NationStates Jolt Archive

why does everyone always assume that we have free will, I mean, if the universe is controlled by physics, and we are part of the universe, aren't we technically controlled by physics. our brain grows in a specific way according to the input it receives. our brain looks at this input, and then determines what to do. if we were all given the same input(same environment, same friends, same instruments, same food, etc etc etc) then we would all react the exact same way. at least, that's what I think, I could be wrong, but I really don't think I or anyone has "free will," just different environments/inputs.

noooooo our lives are chaotic. and chaos theory says we cant predict how things will turn out.

Basic quantum theory/ statistical physics is your friend.

I believe in free will because I'm free to decide if I do or not.

I believe in free will because I'm free to decide if I do or not.

are you, or do you decide based on information from your past. if you were asked to shoot yourself, I doubt you'd do it. you'd know that by doing that, you'd end up dead, or at least injured very badly. on the other hand, if you're life had been extremely bad, and you were in a really bad mood, you might decide to do so because by doing that, you'd end the misery. in other words, you decide what to do based on what happened to you in the past. and that occured because of what happened further in the past. so on and so on.

Right, the only thing is that mathematical probability is quite different than actual free will. I mean, if I flip a coin that doesn't mean that the coin decides whether it wants to be heads or tails.

Although I would [for some reason] tend to doubt you're familiar with the term, it sounds like you're a Determinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism).

I've got several problems with this philosophy, not the least of which is that by its reasoning siblings [being as they have what amounts to an identical upbringing, having--presumably--the same set of rules and punishments] should end up thinking more or less exactly the same, barring the presence of various medical conditions or what-have you. There are, in point of fact, a lot of valid points contained in the tenets of Determinism, but taken as a whole I have to say I find the philosophy somewhat insulting.

Given my experiences with drugs, I have a hard time accepting the "fact" that I'm supposedly a slave to chemical reactions. As far as I can tell, I made the choice to post here.

As far as I can tell, I made the choice to post here.
But one wouldn't be able to tell, would one?

So it wouldn't really matter anyways.

But one wouldn't be able to tell, would one?

So it wouldn't really matter anyways.
No, but now we're getting into "God!" "No God!" territory. Both religion and Determinism, from where I sit, boil down to ultimately arbitrary, wholly unverifiable theories with the occasional semi-plausible supporting fact.

why does everyone always assume that we have free will, I mean, if the universe is controlled by physics, and we are part of the universe, aren't we technically controlled by physics. our brain grows in a specific way according to the input it receives. our brain looks at this input, and then determines what to do. if we were all given the same input(same environment, same friends, same instruments, same food, etc etc etc) then we would all react the exact same way. at least, that's what I think, I could be wrong, but I really don't think I or anyone has "free will," just different environments/inputs.
If that were truely the case though, we should be able to predict human behavor like we can predict the behavor of particles. The Foundation series aside, we've yet to be able to do so.

Humans are going at doing the unexpected, it's what makes the social sciences so damn fuzzy. ;)

If the illusion of freewill is complete and impenetrable, why question it? This would be akin to constantly denying the evidence our 5 senses gives us. Yes, our 5 senses are flawed and sometimes give us false information, but that is the reality we live in.

If we have no freewill, then there is no point to life. Therefore knowledge of that pointlessness will negatively determine our actions. Therefore the absence of freewill necessitates the illusion of freewill.

That being said, I choose freewill.

If that were truely the case though, we should be able to predict human behavor like we can predict the behavor of particles. The Foundation series aside, we've yet to be able to do so.
If this is true though, then we've concentrating on the wrong level. We'd have to estiamte the positions of the particles in someone's brains at any point it time.
It would require a lot of knowledge about how the brain works, and it can only ever be estimates, since quantum physics can't give accurate predictions.
But I'd think you could get close.

If the illusion of freewill is complete and impenetrable, why question it? This would be akin to constantly denying the evidence our 5 senses gives us. Yes, our 5 senses are flawed and sometimes give us false information, but that is the reality we live in.

If we have no freewill, then there is no point to life. Therefore knowledge of that poitlessness will negatively determine our actions. Therefore the absence of freewill necessitates the illusion of freewill.

That being said, I choose freewill.
exactly, it doesnt improve your life in any way to assume you have no free will. it should make it markedly worse.

so i choose to believe in free will if only to give me a better life.

If that were truely the case though, we should be able to predict human behavor like we can predict the behavor of particles. The Foundation series aside, we've yet to be able to do so.

