like i said before, i basically disagree with both sides. i am positive it is impossible to know one way or the other.

p4: your approach is pseudo-scientific. you're using inductive reasoning, yet conclusions come with deductive reasoning. it may make total sense that free will does not exist, and i believe you're about as right as 50% probability, but its not proven and will likely never be. besides, truth doesn't have to 'make sense'

a problem with using inductive reasoning is that it can go in other directions because its about using observations to leap to conclusions, whereas deductive reasoning is about premises that entail one conclusion. humans are excellent at inducting yet terrible at deducting. imo, inductive reasoning being used in place of deductive reasoning is the root of all logical disharmony. i fail the test often too.

anyways, you see that our particles are in motion and cannot be changed, and nothing about this looks wrong in isolations, yet i see that particles are in motion and that motion may be due to randomness and 'decisions'. there's no way to witness the difference.

looking at it from the scale you are, not only is it impossible to tell the arbitrary from non-arbitrary, but its impossible to tell if there is even any of either and if so how much simply because our observations would be exactly the same in any case.

plus it is entirely meaningless. this type of stuff is why i used to hate philosophy. my experience of philosophy at that time was a bunch of pseudo-scientific babble arguing about things that may be that dont matter if they are or aren't. philosophical wanking. on the flip side, true philosophy is science, and that's the bestest.

no practical or even theoretical changes about anything practical will change if we know one way or the other. we will still feel and act like we have free will whether we believe we do or dont.

however, i could be wrong about it not mattering if we know the truth, i just dont see how it could matter.