You cant 100% predict what a person will do without duplicating the entire person and the world they are interacting with.
Even if everything is causally driven by historic circumstance, it is the human that synthesizes that history and computes an action
I dont see how this changes the question of free will from a personal or moral responsibility perspective.
Someone can ascribe no responsibility because actions are just the product of your physical inputs. Similarly, you can ascribe no responsibility because that is how someone's soul is made.
How does someone with free will choose one option and not another? Is it not their character or soul but determines a choice? How could they choose something different without being someone different.
I'm willing to believe that a Choice can't be predetermined or calculated before it happens. What I don't understand is why the choice would ever be different in an identical universe with an identical person making the decision.
This seems to be a paradox of free will. A person has the freedom to choose between options, but choice and will imply this action is based on something, and not purely random. If Free Will choice is based on something, why would the choice be different for the same chooser.
there was no decision that was entirely random yet strongly influencing the future.
however, here is an idea for a possible proof that free will exists: the freedom to believe in god or not. there is nothing in the world or in ones life that can determine that belief. sure, certain experiences can influence that belief, but nothing can determine it. we always have the freedom to either believe or not believe in god. and we can change our mind any time. on the other hand, the choice whether to believe in god or not is able to influence every other choice we make.
In your statement, there is no choice - just a lack of predictability due to unknown starting states.
Individual choice happens if someone believes in an extra-physical soul or not. It happens if you believe in determinism or not.
The question of if someone could have made a different choice is meaningless without an argument for why someone would make have a different choice.
People who do believe in free will make an argument that regardless of the input state, the individual always has a choice what course they take, and is responsible for those decisions.
So for example, if someone chooses to be a concentration camp guard or a capo vs be a prisoner and be murdered - that is their choice, and they are responsible for it.
If free will exists.
It's a rather fundamental philosophical question, actually.
Because those concentration camp guards and capos did pretty evil things, which were also (in their circumstances) often the least 'bad' thing for them. Which enabled evil at a truly massive scale against others because of those other peoples upbringings/genetics.
And those prisoners (most of which had no choice in the matter) mostly ended up dead, and stopped having much of a say in the matter.
This is why it's an important philosophical debate. Because if people play out a script based on their circumstances/upbringing/genetics and have no actual choice in the matter (philosophically), then isn't punishing those guards and capos essentially doing the same thing to them that they did to those prisoners? Hurting them due to factors outside of their (actual) control, even up to murder?
And if we think that upbringing/genetics was a major factor in creating that sort of destructive evil, doesn't that open up the possibility of tracking down and killing/punishing other people based on their upbringing/genetics? Regardless of any individual choices they had made? In this example, other potential concentration camp guards and capos - though it would play out as relatives and those with similar genetic traits and upbringings?
Which then creates the circumstances exactly that was at the root cause of the Holocaust to begin with? Namely, assigning 'goodness' and 'badness' based on some general attribute (ethnicity aka genetics/upbringing, sexual orientation, etc.) that cannot be changed or chosen, and NOT a persons choices (aka did they commit a crime knowing good vs bad)?
My point is that even with free will, you have to have some difference in input to get different output. Normally people invoke metaphysics, but even if you have a soul making the choice, it still has inputs (good soul/bad soul). It is a different object making the choice, but changes nothing about the choice itself.
I think the inside/outside of control argument is arbitrary with respect to responsibility. If you simply look at inputs and output actions, it doesnt matter what goes on the black box. It doesnt matter if it is biology, chemistry, or a soul, you still have a black box that takes inputs and executes an action.
A black box selects an action, no mater the mechanism. The black box is the causal link, independent of "control" or "not".
I'm not a philosophy expert, but this position reminds me consequentialism and Kantian ideas. I think it renders the different positions on free will/choice as distinctions without a difference. Doing something bad because you were programed to it is no better than doing something bad because you chose to.
It doesn't matter if the capos made a choice, were predetermined, or could have done different if they were raised by a loving mother instead.
But that position means all resulting choices are fundamentally due to the inputs, which means there actually is no possibility for a truly independent or ‘free’ choice, no? The outcome was inevitable when the input was fixed, de facto.
That is the crux of the issue.
Notably this debate has been going on as long as we have records, so not like we’re going to ‘solve’ it now.