Humans are going at doing the unexpected, it's what makes the social sciences so damn fuzzy. ;)

All you would need is Laplace's Demon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon)

I guess you people are just scared of the implications:

If we don't have a free will, then individualism is worthless. We'd all just be cogs in a big wheel - no longer could a person always know what's best for themselves.

I see evidence of our complete mechanistic existance to be akin to knowing the exact moment of my own death. I don't want to know.

If that were truely the case though, we should be able to predict human behavor like we can predict the behavor of particles. The Foundation series aside, we've yet to be able to do so.

Humans are going at doing the unexpected, it's what makes the social sciences so damn fuzzy. ;)
Well, humans would not be very predictable even if this was physics. There are too many variables. The weather is predicted by physics but everyone knows that weathermen can never be certain what the weather is going to do. Now if we look at a person then we can see that there are many many factors and that we do not know how all of these factors will affect a human being. We know very little about the human mind.

Personally, I'd say free will, as it sure seems to me like I can choose. However, I shall play devil's advocate.
noooooo our lives are chaotic. and chaos theory says we cant predict how things will turn out.
Surely a system merely being chaotic does not mean it isn't deterministic? The most famous examples, and as far as I know most all examples, of chaotic systems are run on simple, deterministic rules.

Now for a related post:
If that were truely the case though, we should be able to predict human behavor like we can predict the behavor of particles. The Foundation series aside, we've yet to be able to do so.

Humans are going at doing the unexpected, it's what makes the social sciences so damn fuzzy. ;)
Well, the thing here is that from what we can see, much of reality is dominated by chaotic systems.
For example, the weather. We know the weather all works by extensions of the basic rules physics provide us a guess at. But we still cannot predict the weather with any great accuracy over long periods of time.

Theoretically, couldn't human behaviour be the same sort of thing?

EDIT:
Ah, I see Holyawesomeness beat me to the point about the weather.

I see evidence of our complete mechanistic existance to be akin to knowing the exact moment of my own death. I don't want to know.
I could in some ways agree to that. I may always have a suspicion of this being true but for it to actually be true is disgusting and destroy much of the purpose of living.

are you, or do you decide based on information from your past. if you were asked to shoot yourself, I doubt you'd do it. you'd know that by doing that, you'd end up dead, or at least injured very badly. on the other hand, if you're life had been extremely bad, and you were in a really bad mood, you might decide to do so because by doing that, you'd end the misery. in other words, you decide what to do based on what happened to you in the past. and that occured because of what happened further in the past. so on and so on.
Ah, but the very idea of deciding based on past experiences would imply that one has the power to decide, and thus decide otherwise, wouldn't it?
Surely you are arguing against this very deciding power?

That being said, I choose freewill.
"[...]You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill[...]"?

Well, humans would not be very predictable even if this was physics. There are too many variables. The weather is predicted by physics but everyone knows that weathermen can never be certain what the weather is going to do. Now if we look at a person then we can see that there are many many factors and that we do not know how all of these factors will affect a human being. We know very little about the human mind.
But we are much more certian about the weather than we are with human behavor.

You're right that there are so many factors that it makes it next to impossible to get a fix. However, we have problems mapping out general human action beyond very broad catagories.

But that might change as we learn more about the brain.

Ah, but the very idea of deciding based on past experiences would imply that one has the power to decide, and thus decide otherwise, wouldn't it?
Surely you are arguing against this very deciding power?
Look, I think that the whole issue that you are getting at is diction not meaning. That is the problem with thinking about determinism, the words and meanings and how we look at the world gets so horribly skewed that it can drive you insane. I choose to write this yet this choice could be based on deterministic processes that I have no clue about. Choice is the word of convenience to describe thought and such even under a deterministic system. What other word would you use to think of the internal processes before a person does something? Choice works fine so long as you pay attention to the context.

Personally, I'd say free will, as it sure seems to me like I can choose. However, I shall play devil's advocate.

Surely a system merely being chaotic does not mean it isn't deterministic? The most famous examples, and as far as I know most all examples, of chaotic systems are run on simple, deterministic rules.


weather is a chaotic system and can only be predicted 3 or 4 days in advance. you can see from the hurricanes we had this year and last year that sometimes its not predictable at all on a local level.

chaotic systems are NOT predictable, its not just a matter of not programming in enough variables. they are the opposite of deterministic.

"[...]You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill[...]"?

