Scientist explains free will | Lee Cronin and Lex Fridman

[@LexClips]

Full podcast episode: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXjMdaSeiMl_fs0 Lex Fridman podcast channel: kzbin.info Guest bio: Lee Cronin is a chemist at University of Glasgow.

[@boscovich11]

In carlos castaneda books(art of endreaming) they exposes the universe everything is running at the same time...

[@apalomba]

I like where Lee is going with this. I think what he is really saying is, our perception of time is what allows free will to exist. Time does not exist in the spirit realm, it is an expression of the distillation (or maybe reverse projection) of all our life experiences, as fractal information. There is no time there, so nothing changes, for all of eternity. But our perception of time allows us to move future information in, creating novelty and change. But it is even deeper than that... Imagine a rope, imagine us pulling ourselves out of a hole. Imagine us getting out of the hole and being free. The rope is time. The choice then becomes what information do I want to bring in?

[@OperationEden]

oh hey, you got it

[@ericmichel3857]

You lost me at "Time does not exist in the spirit realm"

[@bokchoiman]

Prove that there is a "Spirit realm"

[@Randyw1111]

What the shi+

[@SiriusDogStar369]

My 17 year old son & I were having a discussion 2 days ago about the meaning of the word sin in the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings as it relates to free will & capitalism. He asked me what my own opinion was regarding free will. The first part of the conversation lasted a couple hours so I asked to take a break & come back to the topic later. I needed to rest by that point. He has always had such big questions about things that, although I love to study the universe & always have, always will- never have I felt so compelled to gather more examples of a worthy answer for him, about a subject so important to me as this one. I’d do my best to answer the question as intelligently as possible under normal circumstances, but to my son, who- had the capacity to wonder about it & courage to ask… it feels more like submitting my masters thesis. Either that, or the ending scene of Flashdance… importance wise I mean. So thank you both🙏 We’ll use this as the accompanying video portion of the lesson plan. Appreciate you

[@nicolasgalileo7209]

Your son will be a great man!!! He started right!! Questioning everything...

[@SiriusDogStar369]

@@knowsomething9384 I don’t fret about much at all…I’ve have two near death experiences, so I knows something about what’s worthy of fret vs worthy of studying the evolution of the English language of. For example, the word fret late 14c., from Old French frete means interlaced pattern, but c. 1500, of unknown origin is also the ridge on the fingerboard of a guitar. Isn’t that intriguing?

[@SiriusDogStar369]

@@nicolasgalileo7209 Thank you. I agree.

[@millerstation92]

@@SiriusDogStar369 for the love of Jesus don't fill your son's brain with bs sophistry that never will be able to be disproved (free will or lack of). We literally know nothing, NOTHING. Just tell him to fuck bitches and enjoy life Please I have nothing but good intentions when I tell you this.

[@archangelarielle262]

Free will is incoherent under any defintion. Thoughts are either determined by prior causes (principle of sufficient reason/ cause and effect) in which you do not control them, or they are random (quantum indeterminacy)/ a mixture of both, in either case you do not control them. Every particle (further divisible to the wave function or possibly strings) in the universe, obeys the laws of physics, and your brain which constitutes of matter is no different; following the 4 fundamental forces, in which you do not control that was set off at a brute fact (the big bang) or infinite regression. Libertarian free will proponents insist that their choices are made for reasons, but also that those reasons do not determine their choices. Or that those reasons are not themselves determined, but also not a matter of chance, this is a contradiction. If it’s a false trichotomy, then what are the other options? Agent causation (of the soul)? But again, does something cause the agent to act, or does the agent act for no reason? Even if you have an immaterial soul, it only makes sense to say that soul is making decisions if its actions are causally determined by prior soul-states. Otherwise, its actions are uncaused, and uncaused events are, by definition, random. If you are acting randomly, that’s not really decision making. It’s only if your actions are done for reasons which cause those actions that you’re really making decisions. You’re not making decisions if you’re just doing things for no reason. A mixture of chance and determinism? Part of the decision-making process involves causal influences, and the rest has no prior cause. This doesn't solve it. Free will, described by its advocates imply a person has control over their decisions. If my decisions are predetermined; how do I have control over them? If my decisions have no cause, and occur for no reason, then how can I control them? What does it mean to say that “we are free and in control of what facts and ideas the mind focuses on”? When I choose to focus on an idea, does something cause me to choose to focus on that idea? If the answer is yes, then I'm not really in control of that act of focusing. If the answer is no, and there is nothing that determines what I will choose to focus on, the act of focusing on anything is no different from a chance event, which by definition are not controlled by anything. So, does something cause a person to focus and think, or does the person’s choice to think and focus happen for no reason? Or is it partly causally influenced and partly chance? I don’t see how responsibility or control fits into any of these options, and I don’t see what other options there are. I can choose 'x' or 'y', however, everything that makes up that choice is caused by both internal and external variables in which you did not pick. E.g., genetics, brain electricity and chemistry, physics of your own atoms and that around you, parents/ who raised you, where you were raised, what you were taught. These make up your beliefs, thoughts, impulses, emotions, knowledge, memory. True free will would be walking off a building and willing your atoms to defy gravity. In the same way your body cannot defy that fundamental force, your brain cannot defy the other 3 forces which makes up your thoughts. You are just matter and energy reacting to the laws of physics.

