This is not a proof, this is an assertion. Your ice cream argument spends a lot of time discussing the factors that make up the determining of intent but it can’t determine intent. This is something you said – it’s too complex to determine but theoretically possible. This is another assertion. There are other explanations for ‘atomic noise’ than the hidden variable argument (but that’s a different discussion).
Uh, you know that be making it look like symbolic logic, doesn’t make it, poof, a proof, right?
I argue that even if your or my intent were predictable (And believe it or not, they are predictable sometimes, it happens.), you still have free will because it won’t change the fact that that’s what you or I want to do (something you don’t deny). I argue that even if hard determinism is true, it doesn’t lead to a lack of free will. Why? Because it’s just a description of the act, it, the belief in hard determinism, completely ignores intent by reducing it to it’s component parts but doing this doesn’t make intent disappear – anymore than a ship disappears when you describe it in terms of its component parts. You ascribe intent all the time or at least you have and that’s what free will is about, not determination.
If you want to give up on free will, you have to drop intent, but that makes it extremely difficult to live with other people, doesn’t it?
So my proof would be your own experience in this little experiment.
But what’s worse is the sheer confusion that hard determinism actually creates as seen in the last two comments. Hard determinism, perhaps because it means so little to our everyday lives, seems destined (determined?) to be confused with apathy and futilism. Why are we arguing if everything is already determined? The implication is that we shouldn’t because it’s already determined (AG, you actually agree with this?), but what is already determined? Everything is already determined which means the argument is already determined, it’s stopping is already determined, therefore that ‘already determined’ can never be a reason for continuing to argue or stopping the argument because it’s already determined.
Sorry, I hope that wasn’t too annoying.