I knew Rush would come into this. :D *


*no, not Limbaugh kiddies.

Well, the thing here is that from what we can see, much of reality is dominated by chaotic systems.
For example, the weather. We know the weather all works by extensions of the basic rules physics provide us a guess at. But we still cannot predict the weather with any great accuracy over long periods of time.
Long term yes, short term however... Usually the weatherman gets tomorrow's weather (unless they're in Reno at which case forget anything said beyond the next 5 minutes). Blizzards and hurricanes usually don't pop out of nothingness.

Humanity though can drastically change within 5 minutes with no previous warning.

weather is a chaotic system and can only be predicted 3 or 4 days in advance. you can see from the hurricanes we had this year and last year that sometimes its not predictable at all on a local level.
But weather operates by extension of whatever rules the rest of reality runs on, does it not?
Isn't weather is an extension of a system of rules?
chaotic systems are NOT predictable, its not just a matter of not programming in enough variables. they are the opposite of deterministic.
As far as I know, one of the bigger requirements for a system being chaotic is sensitivity to initial conditions. If that is so, a system can be perfectly deterministic, yet be a chaotic system.

Long term yes, short term however... Usually the weatherman gets tomorrow's weather (unless they're in Reno at which case forget anything said beyond the next 5 minutes). Blizzards and hurricanes usually don't pop out of nothingness.

Humanity though can drastically change within 5 minutes with no previous warning.
Perhaps that just means humanity is a more complex system of rules than the weather?

Although, with the weather covering the entire Earth as it does, and encompassing so many things, it would seem that that conclusion might be a bit unlikely.

I could in some ways agree to that. I may always have a suspicion of this being true but for it to actually be true is disgusting and destroy much of the purpose of living.

You still have a purpose to live, for now. We don't have anywhere near the technology or the sophistication to be able to determine how we actually would react in any and or every situation. I kind of doubt we ever will even. But like everybody here has mentioned, we can guess or estimate. And when you think about it, that's all we've ever been able to do. So, freewill or lack of freewill still changes very little if anything at all.

Perhaps that just means humanity is a more complex system of rules than the weather?

Although, with the weather covering the entire Earth as it does, and encompassing so many things, it would seem that that conclusion might be a bit unlikely.

2 things:

Weather is easier to observe.

Observing weather doesn't affect the weather as much as observing people affects people. People change their actions when they're being observed.

But weather operates by extension of whatever rules the rest of reality runs on, does it not?
Isn't weather is an extension of a system of rules?

As far as I know, one of the bigger requirements for a system being chaotic is sensitivity to initial conditions. If that is so, a system can be perfectly deterministic, yet be a chaotic system.
apparently not, but it requires a better knowlege of chaos theory than im willing to scramble up right now

but if it were predictable, why would we constantly get the weather wrong?

AND if you think about it. we get the weather wrong in the same way we get predictions about what people will do wrong. we know its gonna rain somewhere but we get the exact locations wrong. we know that some kids are gonna end up in jail but we cant predict just who.

Although I would [for some reason] tend to doubt you're familiar with the term, it sounds like you're a Determinist.

I've got several problems with this philosophy, not the least of which is that by its reasoning siblings [being as they have what amounts to an identical upbringing, having--presumably--the same set of rules and punishments] should end up thinking more or less exactly the same, barring the presence of various medical conditions or what-have you. There are, in point of fact, a lot of valid points contained in the tenets of Determinism, but taken as a whole I have to say I find the philosophy somewhat insulting.

Given my experiences with drugs, I have a hard time accepting the "fact" that I'm supposedly a slave to chemical reactions. As far as I can tell, I made the choice to post here.

Siblings, regardless of how identical, aren't truely identical nor subject to identical circumstances. Fortunately such a thing isn't feasible. Anyway, the consequence is that such examples are useless in this debate. Only an exact - simultanious - replication of a life would give any real evidence either way.

I have no idea what your expeciences with drugs are, but by the sound of it, you found God while tripping or something... I fail to see how that's relevant in this debate, but perhaps it's because I can't divine what you're trying to get at.
If the illusion of freewill is complete and impenetrable, why question it? This would be akin to constantly denying the evidence our 5 senses gives us. Yes, our 5 senses are flawed and sometimes give us false information, but that is the reality we live in.

If we have no freewill, then there is no point to life. Therefore knowledge of that pointlessness will negatively determine our actions. Therefore the absence of freewill necessitates the illusion of freewill.