[@wonseoklee80]

Time is fundamental. All possible songs are already there as a data maybe in Apple Music's database, but we need to 'play' that data using an iPhone, which consumes time.

[@STaSHZILLA420]

One thing that always blew my mind is how present time is similar to a blackhole. Not in space but in time. Present time is a singular point of infinite density with information emanating from its poles. Those poles being past and future time. I have yet to find anyone who has thought that. Does anyone know if there is a theory or a philosophy revolving around this idea?

[@carpballet]

Lol. Drugs

[@mansoorkhanjadoon1360]

I can see what you mean from a philisophical point of view. Its like the infinite information that is in an object to exist is only actualized when an infinite density is accumilited in the present

[@carpballet]

@@mansoorkhanjadoon1360 Don’t forget the “information emanating from its poles.” That’s emanatingly important. Jesus h. No wonder humanity is a mess.

[@STaSHZILLA420]

I feel like gravity's fundamental force is repulsive until mass is introduced. Once mass is introduced, two emergent properties are shown. Time and the attractive force of gravity. This would explain dark matter and the expansion of the universe.

[@Adoubless]

Oh interesting.

[@armoredp]

I mean we already know gravity isn't technically a "force", but rather a consequense of bending spacetime. So you'd be saying spacetime bends outwards when there is no mass (nearby)? It's a possibility but also hard to distinguish from space expanding universally (of which dark matter is a possible solution), meaning your solution to an expanding universe is that "space just expands naturally". The question then is still.. why? And we are back where we started.

[@STaSHZILLA420]

@43_xa_ashutoshsononey32 Yea, I need to figure out how to clarify my statement a bit more. In "nature" gravity will always have an attractive force. The only option for gravity to "repel" would be against massless particles maybe. Im not formally trained at all so i can be missing some very fundamental understandings. "It is shown that reduction of the gravitational mass of the system due to emitting gravitational waves leads to a repulsive gravitational force that diminishes with time but never disappears. This repulsive force may be related to the observed expansion of the Universe." So, I guess, what Im implying is that the repulsive force could be the cause of the expansion seen as well as dark matter or dark energy. When two gravitational waves interact, perhaps we are viewing the interaction as what we call dark matter.

[@STaSHZILLA420]

@@armoredp Well said. So I agree with the label of "force" applied to gravity. To me, it makes more sense to call gravity an "emergent property". At least, in this specific "scenario" But then again, Im not formally trained nor did i study this in college so there could be many things im missing. As far as the "why" part of it all. I dont think that will ever go away. Even if we had conclusive evidence of a creator or lack of one. We would still say "why". Which is one of Man's better qualities.

[@Jacobk-g7r]

4:50 it’s the things with the most complexity and things. It’s got more going on with life and the expansion through it that everywhere else is a drop of knowledge pointing at the potentials.

[@jameswilling8131]

Imagine you could clearly see an active planet one thousand light-years away and could record the change in the image as you got closer to it. Now imagine you can travel there in an hour you would see 1000 years of time unfold on that planet in an hour theoretically and if you were able to observe earth clearly during this journey you would see 1000 years of time reversed in an hour but you would be able to accurately predict the future of earth

[@shadw4701]

I think free will is a spectrum. Your lucidity and willpower in this case is your free will. Sometimes you have free will, sometimes you don't. I don't think lucid dreaming would exist if we don't have free will because this is the ultimate form of freedom

[@imperator_odin]

If you sometimes have free will then it just means you always have free will as you aren’t living in a silo.

[@tomasurbanec4778]

Hello, I also had this idea about free will and a spectrum. But wrong spectrum, Ive been there too. It is a spectrum of illusion of free will. Doesnt matter how little or how much free will you feel. The core question for this spectrum is : How well your brain understand where does the INTENT came from? On the one side - Our brain is sometimes very close to understanding where does the INTENT came from - So we can feel a very little free will in that case becuse we see where it came from. On the other side of the spectrum - Our brian is very far from understanding where does the INTENT came from so what do we feel in that case ? we can feel a lot of free will, baceuse we are missing most of the clues. We are free only in our ignorace to make a fake-wrong-lie story where does the intent came from. That why free will is still a debate not a solved business as it is.

[@tomasurbanec4778]

@THE_DARK_GATE yea but a diffrent subject. Spectrum of illusion not of free will.

