Is Free Will WRITTEN Within the Laws of Quantum Physics?

[@hagbardceline9866]

I see a new Arvin Ash video and i must click it. It's like i have no free will.

[@user-th2vp2vc3l]

So true 😂

[@sicfxmusic]

Your clicking is pre-determined as this video is being made.

[@turtletom8383]

Tryptophan, microtubules... He missed the best part

[@calm_compost]

😂😂

[@CraftyF0X]

Every discussion about freewill ever: 1. We lay out carefully and logically why we have no clue where we even suppose to find free will and how it is pretty much debunked by our physical rational and neuroscientific understanding. 2. We create very convoluted not at all clear explanations why we ought to have freewill somehow anyway, because the idea is just so uncomfortable that it cannot reside in our head. We do not choose to not have freewill either, but humans are story driven, we couldn't move a finger if we could not convince ourself that it worth to do it somehow.

[@jaybennet4491]

Every critiquer of freewill discussions: 1. Will make thick headedly obvious observations about the conversation to feel intellectually and philosophically aggrandized 2. Won't actually contribute to the conversation

[@CraftyF0X]

@@jaybennet4491 Based on ? If you have something to say I'm all ears.

[@91722854]

it's weird how religion and idea of a god giving people free will, hence uncertainty, yet strongly emphasise on certainty, definite, predetermined life by such god and eventually only place being heaven, yet never realise these two so contradict each other like water and oil, pick one please

[@GustavoOliveira-gp6nr]

Why doesnt anybody consider the possibility that the collapse is not purely random but has something very misterious in it? Maybe it just looks random because they are isolated colapses. I just have a hard time accepting that there is a random generator process in every wave collapse around the universe, i strongly suspect there is more to this randomness than meets the eye. Suppose we do have free will. Imagine if you take some person and puts it on a blank place with just two options: move left or move right. If there is nothing else to hint anything, people will end up randomnly choosing one side or the other. If you repeat this process many times you will get the impression that people decide left from right in a purely random way, which would be wrong given our assumption. This is an example of how free will can give rise to aparent randomness. I am not saying that particled have minds or think and ponder about how to collapse, what I mean is that it is very reasonable to consider the possibility that the collapse has a tiny proto-freewill ingredient that, isolated just looks like a random process, but when properly harnessed and instrumentalized(as evolution seems to have done) gives rise to more sophisticated collapses that when properly engineered by the brain, gives rise to something like the freewill we feel we have.

[@ragevsraid7703]

Superdeterminism

[@michaelpastore3585]

Even if the universe was 100% deterministic, if you told me my choices were nothing more than an equation with 10^10^10^10 variables, that would be okay with me.

[@tyranmcgrath6871]

Too complex to _really_ matter, right?

[@ragevsraid7703]

ya i picked this character i am fine with the outcome whatever maybe

[@elplaga7]

also were the initial conditions determined?

[@hasenakkhaya]

and that is the coping mechanism with the "no free will" problem. a result of our evolutionary psychology. we are programmed to not care about our free will in the long run, so we dont lose our sanity. the science people that always think about these matters actually dont matter because they are absolutely minority. this is the way to produce and survive. this is what believe. i should live like i have free will, and keep those thoughts as a fun event, nothing more or i ll do sth dangerous.

[@velisvideos6208]

Me: There is no free will. Therefore I am having another beer. Wife: No, you will not. Conclusion: There definitely isn't any free will.

[@binbots]

The indeterminism of QM is based on where one observes it in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to measure the position of a particle they are observing smaller distances and getting closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. A particle that has not had an interaction exists in a future state. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable. This is an observational interpretation of the mathematics we currently use based on the limited perspective we have with the experiments we choose to observe the universe with.

[@markb3786]

very good post

[@anywallsocket]

my boy binbots at it again! remember the problem with this perspective is mainly that we can also *induce* quantum states by cooling classical states, so in that sense we'd be what, making the past the future again? i think if we step away from the strict binary of past and future, and focus instead on the local entropic arrow of time, knowing that it can reverse in certain subsystems, that we can keep a lot of these fine points but extend the general idea.

[@rainofrest7778]

@@anywallsocket facts my g

[@binbots]

@@anywallsocket hey old friend. Thanks for all your earlier input. As you can tell my idea keeps evolving as people like you continue with the constructive criticism. As for your new insight I will have to ponder it when I have a moment. Thanks again.

[@Bassotronics]

Causality = C -.1

[@richardmcbroom102]

In an idiocracy something is considered "explained" when that explanation becomes so convoluted as to become sufficiently opaque to all logical inquiry.

[@ssergium.4520]

The reason why free will actually makes no sense is because the self itself is an illusion. Who even is this “I” who is typing right now? Did I really come up with these words that I am typing now or did they just occur to me and my hands wrote them down? Aren’t we just consciousness that simply becomes aware of the very next thought and feeling and acts based on it? I think we are. However… if we define the “self” as the “mind that was created throughout one’s life regardless of what caused its current state” then I am all of these things that occurred and the choices I make are still “my choices” just like I am my mind. I think of it as a phone. Every phone has the same software but different pictures, apps, messages etc. Even if the phones did not choose what data to have on them, they are still all different. They will still continue having similar data, similar types of messages, pictures, calls even if the phones themselves didn’t cause any of it… they just were influenced by external factors. Even if this seems kind of limiting it also feels kind of freeing to me. This means that thoughts just occur to me and are not really objectively “me” so I can try to discard them and keep only the ones I want…. even if I don’t know why I want what I want…

[@ncedwards1234]

i am the one who collapses wave functions. i am the universe, and you are an organ to me, an organism, properly organized and alive. i am the one who knocks. Who are you?

[@richardmcbroom102]

With the latest JWST findings, a paradigm shift equivalent to the Copernican revolution is needed. Everyone needs to be involved in the transition to make that critical shift.

[@juzoli]

We can redefine free will in any way, to support any answer for this question. In this video, it was defined in one way, to fit one narrative. Others have different definition.

[@Nayr747]

How would you define it?

[@juzoli]

@@Nayr747 The most common definition used, is something like that we can make our own decisions without being forced. It doesn’t have anything to do with quantum mechanics. Whether the universe is deterministic or not, it has absolutely no effect on our free will. The closest thing to it would be if someone could use the deterministic nature of the universe to perfectly predict our decisions. We still make this decision on our own. But anyway, such prediction would be impossible.

[@Nayr747]

@@juzoli What does it mean to make a decision?

[@point503]

@@juzoli Of course he didn't use that definition. Because it is just stupid.

[@juzoli]

@@point503 Making up your own definition, and then complain about it is the real stupid. The ultimate strawman argument. This is where it becomes religion.

[@johnniefujita]

This laplace quote is what made me fall in love with physics

[@mr88cet]

10:28 - In my view, it ultimately doesn’t matter whether our decisions were predetermined or not; Free Will can and will result either way. As you so-correctly pointed out, making a decision is an emergent phenomenon. It doesn’t matter whether the indeterminacy of Quantum Mechanics went into the emergent result we call making a decision. That is indistinguishable from a classical system deterministically producing the same result. In both cases, the initial state is effectively unknowable. That also says nothing of the ramifications of our decisions upon Human Society. The only thing that matters is that this complex emergent process also gives us the _perception_ that we have made a decision. That, as opposed to producing a fleeting, subconscious thought, for example.

[@ArvinAsh]

Well put!

[@anywallsocket]

I think what people care about philosophically at least is whether that ‘emergence’ is of the strong or weak variety.

[@scproinc]

"Choosing" doesn't mean you are free to begin with. Also, because something is "unknowable" doesn't mean it is unpredictable (example: I don't have to observe each molecule of your body to know if you are running. a more general and concise set of information, such as watching you as a whole run, is enough to deduce that all of your molecules are also moving). Any complex emergent processes are dependent upon their underlying processes. Therefore, if reality is deterministic through causality, then consciousness is also fundamentally deterministic and not free of reality. In the end, "free" is a word that means nothing until we know what it is "free" of. But one thing is certain, it is not free from causality.

[@dongshengdi773]

​@@ArvinAshFreedom is dependent upon a God who wants us to be Free . Freedom is dependent on Free Will. If we have no freedom, then we would behave According to the laws of physics, because of freedom to choose our actions, then our actions are not entirely based on physical laws of the universe.

[@rainofrest7778]

@@dongshengdi773 xd

[@HeavyMetal45]

It’s really a silly question, we have no idea how consciousness even works so until then we’re clueless about free will.

[@whitneysmiltank]

Maybe try watching the video

[@HeavyMetal45]

@@whitneysmiltank because I already know the answer is no or maybe we’re not sure.

[@Joeyjojoshabbadoo]

All I have to say is this 'there's no free will business' is a joke and is merely what people want to believe. Or at least they like saying it, and are instinctively attracted to the idea. And if there's one thing people tend to do, it's act on the things they like, and figure out the details later. And the obvious emotional/philosophical appeal of a lack of free will needs no elaboration. They can't actually believe it, because so-called 'free will' is life and consciousness itself, the very idea it isn't real is pure nonsense. Human beings truly only believe in one thing, and that's the power and reality of their own free will. Everything else is the illusion. Rhetorical warblings made possible by the strangely compelling but ultimately fleeting and insubstantial powers of verbal language, which create this vehicle of expression for our impulses and desires first and foremost, and any possible truth discerned and articulated almost incidental. The free will and consciousness that makes such expressions and thoughts and speculations possible is what people actually believe in, not the particular speculations or observations themselves. . And the naysayers are reduced to calling free will an 'illusion'. You can't deny that you experience it, which would be mendacious nonsense, but modern physics seems to sort of suggest that the universe and everything in it is 'deterministic', even though it really doesn't and the whole takeaway of QM, however incomplete or imperfect a theory, is the essential unknowability of the future. But nevertheless by that crude logic of simplistic determinism, it follows or appears to follow that free will doesn't actually exist, and is but an illusion. Maybe because the phantom of experiencing it so intimately and profoundly like we do offered an important evolutionary utility, this fantasy, this mirage that we can guide and direct our actions and behaviors even though the truth is it's all preordained, everything is, but without which fantasy we'd be plagued by constant, stultifying self-doubt, or maybe it's overconfidence, and so eventually be killed off by ravenous predators, which makes no sense and is brazenly contrived but whatevs... And that's how we lamely account for the illusion of it. When what 'determinism' really provides is some slight plausible deniability and just enough intellectual cover for what you really want, which is to make the facile declaration that there's no free will, because it's intoxicating, and consoling,, to think that you have no responsibility for your actions. And just the purely theoretical or vainly speculative prospect of that possibility is irresistible. Free will is nothing more than a bummer and a guilt trip.... Though the dude who made this video did go out his way to nevertheless remind us we must behave ourselves just the same. No free will is no excuse!

