Free Will

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I'm very confused about free will right now and I have some questions.
1) What defines free will?
2) Is free will compatible with determinism? If so, how is this the case?
3) Is free will provable? (Example: I chose to move my hand to here, therefore free will is reality [to which I respond that doesn't prove that the action is determinism])
4) Is there a correct answer for weather or not free will is reality, or is it just unknown?

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm very confused about free will right now and I have some questions.
1) What defines free will?

That's the million dollar question.

The traditional theistic concept of free will is the choices made by the soul (which is supernatural and distinct from the physical) manifested by an obedient body to follow good or evil, made free of any external force of determinism, as well as free from its own internal determinism (it is in no sense fated), and also non-random. It may be 'influenced' to do good or evil, but this influence is never absolute, so in effect is meaningless when you're talking about an absolutely free agent -- and it's not even statistical, since the free will is not random in nature. The free will can always freely choose to do good or evil against any influence or attempt at compulsion.

This concept is incoherent and impossible.

2) Is free will compatible with determinism? If so, how is this the case?

The theistic concept of free will is not, but it's not even compatible with logic.
It's asking for something both non-deterministic and non-random. Incoherent.
You can do something like that with MWI (which resolves the contradiction by branching the universe), but that's not at all what the notion of free will is asserting.

It's also not compatible with the omniscience of god (in regard to knowing the future).

3) Is free will provable? (Example: I chose to move my hand to here, therefore free will is reality [to which I respond that doesn't prove that the action is determinism])

The theistic concept of free will is unfalsifiable empirically, as most supernatural concepts are.
It is, however, not very difficult to demonstrate it to be incoherent and logically false.

4) Is there a correct answer for weather or not free will is reality, or is it just unknown?

The theistic concept of free will is not reality. It is supernatural, incoherent, false.

There are other definitions of "free will" that are quite different. Whether or not they are useful may be yet to be seen.

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

I'm very confused about free will right now and I have some questions.
1) What defines free will?

That's the million dollar question.

The traditional theistic concept of free will is the choices made by the soul (which is supernatural and distinct from the physical) manifested by an obedient body to follow good or evil, made free of any external force of determinism, as well as free from its own internal determinism (it is in no sense fated), and also non-random. It may be 'influenced' to do good or evil, but this influence is never absolute, so in effect is meaningless when you're talking about an absolutely free agent -- and it's not even statistical, since the free will is not random in nature. The free will can always freely choose to do good or evil against any influence or attempt at compulsion.

I would agree with this definition.

This concept is incoherent and impossible.

2) Is free will compatible with determinism? If so, how is this the case?

The theistic concept of free will is not, but it's not even compatible with logic.
It's asking for something both non-deterministic and non-random. Incoherent.
You can do something like that with MWI (which resolves the contradiction by branching the universe), but that's not at all what the notion of free will is asserting.

Physical processes seem to invariably fall into either the deterministic or random category, but to state that human decision making has to fall into either as well, or be incoherently defined, seems to me to be begging the question. I would say human decision making is not a material/physical process, allowing for a third option: "free", as you define so handsomely above.

It's also not compatible with the omniscience of god (in regards to knowing the future).

This I have to agree with. Although a multiple worlds theory could slightly mitigate the problem. God could then know all possible future worlds but leaves it to individual souls to choose from these potential worlds.

3) Is free will provable? (Example: I chose to move my hand to here, therefore free will is reality [to which I respond that doesn't prove that the action is determinism])

The theistic concept of free will is unfalsifiable empirically, as most supernatural concepts are.
It is, however, not very difficult to demonstrate it to be incoherent and logically false.

I think as a phenomenological experiment we can get some verification, or at least an indication of our freedom of will. For example if we are lying in bed, we can experiment with when we raise our arm. We can feel what faculties of our mind/soul control it. It feels at our own control, free from determinism or randomness. But yet since supposedly since humans are only physical beings (I'm assuming this is your point of view, correct me if I'm wrong), this has to be an illusion, since physical processes have to be determinate or random. So what produces this illusion, what is the mechanism behind it? Unless I have a good reason to doubt my own experiences, I don't believe they are illusions.

