[Scotch78]

There is no logically consistent solution to the free will problem using traditional causality, i.e. A, therefore B. This leaves us with two options. First, we have simply defined the problem incorrectly, that is to say, there are no such things as free will and determinism. Second, causality is not what we think it is.

If you decide to go with option two, then I have some good news: there is a logically consistent explanation of free will. The key is to redefine causality with the form A, therefore ~B. For example, you and nine friends are deciding which of ten bars to hit up tonight. In scenario one, they unanimously force you to bar seven. In scenario two, they allow you to pick the location. However, each friend hates a different bar and vetoes one of your choices such that bar seven is the only option where you can effectively exercise your will. So far, it does not matter which view of causality one takes.

Enter scenario three, where you only have eight friends and can effectively exercise your will by choosing either bar six or seven . . . now traditional causality breaks down. There is a catch though. While we can construct a sound definition of free will by changing our defintion of causality, we cannot maintain our traditional definition of reality with the new causality.

Scott