@kennethamy,
Suppose we conceive of a correct english language writing universe. In this universe there exists only two kinds of things. One is a reader/writer. The other is written history. Written history is in english and created only by reader/writers.
Two reader/writers begin the following discussion. 'Do we have the freedom to write anything we want?' Well since they cannot conceive of anything other than english they might at first say yes incorrectly because it may be there is a french universe somewhere else. That aside ..... they may then go on to note that what they write has rules in it. Spelling and grammar.
One argues that since all writing ever read in written history conforms to the rules of spelling and grammar then it indicates that they have no freedom at all. The other counters that repetition in written history is so rare that we must have some freedom. 'If all we read were the same sentences repeated in the same order over and over again then I would agree, but we don't.'
'Ah but, counters the other, there are limits to the number of different words in english, and therefore it must follow that written history is indeed composed of repetition, produced by the constraints of english.'
'not necessarily, because I could set up a list of words based upon the following scheme. I will first of all list all the words alphabetically, then I will do the same again but the list will repeat each word twice, and then again three times, and so on infinitely and without overall repetition.'
'true, but that is an evolving pattern
based upon repetition and you have defeated therefore your original assertion.'
'not at all, I did not start writing it, I only wrote out the rules for writing it ?.... and that was done as a writing act of rebellion to your written assertion!'
?..... we can see that these two reader/writers can never prove whether they have free will or not, because written history would always and necessarily come after the act of writing, and before the act of reading. (I didn't say whether free will was a condition of being a reader/writer in this universe.)
Classical determinism as produced by science gave a history of the universe such that the rules were cast iron. Every word that followed a word was the only word that could follow that word, and it necessarily did. Thus predictions were cast iron. This for many gave evidence of free will as an illusion. It isn't a conclusive argument because it is quite possible for example that 'french' is occurring in this universe too, but 'english science' is incapable of reading it. Nevertheless the lack of diversity in the behaviour of the physical world is to be noted.
QM indeterminism as produced by science gives a history of the universe such that the rules allow for many possibilities (like english), and upon the formative small scale. This diversity of behaviour indicates for many that because the universe is not totally fixed by what came before, then free will has room to exist. (there is still the possibility of 'french' going on such that QM english science cannot read it). But this argument is not conclusive either, since causality claims that probability of outcome does not undermine causality any more than rolling an inderterminate dice does not cause a number to appear on top. Moreover, science is in progress and QM may be supplanted by determinism.
It should be remembered also, that eminent thinkers like Einstein wanted the old cast iron causality back. Indeterminate dice rolling was very uncomfortable.
And getting back to the 'I'. Science is machine detected data analysed. If your conception of humanity is that it isn't a machine because it has free will (intention/choice ?.) then how could a machine conceivably detect it since by your scheme it is without it? Imagine a machine not made of energy or matter. How can it detect energy or matter? How can not 'I' detect 'I', any more than someone who lacks french read french? How can not 'now' detect 'now'?