4) Is there a correct answer for weather or not free will is reality, or is it just unknown?

I'd say there isn't a consensus among philosophers or physicists, but of course the question has to have a definite, absolute answer.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Physical processes seem to invariably fall into either the deterministic or random category, but to state that human decision making has to fall into either as well, or be incoherently defined, seems to me to be begging the question.

How is it begging question? From what I am aware of begging the question is a form of circular reasoning? I think I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying. Maybe you think it's a false dichotomy? Sorry.

I would say human decision making is not a material/physical process, allowing for a third option: "free", as you define so handsomely above.

How could human decision making not be a material/physical process? This is probably a disgusting straw man, but do you mean human decision making is exempt from the laws of physics which would otherwise govern material/physical processes?

[brimstoneSalad]

Physical processes seem to invariably fall into either the deterministic or random category,

To be more rigorous, randomness is also incoherent in the quantum sense (which can be demonstrated by examining the Copenhagen interpretation, as well as the logical principles of conservation and symmetry).
MWI (which is non-random) resolves that issue.

All processes are either deterministic or result from quantum indeterminism, which (in the MWI context) is non-random, although it may appear to be completely random to us.

So, more accurately we would be dealing with apparent randomness of uncaused quantum events, and not "true" randomness.

but to state that human decision making has to fall into either as well, or be incoherently defined, seems to me to be begging the question.

Not at all, but perhaps I didn't explain it well enough.

To the contrary, asserting there's another source beyond determinism would run into the problem of infinite regress or a more immediate contradiction.

What caused the soul to choose in that way?

A. The metasoul? What caused the metasoul to cause the soul to choose that way? etc.
B. It caused itself? Well there's another contradiction.

Or, is it just in the nature of the soul to choose in a certain way? (good or evil)
In which case, this is simply the soul's nature, and there is no free will involved.

There's no logical way to frame what you want to express, because it's incoherent. It's like trying to prove 0=1. Very much like this, because you're asking for something to come from nothing.

And to appeal to such an illogical notion is just a "god works in mysterious (illogical) ways" cop-out which proves the non-existence of these entities logically (since they're by definition incompatible with logic).

I would say human decision making is not a material/physical process, allowing for a third option: "free", as you define so handsomely above.

That's a false dichotomy.
You should know that matter and energy are the same kinds of things in different states, and so is ANY kind of information we can interact with.

That may be a tough pill to swallow, but let me be clear: The laws of physics don't just apply to matter and energy, but by necessity of logic they apply to anything that can interact with matter or energy of any kind in a way that carries information. This is very important to understand (read about Bell's inequality).
Any "soul" postulated and its interactions with reality MUST also obey the bounds of relativity or it creates logical contradictions (which essentially binds it to the same basic laws of physics if it has any control over physical bodies or anything that acts in our world).

If you want to affect the physical or energy world, you have to bear information or instruction INTO it in a way that doesn't violate logic.
How do you propose the soul does this? How does that conversion happen?

You may need to brush up a bit on quantum physics in order to answer that (in order, actually, to realize you can't answer it and that it's impossible). Anyway, those questions should put you on the right track.

This I have to agree with. Although a multiple worlds theory could slightly mitigate the problem. God could then know all possible future worlds but leaves it to individual souls to choose from these potential worlds.

Sure, why not, let's explore this concept.

Do you realize the number of worlds vastly outnumbers the number of souls by a magnitude so large as to make it practically impossible to find a universe that has even one soul "in" it among the bunch?
So, not only is everybody around you soulless, but you're probably soulless too since there is no way for you to know if the world you're in is the one the soul chose, since by definition you must think and behave in exactly the same way with and without a soul (otherwise God would know which route the soul chose/would choose).

See any problems with that?

This concept solves the above problem about it being impossible for the soul to influence the physical world without obeying the laws of the physical world, since the soul doesn't influence the physical world, it just picks one from a nearly infinitely long list that it fancies and there is no flow of information from the soul to the body.