[@archangelarielle262]

Free will is incoherent under any defintion. Thoughts are either determined by prior causes (principle of sufficient reason/ cause and effect) in which you do not control them, or they are random (quantum indeterminacy)/ a mixture of both, in either case you do not control them. Every particle (further divisible to the wave function or possibly strings) in the universe, obeys the laws of physics, and your brain which constitutes of matter is no different; following the 4 fundamental forces, in which you do not control that was set off at a brute fact (the big bang) or infinite regression. Libertarian free will proponents insist that their choices are made for reasons, but also that those reasons do not determine their choices. Or that those reasons are not themselves determined, but also not a matter of chance, this is a contradiction. If it’s a false trichotomy, then what are the other options? Agent causation (of the soul)? But again, does something cause the agent to act, or does the agent act for no reason? Even if you have an immaterial soul, it only makes sense to say that soul is making decisions if its actions are causally determined by prior soul-states. Otherwise, its actions are uncaused, and uncaused events are, by definition, random. If you are acting randomly, that’s not really decision making. It’s only if your actions are done for reasons which cause those actions that you’re really making decisions. You’re not making decisions if you’re just doing things for no reason. A mixture of chance and determinism? Part of the decision-making process involves causal influences, and the rest has no prior cause. This doesn't solve it. Free will, described by its advocates imply a person has control over their decisions. If my decisions are predetermined; how do I have control over them? If my decisions have no cause, and occur for no reason, then how can I control them? What does it mean to say that “we are free and in control of what facts and ideas the mind focuses on”? When I choose to focus on an idea, does something cause me to choose to focus on that idea? If the answer is yes, then I'm not really in control of that act of focusing. If the answer is no, and there is nothing that determines what I will choose to focus on, the act of focusing on anything is no different from a chance event, which by definition are not controlled by anything. So, does something cause a person to focus and think, or does the person’s choice to think and focus happen for no reason? Or is it partly causally influenced and partly chance? I don’t see how responsibility or control fits into any of these options, and I don’t see what other options there are. I can choose 'x' or 'y', however, everything that makes up that choice is caused by both internal and external variables in which you did not pick. E.g., genetics, brain electricity and chemistry, physics of your own atoms and that around you, parents/ who raised you, where you were raised, what you were taught. These make up your beliefs, thoughts, impulses, emotions, knowledge, memory. True free will would be walking off a building and willing your atoms to defy gravity. In the same way your body cannot defy that fundamental force, your brain cannot defy the other 3 forces which makes up your thoughts. You are just matter and energy reacting to the laws of physics.

[@mattsigl1426]

He’s totally right that the “largest” place in the universe is earth. If we measure what exists by not “size” technically but “complexity”…we’re in the center of it all. Could there be other loci of complexity? Yes. But it just as well could be the case that we always were measuring the world incorrectly, thinking it was spatial instead of measuring by complexity.

[@tsmyth23]

first time posting on a video lex. long time watcher. it needs to be said, what an excellent interview this was here lex- nice job. right or wrong, history will tell, but wow, absolutely fascinating to contemplate!

[@Jacobk-g7r]

7:53 you’re about to step into how knowledge is embedded in us through the real and now you see what teaching is and how it’s like a pattern and we see how it would work with another form of creation. Look at video games and think of how that’s a physical space built from pieces of reality just like the mind is a physical place but not the full object but parts of it are grown into our understanding giving rise to this come of reality. That’s why we can see and create from these patterns grown into us and we connect them in many ways and expand. Even making ai is like an evolution creating a different thing to survive and do better like how the cells create us but we don’t use the cells as little individuals because it’s the pattern that we can control. The pattern of cascading events and our body is like a planet or room where the laws inside that are grown will shift slightly but they are the general rules for the body based on intake. That’s like our structure of words coming together to form sentences that embody meaning through the patterns of connection.

[@pokemon_420]

If there were no future and everything is rather probabilistic and generated on the fly would the concept of future need to be stored in space?

[@ManuTheGreat79]

The priciple that free will is incompatible with a determined universe is just not true. It's quite the opposite. As long as you nor anybody else can know the future (and thus try to change it) it makes no difference to your free will that the future is already determined

[@archangelarielle262]