[@irrelevant2235]

You're one of those people who likes to hide behind mysteries like the mystery of consciousness in order to justify free will. That is what is silly!

[@Joeyjojoshabbadoo]

@@irrelevant2235 How come you hate free will so much? Why you so scared of it?

[@steveg1961]

Beautiful discussion. Thank you. "Free will," regardless of whether it's real or an illusion, is an emergent property of "minds," which is itself an emergent property of the processes produced by special cells of the nervous system.

[@Esterified80]

What if it's not?

[@steveg1961]

@@Esterified80 Be more specific. I have no idea what you're referring to.

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

So, my point there is that this isn't like chaos theory or cellular automata. This isn't just an interesting situation where the sum of an entity has properties not present in its parts. For all we know, one of the fundamental "parts" of a conscious entity _is_ conscious. There could be a "consciousness module" in every conscious entity, like a soul. We can't say otherwise, because there is no reason to believe the other parts fully explain the supposedly emergent phenomena. This is unlike a cellular automaton, which exhibits lifelike behavior not present in any of its components, which can be fully explained by mathematical proofs. Our best materialistic understanding of a brain does not imply consciousness; it instead implies philosophical zombies, entities that process and react to stimuli in complex ways without having any subjective experience. When I talk about zombies, I'm drawing a distinction between subjective observers and mere sensors. For example, a camera is not a subjective observer, even though it captures light rays, funnels them to its processor, and digitally parses and stores the corresponding data. It's just a sensor. It doesn't have any experience of being a camera. A human does all the same stuff with light, and yet has a conscious experience about it. Experience shouldn't be assumed to arise from complexity, not just because lots of very complex things are not thought to have subjective experience, but also because experience itself isn't actually a complex thing. Much of what our brains and minds do is complex, but the actual _experience_ side of it seems almost perfectly simple. You can't quantitatively describe the property of experience. It seems to be purely qualitative. It's hard to describe it at all. But we can conceive of a philosophical zombie, something that behaves just like us but has no subjective experience of anything. So experience is just whatever's missing from that hypothetical entity. And thinking about it like that, it's clear that experience is something really simple, yet profoundly mysterious. It can't be reduced to complex interactions. The system just either has experiences or it's in the dark. I truly see it as like, a "spark" of light, because I struggle to conceive of it any other way. If you try to think about it as just a neural system parsing its own processes, it becomes intractable, especially if you compare it to a computer system. I can try to write a computer program to be "aware" of its own processes, i.e. to recursively parse its own outputs, but why would that suddenly cause it to _experience_ its outputs? So I think it's self-evident that experience is a very simple thing, not a complex thing. And that can be illustrated in other ways. Theoretically, experience could be far simpler than our own. You can imagine a conscious entity whose entire extent of experience can be described by a boolean variable. A single "eye" sensor that's either on or off. It would be a much less rich experience than what we humans have, but we can imagine a hypothetical organism with an even richer experience than our own, so surely we can imagine an organism with a less rich experience. A calculator could theoretically be conscious. But no one believes the actual calculators we produce are conscious. A calculator doesn't need to be conscious to do what it needs to do, but neither does a human. So not only is it difficult to explain the proximate cause of the emergence of consciousness, it's also difficult to explain its _ultimate_ cause. It seems to be a superfluous aspect of human nature. We have no more need for consciousness than a computer does. Everything we do, from language to planning to social behavior and more, could be done equally well with the "lights off," so to speak. So this is problematic for those who want to consider consciousness solved, as just an emergent property of complex systems. It is itself not complex, and we can't explain how it arises from a complex system, and on top of all that, we can't even understand why it would be advantageous for it to arise, because a complex system does not need consciousness to do what it needs to do. So, we fail at every level of explanation. I still think it could be technically true to call consciousness an epiphenomenon, but I think it's misleading because 1) we don't know that - if we built a living brain ourselves, we don't know that it would be conscious; and 2) people generally understand emergent/epiphenomenon to mean that a property is irreducible, but that we can see by reductionism how its parts contribute to a qualitatively novel phenomenon. In this case, we can't see how that happens, or even _if_ it happens at all. So it promotes a misconception that consciousness is solved as a materialistic phenomenon when it is not. Therefore, I think we should simply be honest and describe consciousness as mysterious. The only reason to express certainty in the mind's epiphenomenal nature must be an ideological commitment to materialism, wherein mysterious phenomenon are assumed to be only temporarily mysterious. But it's entirely possible that we'll never understand this, or that we'll find evidence of another, "experiential" layer of reality, perhaps one that also explains the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

[@friedrichjunzt]

It boils down to the question what consciousness is and what role microtubuli play in conscious decisions.

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs that depend on the level of abstraction one chooses to analyze the system and are used to approximately describe underlying physical processes; these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities, and therefore consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

[@billydavis4252]

Your argument didn't meet your claim. To say something exists independently of something else you need to show it existing independently. 😊

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@billydavis4252 False- My arguments prove that the hypothesis that brain processes are a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness is incompatible with the very foundations of our scientific knowledge.

[@billydavis4252]

@marcobiagini1878 Your arguments provide no basis to claim that a souls exists. Your inability to come up with a way to explain how consciousness is formed in the brain doesn't prove it is external. Occam's razor is not perfectly accurate, but highly useful. First you need to prove consciousness exists as a separate entity then come up with how it ends up being localized in a corporal being. Regarding consciousness, the evidence is not conclusive, though seems to be a blending of the basic emotional sensations at the core of our most basic brain combined with the ability to remember and metacocgate about it. Though researchers are not claiming to be able to define what it means to be conscious. As a physicist, do you use supernatural explanations in your predictive equations?

[@MN-ke3yj]

I have very little knowledge. But my consciousness and gut feeling tells me that you are right.

[@robdigma8609]

Sir, in eastern religions, we believe in determinism of the material world so it is destiny( material world from the big bang on cannot be changed since its cause and effect). and our physical bodies are essentially automatons BUT there is a CHOICE within ourselves in how we "feel" when doing the predestined task. Do we do it with "attachment" or "detachment". Detachment from your predestined actions( actions that are predetermined) causes your soul to not incur the karma of that action/task so you essentially change your soul's future birth to higher or lower level.( so your soul could be born in a monk's body or a beggar's body. Note! monk's and beggar's bodies are destined to be born based on material world, question is whose soul will inhabit it.

[@DM_Curtis]

Whew! Good to know. My illusion of free will is getting exhausted. I'm going back to bed and letting the deterministic laws of physics animate me for the rest of the day while my brain takes a nap.

[@rb.arindam]

but you couldn't stay laying in bed, didn't you?

[@matttzzz2]

You completely misunderstood everything he said

[@daanschone1548]

This is a good example of what philosophers call "the lazy argument".

[@DM_Curtis]

^^^ These comments illustrate what philosophers call "not getting the joke".

[@Flandrefan495]

​@@rb.arindam vsauce music plays

[@curiousquantumcat6462]

You can act as you wish. But you can’t wish what you wish.

[@AzogticMettroskik]

You can do what you will, but you can't will what you will.

[@pluto9000]

@@AzogticMettroskik Man can do what he wants, but man can't want what he wants.

[@matheusdardenne]

If that were true, it would be impossible to overcome addiction.

[@pluto9000]

@@matheusdardenne You can only overcome addiction if you want to. You can't control when you want to.

[@lateseptember3974]

​@@matheusdardenne No. The desire to get rid of addiction may not appear by the will of the person. And in this case, there is a chance to get rid of addiction.

[@mekingtiger9095]

I guess it depends on how you define "Free Will". I've seen people calling it "Random Will". But it certainly at the very least disproves hard determinism as we once believed in the past. Pretty basic opinion, I know, but still my tidbit.

[@cosmichappening1712]

Free-will, memories, and emotions are all integral parts of the conscious mind. Conscious free-will is as self-evident and as real as daylight radiates from the sun, but because most people have abandoned their sense of logic and have allowed themselves to be 'blinded by the science' instead, they cannot see the wood for the trees, even when it is staring them right in the face. Because we exist in the deterministic universe of cause and effect in which the actions of one system is caused by the previous actions of another system, supporters of the 'brain makes mind' theory believe that consciousness must therefore also be caused by the previous actions of another system, namely the neural activity of the brain. Yet, despite years of research, neuroscientists have thus far failed to find any signs of consciousness being generated by any part of the physical brain let alone by the firing of the neurons; and as such, the theory still remains unproven to this day. Yet despite this, neuroscientists continue to quote the theory as if it is fact, so much so that they have managed to convince a large proportion of the scientific community and the public that it is: If you keep spouting the same mantra over and over again without critique, it soon becomes the accepted "truth". In doing so, not only has this lessened the burden of proof on them to substantiate the theory, but it has also enabled them to effectively exclude consciousness as an independent variable from all of their experiments on free-will, focusing solely on the neural activity of the brains of test subjects. So not surprisingly, when electrodes are attached to the heads of test subjects and they are instructed to choose one of several options in a number of tasks by pressing a button, and the neuroscientists observe neural activity taking place in their brains a few seconds before they physically select the option of their choice by pushing the button, they (the neuroscientists) attribute the responsibility for the decision to the neural activity of their brains and not to their conscious minds. So even before the experiments have begun, they have already been rigged to favor the 'brain makes consciousness' theory. Fortunately, flawed and biased "scientific" experiments are not required to validate the reality of conscious free-will: All that is required is logic and common sense. In presuming without justification or empirical evidence that it is the neural activity of our brains that are responsible for the decisions and choices that we make in life and not our conscious minds and that we humans therefore do not have conscious free-will, neuroscientists, materialists, physicalists, and determinists have failed to take into account the glaring and obvious roles that our memories and emotions, which are integral parts of our conscious minds, play in most of the decisions, choices, plans, and actions that we make and take in everyday life. *When we morn the death of a love one, this is an emotional response influenced by the fond and loving memories that we have of that person stored in our conscious minds, and not by the non-conscious and non-emotional neurons of the brain. *When we make plans to holiday on a favorite tropical island at the end of the year, this is an emotional decision influenced by the happy and enjoyable memories that we have stored in our conscious minds of previous holidays on the island, and not by the non-conscious and non-emotional neurons of the brain. *When we decide to buy tickets to see a favorite singer perform live in concert on the weekend, this is an emotional decision influenced by our love and admiration for the singer and his/her songs, and not by the non-conscious and non-emotional neurons of the brain. *When a dog or cat suddenly and unexpectedly runs out in front of our car as we are driving along the road, our immediate reaction is to brake abruptly or try to swerve to avoid hitting it. This reaction is 'driven' by our emotional concern for the life and safety of the animal, and not by the non-conscious and non-emotional neurons of the brain. This truism of conscious free-will cannot be denied.

