My main issue with it is it seems to discount random events - and at a quantum level, it seems like there are genuinely random events, like radioactive decay. So it's not really accurate to say there are only two variables, there are really countless ones, and even small changes (like a few atoms splitting here and there) could lead to something like cancer in a friend or relative, having a serious impact on one's life. Still isn't an argument for the existence of free will though.
A reasonable disagreement is pointing out you're assuming zero randomness in the universe (which includes in your head, and everyone elses head, I'm not a mind-body dualist) so no development of unique new ideas, or having unique new experiences or perceptions, both of which feed on each other to generate new echos of randomness long after something interesting happens. Also it assumes no social interaction with others however distantly linked to "interesting random people" even if the individual and their direct contacts are in fact really boring (aka effect of arts in general).
That is a much more productive form of disagreement than hitting the down button.
(Edited to add I think you're getting downvoted because of a cultural-linguistic meme or bug that whenever someone in the USA spins a story with "can't or don't judge" that usually means its a known and obvious statement of fact that they did something they and everyone else knows is wrong, and they have no better spin option. Last (modern) refuge of a scoundrel. Thus the downvotes)
The effect of these tiny random events would propagate upwards and perhaps cause an apple to fall from a tree. A sub-atomic particle vibrating randomly in a certain way could fire a neuron, giving you a new thought.
Even if life isn't determined, can you really say there is free will? You can't control the way that sub-atomic particles will behave, you may have the illusion of control in your head but at the end of the day it would come down to physics and randomness.
Personally, I don't find this opinion a healthy one, so I tend not to dwell on it much.
This is why I downvoted the parents by the way. I feel like there is no safe discussion when it starts with strong opinions ("which is completely untrue"). There is no right or wrong here so better be open minded.
No, actually not. The current state of research in quantum physics makes it look like there is randomness. But the thing about randomness is: Nobody has any control over it. So again, life (and the universe) may not be fully deterministic, but we have no absolute responsibility for whatever happens (only a relative one, relative to our culture, that is).
> Also it assumes no social interaction with others
No, of course we have social interactions, which influence us. But they are themselves a function of 1) our genes (i.e. whom we approach or not) and 2) our initial location (with all its properties).
Again, you're stating things as facts that there's no reason to believe are actually true. There are models in which quantum randomness does allow for free will, and no one knows whether they're right.
This has the strange consequence that only you have free will, as perceived by your own consciousness. I don't think this makes any less sense than anything else related to quantum physics, but it is definitely weird.
You're just saying you believing in destiny.
I believe the inverse. And we will never know the truth so please don't start with a "which is completely untrue" when it's just an opinion.
Every decision is a product of your experience and state of mind, that are the product of you previous decisions, that are the product of your previous experience.. something, something!
You can go get another beer, as would be expected given you had three previously and chose to come to a bar, or you can choose to go home and sleep, or get in your car and drive, or swear off drinking forever.
The fact that options are present to you because of your previous choices (causality) is irrelevant to the fact that you still have full control over what option you select (free will).
We'll never know anyway, but I feel like there would be nothing, no universe, no life, no space etc... if there was not this "random" thing.
Nevertheless, I agree with your critique of determinism. Think outside the "system". Nobody knows why stuff exists or why it behaves the way it does, it's all just observation and ideas.
I think that inherited genes and location only plays a smaller part - but it depends on the person. For a normal western person my personal belief is that it is less than 10%.
I am a strong believer in free will and it's what makes us so different than animals. Animals have insticts and very little free will.
The thing is that if you believe in free will you have more free will as you will change your way of thinking. At least I believe that.
Back in 2007 I wrote an essay "Life As a Game of Chess": http://www.jimwestergren.com/life-as-a-game-of-chess/
Let me give you a friendly advice. Belief in free will has a purpose on it's own, just like belief in God. But if you choose to believe, stay away from attempts to explain it scientifically. You will only waste everyone's time and energy. Just assume free will as a fact and move on.
And keep animals out of it. They have as much free will as you.
The advantage of science isn't that it can proof stuff (which it can't) but that it is open for change instead of being dogmatic.
Ergo: I know x will happen because when all the variables are the same in the past, x has always happened.
The accuracy of the prediction is what changes in science, which is why it is a better system to use for predicting future events than other dogma based systems.
Ergo: Recently discovered factor y can be changed as a variable, and this accounts for x sometimes not happening the same way. We must account for this as a variable too.
And what makes the person? A Person is an amalgamation of inherited genes and collated personal experiences. Most of the personal experiences are a direct result of your location.
I think it is very important for us to go easy on someone who has gone astray or in our opinion is not living a life the way we think it is ought to be lived.
A Person who is a firm believer in free will would not judge anyone or for that matter force his/her view on anyone else.
That is, why shouldn't people with genes more suited to the environment they live in enjoy more success?
To answer that question, you have to assign some values to things, which is not a strictly logical process.
Can you recommend one?
> At the start of the game, you had no control over who you were or your environment. By the end of the game that becomes true again.
This implies that you have some sort of control between the start and the end - which is completely untrue, because:
What genes you get from your parents and in what environment you are put will determine everything that will happen in your head. And everything that happens in your life, has its inception in your head (over which you could never have the slightest control).
This is also the reason why whe should all have the same rights (and wealth), independently of the fact of how well we were (and therefor now are) "equipped": There is no such thing as a "free will".
Everything in your life is nothing but a function of 2 variables:
1) Your inherited genes
2) Your inherited initial location
It means we can never be judged by anyone.
EDIT: The above is not based on any beliefs (as in "religious" beliefs), it's pure logic. (So, when I wrote "is completely untrue", I meant "is completely illogic".)
EDIT II: Sorry, I can't recommend any literature for this. It's all based on my own thinking.
But actually, you don't need any book, because I can't call this a "worldview", I can only call it: "100% pure logic". (Meaning: no cultural/religious/otherwise arbitrary beliefs allowed.)
So, if you can think logically and are willing to do some mental work, you - and everybody else who does it - will automatically get there. That's kind of the beauty of logic - it's the only thing/law in the universe that seems to be an absolute/unquestionable truth, everything else being invented by somebody.