Free will is incoherent under any defintion. Thoughts are either determined by prior causes (principle of sufficient reason/ cause and effect) in which you do not control them, or they are random (quantum indeterminacy)/ a mixture of both, in either case you do not control them. Every particle (further divisible to the wave function or possibly strings) in the universe, obeys the laws of physics, and your brain which constitutes of matter is no different; following the 4 fundamental forces, in which you do not control that was set off at a brute fact (the big bang) or infinite regression. Libertarian free will proponents insist that their choices are made for reasons, but also that those reasons do not determine their choices. Or that those reasons are not themselves determined, but also not a matter of chance, this is a contradiction. If it’s a false trichotomy, then what are the other options? Agent causation (of the soul)? But again, does something cause the agent to act, or does the agent act for no reason? Even if you have an immaterial soul, it only makes sense to say that soul is making decisions if its actions are causally determined by prior soul-states. Otherwise, its actions are uncaused, and uncaused events are, by definition, random. If you are acting randomly, that’s not really decision making. It’s only if your actions are done for reasons which cause those actions that you’re really making decisions. You’re not making decisions if you’re just doing things for no reason. A mixture of chance and determinism? Part of the decision-making process involves causal influences, and the rest has no prior cause. This doesn't solve it. Free will, described by its advocates imply a person has control over their decisions. If my decisions are predetermined; how do I have control over them? If my decisions have no cause, and occur for no reason, then how can I control them? What does it mean to say that “we are free and in control of what facts and ideas the mind focuses on”? When I choose to focus on an idea, does something cause me to choose to focus on that idea? If the answer is yes, then I'm not really in control of that act of focusing. If the answer is no, and there is nothing that determines what I will choose to focus on, the act of focusing on anything is no different from a chance event, which by definition are not controlled by anything. So, does something cause a person to focus and think, or does the person’s choice to think and focus happen for no reason? Or is it partly causally influenced and partly chance? I don’t see how responsibility or control fits into any of these options, and I don’t see what other options there are. I can choose 'x' or 'y', however, everything that makes up that choice is caused by both internal and external variables in which you did not pick. E.g., genetics, brain electricity and chemistry, physics of your own atoms and that around you, parents/ who raised you, where you were raised, what you were taught. These make up your beliefs, thoughts, impulses, emotions, knowledge, memory. True free will would be walking off a building and willing your atoms to defy gravity. In the same way your body cannot defy that fundamental force, your brain cannot defy the other 3 forces which makes up your thoughts. You are just matter and energy reacting to the laws of physics. Divine Foreknowledge: The argument is not that God predetermined what he knows ahead of time, it is that in order to infallibly know what will happen in the future, what will happen in the future has to be written in stone. Even if it’s not written in stone by God, it still has to be written in stone in order for God to know it infallibly. Knowing something will happen, even infallibly doesn't deterministically cause it to happen. The point is that in order to infallibly know that an event will happen, that event has to be predetermined. It doesn't have to be predetermined by the knowledge you have, but in order to have that knowledge infallibly, the event cannot be free to not occur. To say that an event is free to occur or not occur is to say whether it will occur or not cannot be infallibly known. There is no coherent scenario, not even hypothetically in which these events do not occur. Even if God is outside time, and our future actions are retroactively causing God to know about them infallibly in the present, then they also lock us into committing them inescapably, otherwise we could defy God's foreknowledge. This would mean that I am predetermined to take every action I will ever take. If we aren't free to act differently, in the future, from how he, presently know we will act, because from his perspective it's already happened, then we have no more freedom to change the future, that we have to change the past.

[@Jacobk-g7r]

25:30 the same way our brain cascades growths that are our sensory organs and nerves and stuff. Nothing is truly fundamental in all aspects, there are fundamentals like bottlenecks but nothing is needed and I’ll explain. Complexity doesn’t arise from nowhere and it doesn’t come from god, it could but that’s a possibility. Space is full of things but our body’s just don’t detect it and that’s why we have machines, those machines are growths stemming from us, a growth and our thoughts which are also grown. The ways in which we connect to that growth are not a small thing. We are using our growths to grow our physical mass into a shape like moving our body or talking and that shape creates another out of matter in so many forms like sound vibrations, a robot, or art. It’s all the same through the sharing of that energy in the patterns and that’s also why we are using and not others but we can live other lives if we want or we can give up our will just by thinking it’s out of our control. When you believe you can’t because all the connections to the negatives so you keep living the lie when really you could just move and do it.

[@SubXero1000]

I think I'm following... like free will exists, but is fleeting. The infinite possibilities of the future converge into a deterministic past, via us.

[@mattsigl1426]

If the universe is deterministic when you look in the past, then it would have to be so in the future as well. For A truly indeterministic universe all that need be the case is that, though there is a determined past, if the past HAD been different there wouldn’t be any contradiction, it’s just that the indeterministic movement into the future COULD have developed differently but didn’t. Freedom may be the “x” factor that collapses one particular future into the present, with choice being the intrinsic ability for reality to resolve one way rather than another. Otherwise you may have a contradiction with The Principle of Sufficient Reason.

[@grossindecency]

Thats actually alot clearer. I only have one question. What?

[@DuchessandHammer]

Although you need to think outside the bounds of elementary understanding of what a universe is how it computational power is outside of simplistic determinism.

[@jamesmunro8045]

In response to "how do you store an infinitely long number in a finite size; Couldn't a finite structure be divided an infinite number of times = infinity within a finite boundary?

[@ericmichel3857]

Yes

[@jessewallace12able]

That was a great conversation. I like that Lex let him cook. His theory is great.

[@rezadaneshi]

I admire Lex for his composure of but … but …but … filling the rest with facial expression.