[@haydenj4738]

I agree with your first sentence, but I can't say the same with most that follow. I believe what you're referring to is the fact that neurologist haven't found a specific part of the brain that is directly responsible to consciousness, or a specific pattern of neurons that produces it. This is not the same thing as saying that the brain does not definitively cause consciousness. As of yet, everything we know as comprising consciousness can be surmised to activities in the brain. Perceiving and processing external information is all done by various documented processes in the brain. Memory and hormones that cause emotional responses are found in the brain. In your own example you show that decision making occurs as neural processes within the brain. Just because science cannot point to one part of the brain or to one specific recording from and instrument and say "that's consciousness", or "this is where consciousness comes from" does not mean that everything we attribute to consciousness is not directly dependent on processes within the brain. Also, it is amusing that you separate science from common sense and logic. As if one is not born of and entirely comprised of the other. If you studied the origins of all modern mathematics and scientific fields you would understand that it's all common sense, with lots of cumulative logic that came from previous persons common sense and applications of logic. You talk about memories and emotions being the element that is ignored, yet you are the one ignoring that they are properties of a brain processing information. Memories are stored in the brain, the hippocampus region of the brain is especially notable for its involvement with memory processing. We know this because of numerous studies and accounts of head trauma and brain trauma drastically altering peoples memories. Secondly, emotions are just as much a brain function as anything else would be. The difference is they have a more hormonal aspect than some of the more neural activities such as motor coordination. But our emotions are determined by out current neural mental state combined with out current hormonal state. Both of which depend on one another with great complexity. All of your examples are easily explained by the neural and chemical processes I've already discussed, and are just as easily justified by our evolution as a social species. Morning the death of a loved one is evolutionary advantageous because it means that we are more likely to care for and protect our own kind, thus menaing it's more likely that our species will continue to exist. So we evolved emotional dependence on one another, familial bonds, and the concepts of love and loss. Happiness and memories of happiness stem from an evolutionary perspective as well. If you're in a place that makes you happy, it's likely that in that place you are cared for, not in immediate physical danger, have food, water, and are likely to survive. It is evolutionary advantageous to want to continue to be in places that make our survival and the propagation of our species easier. Finding attachment to a certain performer comes from the social aspects of our evolution, where we will be attracted to healthy, and promising individuals who would have made our survival more likely. This is where our sense of attraction comes from. Flowing hair, clear skin, muscle, traits of a healthy body are considered attractive and are evolutionary advantageous to seek after because it means your offspring are more likely to have those desirable traits. Our desire to protect pets and others is purely out of selfish self benefit. We do not try our best to protect the rats that eat out food, the bacteria that cause illness, the cockroaches we encounter, the locust that feeds on our crop, the weed that springs up in your land. We protect and attach to things which are advantageous to our survival, which stems from our wellbeing. A dog for instance is either of practical usefulness as it does tasks for us, or of emotional support, which let's us have a stable healthy mental state. It's all from evolution, which is all arbitrary processes, which all comes from the entropy of the universe. Just because we have the illusion of free will, or what we perceive as consciousness does not make it special, or separate from any objective entity. It only means that it's advantageous in our current environment to have traits that result in what we call consciousness and feeling of having free will.

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

Great video, Arvin!

[@valdisvi]

As far as I can tell for myself, any carefully made decision of my "free will" is not much distinguishable from random choice based on fluctuations of my mood and feelings. Of course, I do "rationalization" of my choice afterwards.

[@TedToal_TedToal]

One problem with trying to understand free will is that we do not yet understand what consciousness is. It SEEMS like consciousness is somehow our ability to steer our mind in different directions and explore our thoughts and explore our possible actions and to move towards one or another. We don't know if neurons have some quantum mechanical aspect to their operation. Is it possible that that feeling of steering our high-level thoughts in different directions is in fact a quantum mechanical phenomenon of neurons? And is it possible that the essence of consciousness is that it nothing more nor less than a very complex quantum mechanical wave function involving interactions taking place within our brain's high-level neural networks? One could even go so far as to speculate that all consciousnesses are intertwined through a quantum wave function that is the universal wave function of all particles in the universe.

[@cykkm]

Wait, wait, not too fast! Wave mechanics is deterministic. It's only the wavefunction collapse that is probabilistic, and I'd rather say we have no idea why, it's the infamous measurement problem. In your line of reasoning there is no collapse, only the "universal wave function" that evolves-entirely deterministically, BTW. But you certainly don't exist in a quantum superposition state. The cat is not (|live> + |dead>)/√2.

[@haydenj4738]

If the quantum processes are entirely random and unpredictable, how would we be in control in this case either? If it's all traditional mechanical determinism we definitely don't have free will, but having our actions determined by random fluctuations doesn't seem like our will either. Still subject to a natural phenomenon, still feeling, wanting to be the one responsible for pulling the strings

[@TedToal_TedToal]

@@haydenj4738 yes, exactly. Maybe I'm suggesting that collapse of a wavefunction is the key aspect of free will, and it is neither predictable nor random.

[@pjaworek6793]

This whole free will debate is really more about how we define what we are as individuals. Think harder, randomness and the quantum level is a part of what we are. We feel that as our awareness.

[@Dxeus]

If I am given a set of options to choose from, it cannot truly be considered free will. My selection is already influenced or determined by countless prior events. Therefore, can it really be said that I exercised free will?

[@ArvinAsh]

Exactly! We perceive free will, but is it an illusion?

[@mr88cet]

@@ArvinAsh, then we have to answer “what distinguishes an illusion from reality at the subatomic level?” The answer is almost certainly, “nothing.”

[@ArvinAsh]

Well, by "illusion" I mean something that we perceive that doesn't actually exist. I keep coming to the conclusion that in order for us to truly have free will, our conscious would need to control or influence the laws of physics. This does not seem likely.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@ArvinAsh *"Well, by "illusion" I mean something that we perceive that doesn't actually exist."* ... How can anyone perceive something that does not exist? What reference material would they be using to know exactly what it is they are perceiving? An "illusion" is *one thing that exists* tricking you into thinking it's *something else that exists.* An illusion cannot trick you into perceiving something that is nonexistent. How would you know what you are perceiving if it didn't already exist?

[@cykkm]

@@ArvinAsh “actually exist” - Arvin, I'd be very careful with things that "actually exist". We speak in theories, but it's the theory itself that defines its own objects. It's a rabbit hole… - I can perceive the force of gravity, does it exist? - Kinda yes, but not in GR, where only spacetime curvature exists. - Uh… but I can't perceive it, does it "actually exist"? - You can measure it. If you walk with a gyrocompass 100m due North, then East, South and West, and you don't end up where you started, you're in a curved spacetime. You'll need to add a Lie bracket to close your path. It will tell you something quantitative about the curvature. - Uh... okay. But how do I know that the curvature actually exists? - Our best theory says so. - And what if we come up with a better theory that would explain this experiment differently? And, BTW, does that Lie bracket thing actually exist?..

[@ncedwards1234]

How can i prove my ability to determine the spin direction of electrons without equipment? People call my collapse patterns random, but i already told y'all to never let them know your next move.

[@thingsiplay]

What if Quantum is not random? Hear me out. What I mean is, given the same exact state of the universe, a certain Quantum effect will always be the same. Because Quantum is a wave function that interacts with everything. Maybe the state of a Quantum effect we measure is predetermined. We cannot know this. Therefore winding the clock and every state back to a prior point, it might be that the outcome from that position is exactly the same as before.

[@TheoWerewolf]

We don't know that's true, but there is a lot of a good reasons to suspect it isn't starting with Bell's Inequality. What you're proposing is essentially a variation of hidden variables that predetermine the outcome even if they seem random - but Bell's Inequality and experiments like those done by Alain Aspect (who won a Nobel Prize for this very thing this year) say that a quantum mechanical object has NO state of a given property until that property is measured. That strongly suggests that if you ran the clock back and reran the expriment, each trial will be random because the current state would be erased. In fact, there's an actual equivalent to this. Suppose you use a Stern-Gerlach magnet (SGM - Ash shows one in this video) aligned up/down. You fire an electron into it and it force the particle to choose and it chooses up. If the electron enters another SGM with the same alignment, it remembers the previous measurement and stays up. You can do this as many times as you want. Now put a left/right aligned SGM in its path - the electron has to make a new choice - left or right... let's say left. Same thing - if it goes through more left/right SGMs, it stays left. Now put another up/down SGM in its path... and... it's random again. The previous up/down state has been erased. This STRONGLY implies that state isn't predetermined but is chosen randomly each time a different property (up/down or left/right for example) is measured.

[@thingsiplay]

@@TheoWerewolf My suggestion is that the entire state of the universe is taken into account when doing this measurement. And thus, not only the variation of the experiment plays a role. Therefore it is impossible to predict an outcome, because the prediction in itself would affect the measurement/interaction. So just adding another variation with a different outcome does not imply it wouldn't be stateless, according to what I said. We know only a slice of the universe, therefore we cannot test if this is true. I know, not very scientific, but maybe that's the reason why it appears random to us.

[@Funkeditup]

The fact of the matter is that we cannot absolutely replicate a test such as this, so when people say that something strongly suggests randomness, it is on the assumption that we ignore what you have suggested. This also means that we cannot do a test that proves randomness. What I like to see presented in a video is both sides, but it was glossed over at the end of it. We cannot say things are truly predictable or random.

[@Funkeditup]

@@thingsiplay this is the only true test of predictability or randomness, but it cannot be done. From this, the idea we can prove randomness, to me, is short-sighted; we cannot prove either. The idea of no free will and predictability is scary to many, be it based on faith or that things are already mapped out. In terms of some faiths, a block universe fits nicely into predictability, in that their "god" knows all and sees all.