I'm not sure if it fits with what you would describe as free will though, or could have any practical spiritual significance whatsoever.

For example if we are lying in bed, we can experiment[...]

That's not an experiment. That's just asking yourself: "do I feel like I have free will?"
An experiment yields results that control for the bias of the experimenter.

However, if you consider something like that evidence (it isn't), then free will can be experimentally proven not to exist.
We can use FMRI to show that from brain scans we know what you're going to do before you know you've decided to do it. So, if you consider that result to be evidence in your experiment, the machine beat you to it. Before you even had the feeling of choosing, the machine already knows what you're going to choose.
Is that because it's deterministic? Well, like I said, if you accept that standard of evidence, that experiment just did you one better.

But yet since supposedly since humans are only physical beings (I'm assuming this is your point of view, correct me if I'm wrong), this has to be an illusion, since physical processes have to be determinate or random. So what produces this illusion, what is the mechanism behind it?

Projection, and retrospective analysis produces it. This is becoming quite well understood.

We think back on the choices we make, and imagine making different ones when we have new information, which creates the illusion that we could have done differently (since we see that play out in our minds). It's a necessary illusion in order to engage in that analysis.
The same thing when we plan out something we'll choose to do in the future.

Unless I have a good reason to doubt my own experiences, I don't believe they are illusions.

Good thing there are many good reasons to do that.

1. Logic
2. Physics, relativity and quantum
3. Direct empirical evidence (FMRI)
4. Cognitive models of decision making

I'd say there isn't a consensus among philosophers or physicists

If true, that doesn't mean much.

And it means even less since the field of philosophy is filled with pseudo-philosophers (since it is academically non-rigorous, which is a shame), and scientists have very little interest in non-empirical thought. Physicists aren't even all atheists; some of them believe in the traditional Abrahamic deity.

Although despite that there is actually very nearly a consensus in philosophy about both the traditional Abrahamic concept of god, and the theistic concept of free will; IIRC they are overwhelmingly rejected. It's about as much consensus as that the Bible isn't literally true.
They'll never be 100%, because people can believe crazy things.

[33floor]

Sam Harris goes into this in detail I would subset looking up his video on free will if you haven't

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

B. It caused itself? Well there's another contradiction.

Yeah so to state self-causation is contradictory is to rule out free will from the get-go. Why is self-causation contradictory? We see causal relationships in the material world, why would all dimensions of existence have to abide by those rules? Doesn't the big bang theory basically put a one-sided end to causation anyway?

There wouldn't be a material way to distinguish between a universe with a free will and one without. The idea that theories should make falsifiable predictions or be discarded is something I don't agree with. There are many uses to a worldview besides making predictions.

There's no logical way to frame what you want to express, because it's incoherent. It's like trying to prove 0=1. Very much like this, because you're asking for something to come from nothing.

It could just be our language is suited to the material environment and therefor not able to express the freedom of the soul.

That's a false dichotomy.
You should know that matter and energy are the same kinds of things in different states, and so is ANY kind of information we can interact with.

That may be a tough pill to swallow, but let me be clear: The laws of physics don't just apply to matter and energy, but by necessity of logic they apply to anything that can interact with matter or energy of any kind in a way that carries information. This is very important to understand (read about Bell's inequality).
Any "soul" postulated and its interactions with reality MUST also obey the bounds of relativity or it creates logical contradictions (which essentially binds it to the same basic laws of physics if it has any control over physical bodies or anything that acts in our world).

If you want to affect the physical or energy world, you have to bear information or instruction INTO it in a way that doesn't violate logic.
How do you propose the soul does this? How does that conversion happen?

You may need to brush up a bit on quantum physics in order to answer that (in order, actually, to realize you can't answer it and that it's impossible). Anyway, those questions should put you on the right track.