[@Prof-Joe-H]

Does he mean combinatorial when he says commentarial? Distracting pronunciation… 🤔

[@carpballet]

Funny haired guy talks too fast and often mumbles.

[@motownmoneygang]

The universe can be viewed as deterministic from an outside point of view, whilst still maintaining free will of the entities inside. To illustrate this claim think about the concept of a god, who created time itself and exists outside of it. To him the universe might be like watching a recorded football game. He can check out what happens in the end, pause at any frame; after watching the whole thing, he knows exactly whats going to happen. Still, at the time of the recording the football players could choose how they played, they had free will. In the case of our universe it is not like there is already a recording made, but an entity existing outside of time would indeed be able to tell anything that will happen for time has no constraint on him. bonus rant: space, matter and time are intertwined in a rather simple way; the chronological movement of matter trough space creates what we observe as time. if you were to re-arange everything in the universe you would, as far as any observer inside of the universe is concerned, turn back time.

[@oliverjamito9902]

What is yet to come? Yes, knows the True Owner! Not bound nor ever will be bound. How and Why? Come bring all thy sincere conversations = same measure

[@fastsavannah7684]

This man is a Hegelian empiricist. That’s it. And he needs to grow a massive beard. Now.

[@ryanleemartin7758]

"I have no data other than hope". hah. i'm definitely going to use that.

[@louisgreenwood9515]

Lmfao. Almost like religion.

[@wenapse1639]

This is complete scientism. To claim that there is no free will you have to understand the role of consciousness during decision making… and we don’t know what consciousness even is.

[@TuyenQuang-m1h]

I think what buddalism explaine about no self and five aggregates( consists of consciousness) relevant. It's still called concsciousness but no self consciousness.

[@Adrian-gw7pi]

Well it’s definitely a physicalist explanation of how free will works, he’s describing the physical mechanisms of how free will works

[@armoredp]

Scientism? You can just call it philosophy, no need to create a derogatory term for it. I think he was quite clear this was just him speculating, taking things a step further.

[@wenapse1639]

@Thoughtcompilation - science is not about agreeing on something. It is about proving things.

[@wenapse1639]

@@armoredp - Its scientism. When scientists take a bunch of scientific facts to reach a clearly unproven conclusion and affirm it as a religious belief without stating that its only a hypothesis, then, by definition, its scientism.

[@_kopcsi_]

his argument for non-determinism is actually the same as Wolfram claims with his "computational irreducibility". but this proves only subjective/relative non-determinism. only for us internal subjects and observers of the cosmos. but of course this matters. so yes, reality is non-deterministic for us. but from a practical point of view, classical physics can be considered deterministic.

[@UriyahRecords]

This guy is one experiment away from becoming a superhero

[@turf9232]

from the future to the past is like yourself now to your old self. but your old self is not you. and. there is also a degree of survival instinct of the future. Love.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@horatiogorganzola6305]

“ I already got the tattoo “ 😂

[@mukastube]

That is the most interesting podcast I've ever watched. And I've watched quite a bit.

[@nicolettileo]

You mean that if I watch "quite a bit" other podcasts I might one day understand this one?

[@mukastube]

@@nicolettileo *conditions apply😄 Also, don't get me wrong, many of these things go over my head too😂 But still, it singlehandedly changed my view on determinism and free will.

[@Alexamw]

Love it. Thanks Lexy ❤

[@HR-yd5ib]

What exactly is there to love?

[@str3ber]

Something is fishy with this guy. He starts every sentence with ‘I think’, but then follows up with a thoughtless ramble about nothing. Is he maybe a creationist? I get some similar vibes. This ‘assembly theory’ is either a theory of nothing, or possibly he is terrible at explaining it. As a chemist, he should be capable of deeper thoughts on determinism and free will.

[@davecurry8305]

Gobbledegook is disguising his screwed up ideas.

[@ForMindlessConsumption]

He’s basically suggesting that time itself has points of origin in space from which it expands into the future, and these points, unintuitively, center around objects that create novelty (in this case being life that has free will). Novelty in this context refers to the changes that highlight the difference between the present and the future. Think of it like this: a blank canvas left untouched will remain blank, and as such will not indicate time moving forward in any meaningful way, but in the hands of a person with free will, the canvas is painted and creates two canvases: a past canvas (that is blank) and a future canvas (that is painted). What I mean to say by this, is that the presence of free will itself is the vehicle from which time moves forward. That’s why he says the Earth is the biggest place in the universe (to our knowledge), because it has the greatest quantity of free will in space-time that we presently know of.