[@thingsiplay]

@@Funkeditup Exactly! My above description is also inline with the many worlds prediction, where every event creates a new universe; meaning a whole new wave function for the entire universe. Therefore the speed limit of one particle effect another state does not apply anymore. We know spooky action at a distance is a thing.

[@richardmcbroom102]

Ultimately, any explanation of the universe or our own individual existences resolves to a singular question: "WHAT IS THE PLAUSBILITY OF AN EVENT THAT OCCURS ONLY ONCE?"

[@haros2868]

If you're reading this comment you are for a treat, very lucky to find such a condensed information in 1 comment. Lets begin. Arvin, I'm genuinely disappointed.. Your previous video with Philip Ball was a quintillion times better. All this compatibalist conclusion comes if you assume first that strict reductionalism is correct. If you accept that only determenistic or random things exist, which is not uncommon, you need crazy imagination to think a 3rd concept, not in between, thats probabalistic, something entirely 3rd. Well the closest and most realistic is RADICAL EMERGENCE. Not like strong Emergence like superconductivity where the same entities (atoms) gain new dynamics. New Entities join the causal chain. Of course this requires causal openness, for non eternal entirely new entities to join the system. This does not violate energy conservation since it isn't free energy it is convention. Determenism clearly cant be free will. Mere quantum randomess rng harnesser is Not under your control since you aren't even the cause. Radical emergence states that you are both the cause and independent, random implies absence of control, while independent is the right word. Now, you may say ok so far but it is too theoretical for me to digest.. Do you have evidence or examples that supports the reality of this?? Yes I have: Consciousnes either ontologically exist or not (eliminatism). Lets accept it exists, I dont have further evidence. Ok it is real, now what, is it reducable or irreducable? If it is reducable its the sum of the parts, hence the parts have Consciousnes too if it is real. We dont have souls particles and panphysism is a baloney. Afterwards, awerness can completely disappear while brain mass is intact (sleep, anesthesea, etc.) so clearly something previously existent now stoped existing. And note during sleep brain activity keeps working so its isn't merely the result of electricity. According to reductionalism, that shouldn't be possible, we shouldn't be capable of sleeping. Afterwards, split brain patients have a unified Consciousnes, not two unlike many assumptions and debates. A recent study proved they have 1 volitional attention, hence it justified the normal eye coordination. After this, a case of a man with hydrocephalus had only 10 % of brain mass remaining. According to strict reductionalism, this should make him 10% conscious. That wasn't the case, he is perfectly normal, with a average - low iq, which is kind of ridiculous. For the fart harris and robert fartosy lovers, Im not trying to give free will to a chair, but to a conscious agent, that's why the story isn't that simple.. So in case of radical emergent non eternal entities deterministism doesn't hold, but the infuence of the agent is clearly his, not random, not outside his control. Its independence, not robotics, neither chance events. I guess tou could argue you were lucky that you used free will correctly, but this is something else.. For some stupid reason ill get hate comments, but I don't mind them. Its the internet, not a reliable, dignityful, intelligent, creative, objective criticism. The same people that believe we are living in a simulation are those who curse on me.

[@Jacob.Peyser]

Interesting... It is quite unfortunate that the majority of the physics community adheres to the notion of strict determinism (hidden variables) or probabilistic indeterminism without properly considering other casual relationships between spacetime events. I'm by no means an expert on the matter, but I do know that there is no interpretive consensus on the Standard Model. Not to mention that we know that the Standard Model is incomplete. To implicitly or directly proclaim that there is a human who walks this Earth that completely understands the nature of reality and causality is quite naive. We know so much to know that we know so little.

[@joachimkeinert3202]

My best theory is that some neurons fire randomly and the result is filtered (weighted) by other neurons based on person's experience, yet still unconscious but a bit random. There is a cascade that leads to action and optionally to consciousness of a decision.

[@scottbadger4107]

Sorry if this has already been said, but I believe determinism vs randomness is a red herring in the question of moral responsibility of choice. It's not whether our actions are deterministic, or not, but our ability to grasp the deterministic consequences of our actions that validates responsibility.

[@SureshKirupalasingam]

Ask any recovering addict, we are best examples of free will exist...we live it daily.

[@yourguard4]

What decides, what you want and on what is this decision based on?

[@prriyanshimedhavi3897]

We decide ​@@yourguard4

[@alfadog67]

I think it's only Free Will until we figure out the variables. But we are playing by the rules of physics when we make a decision, even if we don't know all the rules yet.

[@simonnordon8421]

The variables are unownable. Heisenberg uncertainty principal.

[@amihartz]

It's still free. Consider three dominos, you knock the first over, it knocks the second over, then that knocks the third over. The moment the first fell, it was absolutely predetermined the third would fall, but does that mean the second played no role in the third falling? No, that's obviously not the case because if the second wasn't there then the third would've never fallen at all. The fact human decisions may or may not be predetermined, I don't see the relevance. Our brain still plays a role in collecting all information of those prior determinations and operating on them to make a decision. Without our brain there then a decision would've never been made. The brain is _really doing something._ Removing it from the equation and saying we aren't making decisions because it may or may not be predetermined, I don't get the justification for it.

[@alfadog67]

@@amihartz Yes, I see your point. But if we knew the variables, we would be able to predetermine your decision just like we can predetermine the dominoes. If we know what you're going to think before you think it, then your free will is but an illusion.

[@amihartz]

@@alfadog67 An illusion of _what?_ If it's an illusion, there should on one hand be a false belief, and on the other hand, the true belief. I do not believe my decisions could not in principle be predicted, I mean, a lot of people can read me like an open book. So what is the illusion?

[@FalkFlak]

I think it's a keen observation that QM's random effects don't inform a decision. Its just the result. The rest of the argument seems to drift into esoterics, though. It's presented as if every person is his/her own isolated system. But when making a decision we have to consider every other decision as well. If I decide to drive to the grocery store but someone else already decided to steal my car I'm now forced to make a whole bunch of different decisions and that was a whole different person that decided it for me. And so was the person stealing my car influenced by other decisions. So I'm not really "free" but its a web of myriads of decisions all influencing each other. I think every concept of free will has to encompass that we are not alone.

[@JAOResnik]

Free will will only be understood when conscience is fully explained

[@jimbuono2404]

What don't you understand about consciousness?

[@Tomas.Malina]

​@@jimbuono2404 Nobody understands what it is. You are just a sum of electrical impulses, how exactly is it different from a computer, a LLM, doing the same? How is it different from a pre-programmed deterministic app? How is it different from the minds of apes, dogs, or flatworms? Where is the line and what is the criterion where we say "this is consciousness" and "this is not"? Etc.

[@mr.sucattheredfox163]

@@jimbuono2404 everything

[@mr.sucattheredfox163]

@@jimbuono2404 is it continuous or discreetly non-continuous ?

[@Tomas.Malina]

@@jimbuono2404 Nobody understands what it is. Is current AI consicous? Is a pre-programmed computer algorithm (virus?) conscious? Are apes, dogs or tapeworms concious? How about plants or bacteria? We don't know know what else apart from us is conscious, because we don't know what cosniousness is, what is the distinguishing factor by which you can determine "this is conscious" and "this is not".

[@RasielSuarez]

To counter the idea that decisions are emergent, and therefore we can't rely on quantum mechanics to undercut a deterministic model of free will, consider this simple thought experiment: Suppose I want to make a decision but rather than think through the decision I defer whether to do it or not depending on the outcome of a random generator. Either you concede that this is an example of true free will or you have to resort to a deterministic model for quantum mechanics. You can't have it both ways.

[@Neo34014]

“It’s for the best of us, that we know not the script of the movie. The only thing which brings meaning to life”

[@L2p2]

@arvin Ash I have two specific physics Questions 1) Have not the experiments of Clauser, Aspect and Zielinger ruled out Super determinism? Aspects experiments have a device that could randomly changed what measurement was to be taken and the experiments of Zielinger and Clauser I believe improved upon that. Some recent experiments I believe use signals from distant quasars to control the experiments etc. 2) if everything is fundametally determined Superdeterminism or is the Bohmian mechanics approach how do these theories explain how based on the initial conditions of the universe we get to where we are. By the laws of entropy and Hawking-Berkenstein if we pack a lot of information into a small volume beyond a point we get a blackhole. so a small volume or surface around a small or infinitesimal point could never hold all of the information required to get to the current state. Clearly "new information" is being born. Does this mean that some hidden variables are becoming unhidden and that hidden variables do not obey the laws of entropy and gravity?

[@randywa]

I don’t think the existence of free will really matters. Free will means you can choose what you do, not what you want - that’s already predetermined anyway. Regardless of the fundamental nature of the universe, you are a thing that will chase desires preprogrammed into you. It doesn’t even make sense to choose something without preexisting goals or desires.

[@brothermine2292]

1. Random choice isn't free choice. Quantum indeterminism doesn't bestow free will. 2. There are two definitions of free will, and it's important to be explicit about both. "Strong" free will is the definition of free will that Arvin provided early in the video. We don't have "strong" free will if Materialism is correct, or if a little-known variation of Dualism (in which consciousness isn't physical yet is just a passive experiencer of the brain's thoughts & feelings) is correct. Toward the end of the video Arvin switched to using the definition of "weak" free will, which is merely the ability to make choices determined by physical laws but not constrained by other people nor made under duress imposed by other people. In other words, the Compatibilism that Arvin espouses at the end acknowledges that we make choices determined by physics. It's misleading to call choice "free will" without specifying that it's only the "weak" kind of free will. It's probably better not to call it "free will," because it's only "will."

[@LithinHariprasad-vg3yr]

"Quantum mechanics, with its inherent randomness, does not dictate our actions, but rather opens a playground of possibilities for free will to express itself. It is not the savior of free will, but perhaps its canvas."

[@Desertphile]

The r/freewill subreddit has people who claim quantum mechanics allows "free will," and they wave their hands about (I metaphor) but cannopt offer any mechanism for QM to do so.

[@miloavram5842]

Photons "screw" forward in a spiral shape, this makes the slit experiment easier to explain, (viewed from the side, these energies appear as wave movements),

[@richardmcbroom102]

In this current idiocracy logical processes have devolved into proving who has the biggest "whatever." Something is considered "explained" when that explanation becomes "sufficiently opaque" to a degree sufficient to avoid reasonable logical inquiry.

