Introduction
The notion of claiming to have arrived at some level of epistemic truth in a deterministic system is flawed because by nature, a deterministic system could indeed necessarily never know if it had a flaw or not.
Take a deterministic system: a toaster connected to a speaker or ticker tape or other output device that conveys information.
Uf the toaster 'said' "My mind is deterministic, and I know for sure this is true" would one believe it?
For surely, by mere definition of possessing a deterministic mind, one cannot 'for sure' know that that is true. In fact, one cannot know anything, with certainty or otherwise.
Indeterminism and Truth
A random system produces correct answers only accidentally. so the notion of claiming to have arrived at some level of epistemic truth in an indeteministic system is flawed because by nature, an indeterministic system could indeed necessarily never know if it had accidentally arrive at the truth or not.
Take an indeterministic system: a quantum-based random generator connected to a speaker or ticker tape or other output device that conveys information.
If the generator 'said' "My mind is indeterministic, and I know for sure this is true" would one believe it?
For surely, by mere definition of possessing an indeterministic mind, one cannot 'for sure' know that that is true. In fact, one cannot know anything, with certainty or otherwise.
The Fatal Flaw in Error Detection
If Hal 2020 is a closed deterministic system (such as a computer) then it could necessarily never know if any string it outputs is flawed or not since the flaw may be in the error detection subsystem.
If Hal 2020 is a closed indeterministic system then it could necessarily never know if any string it outputs is flawed or not since the flaw would be indistinguishable from proper output.
So it can never be known that the statement "For sure I do not have free will" is true or false in closed deterministic and indeterministic systems.
Knowledge Claims and Rationality
Knowledge is the adoption of a true proposition based on good reasons.
To adopt a claim based on good reasons is:
Not all beliefs are chosen, granted, such as your belief that there is a glass of water in front of you when you see a glass of water in front of you or your belief that 1 +1 = 2 when you come to know the meaning of the terms.
However, non-obvious beliefs such as believing that the lunar landings were real, that political libertarianism is the best system to run a country, that a friend will like a particular gift, that it will rain tomorrow, that the Prophet Muhammad was truthful are a matter of choice after rational deliberation and evaluation.
Conclusion
The process just described involves (rational) choice and cannot, therefore, be unfree.
If there is no free will, then no claim can be adopted based on good reasons. As such, if there is no free will, then the claim, "There is no free will", cannot be adopted based on good reasons.
So if there is no free will, the claim, "There is no free will", cannot be known. If there is free will, then the claim, "There is no free will", is false. So the claim, "There is no free will", is either unknowable or false.
To put it another way, the only thing that can be known about the truth of the claim, "There is no free will", is that it is false.
Great answers start with great insights. Content becomes intriguing when it is voted up or down - ensuring the best answers are always at the top.
Questions are answered by people with a deep interest in the subject. People from around the world review questions, post answers and add comments.
Be part of and influence the most important global discussion that is defining our generation and generations to come