[@SpaceOutlaww]

His take is pretty much that because time is a thing, there's room for free will, and that macro and quantum indeterminacy and could explain it. It sounds like massive cope imo, but then again if I traded places with him atom for atom, I would literally be him and have the same take

[@ryanhoffman5477]

The apparent contradiction arises from the tension between determinism's idea of a preordained course of events and the improvisational, free-form nature of jazz, which suggests a degree of indeterminacy and creative freedom. Philosophically, this contradiction raises questions about the nature of human agency, choice, and the extent to which events are predetermined or open to spontaneous variation. No one ever thinks of jazz music or theory as philosophy, but it is and contradicts the deterministic idea that free will does not exist. Jazz theory proves free will does exist, and it can be seen in real time. The fact that jazz music exists proves that determinism is false.

[@archangelarielle262]

Free will is incoherent under any defintion. Thoughts are either determined by prior causes (principle of sufficient reason/ cause and effect) in which you do not control them, or they are random (quantum indeterminacy)/ a mixture of both, in either case you do not control them. Every particle (further divisible to the wave function or possibly strings) in the universe, obeys the laws of physics, and your brain which constitutes of matter is no different; following the 4 fundamental forces, in which you do not control that was set off at a brute fact (the big bang) or infinite regression. Libertarian free will proponents insist that their choices are made for reasons, but also that those reasons do not determine their choices. Or that those reasons are not themselves determined, but also not a matter of chance, this is a contradiction. If it’s a false trichotomy, then what are the other options? Agent causation (of the soul)? But again, does something cause the agent to act, or does the agent act for no reason? Even if you have an immaterial soul, it only makes sense to say that soul is making decisions if its actions are causally determined by prior soul-states. Otherwise, its actions are uncaused, and uncaused events are, by definition, random. If you are acting randomly, that’s not really decision making. It’s only if your actions are done for reasons which cause those actions that you’re really making decisions. You’re not making decisions if you’re just doing things for no reason. A mixture of chance and determinism? Part of the decision-making process involves causal influences, and the rest has no prior cause. This doesn't solve it. Free will, described by its advocates imply a person has control over their decisions. If my decisions are predetermined; how do I have control over them? If my decisions have no cause, and occur for no reason, then how can I control them? What does it mean to say that “we are free and in control of what facts and ideas the mind focuses on”? When I choose to focus on an idea, does something cause me to choose to focus on that idea? If the answer is yes, then I'm not really in control of that act of focusing. If the answer is no, and there is nothing that determines what I will choose to focus on, the act of focusing on anything is no different from a chance event, which by definition are not controlled by anything. So, does something cause a person to focus and think, or does the person’s choice to think and focus happen for no reason? Or is it partly causally influenced and partly chance? I don’t see how responsibility or control fits into any of these options, and I don’t see what other options there are. I can choose 'x' or 'y', however, everything that makes up that choice is caused by both internal and external variables in which you did not pick. E.g., genetics, brain electricity and chemistry, physics of your own atoms and that around you, parents/ who raised you, where you were raised, what you were taught. These make up your beliefs, thoughts, impulses, emotions, knowledge, memory. True free will would be walking off a building and willing your atoms to defy gravity. In the same way your body cannot defy that fundamental force, your brain cannot defy the other 3 forces which makes up your thoughts. You are just matter and energy reacting to the laws of physics. Divine Foreknowledge: The argument is not that God predetermined what he knows ahead of time, it is that in order to infallibly know what will happen in the future, what will happen in the future has to be written in stone. Even if it’s not written in stone by God, it still has to be written in stone in order for God to know it infallibly. Knowing something will happen, even infallibly doesn't deterministically cause it to happen. The point is that in order to infallibly know that an event will happen, that event has to be predetermined. It doesn't have to be predetermined by the knowledge you have, but in order to have that knowledge infallibly, the event cannot be free to not occur. To say that an event is free to occur or not occur is to say whether it will occur or not cannot be infallibly known. There is no coherent scenario, not even hypothetically in which these events do not occur. Even if God is outside time, and our future actions are retroactively causing God to know about them infallibly in the present, then they also lock us into committing them inescapably, otherwise we could defy God's foreknowledge. This would mean that I am predetermined to take every action I will ever take. If we aren't free to act differently, in the future, from how he, presently know we will act, because from his perspective it's already happened, then we have no more freedom to change the future, that we have to change the past.

[@BB-sd6sm]

Need to get Lee and Sam in a room

[@harmonicseries6582]

Time exist in universe as fundamental newtonian is an object between space coordinates of infinite points of time that exists in universe, very big

[@IHaventDecidedYet.]

Am I the only one in the comments negatively informed after that? As in I now know less on the topic than I did going in. I did learn big words make you smarter.

[@woodedape]

Could you fit an infinite amount of golf balls in our universe?

[@_kopcsi_]

the deterministic state of a world does not imply the absence of time. this is a very fundamental fallacy in his argument. just as it is not necessary that in a deterministic world in its given state freedom cannot emerge later. to decompose and declare pairs of concepts to be mutually exclusive in such a stiatical way shows serious ignorance and unfounded self-confidence. the basis of the entire problem area is the RELATIVE nature of freedom and determinism.

