@Wanderer. Sorry if thats how you read my argument, let me clarify, I am arguing that the idea of "free will would be completely ruining the predictability of the universe", ie. it does not fit in the picture and determinism is a much more sensible and compatible system for understanding human thought.
"What seems to be the problem with strict determinism? is it that it doesn't really translate well into the workings [and illusion] of choice in regards to the human psyche"
I agree completely, people want to hold onto the idea of free will because thats how it "feels" when they make a decision. but it is an illusion. This is exactly the argument one of my philosophy tutors came out with to me (which was shocking from someone so educated in the subject!) she couldn't accept, regardless of my structured arguments, that how it feels to make choices could in fact be an illusion, and just continued to re-affirm her faulty premise as proof of her point of view.
People don't want to let go of free will, it makes them feel like they no longer have any control over there own lives.
The quantum mechanics thing did cross my mind... I don't see how a plausible theory could be formulated in that direction though. I would of thought that any appeal to that would lead to us believing that all decisions are made at random or something... I have no idea!
Have you seen arguments made like this?? if anything, I'd think it would still eliminate free will and just be a different sort of "indeterminate determinism" lol. if such a thing could be imagined.
i only have a basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics though, so a bit of assumption going on here.
they just say that because there is indeterminacy at the quantum level, that such a thing as determinism can't be true~ and somehow, wishing and praying, they use that to say that we have free will. Its a tired argument~ non of them have ever heard of quantum de-coherence (the notion that indeterminacy on the quantum level doesn't translate to the macro), don't understand that causality at that level is only a vague notion, not to mention the fact that just because the position of an electron can't be determined in the sense that "it will be there in one second" doesn't mean that its indeterminate. If anything, quantum indeterminacy actually leads to determinism, because in that regard the object is everywhere at once; thus its randomness is merely statistical not physical. But I digress...
The people who use that argument know not what they speak of~ a point blatantly obvious because if it were just the least bit true the field of psychology would be in complete disarray.
I am a big fan of the 'hidden variable' theory in QM. Things may appear to be random because there is a limit to our perception, based on the fact that any perception must be by a singular consciousness which is only a small localized part of the universe. Appearing random and being random are two different things. This randomness, according to the hidden variable theory, is caused by an unseen and not known about 'hidden' variable, beyond the limit of our ability to perceive and predict. And this conundrum is only relevant when measuring things in extreme exactitude. It is logically impossible to use the method of science, based on reason, which is based on causality and noncontradiction, to prove that this process is invalid or that randomness is possible.
It is refreshing to see others that are not fooled by the quantum hype.