[munksbeer]

I don't see how we are anything more than just the particles that make up our selves, ie. the neurons in the brain. I can't seem to find a definition of free will that isn't self referential. What does it even mean that:

> Free will is the idea that there is a “you” and you are the author of your thoughts.

I am a "me", and I am the author of my thoughts, but that comes from the neurons in my brain firing and making decisions based on input. It still makes decisions, choices. I just maintain that those choices are not outside the universe. They are either:

1) Entirely causal based on all inputs and particles in the universe. Rewinding the universe and replaying will result in the exact same decisions.

or

2) The universe contains implicit randomness and this feeds into our neurons firing, meaning, rewinding the universe and replaying won't result in the same decisions.

[CooCooCaCha]

I agree but I think you’re overthinking it a bit. Usually when people talk about free will there’s an implication of a “spirit”, or something similar, that is the source of your thoughts. That’s the “you”.

I guess it depends on how you define it but I would say physics is the author of your thoughts. Physics is what’s making the decisions. Physics is the reason neurons fire.

[munksbeer]

Well, I can't debate people who believe in the spiritual realm, they can believe in free will and there is not much debate to be had.

But for anyone else, I still don't see how the concept of free will even makes sense. It is either determined, or random. What other options are there?

[GoblinSlayer]

It can be either, model is guessed by abduction, not deduction.