I do not believe in free will. However, I do not think our models of the universe are very complete, so I do not think there's a logical basis for dismissing the possibility of free will.

I don't want to make this about my credentials, I was only mentioning my scientific background to help relate my epistemological framework, not to claim any authority. Furthermore, I like to come to r/philosophy to discuss ideas, and it's unfortunate to see that so many debates veer into various logical fallacies, like ad hominem, straw man, argument from authority, etc. So I think it's very important that neither of us do that, which is why I don't want to claim authority, nor assume you are attacking my credentials. But if it helps to understand my state of mind, I will share that I'm an academic biologist, with expertise in molecular biology, biophysics, cell biology, analytical geometry, optics/microscopy, bacterial pathogenesis, evolution, and genetics.

Obviously, it's not the same field as we are discussing (although, really, there is no one field that encompasses all of the science we are discussing, unless we remain so hopelessly broad as to say something like "theoretical physics"), but biology and physics use the same toolset in terms of building and assessing models. Good scientists are skeptics, and it's important to have some sense of what we are reasonably sure is true, what we are reasonably sure is untrue, and everything else. To quote the statistician George Box, "all models are wrong, but some are useful."

To me, as a scientist... I think it's more fair to say that free will is not predicted or explained by any of our models than to say that our models eliminate the possibility of free will. Hopefully, our models are getting better all of the time, and we can approach but never achieve certainty. Most people want certainty, but there is none, only degrees of uncertainty. So, I am arguing from a place of skepticism.

Since it seems to be getting lost somehow, I will repeat for the fourth time that I do not believe in free will. However, all epistemological frameworks that I am aware of require accepting certain axioms. For example, "I think therefore I am," or "A = A," or "existence exists." How do we decide if something is self-evident?

It's similar, in that I'm arguing we can't prove it doesn't exist and is perhaps self-evident. Obviously, no one here is going around "believing in things" simply because we can't prove them wrong. So whether or not this is a sound argument hinges on whether or not you think free will is self-evident.

I am not sure of that, myself, and I'm not convinced the answer is known to anyone. I don't think physics really answers that question. Neither does psychology or neuroscience.

First of all, your answer is condescending, and also doesn't really make an argument so much as imply that if I only knew what you know, I'd agree with you.

Second, I already do not believe in free will. I'm merely commenting that, as a scientist, efforts to argue against the possibility of free will based on our current models of physics are not very convincing to me. Because our understanding is incomplete.

Edit: disagree by downvoting all you want, this is a philosophy forum and we should be directly making our arguments here, not describing how our arguments would make someone feel if we made them. It's not politics or debate club, it's philosophy. I don't care how popular the idea is, I care if it's a sound logical argument.

I said that free will does not follow from either model.

However, the models are merely models, and they can't really rule out free will.

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio....

Not suggesting we accept free will either. But again, we accept existence itself on axiomatic principles. I don't know if we have free will or not, but one could argue it's self-evident.

I'm a scientist, not a philosopher. But since we are getting into physics, I will say this:

I don't think we know enough about existence to have much certainty whether or not we have free will. I understand the argument that free will does not necessary follow from either a predetermined or stochastic universe. But it could be an emergent property we don't yet understand. The deep intuition argument is, to me, the best. We have to define axioms to make sense of anything, and perhaps (like existence itself) the best argument for free will is the fact that we all seem to experience it.

Hahaha, no one has ever thanked me for being a scientist. But I appreciate you appreciating it! Sometimes I actually feel guilty for asking for government grants because some of that money comes out of real people's pockets.

You are generally correct! Of course there are exceptions. I'm not sure how that all works for historians. For science, you generally release the idea and anyone can use it for research, but also patent it so that people have to pay you if they want to make money off of it.

Source: am academic scientist.