[huygens6363]

I’m not sure what the point is?

Why can’t I be angry? Surely you must see anger is and never will be rational (and also not free).

My anger at your slapping is as much determined as your slapping. I see no problem.

Free will arguments usually refer to these “justice requires freedom”-like arguments and I feel that’s not the case at all.

You can punish, you can feel anger. It’s all included. You cannot separate reactions, this one is free, this one is not. It’s a package deal.

[vasco]

There's free will in the sense that the system is so chaotic and complex that it's impossible to predict for us now at current technology levels, maybe never possible to predict, but I don't see anything in science that would allow free will to be a thing. We're complex automata in the end.

[piloto_ciego]

I think this is a failure in imagination not a failure in science.

Still, all these free will deniers are basing their worldview on the (radical) assumption that.

1. Everything has a cause 2. Everything is explainable 3. physical matter is all there is 4. Science can describe literally everything about the universe 4a. Corollary - things that aren’t describable by science don’t exist

All of those claims are unfalsifiable at best and demonstrably false at worst (depending on how hard you squint). Science is effective for repeatable experiments, but that’s not a guarantee that there aren’t events that are one-and-done.

[huygens6363]

I agree, but I have to admit that once we have to invoke mysterious one-off miracles and unknowable states of existence to explain something so radically basic like “free will” we have IMO gone off track.

This feels like a God of the gaps type argument and those give off a particular smell.

[LocalH]

Those damn unknown unknowns keep mucking things up for us, don't they