I don't think you under stand what you're talking about here. You can't do anything to change<b/> the way you think or how the people around you think. Thats called no free will! A reality you have accepted. Yet at the end you say you want to put truth aside for the good of society. Thats all wll and good but it makes no sense when free will doesn't exist. REAL can't be denied. Your not choosing anything EVER!

I’m not sure if this is the sort of critique you want, but I believe that your premise is incorrect. You say:

“I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other.”

… however this is the same argument used by Einstein in his “God does not play dice with the universe” quote.

Unfortunately for that theory, numerous experiments in quantum physics has shown that He/She/It does in fact play dice. For example, atomic decay is random at the atomic level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

What this means is that although large numbers of atoms may obey a statistical average, there is no way to predict when any given atom will decay. There have been mathematical studies of such decays, using methods which show the resulting number sequences are random.

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompletenessofquantum_physics

Hence, at a fundamental level, the universe is not predictable. I don’t want to push this argument all the way up to say it is a proof of free will – just that your own argument comes from a premise I don’t believe is supportable.

“This is really no different from our inability to predict the weather 100 years ago. And how did we come to be able to do so? We simply became more capable of gathering information about the variables.”

What randomness and incompleteness suggests is that there are no hidden variables, and that the universe is not ultimately knowable by anyone.

As far as free will or determinism goes, that is a wider argument. I think I agree with the post above which says that it is a function of how you look at it. Looked at one way, we are prisoners of our genes, of education, etc. Looked at another, we have freedom. It’s not a binary on-off switch, but rather a question of interpretation.

I’m not sure if this is the sort of critique you want, but I believe your main premise is incorrect. You say:

“I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other. Just because there are trillions and trillions of them doesn’t make their interactions magical (or even special).”

… but this is exactly the problem Einstein had that led him to give the famous quote “God does not play dice with the universe.” The thing is, according to quantum theory, He/She/It does.

Take nuclear decay, for example. You simply cannot predict when any individual atom will decay. You can perform a statistical analysis of any large enough grouping, but for any one atom, there is no telling. There have been statistical analyses done, and they show that the resultant decay follows all mathematical tests for randomness.

Hence the universe is, at a fundamental level, not predictable. The question of free-will vs determinism is a wider issue and I think I personally agree with the person above who said that both are true depending on how you look at it. But I don’t think your proof above has a supportable premise.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompletenessofquantum_physics

… unless, of course, I’ve misunderstood your argument.

I thank God that your statement does not even qualify as a generalization. Fortunately for you, your brain boasts

several thousand miles of interconnected nerve cells (about 100 billion),

Within the brain and spinal cord there are ten thousand distinct VARIETIES of neurons, trillions of supportive cells, a few more trillion synaptic connections, a hundred known chemical regulating agents, miles of minuscule blood vessels, axons ranging from a few microns to well over a foot and a half in length, and untold mysteries of how—almost flawlessly—all these components work together.[emphasis mine]

Each neuron can make contact with thousands or even tens of thousands of others, via tiny structures called synapses. Our brains form a million new connections for every second of our lives. The pattern and strength of the connections is constantly changing and no two brains are alike. source: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/brain

Not so. All that is required is that the risk of punishment be known, and when included in whatever actually motivates people that risk has a significant deterrent effect. Whether that effect is a matter of free choice or is a determined behavior makes no practical and therefore in this case no ethical difference.

As any philosopher would agree, there are always those that agree and disagree with a given theory, and none would consider either side of the argument as true.

This is not the case when it comes to science. If it were then you wouldn’t have to go to study for 8-10 years before becoming an independently practicing physician. All opinions are not equally valid in the realm of science, which is what I argue governs the issue of free will.

Unless provided with scientific evidence for or against free will, it would not be impossible to deny a particular position upon the matter.

I’d argue that we already have that evidence.

Overall, one must ask the following question: how would an agent without a capacity for free will even contemplate it?

The same way any sentient being with the capacity for reason contemplates anything. Just because the subject is the ultimate hard-wired nature of humans doesn’t mean that hardwiring prohibits self-exploration.

Hrm.

Ultimately, free will is about perception of choice rather than the ability to choose.

The truth is that you don’t know the future. In a sense, you can decide the future – because nobody knows what the future will be, and you have the power to look ahead, evaluate your free will (or lack thereof), look at the consequences, and make a decision.

Think about that. If you think it’s totally out of your control, it is. If you don’t, it isn’t. There’s something to be said for those self-help books and motivational speakers who say “you decide what you want to be.”

It’s a laborious process to exercise rationality in your actions, but when you do, you are exercising free will.

This is called deterministic compatibilism.

You say “Our brains are nothing but a collection of chemicals sloshing back and forth. These chemicals interact with each other in a finite, knowable way. The only reason we aren’t able to predict human behavior today is because we don’t have a solid grasp of the actors involved.”

But quantum physics suggests that through the act of observation, events are changed. So why not subscribe to the idea that each one of us is our own observer, changing the future as we experience it, allowing us to be the end-product of natural processes but STILL capable of free will?

And yes — I do like to have my cake and eat it, too.