This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free will article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

	Free will is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 21, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept August 26, 2006 Featured article review Kept June 8, 2008 Featured article review Kept May 12, 2012 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Ethics / Social and political High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Ethics Social and political philosophy Neuroscience Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Travis Kriplean, Ivan Beschastnikh, David W. McDonald, Scott A. Golder (November 2007). "Community, Consensus, Coercion, Control: CS*W or How Policy Mediates Mass Participation" (PDF). University of Washington.((cite news)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

To-do list for Free will: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2012-12-20 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : According to Tesseract2 (talk · contribs), since September 2010 "There is excess information - links and briefer summaries are needed" Expand : *Lead Other : *Balance of religious material okay? Mention the argument from free will in the article? Seek external peer review and feedback Diagram accurate? Beyond this article: Work on subarticles such as free will in theology A page on Wikiquote might be appropriate Disambiguation suggestion: the 1993 film "Free Willy"

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Listen to this page (42 minutes)

This audio file was created from a revision of this page dated 15 September 2006 (2006-09-15), and does not reflect subsequent edits.

(Audio help · More spoken articles)

Metaphysical libertarians believe in free will and that individuals should be able to make their own choices without external constraints. As a result, they often view freedom and liberty as central values in their philosophy.

However, different people may have different understandings of what these terms mean. For metaphysical libertarians, freedom and liberty may be tightly linked to their belief in free will and individual autonomy. They may view any external constraints on an individual's actions or choices as an infringement on their freedom and liberty.

Therefore, to ensure that these concepts align with their philosophical beliefs, metaphysical libertarians may seek to control the meaning of the words "freedom" and "liberty." They may argue that the common usage of these terms does not accurately capture their specific philosophical views, and may therefore insist on defining these terms in a way that aligns with their beliefs.

Overall, the desire to control the meaning of these words is likely rooted in the deep-seated belief that freedom and liberty are fundamental to their worldview and that any deviation from their understanding of these concepts would threaten their philosophical beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edunoramus (talk • contribs) 16:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text reads that Quantum Physics provides a serious counterpoint to determinism, yet there is no explanation given. I wanted to add a why? tag but it didn't work. Superposition of particles does not dispute causality. Desdinova (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way the opening sentence is worded, "free will" is a scientific fact, not a belief, feeling, or theory. 2600:8801:BE01:7C00:D7:BFCA:E351:6CA7 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D'accorde. I've edited it to suggest the ambiguity you refer to. AbominableIntelligence (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the article discusses numerous definitions of free will, shouldn't the first paragraph be a more general or historical introduction rather than one particular definition of free will? Citation Maven (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessed article as it fails the B-class criteria. About half the "Further reading" needs trimming. I read where only 3% of Wikipedia articles have this section and apparently, someone felt it should be exhaustive here. Otr500 (talk)

External links

I am cutting all but the top three "External links". Some future discussions may change these around. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Organizational structure of 'Incompatibilism' section:

1a. Make the 3 causal theory sections into subsections of 'Metaphysical libertarianism': The current structure places non-causal, event-causal, and agent-causal theories as their own sections directly under 'Incompatibilism' (on the same tier as 'Metaphysical libertarianism'), rather than as subsections within/under 'Metaphysical libertarianism' (where it would seem to fit more logically).

1b. Remove 'Theological determinism' from 'Incompatibilism': The article places 'Theological determinism' under 'Incompatibilism', which seems off since most theological determinists believe in free will despite this determinism.

1c. Move 'Causal determinism' & 'Logical determinism' subsections from 'Hard incompatibilism' to 'Hard determinism': 'Causal determinism' & 'Logical determinism' are listed, and briefly explained, in 'Hard determinism', but then given subsections under 'Hard incompatibilism'.

2. Content of the 'Metaphysical libertarianism' section/paragraph seems unclear:

2a. Missing Physical Theories: The section outlines that libertarianism is divided into non-physical theories & physical/naturalistic theories, but the discussion only focuses on non-physical theories. There's a brief mention that physical determinism is incompatible with libertarian free will, but nothing on physical/naturalistic theories that support libertarian free will.

2b. Description of Causal Theories: The paragraph ends with "Incompatibilist theories can be categorised based on the type of indeterminism they require...", which seems a bit confusing, as it:

a) refers to these (libertarian) causal theories with the more broad label of "incompatibilist theories" (rather than a more specific 'libertarian causal theories'), and

b) the text categorizes the theories "based on the type of indeterminism they require" rather than the source (or philosophical underpinnings) of free will within libertarianism. Wouldn't it be more clear to rephrase this to highlight the theories' foundational principles related to free will, such as sourcehood or self-determination?

Proposed draft of 'Metaphysical libertarianism' section:

'...metaphysical libertarians draw upon both non-physical and physical theories of free will:

• Non-Physical Theories of Indeterminism: Many metaphysical libertarians argue that aspects of human existence, such as the mind, soul, or will, transcend the purely physical realm. From this perspective, our choices cannot be fully explained by physical laws. This view aligns with concepts like interactionist dualism, where a non-physical entity is believed to interact with and influence physical systems. This leaves space for the possibility that our non-physical selves can act as a cause of physical actions, allowing for freedom from physical determinism.
• Physical Theories of Indeterminism: Other metaphysical libertarians focus on physical indeterminism as a potential source of free will. They highlight the unpredictable nature of quantum events at the subatomic level. This indeterminacy creates openings within what might otherwise be a strictly deterministic universe, suggesting that future outcomes are not solely predetermined by prior events. This perspective raises the possibility that free will might be compatible with physical laws through a non-deterministic understanding of the universe.

Metaphysical libertarianism offers three approaches for understanding how free will might operate (based on the type of indeterminism they require):

• Agent-causal Theories (based on Agent-causation): Agents (self or soul) are a causal influence beyond that of their internal (mental/psychological) state, making them uncaused causes or originators of choice, rather than choices being solely determined by prior events, states or circumstances.
• Event-causal Theories (based on non-deterministically caused events): Decisions stem from a chain of events involving the agent's mental states (like reasons and desires), where indeterminism opens up the possibility of different outcomes. Unlike agent-causal theories, they don't insist on a uniquely irreducible power of the agent as the source of free will, instead emphasizing the causal influence of mental states within a non-deterministic framework.
• Non-causal Theories (based on uncaused events): Decisions may be inherently free and autonomous, as either uncaused or influenced nondeterministically, breaking the traditional chain of causality, thus enabling self-determination without the need for prior events or internal causal structures.'

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]