Is free-will an illusion?

Events can and should be accounted if you are to use the term cause when establishing will belongs to someone !

So now you are saying that will doesn't belong to someone ? is that it that you haven't said ???

So now you are saying that will doesn't belong to someone ? is that it that you haven't said ???
I cannot see how on hell an infinite amount of events from where we could establish true randomness can be fitted between an agent described as an event in a chain of events and his correlated caused willed action, given an agent has a limited amount of life...any non truly infinite chain of real numbers can be translated into a discrete finite chain of whole numbers from where causation could be deducted...but hell given you had to recur to real numbers to say that mathematical randomness does not preclude free will if we really are to use that argument we ought to look at infinity between infinity's which is what real numbers bottom line intend and refer to...

3) do you understand that we can construct the prefix of a real number from a willed action, for example, from the structure of this post?

you also can reverse that construction into a whole number because you real number sequence is not infinite

If we were sure reality is random which we aren't, the whole issue of infinity would be a damn impediment to free will argument with randomness indeed !

And if you think that mathematical randomness is an impediment to free will, then you definitely haven't understood my argument.

Quote:

And if you think that mathematical randomness is an impediment to free will, then you definitely haven't understood my argument.

So you claim, either you clarify, not just to me but I bet to a great deal of people or you are just muddling the waters

In classical mathematics, the uncountability of the reals ensures that the probability of the expansion of a real number being computable, is zero. We can easily construct the prefix of a real number as an incidental consequence of a willed action. As the probability of the continued expansion of that number being computable is zero, the probability of it being mathematically random is one. This clearly illustrates that mathematical randomness does not conflict with willed actions.
You can reject classical mathematics, but that rather knocks out any appeal to science or infinities. Otherwise, you can just carry on believing and ignore yet another argument.

2) we can demonstrate willed actions which can be mapped to digits to form the prefix of a real number. The probability of the continued expansion of such a number being mathematically random is one. But, we can continue to expand the prefix of that number by mapping digits to our willed actions. In short, willed actions are not incompatible with mathematical randomness.

But if I am right at this point.

So you can't give a definition of prefix here.

You are going to make me search through all your posts to find it.

If we construct the prefix of a real number, by taking my sentences for today and assigning a zero to those containing an even number of letters and a one to those with an odd number, we have a string for which the continuation has a zero probability of being computable. If determinism were true, then Laplace's demon would, in principle, be able to compute the continuation of this string, but that would mean computing an uncomputable number, therefore determinism is false.

This argument is ridiculus by the way.

Presumably you're familiar with the word, so I don't see how the meaning cannot be immediately obvious to you.

So I am supposed to take the prefix in this case to be the number selected from the set {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}->6 and this number is placed in the sequence 78999-6 at the beginning of the sequence.

Why can't you just explain this.