[@rezadaneshi]

Someday we’ll travel a trillion light years and look back and see time was only in an orbit in a cyclical universe, orbiting a bigger unknown

[@ebutuoyotwen]

I predict future runs with no podcast or music in Lex's future. Just his own voice, locked in argument, a death match Per Se. Old vs new ideas. Growth is always a beautiful process, the challenge real, and usually more important that the outcome. You'll get him next time Lex. Well if you can locate the exact moment in time :)P

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Life is Eternal, the Life-Desire is the Motor, of Life, (Hunger- and Satisfaction-Principles is the Compass) in direct extension We have Will, Life-side, and Gravity, Stuff-side, by our Will, We do Balance Gravity of Earth, with our own, when We lift the cup. So, Will is Eternal, development of Life, happends through Developing-Circuits, in beginning of a Developing-Circuit, Will is at its minimum-performance, and in the end, at its maximum-performance. So, Will is within the limit of our nature, potential, and Ability, even a strong Will, cant move the Moon. we can limit our Will, by Fentanyl, alchohol, and other, becoming Will-Less, it can last through some few incarnations, but the Life-Desire, will surely gradually force it back to normal standard. Weak Will, or anger outburst, is a open door for possession

[@xfoolsgoldx]

He lost me but it doesn't mean im wrong🤣

[@springsoleiluna9090]

Ill give you 60 years to prove your theory isnt shit but we're all made of it. Spiral, vortex, vibration, frequency these are finite functions with infinite possibilities for expansion. Time is a mutable concept. Hook's clock taught me that Grok, can you intuite what that means

[@HR-yd5ib]

How did the incoherent mind of this dude manage to land a Nature paper?

[@M.Redsky]

i dont know why i listened to this, it was convoluted and had nothing to do with free will

[@jackfiercetree5205]

Listen to the whole interview, and how this piece relates to the rest of what they were talking about.

[@justjaay1203]

Is there a such thing as too big?? Maybe it's just the right size?? I mean to an ant a car is "too big" No?

[@Jacobk-g7r]

3d is time. All the things happening are time

[@kriz234]

We are the Universe/ Earth Finely Tuned/Organized to Experience Complexity of these DreamWorld😮😮😮😮😮😮

[@oliverjamito9902]

Remember have prepared a place for thee all as promised! Many wise of this world will say, why can't pass beyond this point? Who holds? Able to removed beyond this point? Able to go through without complications! To go in and out! As HE please! But yet, many are not allowed! Can't pass beyond this point! Many will wonder. Who is that? Who is that? Who is that? Seems so small like a MUSTARD SEED. Remember existence itself and all thy lives was DESIRED 1ST! Same who commanded the SUN AND THE MOON to persevere! Now but ye all thy seasons changes at anytime! Why ye all can't persevere? Come as a little Child "i" in front! Of the AM! Entanglements strong holds will be removed! Yes, can put under thy FEET given! Who's Thy FEET?

[@mateuszmista738]

I love lex

[@mike-q2f4f]

Hmm... Why does the future have to be bigger than the past? We're in the present. If we look back or look ahead, there's no limits necessarily. Most of history is not knowable with certainty by us. Just like the future. This means the past could be as big as the future. And the present has one less dimension than both. So we're in the lowest dimension in time?

[@_kopcsi_]

even if there are some (not too many) interesting aspects of this assemble theory, it is certainly a wrong way to understand life, consciousness and emergence in general. not to mention that this dude doesn't have a single coherent train of thought. I'm not saying he's not competent in his field (chemistry), but he's clearly ignorant in the areas he thinks he's knowledgeable in (philosophy, math, physics, etc.). which is pretty scary for me, to be honest. as regards the topics in this video: well, I think that there is a cosmic convergence between increasingly more and more advanced intelligent civilisations. why? it is very easy to see and it can be derived from two axioms: 1, the logic that controls the dynamics of reality (logic, mathematics, natural laws etc., which are part of the conceptual world and which we humans, as subjects, can access through our minds) is universal. that is, it is invariant both in space and time. that's why they are laws. because this is the consistent way. so if subject A understands aspect X of reality and subject B also understands aspect X of reality, then A and B will necessarily agree. even if they use different languages and/or symbol systems. but the same is true when it comes to civilisations A and B, even on other planets. ergo: understanding also implies agreement through uniqueness arising from universality. because the a priori, abstract, inductive truths are acausal, i.e. independent of time. 2, evolution and dialectics, the latter of which can be interpreted as an analogy of the former manifested on the mental and cultural levels, generate development, however, it is not difficult to see what made us different from other living beings. we are the only beings that have awakened to self-awareness. and this means the possibility of freedom. although evolution is able to induce different specific abilities and characteristics through the dance of mutation and selection, there is only one generic ability and characteristic that dominates all other specific variants, and this is intelligence, understanding of reality, and the realisation of freedom. therefore it seems (even from the perspective of "assembly theory") that complexity and synergy increase cosmically with time. because intelligence itself and the resulting freedom are the main selection objective function of the cosmos. this is how freedom emerges deterministically, this is meta-determinism, the process during which the deterministic dynamic eliminates itself. freedom is a kind of selection ability. the ability to select the next or even later state of the process of reality, which requires both a reading function (its institution is science) and a writing function (its institution is technology). evolution and dialectic, on the other hand, are self-referential (that is, we go through meta-evolutionary and meta-dialectical processes), and meta-selection is also a manifestation of this: the cosmic selection (emergence) of this selection ability (freedom). because which civilisations are able to exist for thousands, millions or even billions of years on an interplanetary, interstellar or even intergalactic level? those that are able to mentally represent the truth as accurately as possible (in order to maximise freedom). now if we put these two axioms together, it logically and necessarily follows that the more advanced civilisations we compare, the greater the similarity will be. not in terms of physical appearance, not in terms of biological functioning, but on the conceptual level. so we will increasingly be able to communicate and understand each other.

