happy_k

The many worlds interpretation as contrasted against others is something that is fundamentally not falsifiable, it is a story that we tell to explain the data in more human friendly way.

The debate over which interpretation is correct, is mainly focused on what the default assumptions should be. Proponents of the many-worlds-interpretation argue that this story is a direct abstraction of know quantum effects.

TL;DR Libertarian free will is a logical impossibility.

If any given decision is not contingent on any previous decision or action, then it is uncaused and thus can not have occurred. If it is contingent on a previous decision or action, then it is not truly free as there were determining factors.

Consider the question: Was a choice someone made based on something else, either previous knowledge or other choices? If so, then your choice is contingent and thus is not free unless these other choices were somehow not contingent themselves. However, these other causes might have themselves been caused by something else, which might have been caused, and so on. Since their can not have been an infinite number of caused choices or actions in a finite period of time as this would imply an infinite regress, free will must be false. If the choice was not based on anything else, then it is uncaused and thus could not have occurred.

It is also possible that a decision was made randomly, or that the universe is stochastic in nature. This would however, preclude free will as this randomness is itself a cause of the action or decision.

Libertarian free will is a logical impossibility. If any given decision is not contingent on any previous decision or action, then it is uncaused and thus can not have occurred. If it is contingent on a previous decision or action, then it is not truly free as there were determining factors.

Consider the question: Was a choice someone made based on something else, either previous knowledge or other choices? If so, then your choice is contingent and thus is not free unless these other choices were somehow not contingent themselves. However, these other causes might have themselves been caused by something else, which might have been caused, and so on. Since their can not have been an infinite number of caused choices or actions in a finite period of time as this would imply an infinite regress, free will must be false. If the choice was not based on anything else, then it is uncaused and thus could not have occurred.

It is also possible that a decision was made randomly, or that the universe is stochastic in nature. This would however, preclude free will as this randomness is itself a cause of the action or decision.

Money is not the root of all evil, a lack of money is. The overwhelming majority of crimes are committed by individuals who lack adequate funds to survive, and so they turn to crime to supplement their finances. The few outliers, such as crimes of passion, ideological crimes, or hate crimes are not necessarily tied to monetary gain, so it is difficult to argue that they are themselves caused by money in any way, and can be safely discarded.

We might be tempted to cite the problem of evil as evidence here, but that would only disprove an omnibenevolent (all good) god. It is possible that an amoral (without morals) god exists, which makes no moral considerations.