I don't understand this, but we know that our modern physics are not complete right now. One way (I don't know if it works) to get around getting information into the world, is if we imagine the soul (all souls together) steering the world into a certain direction, the information isn't transported into the actual world, but into a meta-world that consists of a branch of possible paths the current world could take. To make this at all a viable theory, we would have to have a better understanding of what time is, probably. Do you know if there is consensus on whether time is discrete amongst physicists? Like a planck-time? That would involve uniting relativity and QM, and we haven't done that yet.

This I have to agree with. Although a multiple worlds theory could slightly mitigate the problem. God could then know all possible future worlds but leaves it to individual souls to choose from these potential worlds.

Sure, why not, let's explore this concept.

Do you realize the number of worlds vastly outnumbers the number of souls by a magnitude so large as to make it practically impossible to find a universe that has even one soul "in" it among the bunch?
So, not only is everybody around you soulless, but you're probably soulless too since there is no way for you to know if the world you're in is the one the soul chose, since by definition you must think and behave in exactly the same way with and without a soul (otherwise God would know which route the soul chose/would choose).

See any problems with that?

This concept solves the above problem about it being impossible for the soul to influence the physical world without obeying the laws of the physical world, since the soul doesn't influence the physical world, it just picks one from a nearly infinitely long list that it fancies and there is no flow of information from the soul to the body.

I'm not sure if it fits with what you would describe as free will though, or could have any practical spiritual significance whatsoever.

The way I would see it is that there's a current world at any given time, and that from there on out branch countably many worlds that depend on the combined souls decisions of all souls that make decisions.


Will respond to the rest of your post, (fMRI and models of decision making) later,
peace,

[brimstoneSalad]

Yeah so to state self-causation is contradictory is to rule out free will from the get-go. Why is self-causation contradictory?

It's not to simply state it; it's clearly so. This is simply by necessity of logic, based on the notion of causation itself.

It's like the idea that you can go back in time (within the same universe/time line) and kill yourself before you went back in time to kill yourself. It creates a contradiction.

In order for a thing to cause itself, it must exist before it exists to cause itself. Causation is a temporal notion. It's an inherently dependent notion. Violating causality creates all kinds of contradictions that violate logic.

If your belief relies on that, you're throwing out logic entirely.
Even most fundamentalist Christians see god as timeless eternal and uncaused, because even they know self causation is problematic. Unfortunately, they don't understand that a thing outside of time acting in time is also problematic.

We see causal relationships in the material world, why would all dimensions of existence have to abide by those rules?

As I explained, they have to if they interact with our world in any way, or it creates contradictions.

Doesn't the big bang theory basically put a one-sided end to causation anyway?

No. For that, you need to understand more quantum physics.
There are uncaused things; things that are such by virtue of symmetry.

A will can be as such too, but that means for every decision to go right, the will has also decided to go left, and each of these are equally real and true in every essential way.

Breaking symmetry is a HUGE problem.

There wouldn't be a material way to distinguish between a universe with a free will and one without.

Then it has no material effect. Simple. As far as we're concerned, it doesn't exist.

The idea that theories should make falsifiable predictions or be discarded is something I don't agree with.

Then you disagree with word usage. By definition, it is NOT a theory if it can't make falsifiable predictions. Please stop misusing the term, it's dishonest.

There are many uses to a worldview besides making predictions.

A worldview is something else. But, you also have to recognize every worldview which isn't falsifiable as equally valid and true. It rather dwarfs your little assumptions under a mountain of other unfalsifiable metaphysical constructs. Some you might like, some you may hate, but unless you're ready to be a raging hypocrite, all of which you must accept as equally true.

It could just be our language is suited to the material environment and therefor not able to express the freedom of the soul.

I'm not talking about language, I'm talking about logic.

And if you're throwing logic out the window now, that's the last piece of the puzzle to make you completely closed minded.
There is no reason to carry on a conversation with the pretext of logic with somebody who completely rejects logic.
I hope you're not trying to disregard logic.

I don't understand this,

Correct.

One way (I don't know if it works) to get around getting information into the world, is if we imagine the soul (all souls together) steering the world into a certain direction, the information isn't transported into the actual world, but into a meta-world that consists of a branch of possible paths the current world could take.