[@mr88cet]

Well done, Arvin! Needless to say, it’s a complicated question! When you’re asking, “can I make a choice?” the question is not only what it means to “make a choice,” but also “what exactly defines _me_ ?”

[@ArvinAsh]

That's an excellent point. If we don't really have a freedom of choice, then what exactly distinguishes us from automatons?

[@mr88cet]

@@ArvinAsh, yes, that’s a tough question indeed! I think that, as with intelligence and sentience, in it’s’more a matter of degree than of “automaton or not.”

[@mr88cet]

@@ArvinAsh, also worth contemplating, is that a human brain trying to comprehend the human brain is a little like an atom smasher: Ideally, to perform a dissection upon an atomic nucleus, we’d use a blade edge sharper than an atomic nucleus. However, the smallest - “sharpest” - knife edge we have is an other nucleus (hydrogen nucleus). So, the best we can do is to use a knife as dull as the objects we’re studying: that is, the best we can do is to crash nuclei together and CSI the debris. Analogously, ideally we’d use a smarter brain to analyze a human brain, but, at least arguably, we don’t have any such brain. Perhaps a human brain studying an insect brain (ganglia) would be better able to objectively assess whether Free Will is meaningfully involved, but a human brain trying to dissect itself is using too dull a knife to get comprehensible results. Perhaps any brain analyzing itself would conclude it is capable of Free Will, but conclude that less-complex brain is just an automaton, because the analyzing brain is enough smarter to be able make a plausible assessment, but it’s bound to draw a blank trying to analyze itself!

[@mr88cet]

@@iridium8341, I think this question is inherently as much a Philosophical one as a Scientific one.

[@uriituw]

@@mr88cet How’s it philosophical?

[@stephengee4182]

This is a quote from Max Planck one of the founders of quantum mechanics: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” I personally believe that the laws of our universe have to account for consciousness and my first person perception of free will. I believe that conciousness and free will are derived from the quantum field. I believe that consciousness is the quantum field and free will is the wave to particle transition.

[@my.names.robb.with.two.bs1]

What prevents our consciousness from being outside the physical brain? 95% of the universe is not matter. And don't we know this because of effects on celestial bodies that we haven't actually measured other than seeing it doesn't fit the standard physical models? So what prevents a part of our organism from being unmeasurable at this point in our understanding of physics? Assuming that that decision making capability is outside the physical brain, it would still be bound by the physical brain's physics but it would be able to actively steer through the quantum possibilities with ease. So physics is preserved. Life seems to be something different than nonlife in this respect. Dead matter is expected to stick to the quantum path of least resistance. Living organisms would be expected to buck this path at times because part of it is not physical. And so now we have an idea of how to measure this nonphysical. Through quantum probability measurements. How do you do that? That's the question. I expect the religiously atheist people to emphatically dismiss this because it goes against their dogma. But the people who are actually into science will see it as an opportunity to press further into the great unknown of existence.

[@uriituw]

There’s never been evidence for a mind sans-brain. Our minds are products of our brains. Fact. “…religiously atheist…” is a contradiction in terms. Atheism doesn’t have dogma. Atheism is what one is lead to when they follow the science.

[@nuyggdrasill3935]

Me too i'd like to answer but something holds me back In the dark i hear a voice it says "as above so below" I feel getting lyrical somehow but i don't know what to do ... I already know...

[@xanterrx9741]

10:57 I'm waiting

[@HeavyMetal45]

Thank you

[@curiousantenna]

If we’re questioning the existence of free will, then asking whether someone should have responsibility for their actions is not a valid question anymore, because the statement that someone “should” or “should not” do something is already dependent on the pre-requisite of having free will, so the question of whether someone should or should not do something also rests on the same pre-requisite. When the answer to the question of whether someone has free will or not is unknown, then the question of whether someone "should" or "should not" do something is no longer a valid question. It would be a circular reasoning (i.e., begging the question) to ask whether someone should be held responsible for their actions while the answer to the question of the existence of free will is still unknown. The valid question while still questioning the existence of free will would be to ask what someone/the society CAN do, not what someone/the society SHOULD do. The statement that “We do have the ability to consider all options” is incorrect. The number of options that an individual can consider at any given moment depends on (i.e., determined by) the emotional state of an individual at that moment, and emotional state is determined by both external factors (i.e., factors external to the body, which are socioeconomic and other environmental factors) and internal factors (i.e., an individual brain’s algorithm for making a decision, which is determined by many factors such as previous life experiences and risk tolerance, which are in turn determined by internal factors at an even more micro level such as genetics and epigenetics, which are again determined by both external factors and internal factors). We don’t even need to go to the quantum level picture to see that an individual’s action at any given moment is already determined.

[@keithbaxter6066]

I pointed this out in a previous video, if choice is an illusion then why would natural selection ever select for intelligence? Being able to make choices MUST avail a real-world advantage and therefore can't be illusory.

[@lemonke8132]

You're mixing up choice and determinism. If you are given the exact same stimulus (vision, touch, etc), you will come to the exact same conclusion every time. However, slightly deviate any of your input data, and you may come to a radically different conclusion. Intelligence is about large scale behavioral changes based on very small, yet important, input data. Like seeing the glimmer of a predator in the leaves causing you to run the other direction. Yet intelligence is deterministic. You may feel as though you made the choice, but it's just the cascade of fundamental particles in your brain, each acting predictably (in the classical world). Quantum randomness does not ascribe any more free will to this process.

[@RetroTinkerer]

Natural selection don't select for anything, there are random circumstances that favor traits present on some population over others. For example if a big ass asteroid would had fallen over the area were first homo sapiens where located in Africa Neanderthals could still be roaming all over Europe with very little changes or they could had been replaced by other sapiens unaffected by the asteroid.

[@uriituw]

Intelligence is not illusory.

[@BDnevernind]

You could say the same thing for any characteristic/adaptation. An organism that can react arbitrarily to stimuli (differently from the next member of its species or another species) or reason abstractly has certain potential advantages in the environment. That's all that's required by evolution.

[@keithbaxter6066]

​@@lemonke8132 Since consciousness is still mysterious even to those who've spent their lives studying it, I'll keep an open mind and wait for more data to come in.

[@tarastorinson6014]

It's the great video, as always. Not biased, showing question from different perspectives. As for me the problem with free will is a philosofical one. IMO, if we're trying to solve our problem from materialistic point of view, i.e. there're no causes in the universe except created by the material things within this universe and it's laws of physics, - than Laplas is right and there can be no free will. Everything was predetermined in this Universe and everything that exists in the Universe is moving (living, existing, developing - you choose) according to the laws and according to the plan. I mean, if we make a closed system of few objects, let's say, few billiard balls on the table, and then give one of them a strike with the cue - knowing the force and direction of the cue' hit we can predict the outcome. The outcome is not dependent on the free will of balls, but only on the initial state of the system and the causal strike. Only if we suppose that there're are not only material (i.e. not binded by the laws of physics of this Universe) causes we can assume the free will. That is, the things that can influence or alter the processes in the Universe can only be such that are not influenced by the laws of this Universe. I mean, only if someone else than the billiard table or balls will make any influence on the situation or change the laws of physics in any way in the process of balls moving - only then the outcome will be changed. But, that's not physics. Just a philosophy. And very close to religion. And materialism (though it's not scientific, just philosofical) is a kind of new world religion, especially in "scince". Any other religion is not tolerated. So, in my view, I really don't know if we can scientifically prove existance or absence of the free will. At least now. Cause IMO it can't be material. But still the Copenhagen interpretation leaves the room for operation of the free will. While determinism not.

[@teezettsb]

before asking if you have a free will, it has to be defined first, what defines you and your personality. so I would say, the combination of the cells and particles in my brain defines who i am. this can be predefined, but then it is just the predefinition of my personality. how I act in a special situation is then a result of the combination of this personality, the actual input of information and randomness from the quantum scale. so my personality has a big impact on the decisions i make, even if this personality can be predefined.

[@VEhsan]

My current opinion is that free will can exist, but is only partially accessible for us. An example that I can think of is impulsivity and discipline. for every set of inputs our brain recieves at a given time, depending on our brain's structure at the moment the inputs are recieved, the "impulse" that we receive will always be the same, meaning there is no free will involved in this process. However, there is always a moment of consideration towards that impulse, but most of the time and for most people, the initial impulse or an extension of it, is how they will react, unless it is an impulse that has a high level of risk that the logical mind can then come in and defer (still no free will here as this logical interruption would also be pre-determined). But what happens with disciplined individuals for example, is that you could calculate what impulse they would receive, but would have no idea if they would follow the impulse or do something completely different, and the more you practice discipline, the harder it will be to determine the final reaction, meaning you aren't a slave to your/universe's whims. So I think most of us follow the pre-determined path, but we can all access free will, if we can manage to tap into it and practice it. The completely deterministic initial "thought" would meet a barrier of free will and what comes after the barrier would not be calculable.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

how might people control or influence their quantum wave making free will causation decisions?

[@JadieMae23]

What I find grating about the notion of "free will" is how it boils down to a false dichotomy. The idea that we're somehow abstracted from our Universe either as its puppets or its conquerors. As everything else in this Universe, we're part of (what's assumed to be)a closed system. We and all the information we can gather from our surroundings are just fluctuations in the very same fabric of reality, and as such we're all part of the same framework. It doesn't matter whether we have any sort of "magical" or "spontaneous" form of agency: We DO have agency and will within this framework, and for all we know(and should care, for now), there IS NO HIGHER FRAMEWORK. So why should it matter whether we have "free will"? Are we meant to break reality somehow? To be able to cheat what we're made of and operate on, and break away from it? Can people not take accountability or find agency in this world without a delusion of grandeur and a false sense of immunity that they're walking axioms?