[@guineapig1016]

My feelings: time collaspses. I feel that he assumed time doesn't collapse. But it does. It reaches a breaking point, and it gives a result.

[@davecurry8305]

If time collapses the speed of light becomes infinite.

[@alex79suited]

Lee, that's incorrect. Peace ✌️ 😎. Keep them separate.

[@HR-yd5ib]

What has any of this gibberish to do with free will?!?!

[@UriyahRecords]

As long it's gibberish to you, the connection can't be made. See the irony in your statement?

[@HR-yd5ib]

@@UriyahRecords , point me to a sentence from this guy that makes sense.

[@Randyw1111]

This is 2 people who don’t know what the hell they are talking about.

[@brookscowan90]

what the hell is a C.A.??

[@zedsabeur3472]

This is not scientific thinking…

[@arcaneiconoclast319]

Uummhuuu

[@ronnyportulidis2970]

All chinese to me

[@marvinwilliams7938]

I’d hate to shit on this guys life’s work but he is absolutely wrong at the beginning that time is real. Time is an illusion. The past is a memory, the future hasn’t happened yet, the only real moment of objective reality is right now, the present moment. It’s an absolute philosophical fact. Damn this dude wasted his whole life to realise this.

[@lou-muaythaitipsandbreakdo2821]

Why do you think this?

[@bus_driver441]

What? An absolute philosophical fact? Do you even know what philosophy is?

[@_kopcsi_]

to be so confident in such a great, ancient philosophical dilemma is a clear sign of ignorance and a complete lack of self-reflection.

[@shadw4701]

Time is literally the fourth dimension and is a physical thing that can be observed changing in space. This is why we have what's known as time dilation and the twin paradox

[@marvinwilliams7938]

@@_kopcsi_ It’s actually the discovery of all ancient philosophers. Buddhism and the present moment, Christianity and enlightenment, jung and ego death, everyone in philosophy comes to the same realisation. It’s sad that scientists have zero philosophical knowledge and are trying to figure out something that philosophers already figured out a long time ago. It’s an objective fact that the past is a memory. It’s an objective fact that the future has not happened yet. It’s an objective fact that the only objective reality in existence is the present moment, “the Now” as Eckhart Tolle says. I’m talking right now, now, now. Think of each passing moment as a snapshot. The only real snapshot is now. Time is an illusion. Just try dispute the logic as opposed to second guessing my credentials.

[@phish311420]

❤

[@Elijah_367]

I don’t have time to listen to someone else on the subject of how I perceive the way I was born here just the same as all of us who have had the questions of how did we begin why are we here or who gave me meaning? Jesus did and these guys want to take that meaning from me by leading me to believe that because they are more educated in their false doctrine that I am not relevant to give my opinion on how time is running out…😂 Jesus is the son of Δod and Jesus is who is the Lord of all creation and He made all things

[@xze23]

Go to south America to those uncontacted tribes and try to tell them that and see how that works out for you

[@timmy-wj2hc]

Where do all the religious zealots come from. Go back to your videos talking about your obsolete and antiquated myths invented by goat herders.

[@aga5109]

Determinism, materialism, and reductionism are outdated concepts in science. Perhaps this professor of chemistry didn't catch up. Strangely, because part of the chemistry course is quantum chemistry. Apparently, some scientists don't catch up. Or they are presenting themselves as if they don't. Rules applied in non-living systems can not be applied / paralleled to living organisms that are way more complex than material objects.

[@Elijah_367]

Or life is just too short to learn a simple concept like Jesus 🙏

[@tyfawkes]

Jesus isn't proven. He's one story in a multitude of religions in the world who do not share your same idea of reality. Muslims would disagree with you for example. Sure, if you were raised by Christian parents in a country where Christianity is the dominated religion, and you never question what you were simply raised to believe, then Jesus is your thing. However, if you were raised in the middle east by Islamic parents, you'd be a proud Muslim praising Allah right now and you wouldn't question that either.