That would be fine, except for that "world" is 'outside of time', unchanging, innate (it's equally accurate to say it doesn't exist). There is no means to act in such a context. It would be like rearranging the numbers on the number line; it doesn't make any sense. You can change around the symbols so they refer to different things, but rearranging the numbers themselves is impossible.

You can't get new information into the world from an uncaused and unbound outside space.

To make this at all a viable theory, we would have to have a better understanding of what time is, probably.

Our understanding of time is sufficient to know what you're describing doesn't make sense. Physics doesn't undo itself with greater understanding, it just clarifies details. The biggest shift in recent history -- relativity -- didn't make Newtonian physics completely wrong; it's just an approximation for objects moving at low relative velocities.

Relativity did introduce something essential for you to understand now, though: Reference frames.
Our lives, our reality, are what they are because of our reference frames. From INSIDE we see all of this stuff; all of this information. Outside a reference frame, there is nothing. Outside a reference frame there can be nothing: the notion is logically incoherent.

What you're asking for is a world without a reference frame, or with an absolute reference frame. It doesn't and can't exist.

Do you know if there is consensus on whether time is discrete amongst physicists? Like a planck-time? That would involve uniting relativity and QM, and we haven't done that yet.

Planck time is just the time it takes light to travel a planck length. Planck length (more specifically) isn't really like length the way you imagine it.
It's not relevant to the topic, but if you're interested, read more about it, wiki has a summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

It has to do with uncertainty in measurement.

It's an interesting topic, just not relevant to anything here. Neither interpretation would give you what you're looking for.

The way I would see it is that there's a current world at any given time, and that from there on out branch countably many worlds that depend on the combined souls decisions of all souls that make decisions.

What, do they vote?

Putting aside these souls' inability to make decisions in time by just assuming they're all timeless and have already decided states/votes based on their natures (accounting for perfect knowledge of all possible realities), and ignoring that there's no explanation as to why they have those natures...

What about conflicts of interest? One soul wants to abuse, and another wants to not be abused?
Or do you think they're always unanimous, and that every suffering and miserable being in the world has an evil "soul" creature hanging just outside our reality -- having by its nature timelessly 'chosen' our reality -- that timelessly wants/wanted that to happen to them/for that to be the 'real' reality?

If it's not unanimous, how are the votes weighted?

And if these souls aren't evil and don't relish the suffering of their designated bodies (arbitrarily designated, apparently, since there's no link between soul and body), then the universe must be weighted so that the happy and prosperous (like many humans, particularly whites and first world humans) are considered more important than the suffering (like factory farmed non-humans, or third world humans) -- because they are certainly less numerous. And why would they be so sadistic as to choose for so many others to suffer?

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

The idea that theories should make falsifiable predictions or be discarded is something I don't agree with.

Then you disagree with word usage. By definition, it is NOT a theory if it can't make falsifiable predictions. Please stop misusing the term, it's dishonest.

Well, theory is a word that is used not just to designate 'scientific theory', it can mean a way of looking at the world (look up the etymology, it's from spectating from a distance, contemplating), speculation, conception, contemplation or conjecture. You're making it sound as if every time I use the word 'theory' I secretly mean 'scientific theory'. It's not dishonest to use a word in its general colloquial everyday use, rather than the specific niche-meaning of 'scientific theory'. Please don't call me dishonest. I've always argued in good faith.

Yeah so to state self-causation is contradictory is to rule out free will from the get-go. Why is self-causation contradictory?

It's not to simply state it; it's clearly so. This is simply by necessity of logic, based on the notion of causation itself.

It's like the idea that you can go back in time (within the same universe/time line) and kill yourself before you went back in time to kill yourself. It creates a contradiction.

In order for a thing to cause itself, it must exist before it exists to cause itself. Causation is a temporal notion. It's an inherently dependent notion. Violating causality creates all kinds of contradictions that violate logic.

If your belief relies on that, you're throwing out logic entirely.
Even most fundamentalist Christians see god as timeless eternal and uncaused, because even they know self causation is problematic. Unfortunately, they don't understand that a thing outside of time acting in time is also problematic.