[@richardmcbroom102]

For "starters," the life cycle of birth, expression and death is necessary for any organism to evolve and survive into the future. The limit to life expectancy is completely dependent upon the rate of change for the physical constants and the implications for DNA replication. This evolution is known as TOP DOWN cosmology, where the very-present uncertainty of the physical constants is mute testimony to their rate of change. This is near certain: Imagine a universe beginning with a single “particle” of gigantic mass that spontaneously divides into two smaller masses (with a field that obviously must exist to unite them, like, say, primordial electrostatic gravity, a quantum relationship modulo 2). Imagine that over “time” the process of division continues, producing “newer,” lighter “particles” (and forces that unite them “programmed” for future expression within when, per chance, they are irrationally unreconcilable by quantum counting) over “time.” (Note: That cascade of particles is presently observed as “nuclear decay,” where heavier elements spontaneously cascade into a spectrum of heavier-to-lighter elements.) To see how rapidly the NUMBER of observed particles (of increasingly smaller mass) can grow in a short amount of time, just multiply 2 x 2 = repeatedly on a small calculator- in a very short time the numbers go off the scale! Just imagine, then, IN THE PROCESS OF DIVIDING, heavier masses, that eventually form galaxies, divide over time (seemingly coming from “nowhere”) at each epoch of division (and extinction). This process is known as “TOP DOWN cosmology.” In the end, you have present-day smaller galaxies, PLUS the cosmic heat signature of NOW-EXTINCT past elements (including galaxies), known today as the “cosmic microwave background radiation.” (Note: Smaller early galaxies are required by BOTTOM UP big bang cosmology, where predicted smaller primal galaxies form larger galaxies over time, and where the predicted cosmic microwave background radiation would be “smooth;” HOWEVER, the OBSERVED cosmic background radiation is actually “lumpy,” and OBSERVED primal galaxies are actually larger.) TOP DOWN cosmology wins! PS: I call this theory “The Origin Theory,” as an extension of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species.” Again, please leave the ultimate origin and direction of our currently-complex universe (either with TOP DOWN or BOTTOM UP cosmology) to lesser-probabilities of 50/50, so as not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater." Given that the latest “breakthrough” in fusion technology recklessly announces controlled fusion energy when it provides ignition WITHOUT accounting for energy out Vs TOTAL energy in (I still remember “cold fusion”), My TOP DOWN theory of cosmology says that in order to reconcile static gravitational and Coulomb effects (a valid grand unification theory goal) there is a value, a number R, such that Ke^2 = RGm^2, where K is the Coulomb constant, e^2 is the square of the charge on an electron, G is the universal gravitational constant and m^2 is the square of rest mass of an electron- what can be simpler than that! The calculated value of R is 4.16574 x 10^42. Given my TOP DOWN cosmology, then, Coulomb effects are 4.16574 x 10^42 times more intense than gravitational effects, meaning that local ignition, compression and containment needed for sustained fusion reactions are collectively unattainable. Clearly, the evolutionary direction of the universe must be countered and reversed to sustain a local fusion reaction- a physical impossibility! Yet, much money and time is being WASTED on attempts to “find a way,” apparently to justify continued reckless population growth on this fragile planet. (The problem does not exist with fission reactions, which have their own set of intractable problems, because energy release follows the direction of universal evolution.) What is R? Numbers and predictive ability matter (rather than finding explanation after a discovery, presently being done with BOTTOM UP BBT): Per my TOP DOWN cosmology, the radius of the universe on a quantum level is R = Root (M/m), where M is the total mass of the universe needed to unite gravitational and electrostatic forces and m is the rest-mass of an electron, yielding, Ke^2/ R^2 = RGm^2/ R^2, where R^2 is the square of R. The calculated mass at a quantum level, including “missing mass,” is M = 1.58079 x 10^55 power Kg, and the calculated radius of the quantum realm is R = 4.16574 x 10^42 power measured in instantaneous, dimensionless units. (M is undefined in the quantum realm, yet partially discernable as the observed mass Mo of the universe in the macroscopic world,). The number of unit circles (or squares) in the quantum realm is R^2 = 1.73534 x 10^85 power. It is a quantum attribute that area of unit squares and number of unit squares are indistinguishable (No need for citation, as all stated derivations are my own.) Everything is separating visually by such distance that the presence of extra-terrestrial life is very difficult to detect, yet everything has always been quantum-connected (“not locally real”). The total mass M needed to reconcile gravitational and electrostatic states is M = Mo /(2Pi - 1) (alpha^2), where Mo is the OBSERVABLE mass of the universe, (2Pi - 1) is the Bell inequality (ever an inequality in the macroscopic world, and equivalent to Euler’s “proof of God” in the quantum realm, where M is UNDEFINED), and (alpha^2) is the square of the fine-structure constant (a optical magnification factor, twice applied for virtual and real expression). In the quantum realm, the equation is undefined, because the radius is equal to the circumference, meaning that Pi = 1/2. The number of unit circles (or squares) in the universe is M/m, where m is the present-day rest mass of the electron. For a unit circle to become a unit square, Buffon’s needle problem becomes applicable, where one side is electrostatic and the other is gravitational. In order for the PROBABILITY to equal 1/2 (regarding Bell’s inequality AND Buffon’s problem), Pi = 4, meaning that Pi = 1/2 AND Pi = 4, implying that 1 = 8; hence, the qubit (used in quantum computing) is emergent. (My observations and derivations- no citation needed.) Using my TOP DOWN cosmology, the rate of change of alpha is -2.7958 x 10^-17/ year, based upon a perceived age of the universe of 13.799 x 10^9 years. For very large R the definite integral of R over time T approaching origin of the universe to the present day is approximately 1/2 of R^2, verifying perceived dichotomy (a weird quantum nuance, where areas AND number of unit circles or squares are indistinguishable). In the quantum realm, the term (2Pi - 1) = 0 can also be considered as the sidereal rotation of a unit circle within a unit circle (created by Buffon’s needle drop probability). As a physicist, I have been promoting this TOP DOWN model since1979. For those who would state (not me) that this is a “fun theory” (with its fulfilled prediction of larger primordial galaxies), demanding the math; then, when presented with the mathematical model finding the much-sought-after hidden “missing mass” and quantum gravity, implying that I am a mathematician with little relevance to physics: The physical world can instruct the mathematical world, IMO. In addition to reconciling the Coulomb constant and the universal gravitational constant, I have explained the significance of the little-understood fine structure constant, alpha. If you would simply “run with it,” you have the information to calculate the age and rate of expansion of the universe (much older than the presently-accepted age of the universe, hidden by quantum effects). Here are three obvious “predictions:” -Per TOP DOWN cosmology, there is understandably a paucity of antimatter in the local universe. -Hydrogen-rich stars and galaxies of equivalent mass, respectively, previously and inappropriately deemed to be colliding under BOTTOM UP (BBT) cosmology are actually and appropriately DIVIDING under TOP DOWN cosmology, which respects and predicts this behavior from evolutionary changes regarding critical mass (witness our own galaxy and Andromeda, representing main sequence evolution). -The current abundance of elements is reconciled by main-sequence TOP DOWN evolution, not requiring multiple solar cycles, exceeding even the presently-accepted age of the universe per BOTTOM UP BBT. There are no absolutes (a logical dilemma in itself). The closest thing to absolute certainty is found in abstract math- in application there is always an uncertainty (like when counting apples). The best that can be expected in the physical world is to “bet on the odds.” Given my TOP DOWN cosmology, odds are for things dividing rather than melding regarding cosmic events; whereas, there is every inclination for one schooled in BOTTOM UP BBT to look for, and prejudicially expect observed galaxies and stars to be colliding. Regarding dark energy: The hidden quantum world, which reveals itself as “locally not real” (Nobel Prize already given), contains a memory of the past in our own DNA, for example, revealed in morphogenesis (“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”), “betting on the odds.” Dr. Rupert Sheldrake describes this as “morphic fields” and “morphic resonance.” BTW, His theory accounts for why the Kelly astronaut twins are no longer DNA-identical twins, where there is no other better explanation that I have seen being offered- instead, relegating any explanation to the growing category of “unexplained mysteries!”

[@timgrant1796]

Between Chaos and Bifurcation, throwing in the Quantum Reality at our most fundamental existence seems like icing on the cake. Bon chance, mes amis.

[@TheOtherSteel]

I thought chaos theory stated that being able to know every variable down the last significant digit with accuracy was impossible, therefore all ideas about the progression of events being predetermined were false.

[@dougmarkham]

One aspect of this that nobody mentions is that 'will' itself generally is dependent upon one's own previous experiences, biases, designs, plans and aspirations. Even simple choices such as what ice-cream to choose cannot be thought of as independent of the past. If you catch yourself choosing a flavour you've not had for a change, you still ruled out all your least favoured flavours that you did know. None of that would possibly be impacted by randomness in the quantum realm, in the sense that those biases seem concrete and impactful no matter whether the randomness would cause the switch from eg, following the normal choice (Mint choc chip ice-cream as usual) or trying some monstrosity such as jelly-triple-choc peanut butter and marshmallow candy crunch with tangy ear-worm salad. In otherworms, whilst chaos may swing our choice between concrete options, it doesn't in itself open up a world of opportunities that are made inaccessible by the geometry and predispositions of one's psyche. Freedom anyway has the wiff of being independent of other people's demands and requirements, not of one's own internal psychological conditioning. With regards to that beyond the psyche and the biological paradigm, there is the issue of how the linear quantum processes evolve into non-linear natural systems which underpin most of the universe. It is a miscomprehension that nature is simple. Most of nature cannot be predicted in practice by modelling all variables. The reason for this has bugger all to do with the number of variables making it impractical to calculate the future. Rather, the components of non-linear systems have unexpected interactions separate from the local functions of these components. The outcome of these non-function-specific component interactions leads to feedback and emergent properties. This is why natural systems lead to downward causation. Physicists often do not come across much of this complexity in quantum experiments, although some physicists are looking for ways to discover how quantum mechanics could lead to such complexity. We are a world away and several galaxies worth of scientific discoveries from even proffering a decent hint of how conscious choice is impacted by quantum mechanics or if it even is. Also it's worth pointing out a subtlety: liberation and independence is completely separate from the idea of freedom. As earlier noted, being free to do something you want really means you're not responsible for other matters in that the needs of nobody else are stopping you from doing something. Liberation (on the other paw) is a consequence of where one comes to be aware of one's own intricate biases and perspectives, ie, so exploring carefully one's own presumptions and limited knowledge, that one come to mistrust one's own conclusions of how things are and to thus let go of them. Only when you mistrust the inner calculations can there be a more listening state of being where one's motivated more towards collaborative activities---to expand one's perspectives with the help of others. Another aspect of this thing is that true independence of choice can occur only when one has no particular pretence at all. When no preference for attributes of various options presents itself, then there is a random ambivalence towards the options that could be considered independence from determination. I think this notion of indeterminacy in thinking requires a lack of trust in any perspective ---such that one tosses a coin rather than making a reasoned choice. After all, reason and random are opposites. If it is true that quantum systems have inherent randomness, and the whole universe somehow coalesced from the interplay of states ---resulting from randomness causing asymmetries, and those asymmetries leading to enfoldng and emergence---then that still doesn't preclude that the impacts of the resulting order leads to deterministic evolution. Having looked into the subject of complexity theory and non-linear systems, it seems to me that order can arise out of either randomness or non-expected interactions. There are other possibilities which expand way outside the normal train-lines of human perspectives. Some of these include the possibility that the whole universe is a holographic projection---a 3d space-time progressing in time arising out activities on the event horizon of a black hole. Information on the event horizon would be non-local such that local events in the holographic projection would evolve non-locally at the surface of the event horizon. Other such unusual models are the notion of a fractal universe which generates great complexity from a combination of simple functions. Both have the notion of the reality we live in and the substructure supporting our illusion living by different rules, axioms and variables. So the notion of our quest to discover the possibility of freedom, or independence, or determined future is not one so easily resolvable by the idea of randomness. Nor should we ignore how complexity runs the natural world and the impact of self-organising systems upon our reality. Quantum realms are so far removed from our dimension---the macro world. Unless we can connect them together ie, by a model where the quantum activities can lead to complexity, then we remain ignorant of how bottom up processes lead to the reality of out world.

