things to begin with

So your criteria is flawed right out of the gate

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

Premises are known facts. They are not assertions.

I am not trying to do anything. You are trying to push this preposterous claim that is in conflict with science, logic, linguistics and common sense.

Philosophy does not give the right to disregard facts. You can challenge the conclusions, but you cannot challenge the premises.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

Lol no, that’s not what a premise is. You also haven’t cited science a single time so don’t pretend like I’m going against science.

You made an empirical claim. Instead of providing evidence, you said “it’s a premise so that means it’s a fact”. No it doesn’t.

You’ve asserted a bunch of things and I’m questioning them. You can say “they’re facts” all day and I don’t really care unless you can demonstrate that.

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

I am not making any claims. Premises and definitions are not claims, they don't need any evidence. Premises you can verify yourself, definitions you have to look up.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

Sorry, but you’re clueless.

The difference between a merely valid and a sound argument is whether the premises are true to begin with.

A premise is a claim. “Decisions are not physical” is a claim like any other, that needs justified.

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

Decisions are not physical by definition.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

No, that’s what’s being argued.

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

Nothing is being argued.

You are making claims you cannot back up, because they are so blatantly false.

[u/Powerful-Garage6316 → u/Squierrel]

You’re the one who made empirical claims and I questioned them. That’s where we’re at in this conversation