I probably should have used 'uncaused'. The decisions of the soul are uncaused.
I see the problem with material self-causality as material causility is indeed temporal.

There wouldn't be a material way to distinguish between a universe with a free will and one without.

Then it has no material effect. Simple. As far as we're concerned, it doesn't exist.

The concept ensures we care about the future. I know this is an appeal to consequences, so it doesn't make the concept true. I need to think about this all some more. Just because the two universes are materially indistinguishable doesn't mean they're phenomenologically indistinguishable. But so far you've been very skeptical of our phenomenological world showing us anything other than our brains biases, so yeah..

There are many uses to a worldview besides making predictions.

A worldview is something else. But, you also have to recognize every worldview which isn't falsifiable as equally valid and true. It rather dwarfs your little assumptions under a mountain of other unfalsifiable metaphysical constructs. Some you might like, some you may hate, but unless you're ready to be a raging hypocrite, all of which you must accept as equally true.

I recognize this point as well - that all indistinguishable 'theories' must have an equal truth value.

It could just be our language is suited to the material environment and therefor not able to express the freedom of the soul.

I'm not talking about language, I'm talking about logic.

And if you're throwing logic out the window now, that's the last piece of the puzzle to make you completely closed minded.
There is no reason to carry on a conversation with the pretext of logic with somebody who completely rejects logic.
I hope you're not trying to disregard logic.

Well, logic as I understand it is just the study of the interactions between truth values under logical operations. These rules are so general they have to hold everywhere.

I don't understand this,

Correct.

One way (I don't know if it works) to get around getting information into the world, is if we imagine the soul (all souls together) steering the world into a certain direction, the information isn't transported into the actual world, but into a meta-world that consists of a branch of possible paths the current world could take.

That would be fine, except for that "world" is 'outside of time', unchanging, innate (it's equally accurate to say it doesn't exist). There is no means to act in such a context. It would be like rearranging the numbers on the number line; it doesn't make any sense. You can change around the symbols so they refer to different things, but rearranging the numbers themselves is impossible.

I don't know about this world being outside of time. I'd say the branch is continuously collapsing to one actualized world, at our current time as time progresses.

To make this at all a viable theory, we would have to have a better understanding of what time is, probably.

Our understanding of time is sufficient to know what you're describing doesn't make sense. Physics doesn't undo itself with greater understanding, it just clarifies details. The biggest shift in recent history -- relativity -- didn't make Newtonian physics completely wrong; it's just an approximation for objects moving at low relative velocities.

Relativity did introduce something essential for you to understand now, though: Reference frames.
Our lives, our reality, are what they are because of our reference frames. From INSIDE we see all of this stuff; all of this information. Outside a reference frame, there is nothing. Outside a reference frame there can be nothing: the notion is logically incoherent.

What you're asking for is a world without a reference frame, or with an absolute reference frame. It doesn't and can't exist.

A reference frame just needs to exist for a time- and space-bound observer. You can guess who/what would be the observer without a reference frame. Anyway I just want to say I really appreciate the depth of the discussions I'm having with you, I'm not used to it from other forums.

The way I would see it is that there's a current world at any given time, and that from there on out branch countably many worlds that depend on the combined souls decisions of all souls that make decisions.

What, do they vote?

Putting aside these souls' inability to make decisions in time by just assuming they're all timeless and have already decided states/votes based on their natures (accounting for perfect knowledge of all possible realities), and ignoring that there's no explanation as to why they have those natures...

What about conflicts of interest? One soul wants to abuse, and another wants to not be abused?
Or do you think they're always unanimous, and that every suffering and miserable being in the world has an evil "soul" creature hanging just outside our reality -- having by its nature timelessly 'chosen' our reality -- that timelessly wants/wanted that to happen to them/for that to be the 'real' reality?

If it's not unanimous, how are the votes weighted?

