<p>From a purely rational, quantifiable perspective, humans are simply collections of molecules, biochemical factories processing millions of chemical reactions. Reducing this model even further, humans are simply complex formations that result from elementary, even axiomatic natural, physical laws. LeChatelier's Principle, Faraday's law, Brownian motion, VSEPR theory apply no less in organisms as they do to inorganic systems. If life is the result of chemical, physical interactions, and since natural, scientific laws are inherently deterministic, then life itself is deterministic.</p>
<p>To disprove the deterministic nature of life, existence, actions, and choices, the "synergy" of life must be discovered - or refuted. Some emergent property must arise from the millions of chemical reactions that allows the product of these interactions freedom from deterministic restraints. To skeptics of determinism, this emergent property is called Will. However, a fundamental paradox arises if one enslaves him or herself to this illusion. For interactions among scientific laws to produce results that even partly deny the fundamental mechanisms of their origin would represent an egregious break in the laws of Logic. There is no evidence of an "open" set among scientific laws; they essentially restrain themselves, and no level of interaction, regardless of its complexity, can produce results that refute their parental origins.</p>
<p>Thus, I do not believe freewill exists. As biomolecular systems, we are forever bound by scientific determinism, unable to transcend the science that surrounds us. We are agents of natural phenomenon, and our actions are preprogrammed by our biochemistry.</p>
<p>You may continue to exist in illusion, but I accept Reality.</p>
<p>What about quantum chaos, uncertainty principles, and non-deterministic, non-classical mechanical models at the quantum level? Perhaps these random, chaotic behavior at the microscopic scale is the source of our elusive "will"?</p>
<p>Actually, now that I think about it, the disproof of your theory exists at a more fundamental level, in the philosophy of the sciences. Your theory presents a causality fallacy. Scientific laws originate from theories and models that attempt to explain observable facts. The basis of these theories and models are often not observable (molecular interactions, nuclear physics, &c) but these models and theories are accepted when they conveniently explain natural behavior to a significant extent. However, being only convenient models, they only approximate the behavior of nature. Most scientific laws only approximate natural behavior in ideal conditions anyway, and in real conditions more variables must be brought in to better the approximation. Through this process scientific laws seeks to explain the behavior of the universe, not as you claim, which is the reverse in causality: that somehow nature follows scientific laws in behavior. Therefore, if it is indeed true that free will exists, then a new scientific model needs to be created to reflect this phenamenon. To suggest that our existing laws provide a perfect and complete model is greatly exaggerating the abilities of our laws.</p>
<p>Ok. I knew someone would post about QM. I'm not going to put on a pretense and pretend that I know QM is deterministic or non-deterministic. But supposing that QM is indeed deterministic (only that our science has not progressed far enough or derived the GUT), then I believe the sum of deterministic relations eventually creates a system that is deterministic. Emergence is simply the sum of reductionistic elements, and continues to preserve its deterministic origins.</p>
<p>Fae -- that's a great final, wasnt it? I remember watching on espn; tommy smyth said the match was "men against boys" (half-time), and just incredible how liverpool will turned it around.</p>
<p>that was just the greatest match in sports ever</p>
<p>when tommy or derek said that it was the greatest comeback in the history of soccer i honestly believed it. although man utd - bayern on "that night in barcelona" has to have the same value</p>
<p>what a great game though
absolutely unbelievable
everytime i think about it i just go "wow"</p>
<p>what i noticed is how much gerrard acts like keane did in the 99' semifinal against juve
man utd were 2 down at the dele alpi after drawing 1-1 at old trafford...and keano puts in a header
gerrard must have studied that match because he does the same thing: he scores a header, then he runs back rallying the team with the same exact motions as keane did that night
great captain stevie g..learned from the best</p>
<p>Liverpool sucks. They are the single most boring team to watch I've ever seen. Go Gunners.</p>
<p>I was pretty surprised how bad Dida was in that match, and also how bad Serginho (worst kick I've ever seen, ever) and Shevchenko's penalty kicks were. I actually have nothing against Liverpool, but I enjoy watching exciting games and Liverpool's tactics in the earlier rounds were a combination of luck and boring the hell out of everyone watching. At least they're not coming back next year.</p>
<p>Serginho's kick reminds me of Chris Waddle's penalty in the 1990 World Cup semi-final. That kick also lost England the match (although Pearce had already missed so they probably would have lost anyway)</p>
<p>Liverpool's games were pretty boring. Like I fell asleep (literally) in just about all of them. Maybe it's becase of that stupid sports ticker on ESPN2.
Regardless I think they will definitely be playing next year (and crashing out in the group state quite likely)</p>
<p>You make a pretty interesting comment about Arsenal, considering the tactics they deployed in the FA cup final. I think their shots on goals column would read in the negatives. That was probably their worst display of the decade (although a 6-1 drubbing at the hands of the greatest team ever comes to mind)
How did they win?!</p>
<p>As I see it, if thought WAS deterministic, then there would be no grounds for accepting anything it thinks as correlating with anything that is “true”. Which would then include the thought that human thought was deterministic. Because of this paradox, I must assume we do have free will.</p>
<p>But maybe I’m just determined to conclude that due to some quirk of the Big Bang.</p>
<p>You’re also assuming that the only acceptable way of looking at the world is scientifically, or empirically, if you will.</p>
<p>So, if you’re taking another framework, existentialist for example, we have complete control over ourselves within the confines of our personal throwness.</p>
<p>Or take a more theistic standpoint: You could say that a divine power (let’s call it God for convenience’s sake) has granted us free will as our Creator.</p>
<p>In any case, science is only one truth claim among many out there, so while according to science we live in a deterministic universe, others might not agree because their respective frameworks operate under different rules.</p>
<p>If determinism is true, then I am determined to keep it secret. Knowledge like that could determine thousands of people to go on murderous rampages because of a disassociation of responsibility.</p>
