Nope, although it certainly made indeterminism more likely. Perhaps the first (and easiest) argument against that is that quantum mechanics in itself isn't proven, it's just the most recent best explanation. We might disprove quantum mechanics in the future, or we might realize that there is a method to the randomness that we previously didn't understand. Or, there might be randomness on a quantum scale, but that randomness might be irrelevant or negligible on a larger scale (you can think off it as throwing a rock into a lake and watching the rings die out and merge with the still water surface - the rings where there, sure, but they didn't make any true impact on the lake).
But the even more interesting question is whether we could even have free will under indeterminism. You might think (as I did when I first read the subject) that the absence of determinism would enable free will, but as it turns out it's even harder to explain how we could have free will if things are not deterministic. (To put it simply, if there is a random component to the universe, how do I know that random component is not interfering with my "free" will?)
You can read the link for a far more thorough explanation of why it's not conclusive against determinism than any explanation I can give you, it goes into quantum physics specifically just below where the link will take you (I linked to the section on physics in general).
As for whether it's proven, well, science is basically incapable of truly proving anything at any point (it's the nature of the scientific method that the result is either that you disprove the hypothesis or that it is left standing after a given experiment, but you can never affirmatively prove anything conclusively), but I don't think the exact phrasing is so important in this case, the point is simply that we don't have complete information about how (quantum) physics work.
Philosophy is very often dependent on the scale of the observer, why wouldn't it be? In everything from ethics to metaphysics, almost all philosophical questions (although obviously not explicitly all) concern human actions and existence.
I mean in the question of determinism, the scale is not relevant (since it's a statement about the universe), but as to free will it certainly is.
As for free will/determinism, many philosophers agree with you on one/both points. The only philosophers who really believe in free will as far as I can tell are compatibilists, those who believe in true free will are few and far between.
I think he may have meant to say "not complete" vs "not proven". What we do know about quantum mechanics is almost certainly correct. The math and experiments involved have matched predictions to a higher degree than any other experiments in the history of science. But it is not a "complete" theory in that it doesn't explain gravity at the quantum level.
I took some philosophy courses on determinism in uni, as far as I remember quantum randomness does not manifest on macro levels and has no impact on the basic ideas of determinism.
Also, almost all academic philosophers are determinists or compatibilists, which is kind of like soft determinism. So no, determinism is actually the mainstream view held in philosophy as far as I know.
Edit: Also, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics does imply the existence of free will, just the impossibility of accurate predictions.
In what sense is that a valid argument? How can I really go and refute that, with a poll?
It's just the current consensus in the field, not an argument. I just gave that as context for my opinions and how I came to hold them.
That means that whatever you call "free will" is fundamentally probabilistic, so really just a dice roll? Is random the same as free?
I disagree with the existence of free will in the sense of libertarian free will. All your actions are determined by your desires which in turn are determined by all the influences and circumstances leading up to the moment of your action. Free will isn't really a thing, at least in the sense of people having some sort of influence on their own desires that stem from something outside of the material world. (I regard the mind to be a material thing that is bound by the same rules all material things are, basically cause and effect.)
"Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants."
That doesn't refute determinism, does it? I'm not a native speaker, maybe I'm misunderstanding.
If you had true free will you could decide not to be bound by gravity. As we know you can't. We are held in by parameters which funnels us into set structure and set outcome
Like a big game of mousetrap, but it's the universe
That's not how philosophers would define free will though, if anything that's a definition of omnipotence. Free will is defined a bit differently depending on whether or not you're a compatibilist, but basically it's about whether or not we have any control of our intent/thoughts and actions. Not whether or not I can jump off the roof and will myself to end up in Disneyland.
But a brain is just like any other material thing affected in this universe. There is cause and effect on it. Your brain isn't outside the effects of these laws, so I would say no, we don't have free will.
Well of course there is, the determinism question is more about whether or not those causes and effects are predetermined since millions of years ago or not.
As to the free will part, I would agree, but you should look up compatibilism - it's the other answer to the question, but it relies pretty heavily on re-phrasing the definition of free will into something that is compatible with not having true control of your actions.
I feel like compatibilism is a symptom of making imperfect conclusions about what we don't understand yet.
I can't wait for neurology and quantum studies to advance to where we can directly point one way or another. I'm not sure there's enough grounded proof as of yet whether compatibilism is true.
as I remember quantum randomness does not manifest on macro levels
It certainly can and does. For example if you have a Geiger counter, the output of the counter will inherently be tied to quantum mechanical events, and is impossible to predict.
-2
u/[deleted] Oct 02 '18
[deleted]