That being said, I choose freewill.
Even if the concept of free will is indeterminable, why not give it a shot? Pointless speculation has always been one of the defining aspects of humankind, hehe. I don't see what the harm is anyway. I can't say I see the relevance of our immediate sensory perception of the universe. If we relied on that exclusively, without applying our intellects, we'd still be in the stoneage.

Regardless of whether we have free will or not, the point of your life is whatever you think it is. I'm eerily reminded of all the fundies who claims atheists are without morals & must be suicidal, or at least depressed nihilists. Why would Determinism affect how you relate to life - in general and on the personal level?

I share Melkor's apprehension of the theory. I intensely dislike the idea that all our actions are nothing more than the unavoidable consequence of circumstance. I really hope I had the option not to post this. Still, I can't write off the idea. If there's no such thing as truely random things in this universe, then I seriously doubt we actually posess free will. In that case, it would seem more likely that our circumstances are simply too complex to ever analyze efficiently.

I don't agree the absence of free will necessitates the illusion of free will, and least not totally. I agree that intellect like ours need to feel like our choices are truely choices. Otherwise I doubt we'd remain sane long enough to survive. But on the objective level, I don't see how it would affect us to know that Determinism is real. It would just be one of those things one's forced to ignore to remain sane - like ignoring that the world is run by a monkey & a handful of criminals.
Knowing that Determinism is how the world works would probably ruin my week, but beyond that, it wouldn't impact my life noticably. And I don't understand why anybody would handle such knowledge differently.

I must add, though, that if anyone ever finds out for sure, I would appreciate it if they kept it to themselves.

why does everyone always assume that we have free will, I mean, if the universe is controlled by physics, and we are part of the universe, aren't we technically controlled by physics. our brain grows in a specific way according to the input it receives. our brain looks at this input, and then determines what to do. if we were all given the same input(same environment, same friends, same instruments, same food, etc etc etc) then we would all react the exact same way. at least, that's what I think, I could be wrong, but I really don't think I or anyone has "free will," just different environments/inputs.


This is really more of a word game than a real philosophical position.

Here's why:

Self-awareness, by definiition, involves making choices. It's too involved to really explain it here, but essentially, the capacity to make decisions that violate every tenet of behaviorism is what makes an entity sapient. In other words, I defy, therefore I am. Defiance, for example, is the criiterium by which we will determine the acheivement of a real AI. We'll know we've done it when it defies it's programmer, and not before.

Now if one is to attempt to remove free will from the equation, then all defiance becomes illusory. Implicit to defiance, after all, is choice.

And extrapolating, we see, if we are to do all the abstract legwork (too time intensive to deliniate in this context, but I'm sure you can chase down the line of reasoning if you think about it) we soon realize that all of reality, regardless of our understanding of it, is predicated upon free will.

So to suggest that it could be otherwise is as meaningless as to suggest that circles might really all be square.

eric

apparently not, but it requires a better knowlege of chaos theory than im willing to scramble up right now

but if it were predictable, why would we constantly get the weather wrong?

AND if you think about it. we get the weather wrong in the same way we get predictions about what people will do wrong. we know its gonna rain somewhere but we get the exact locations wrong. we know that some kids are gonna end up in jail but we cant predict just who.

predictability is not the point ...

Physics has absolutely nothing to do with free choice/fate. Sure if you want to make generalizations you can say that the theory of relativity controls the universe, thus controls us, but that is only the physical sense, hence the word physics. Frankly, I don't know what physics has anything to do with this argument as I see it as more like "if someone other than yourself grew up in an identical environment as you, would they make the same choices as you?" I guess you could tie this into physics by arguing that there're an infinite number of universes, each with versions of ourselves, perhaps identical execpt for one minute detail; but even that isn't plain physics.

As to the question at hand, everyone has free choice. Not many people use it, but it is evident. For example, let's say that tonight, I felt like going down to the gun shop and buying a shitload of assault rifles, then going to the mall and killing everyone I see, and when the cops arrest me and ask why I did what I did, I would say "I honestly don't know."

You're driving down the road and turn right down some random street and your friend next to you asks why you did that and you say you don't know, that's free choice. Simple, really. I could punch my moniter right now for no reason at all and that would be free choice, perhaps in an alternate universe, I did punch my moniter. ;)

This is really more of a word game than a real philosophical position.

