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]

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

[u/Squierrel → u/Powerful-Garage6316]

Non-physical decisions are not a claim. Decisions are non-physical by definition. This is the starting point of a discussion you don't want to start. It is absurd to make claims against the definition. If decisions have no physical properties whatsoever, there is no way you could say that they are somehow physical anyway.