Freewill is change

No in other words you can't make a math equation for it, because the equations existance and the knowledge of that equations results are intoducing variables that the previous equation did not account for. This would go for eternity, so the equation you have presented is self contradicting.

No it isn't. Free will is the idea that change can happen apart from the causal laws of the universe.

I think I understand your position now but this is why I don't agree. As a human being we never do anything that contradicts our identity if we do something than it came from our identity. If we could arbitraily choose our identity than we would have free will. But our identity is something that cannot be changed in a absolute way (even if it could it be determined by what the current identity wanted to be and the identity would want a certain identity because of previous events). It can slightly changed by the enviroment (determinism). Hence no free will.

Not at all. There are only two possibilities, you fall off or you dont, and as you're human, you can only change your mind a finite number of times before tomorrow 3:00am. Whereas, in principle, the calculation can be performed an infinite number of times in a finite period, by supertasking.

exactly

so Freewill is change

and causal laws are determined

But this conception of free will seems closer to omnipotence. One doesn't say "If we could arbitrarily choose how tall we are then we would have free will". So why define free will as you have here?

We do things in accordance with our inner self. Having a self and having conscious control are what gives us free will in my opinion.

But this conception of free will seems closer to omnipotence. One doesn't say "If we could arbitrarily choose how tall we are then we would have free will". So why define free will as you have here?

We do things in accordance with our inner self. Having a self and having conscious control are what gives us free will in my opinion.

Infinites only exist in concept

the results of the equation you present to me would never be accurate

It's an illucid definition of free will. Free will is the ability and exercise of conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives, so free will requires at least three things:
1) an agent
2) a set of realisable alternatives
3) a means of evaluating the alternatives.

If hypercomputation is viable, you're mistaken, and in any case, we're talking about things that are possible in principle.I've just explained to you why the result would be accurate.

It's an illucid definition of free will. Free will is the ability and exercise of conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives, so free will requires at least three things:
1) an agent
2) a set of realisable alternatives
3) a means of evaluating the alternatives.

It is funny that you say omnipotence is needed for free will because i could not have said it better myself!! Omnipotence is needed to escape the causal laws of the universe. To have free will existance would either have to be the projection of your consciousness as an omnipotent being or you would have to be outside of existance (This is self contradictory)

5) A way to attain this knowledge with no outside or inner source.

I agree with these three. Causal determinism is a requirement for 3 (along with consciousness). 2 is often used as an argument against free will (the idea that if your actions were caused, you had no alternative), but I don't think it's a good one. What was caused was my choosing between alternatives. But that's just a description of what happened, not a claim that I was forced.



I think you have to say why you are defining free will in that way. Because that is not how it has been debated; your definition is unusual. You needn't have invoked determinism or offered proofs for it if all you had to say was "we are not omnipotent; therefore we do not have free will".

No actually you didn't. you are disregarding what I said. Even if 3 am came the Equation would still be computing and it would be for eternity. So the equation would never be predicting anything.

Nonsense. I can demonstrate free will, that's to say I can demonstrate my ability to perform two actions and I can demonstrate a conscious choice of one of those actions. If this world is determined, then there is a fact about which choice I will make on all future occasions. There's also a fact about whether a tossed coin will show heads or tails. Nobody seriously doubts that I can decide to coordinate my choice with the result of a tossed coin, according to any arbitrarily chosen system of matching, and that I can do this for an indefinite number of consecutive choices. This entails that the probability of determinism being true is infinitely small and the probability of free will being true is infinitely large.

No actually you didn't. you are disregarding what I said.

Yes I did and I pointed out why what you said was incorrect. If you dont know what supertasking is, look it up.

the only choices you have knowledge are the choices that have been made apparent through the means of determinsm.

That isn't nonsense... the only choices you have knowledge are the choices that have been made apparent through the means of determinsm. Your ability to choose among the choices is limited by it.
And what you claim to be a choice are just chemical and electrical impulses in a brain that developed through evolution (cause and effect) and the processes are also determined by genes and enviromental conditioning.

I know what it is and it isn't logically coherent.