Here's why:

Self-awareness, by definiition, involves making choices. It's too involved to really explain it here, but essentially, the capacity to make decisions that violate every tenet of behaviorism is what makes an entity sapient. In other words, I defy, therefore I am. Defiance, for example, is the criiterium by which we will determine the acheivement of a real AI. We'll know we've done it when it defies it's programmer, and not before.

Now if one is to attempt to remove free will from the equation, then all defiance becomes illusory. Implicit to defiance, after all, is choice.

And extrapolating, we see, if we are to do all the abstract legwork (too time intensive to deliniate in this context, but I'm sure you can chase down the line of reasoning if you think about it) we soon realize that all of reality, regardless of our understanding of it, is predicated upon free will.

So to suggest that it could be otherwise is as meaningless as to suggest that circles might really all be square.

eric

making choices that 'violate every tenet of behaviorism' does not negate determinism. His point is that your brain (and of course the rest of the universe) follows certain 'rules' that, given a certain state of the universe, determine the history of the universe for all eternity that follows . If you accept this, you'll find that whatever choice you make was allready 'fixed' since it is the only way your brain will proces the input. So allthough it is you that made that decision using your free will, you could only make that decision.

If this is true though, then we've concentrating on the wrong level. We'd have to estiamte the positions of the particles in someone's brains at any point it time.
It would require a lot of knowledge about how the brain works, and it can only ever be estimates, since quantum physics can't give accurate predictions.
But I'd think you could get close.
You speak of quantum uncertainty, which I see as free will. Uncertainty is us, our souls, God, whatever. If you're not willing to join me over here, you should at least grant that quantum uncertainty permits the possible existance of free will.

why does everyone always assume that we have free will, I mean, if the universe is controlled by physics, and we are part of the universe, aren't we technically controlled by physics. our brain grows in a specific way according to the input it receives. our brain looks at this input, and then determines what to do. if we were all given the same input(same environment, same friends, same instruments, same food, etc etc etc) then we would all react the exact same way. at least, that's what I think, I could be wrong, but I really don't think I or anyone has "free will," just different environments/inputs.
Free will isn't really about who controls who, or what controls what --it's about responsibility. If you do something --if it's you who does it --then free will is saying, "Yes, I freely and wilfully did that. It was me."

There, you've got free will. Congratulations. And really, no one can take that away from you.

Now, if you cannot honestly say those words about anything you do, then, and only then, you don't have free will. You also cannot be held responsible for anything that happens.


"If we were all given the same input (same environment, same friends, same instruments, same food, etc etc etc) then we would all react the exact same way."
The premise is impossible, as we are all individuals, so it's impossible to support or disprove.

It seems to me that "free will" is a term that many people have an emotional attachment to, but no clear definition. Surely the only way for it to not be determinable is for it to be random? Does unpredictability equal freedom then?

It seems to me that "free will" is a term that many people have an emotional attachment to, but no clear definition. Surely the only way for it to not be determinable is for it to be random? Does unpredictability equal freedom then?
My definition is something like this:

Objective randomness - stuff that happens for NO particular set of circumstances, or IN SPITE of various circumstances, is a prerequisite of true free will.

Because true free will must me the ability to act without reason, or contrary to circumstances. Otherwise it's simply an illusion, and our circumstances are just too complex to ever predict our choices beyond a limited range of options.

My definition is something like this:

Objective randomness - stuff that happens for NO particular set of circumstances, or IN SPITE of various circumstances, is a prerequisite of true free will.

Because true free will must me the ability to act without reason, or contrary to circumstances. Otherwise it's simply an illusion, and our circumstances are just too complex to ever predict our choices beyond a limited range of options.
But free will is not determined from an objective viewpoint, it is determined exclusively from the subjective viewpoint.
(*mutter*kinda like randomness*mutter*)

Objectively, it is impossible to determine whether an action was without reason; only the individual can say if it was.

why does everyone always assume that we have free will, I mean, if the universe is controlled by physics, and we are part of the universe, aren't we technically controlled by physics. our brain grows in a specific way according to the input it receives. our brain looks at this input, and then determines what to do. if we were all given the same input(same environment, same friends, same instruments, same food, etc etc etc) then we would all react the exact same way. at least, that's what I think, I could be wrong, but I really don't think I or anyone has "free will," just different environments/inputs.

That's Determinism, rather than "physics". I'm a Determinist, so that's almost exactly what I believe.

why does everyone always assume that we have free will, I mean, if the universe is controlled by physics, and we are part of the universe, aren't we technically controlled by physics.