[@John-td3oq]

I see a couple possibilities: 1. quantum mechanics appears random but is actually not (we just don’t understand the causes, or the many worlds interpretation is correct), therefore (A) events are predetermined AND (B) we have no free will. 2. quantum mechanics is truly random, so (A) events are NOT predetermined but (B) we still do not have free will because choices are random. If free will exists, the difficult part for me would be to decide when it began in the evolutionary process and if other living things have it (ex. Do humans have free will while chimpanzees do not?).

[@joshjones6072]

In a room full of equal doors, you have many choices. If you don't have a hammer to drive a nail, to hang a picture, let's say, you can use a rock or a wrench instead. That's choice which emerges from experience. The more experiences you have the more choices you have. It's neither deterministic nor random.

[@richardmcbroom102]

Combine the Banach-Tarski paradox with Poincare's conjecture regarding "Thurston's surgery" and you get the essence of epochal universal dichotomy.

[@xtieburn]

Its good to see the video mention the philosophical argument of compatibilism. There has been a long and fascinating discussion going on about this topic among philosophers for quite some time, and I believe a solid majority side with compatibilism. Id recommend people read in to it, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an excellent place to start and completely shifted my view of this. (With some really nifty thought experiments as well.) Its a shame that many science videos and educators ignore all that work done on the question, and often seem wholly unaware that determinism doesnt necessarily rule out free will. Perhaps after reading in to it many will still conclude that free will is not possible, thats fine, its by no means set in stone, but I do think it should be an educated decision and not based simply off that initial assumption.

[@xtieburn]

Ill add, personally I think to rule out free will because it is determined by physical forces deterministic or probabilistic is to (usually unknowingly) define free will as supernatural, and require not only that people have free will but a sort of meta-free will where they can step outside of their brains and alter the will within them. I found this was an absurd bar I caught myself unwittingly setting, far higher than any bar in any other context or situation, and I suspect probably influenced by growing up Christian. Im an atheist now, and not only does this not make much sense from a world view without souls and such, it is also somewhat self-contradictory. After all, if you were 'determined' to do the many things you wish to do, is it more free to carry those action out, or magically alter your choices?

[@scproinc]

Compatibilism is just like agnosticism. It's trying to have it both way by being indecisive on the topic at hand.

[@blackshard641]

​@@scproinc ah, you mean it's an honest assessment of a poorly defined or (intentionally) undecidable proposition. Agnosticism doesn't make the sophomoric mistake of labeling "false" that which is more properly recognized as "out of bounds" or "undefined".

[@scproinc]

@@blackshard641 Agnostics would say that it is also unknowable if something is "out of bounds" or "undefined". Which is why it is pointless to discuss anything with them because their answer is always "I don't know" and "you can't know that."

[@dhamovjan4760]

It seems that the first fundamental error in this video is the definition of free will. If one defines free will as: "the ability of a conscious being to make choices that are not solely determined by prior physical causes" And then investigate the influence of physical causes, then of course you are not going to find anything. It is impossible to find any effect or "free will" by construction of the set-up. Thank you however for this thought-provoking video. I enjoyed it. Addressing the first definition of free will: The possibility to have made a different choice or action, seems more promising and interesting to investigate to me.

[@Lleanlleawrg]

It depends on how you define "free will". I think most people would say it's the ability to make choices irrespective of the past, to change an outcome in the future, or words to that effect. Quantum physics on the other hand, demonstrate an unpredictability in nature. Depending on the interpretation that could be because every event is simultaneously real in our universe, and collapses to one specific event upon observation, or it's that every event happens in some universe, and it's only when we've observed the outcome that we know which universe we're in. Either way you slice it, it's an argument against free will. Because free will presupposes we live in a non-deterministic and also non-random universe, I would think. I've seen no evidence that free will is really real though. Everything we do is influenced by past events, whether it's evolutionary history, or what we had for breakfast this morning, or what was happening in our brain a second before.

[@SuperYtc1]

The randomness is a sign that we don't understand something. When you flip a coin, it's not truly random. If you knew the physical conditions you could predict which side it would land on.

[@henrythompson7768]

i tend to agree i hope that come to bear out. qm is very unsatisfying

[@Lojdika]

I argue that Wolfram's computational irreducibility, if true, makes us responsible for our actions. The computation done by our brain, even if determined, is unique and unpredictable. No other slice of space-time can make the computation but our brain. As you said, no one else is doing it for us.

[@bazounet32]

I think that what we really define as free will is the fact that most of the time we are unable to understand our own decisions, we act often instinctively, most of our choices are in fact unconscious. If we were conscious of all the machinery in our brain, we would be just sophisticated computers without the illusion of free will.

[@ggoedert]

It is possible we dont know all mechanics laws, ones that are so subtle that nobody ever tested them, and also we have no idea how conscious and free will actually work, the reason there is no generic AI is not the lack of computing power, but nobody knows how to start to program it... So those free will questions have no answer as of now....

[@richardmcbroom102]

The previous post to mine is a prime example of how the current zeitgeist considers something "explained" when that explanation becomes sufficiently opaque to all logical scrutiny..

[@Jack__________]

I have heard that you cannot control every thought that appears in your mind… like the thought of hunger, for instance. However, you can choose to ignore it. So it’s almost like along with having “free will,” we have “free won’t.” You can choose NOT to embrace a thought… and go on to act in a way that you know is better.

[@Esterified80]

Hunger is a phisiological sensation not a thought

[@richardmcbroom102]

"Free will" is that unreconciled part of the quantum state that remains to be reconciled. Most of the quantum state is reconciled and thereby determined, aka, "dark matter" or "dark energy."

[@briananderson687]

Fully agree. But our brains may behave more like the quantum world than we would care to admit. Human thought and action, as you mentioned, would appear to be “emergent”, which of course does not negate determinize, but it greatly complicates any claim that we can understand what caused our action. We can’t predict the weather, let alone human actions. The starting point for any individual’s thought or action is an ever changing configuration of neurons and electro-chemical states. Drop a stimulus into this every changing organ and the exact outcome cannot be known before it is “observed” (damn that double slit experiment!). Like the weather, the brain can only produce a predictable set of outcomes, but how much rain will fail and wind will blow can only be determined by observation. So it is with our brain - like a box of chocolates! Thank you as always!

[@eamon_concannon]

Postulating that free will at least partially causes an event in a very complex emergent system is like saying that some god or spirit caused the event.

[@vince424]

Just my 2 cents. Define space: three axis, imaginary, polarization (rotation, pov), and real. Time is obvious or superflues, take your pick. Colloquial and linguistic (macroscopically) these could be called imagine, interpret and realize. The polarization axis takes care of free will, it is inherent to the degrees of freedom of the space proposed in this brief exerpt. Reality is to be perceived, interpreted by the observer, hence polarized. Every being is unique and adds as such to the space of perception. No need for determinism, it is flawed as it assumes a self fullfilling (limited) number of degrees of freedom which leaves no room for free will. Love your comments!

[@ChinnuWoW]

There is only one possible outcome for any situation and this outcome is what actually ends up happening. For every possibility, there is an infinity of impossibilities.

[@MrHalukbilgin]

I liked your debate with Sabine Hossenfelder on this subject.

[@waltuh-y2m]

Arvin, please make the intro a bit longer please🙏🙏 that song is amazing, just like this video

[@kirill112k2]

... that's coming up right now!

[@jacksonmartin8899]

The problem with the compatibilist POV is that it just decides to ignore the determinism involved in being someone who decides to take the time to consider other options. Everyone's brain, circumstances, dna, etc. leads them by a causal chain of events to be the person they are with the unique set of capacities that they have. Some of us will not have the set of circumstances necessary to meditate or appropriately consider or learn the right things in time to have made a different choice. We make choices. Most of us learn something from them. We may make different choices in the future. But we could not have chosen differently at any given point in the past. We MUST choose what we want most at the moment of choice given all the circumstances at that moment. We cannot control what we want most: that is a given. In the same way that we cannot make ourselves believe something we don't believe by a mere act of free will. Free will implies necessarily that we control both what we want most and/or what we believe. Both of those things may change, but we do not change them by acts of free will separate from what we want most or truly believe.

[@zusm]

Free will is not merely the ability to make decisions but to make them with knowledge of the subject. This is because freedom is the insight into necessity. With knowledge of the laws of nature (not independence from them), we can make use of them for the ends of our choosing. I am not free to use my phone without the knowledge necessary to use it. Necessity is blind only in so far as it is not understood. The laws governing the physical and mental realms can be separated in thought but not in reality.

[@OluGt]

I have two (2) questions: 1) What if initial conditions are very hard to replicate to the quantum level? Meaning that quantum level of observations are too fuzzy to pinpoint in order to be replicated to make concrete observations or to concretely reproduce and isolate initial conditions for experiments. For example, if producing even photons one by one, is it possible to ensure that the source of that production is kept in exact same initial make-up each time after a photon is produced or can multiple very simplistic sources be made identical to produce photons to perform experiments like the Double Slit experiment, etc. just as an approach to ensure same initial conditions? 2) What if we don't have tools with high enough resolution to follow the superposition of particles that are capable of being in superposition? Or a way to replay (if possible to record on video) in extremely slow motion observations made about superposition? Pardon my very basic terminologies in my questions. It's for the sake of asking in very basic terms.