And if these souls aren't evil and don't relish the suffering of their designated bodies (arbitrarily designated, apparently, since there's no link between soul and body), then the universe must be weighted so that the happy and prosperous (like many humans, particularly whites and first world humans) are considered more important than the suffering (like factory farmed non-humans, or third world humans) -- because they are certainly less numerous. And why would they be so sadistic as to choose for so many others to suffer?

The souls decide individually their own cause of action. The sum total of these decisions makes us enter the next world out of a branch, a discrete very small step of time later.

If a person wants to abuse the laws of the universe, they can do that - the souls decisions are bound by the regular laws of the universe. In other words, if someone is hitting you, you can't just 'teleport' away.

So why does the human race collectively choose for a world where many people don't have it well, like in the third world? Well, a lot of people are selfish and afraid. They are afraid that by sharing they won't have enough, so they exploit others (including animals) to avoid feeling this fear.

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, theory is a word that is used not just to designate 'scientific theory', it can mean a way of looking at the world (look up the etymology, it's from spectating from a distance, contemplating), speculation, conception, contemplation or conjecture.

Theory is a word with extremely strong scientific connotations, and you know it. By using science sounding words unscientifically, you are stealing the credibility of science for something that has nothing to do with science.
This is inherently deceptive, and why pseudoscience is so dangerous; it masquerades as something it is not.

You're making it sound as if every time I use the word 'theory' I secretly mean 'scientific theory'.

You know that's the perception. There are many other words (indeed, almost all other synonyms) for you to use if you do not want to imply that your belief is scientific in nature. Scientific terminology has not monopolized the entirety of English vocabulary. You listed many other alternatives yourself.
At best, you've merely made your arguments accidentally confusing and deceptive, but more nefariously (perhaps even subconsciously) you may be using these words in order to imbue your arguments with a false sense of being scientific. I don't have a high tolerance for those kinds of shenanigans.

It's not dishonest to use a word in its general colloquial everyday use, rather than the specific niche-meaning of 'scientific theory'.

In this kind of discussion? Yes it is. It is the mark of dishonest rhetoric for faith based or irrational claims to deliberately use scientific connotative terminology.
It's even insulting that "string theory" has theory in the title. It shouldn't. It may not even be String Hypothesis; more like String Model.

Advocating using (and accepting the usage of) "theory" in a non-rigorous way just confuses people about what "theory" actually means, and undermines acceptance of legitimate scientific theories.

Have you seen me talk about how using "literally" to mean "figuratively" is a problem? This is much more serious than that. Using words in a way that undermines their functional usage reduces the overall utility of language for communication and is self defeating.

Please don't call me dishonest. I've always argued in good faith.

Just don't use that word unless you actually mean "scientific theory". That's the most honest usage. You have other words you can use instead if you don't mean "scientific theory".
If you use the word theory non-rigorously, knowing the rigorous definition, you will be seen as dishonest.

Most people do it in ignorance, you don't have that excuse. I think you can do better.

The concept ensures we care about the future. I know this is an appeal to consequences, so it doesn't make the concept true.

It doesn't ensure anything.
Not only do plenty of people care about the future without believing in theistic notions of free will, but when you put it outside time, what you're really saying is that it's all already decided; fate, predestination. That is in no way superior to the simple material-quantum view.

I don't know about this world being outside of time. I'd say the branch is continuously collapsing to one actualized world, at our current time as time progresses.

Well, that's good in that at least we're not dealing with predestination anymore.

But now you're introducing information into the universe by forcing it into one true state -- from within time, as local causality -- while all other states are forced to be false, and as such you're back to being bound to the laws of this reality.

What you would essentially be doing is advocating a Copenhagen interpretation, including all of the limitations of locality and relativity. Except you trade in random wave function collapse, for an uncaused "free will" causing the collapse, which is indistinguishable in all ways from being purely random.

At issue there is not just the loss of symmetry (which is a big one; where does that information come from? Only MWI adequately answers that), but also a new kind of geocentrism: "current time" is not a thing unless you also deal with a "current place" and reference frame. Which means there's a center to the universe (presumably here), and all other places (all other worlds) come secondary to ours.