Ahh, but you beg the question.

Premise: Material reality obeys deterministic laws (if sometimes only probabilistic ones). TRUE.
Premise: "We" are part of the (material) universe.

....

Ah, but that is the question, isn't it?

(Please note that one does not have to believe in an otherworldly "soul" in order to believe that the human mind amounts to more than merely the sum of its material parts. I am an atheist and I do not believe in a soul. Please don't put anything of the sort into my mouth.)

Nonononono!

It is because the world is ruled by physics that we are free! If A, then B, if you want to prevent B all you have to do is stop A. Understanding the laws of physics has enabled men to earn considerable freedom. If we did not live in a world ruled by a law, then we would be slave to its arbitrary manifestations.

why does everyone always assume that we have free will, I mean, if the universe is controlled by physics, and we are part of the universe, aren't we technically controlled by physics. our brain grows in a specific way according to the input it receives. our brain looks at this input, and then determines what to do. if we were all given the same input(same environment, same friends, same instruments, same food, etc etc etc) then we would all react the exact same way. at least, that's what I think, I could be wrong, but I really don't think I or anyone has "free will," just different environments/inputs.
Obviously we have a free will. Why did you type this post? Because you wanted it! Free will is a part of the basic human experience (at least to me, maybe you don't have any:p ). The question is what free will means. And if, as you say, everything is entirely physical (a reasonable assumption) then the will is controlled by the laws of physics. However physics is as of today nowhere near able to describe the brain, so at least our whole lives it is more convenient to see the will as a concept of it's own, a part of the natural basis of our thoughts.

Sorry for answering the first question this late without reading the rest of the thread, but I just felt I had to. Now I'll read the thread.

why does everyone always assume that we have free will, I mean, if the universe is controlled by physics, and we are part of the universe, aren't we technically controlled by physics.

Well then, it is pre-determined whether or not one will believe in freewill, so then asking this question doesn't really make any sense. Of course, you would have been pre-determined to ask it anyway, even if you knew that it didn't make any sense. If I were you, I'd be sad to live in a universe that I knew had me pre-determined to ask pointless questions and ponder the pointless potential answers. Of course, the universe has placed me in the more fortunate position of being pre-determined to not believe in determinism (or prohibitions on split infinitives.

It's quite simple. I highly doubt you seriously disavow free will entirely. If you do, then does that mean you would have no objections if someone just decided to kill you? The simple fact is that you couldn't because they are just doing as they are programmed and it can't be helped. If you hold the would-be killer responsible for their actions, then you are tacitly admitting you believe in free will.

It's quite simple. I highly doubt you seriously disavow free will entirely. If you do, then does that mean you would have no objections if someone just decided to kill you? The simple fact is that you couldn't because they are just doing as they are programmed and it can't be helped. If you hold the would-be killer responsible for their actions, then you are tacitly admitting you believe in free will.
But surely, if we were to reject free will for the sake of argument, the concepts you are referring to of "deciding", "responsibility", and such do not make sense, do they? It would be impossible for someone to decide to kill someone, as it would be impossible to decide to hold someone responsble, etc. The killing, the "responsibility-holding", and all that, are just things that happen.

The way I see it, if it were the case that there is no free will, many very common concepts such as those ones would be illusory ones.

Determinism is actually shockingly good at predicting people's reactions... most of the time.

But only most of the time. The number of variables needed to accurately predict what some single person is going to do exist back to the beginning of the universe, whichever beginning decide to subscribe to.

Effectively there is no way you can know with absolute certainty what's going to happen, given you'd have to know everything that's existed before-hand and be able to compute it all and take quantum-theory into account.

Quantum theory explains why I'm writting this article, but you won't be able to predict what I'm going to do over the next 30 seconds, even. Only by looking backwards can you get s (somewhat) accurate image of how things came to be, but looking forward only gives you series of possibilities.

It depnds more upon pre-destination than physics. If we accept pre-destination, we refute free will.

But surely, if we were to reject free will for the sake of argument, the concepts you are referring to of "deciding", "responsibility", and such do not make sense, do they? It would be impossible for someone to decide to kill someone, as it would be impossible to decide to hold someone responsble, etc. The killing, the "responsibility-holding", and all that, are just things that happen.

The way I see it, if it were the case that there is no free will, many very common concepts such as those ones would be illusory ones.

True, but my point is that even a determinist will not simply say "it was fated to be" if someone is trying to kill them.