[@timoex]

I find the question of Free Will to be ultimately nonsensical, especially until we have a solid understanding of consciousness. Which we don't. BUT, when the question is asked "do YOU have free will?" Who is the YOU you are referring to? Are you speaking to a humunculus inside the head of a human? A spirit per se? Something independent of my body? As I see it, what matters is that I am a wholly unique thing in the universe. When a cause hits me, I will react in a wholly unique way. That, to me, is ME. A thing that is incapable of being wholly predictable until after I have acted. Reductionism suggests the thought experiement of knowing everything forward and backward. But unless I'm mistaken, to play the universe out into the future, faster then the future arrives, would require faster-than-light information, which Einstein says is not possible. So you could never know my actions before they happen, because you can't know me until I act. This relates in part to the discussion by Jean Baudrillard in Simulacra & Simulation. The pretense of understanding "reality" is simply not possible.

[@gyurbanvikrenc8267]

You forgot to count the most important factor into your thinking, and that is intelligence. Intelligence is a structure which can create entirely new events without a cause other than (and this is the key here) the intelligence itself. Of course this structure is made of energy as well and as such is subject to causality, but that does not mean it cannot add anything new to the chain of events it participates in. The point is to understand that free does not mean that your choice free of everything, one entity cannot be free of itself (unless you are a buddist and reach nirvana), but free of external (other than itself) causes. It would not be even your free choice, if it was not caused chemical interactions in your brain, because what is you is defined by these interactions. What you call you is the collection of information called memories that is stored in your brain, which is eventually built up by your interpretation of the events that happen to you. That is why buddist try to get rid of memories, they want to tear down that structure.

[@Bill..N]

I have enjoyed your show for MANY years, Arvin..On this one a potentially more clear-cut way to salvage our genuine sense of free will/agency COULD simply be the MWs theory.. Back in the day before the time demands of your channels growth, we had such a conversation.. I get the popularity of the Copenhagen interpretation, BUT I'm confident that minus any long explanations, you can gather how this alternative could DIRECTLY account for free will..As always, a humble opinion friend.. Peace.

[@Nayr747]

I didn't think anyone can even describe what free will is other than a psychological feeling that you could have done otherwise, no different from any other psychological feeling like deja vu.

[@Bill..N]

@Nayr747 It COULD be as simple as you CHOOSING a moment to suddenly flick your left ear with your right index finger.. It certainly seems as though we have free agency to do just that, no?

[@Nayr747]

@@Bill..N A lot of things SEEM a certain way even though they're not. It certainly seems as though I've experienced events before when I have a feeling of deja vu but we KNOW that's not actually the case.

[@Bill..N]

@Nayr747 Know this friend... Just like GR is widely understood to be an incomplete theory, SO IS QM. .. Super-determinism is already largely discounted, and one should not discount the existence of actual free will based on incomplete theories .. One opinion, friend, peace..

[@Nayr747]

@@Bill..N I respect your opinion. But QM isn't involved in determinism. QM is used to try to salvage free will from determinism.

[@AlexanderBrusilovsky]

After the fact, we can prove that everything was predetermined. Before the fact, we can't have a clue since the act of measuring and calculating affects the environment itself according to quantum physics. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you believe in free will or not; in any action, there is an element of the unknown future. We make choices because the outcome is never 100% certain, regardless of a predetermined present. In other words, everything is known and predetermined, but we don't know it yet. Call it free will, and you can't be wrong.

[@htidtricky1295]

Laplace's Demon is great thought experiment. I would love to see more content related to entropy and decision making. Here's a fun thought experiment - Imagine if we gave Laplace's Demon a utility function and turned it into a paper clip maximiser. Would it make conscious decisions or simply follow a path towards the greatest utility, i.e. the future state that contains the most paper clips? The latter suggests that having a complete model of reality doesn't allow an agent to make their own decisions. Laplace's Demon is a zombie! Obviously, Laplace's Demon is a fiction that could never exist but an agent with an incomplete model that is fixed and unable to update itself or correct errors would also behave in the same manner. I think Daniel Kahneman's System 1 and System 2 reflects some of these ideas. System 1 is our unconscious fixed model of reality where what you see is all there is, so to speak. System 2 is the conscious, decision-making voice in our head that interrogates System 1's model of reality when it makes a mistake. System 2 is our active error correction for System 1's incomplete model of reality.

[@JCMT523]

First video...he seems to have a materialistic and therefore determinist perspective that allows quantum mechanics to introduce a level of randomness, but this randomness is meaningless to the free will question. I am attracted to the view that quantum mechanics opens the world to consciousness or a kind of panpsychism and that from the simple cell to the brain, there is a quantum mechanical base that is open to consciousness.

[@larsbitsch-larsen6988]

Your free will is not based on quantum physics, it is based on what you have learned and experienced during your total life. From the very beginning. Your free will is limited by the brains "programmes". Your conscious and unconscious assumptions and your experiences.

[@bongmuon]

What about the concept of retro causality on consciousness? Sir Roger Penrose has been talking about that lately and it is very intriguing. See the Forbes article from Oct 2023 "Testing A Time-Jumping, Multiverse-Killing, Consciousness-Spawning Theory Of Reality". Especially if those experiments in 1979 were retested. How would that affect free will if our consciousness exists as a result of waveform collapse of the quantum state?

[@fikretyet]

The emergent process causing the possibility of choice is at least "chaotic". I don't mean "there are a lot of variables and it is hard to map the path", I mean, in its essence, choices will have a decent amount of randomness and this makes it impossible to mathematically cover human actions on human scale in a formula. Yes, this doesn't exactly mean there is total free will but it means it is impossible to say it is totally deterministic. So, I totally agree Arvin Ash's view on this subject.

[@henrythompson7768]

well i think you have a misunderstanding of chaos. chaos is actually still deterministic just not predictable. like the classic double pendulum example. there is no randomness in the movement of the pendulum and their position from an initial starting position after a given amount of time is determined its just impossible to predict without going through every step in between. so chaos absolutely is deterministic

[@fikretyet]

@@henrythompson7768 Yes, you are actually (and partially) right. Chaos refers to systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. While the future is predetermined in a chaotic system, the complexity and sensitivity to initial conditions make it effectively unpredictable, which can coexist with a form of free will or randomness. This is the compatibilistic view that I agree. However, I have to underline two points, there is space for randomness both in nature and thought processes of a decisive agent and the level of complexity and unpredictability can make it effectively equal to randomness, much like in 0.99..=1.

[@wmpx34]

What if the subset of choices that we could make in a given situation is deterministic, but the choice that we actually select is made freely? For example, determinism might hone our potential responses to choices A, B, and C. Then we consciously choose one of those. But we wouldn’t consciously choose D, because that wasn’t deterministically available.

[@michmart9261]

Yea physical laws sure dictate the possible outcomes, how does this help?

[@ywtcc]

Free will is best applied retrospectively. It is occasionally useful to ask if different ideas may have produced different behaviors. It's a question of an ability to learn. The causal argument is interesting, but I don't think it addresses the question in the most important way to ask it. If neurons are emergent, then so are behaviors. We still need systems to compare and learn from behaviors and their effects, even without a degree in quantum mechanics.

[@alemanyx7x]

So, let's say that because it's possible to predict someone's decision and "free will" based on the classical events (having all the information of every particle's state), I predict that that person is going to perform the Double-slit Experiment. I also would know that he/she is expecting an outcome of the experiment but because the quantum events are probabilistics, of course I would not determine their reaction based on the result, otherwise I would of predict the outcome of the quantum experiment myself before it happened.

[@silver831cali3]

We have freewill up to a certain extent every choice we previously made takes us to a certain path that isn't avoidable. The long term outcomes can be only slightly changed at certain periods in our life that were already previously set. We are here to learn lessons and the vessel we have are already determined to a certain extent. The future is like a fog. You could see ahead but not much. Every step you take equals the same amount you'll see ahead

[@DonDee123]

Bell‘s theorem rules hidden information out -> the state of entangled particles is not predetermined -> the universe can‘t be determined. Evolution selected for brains/neural systems that can analyze their environment and react accordingly. Brainresearch showed that the prefrontal cortex basically chooses between options presented to it. Quantum physics and evolution, two of the strongest principles speak for free will.

[@bazounet32]

Bell's theorem doesn't rules hidden variables out, it just rules out "LOCAL hidden variables". That's what the intrication phenomenon shows.

[@ai-dubb1355]

Free will is a different question than the effect of randomness on the universe. Quantum randomness could determine the physical properties of any point in space and have no effect on whether a sentient being has free will. This means the future is undeterminable, physically. Free will or not, different outcomes would occur in a hypothetical simulation of 1,000,000 universes that start from right now, yet none of them definitely do or do not contain free will based on that limited information. This is a question that has one answer , and that it "unknowable". No belief or probability can be assigned to either binary answer.

[@xbfotos]

6:00 Well what if making decisions happens at the fundamental level? We still don’t know much about what exactly happens at quantum level in our brains

[@simonnordon8421]

The thing is, you can't know both the position and momentum of of a particle at the same time. The starting conditions are unknowable, and even if the universe is deterministic, it's fundamentally unpredictable. Technically speaking AI image generation is deterministic in the same way, but it would be almost impossible to perfectly predict the output of such a generation. It's so astonishingly complex that any idea of not having free will is honestly just useless information.

[@unkgames-abdullahali4048]

PREVENTING something from happening through one dimension (the right and wrong dimension) is the absolute free will

[@henrythompson7768]

what does this mean

[@unkgames-abdullahali4048]

​@@henrythompson7768 as long as you have the absolute free will you will make more faults (when you conflict with reality) otherwise you will find yourself walking to on the right way, in the religious theory: its exactly the same but you will also have the absolute free will when you follow god's way because he will write your future as you're going throw the way there so you have written to yourself the good luck, it could be expanded to more directions(dimensions) of following god's way

[@RussellFlowers]

The problem is free will doesn't have a rigorous definition. Full determinism certainly locks out free will (I think), but at least quantum uncertainty could allow it somehow.

[@uriituw]

How do you know it would allow it?

[@RussellFlowers]

@@uriituw Only in the respect that it's not fully deterministic, as determinism *doesn't* allow it. In reality, I don't have a mechanism for how uncertainty would allow free will.

[@tyranmcgrath6871]

Even quantum uncertainty would only reduce free will to a probability