Due to the time delay involved, it would mean all other worlds would lack free will, and Earth would be the only place in the universe where there was free will.
Light speed time delay on Earth isn't terribly bad, but we're still dealing with a measurable delay from ground zero for "free will". About 42.5 milliseconds for everybody on Earth (round trip), if you place ground zero at the center of the Earth.

You might find this kind of delay acceptable, but if you went to the moon, you would no longer have free will.

Does that make a lot of sense?

And moreover, the delay might be too long: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... conds.html
We can process information fast.
And we make decisions before we even realize it:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/ ... 8.751.html

It might even be impossible for everybody on Earth (particularly opposite sides) to have free will.
Maybe even just one person on Earth (in the universe) has free will? Solipsism, we meet again.

And if you believe the Earth isn't the only planet in the universe where there's free will, you have an even bigger problem (insurmountable).

A reference frame just needs to exist for a time- and space-bound observer. You can guess who/what would be the observer without a reference frame.

You misunderstand. Information has no meaning without a reference frame.

How fast is that dog running? Ten miles an hour? No. It depends on how fast you're moving -- your reference frame.
Nothing can be observed without a reference frame, because there is no absolute reference frame by which metric we possess objective qualities (be that energy, velocity, etc.).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame

"Observer" doesn't make sense out of the context of space and time.

If your souls are not in space and time, or interacting with it (which is the same thing as being in it, because they're bound by the same laws by virtue or vice of that interaction), then they can not observe. Which means they either have to "know" everything (be omniscient, and "know" all possible worlds and futures), or know nothing at all.

Without a reference frame you do not get one single universe. You get a multiverse of all possible branches of all possible universes.

The souls decide individually their own cause of action. The sum total of these decisions makes us enter the next world out of a branch, a discrete very small step of time later.

But if they're outside time, they're not making the decisions in time. See above. You run into the geocentrism problem.

If a person wants to abuse the laws of the universe, they can do that - the souls decisions are bound by the regular laws of the universe. In other words, if someone is hitting you, you can't just 'teleport' away.

You seem to underestimate the power of omniscience. If that decision for you to be in that place and time was innate from outside time, based on omniscient knowledge, then you 'chose' to be there to get hit.
You could have just not gone there, since you (or your soul) knew ahead of time that's the place and time of confluence where you get hit (or by any other means, avoided that).

Every time you don't win the lottery, your soul chose that. Every time you suffer, your soul chose that for you.
This notion says that everybody gets precisely what they want (or, what their souls timelessly want based on their immutable natures).

Hurricane kills a million people? Some asshole butterfly soul chose to do that by flapping its wings. And everybody else equally chose for it to happen by cooperating in the confluence.

So why does the human race collectively choose for a world where many people don't have it well, like in the third world? Well, a lot of people are selfish and afraid. They are afraid that by sharing they won't have enough, so they exploit others (including animals) to avoid feeling this fear.

Why would any of that matter to timeless omniscient souls?
They don't feel anything.
And if they cared about that, well, everybody could just have everything. All the souls would have to do is choose it. They're omniscient, which incidentally (due to the power of knowledge and potential of quantum events) also makes them omnipotent.

This raises again the important question: What happens when two souls disagree?
When two omniscient and omnipotent powers can not decide on the same outcome, what happens?
They can't discuss it, they're outside of time. They can't change.

Do they cancel each other out? Does that mean that only souls that agree on the outcome of all reality have free will?

If so, since the souls had their natures independently without consideration for each other, the odds of any two souls having made exactly the same decisions throughout time are astronomically small. Meaning nobody has free will, since all souls' wills ultimately conflict.
That is, you only have 'free will' if you will to happen what was going to happen anyway?
Or perhaps the universe only exists because two lucky souls happened (with astronomical improbability) to will the exact same thing, so only two people in the whole universe have free will?

Or does reality branch? If so, that brings us back to our original problem. Only one soul per universe.

Anyway I just want to say I really appreciate the depth of the discussions I'm having with you, I'm not used to it from other forums.

Sure. Just please try not to insult us or misuse words.
You may not mean to, but try to understand how irritating that is.