Apparently they hold, or computers wouldn't work, the GPS system would be hopeless, and I could fly.
But whether math and the laws of physics actually exist as things or forces, well, I don't really know.
Well if there is no imposition that demands things conform, determinism isn't a problem for free will. And since randomness is nonsensical, as it suggests things happen for no reason at all, that also isn't a concern.
Why would you rule out determinism as a high-level outcome of quantum mechanics? Computers work. They are completely predictable.
Computers as abstractions are completely predictable, as devices they are not. Even then their predictability is due to the causal power of humans rather than a general causal power imposing itself on humans.
Design experiments with small number of states and figure out the required subset. Scientists do this all the time, particularly in particle accelerators and with lasers.
Where do you even begin though? How could we ever get to the point where there were scientists if every event was seen as genuine possible cause to every succeeding event?
It seems to me we recognize there's more to causality than events preceding successive events. Humans seem to have an imperfect but arguably good enough ability to detect causal power.
Something has the power. I'm just not sure if I would say it is the laws. It might be better termed "physical behavior" or something like that.
Well if that something is a Prime Mover, a being of Pure Actuality, then it definitely shifts the assumptions about causation. That would then impact our assessment of whether there's any problem for free will with respect to the rest of the universe.
That might be a perfectly good analogy. Hell, we could be a simulation.
That would only push the problem of causality down to how the simulation is run. If it's an Idealist simulation, as some have suggested***, then I don't really see the problem for free will since Mind(s?) would transcend/supercede Time/Causation.
There's also the Peer to Peer Simulation which suggests a distinction between the world observed and the place of consciousness within it -
Arvan's New Theory of Free Will.
Basically the universe being a simulation seems to raise more questions for the nature of causality than it removes, since now we simply pass on the question of causation to the frame of reality higher than the simulation.
So let's say we can't. What does this have to do with free will?
Free will as a possibility depends on how one thinks causality works. I've already linked to possible models before.
So you'd agree causation depends on effective properties (the nature of the brick that is thrown) and receptive properties (the nature of the window that is impacted)?
*** Notes:
a)
Is the Universe a Self-Computing Consciousness? From Digital Physics to Roycean Idealism
b)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf
The Physical World as a Virtual Reality
Brian Whitworth
c) Bernard Haisch -> IS THE UNIVERSE A VAST, CONSCIOUSNESS CREATED VIRTUAL REALITY SIMULATION?
(Guy is a physicist who helped start the
Digital Universe Foundation)
http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/408/672