Stephen Wolfram - Do Humans Have Free Will?

Free will seems so obvious. Whatever I want to do, I just do. But could 'I' be fooled? Some say that free will is an illusion, and they back up their claim with scientific experiments. Others say that free will is a mystery. Still others alter the definition of free will to be 'compatible' with a deterministic world.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on free will: bit.ly/3flOJKI
Stephen Wolfram is the creator of Mathematica, Wolfram|Alpha and the Wolfram Language; the author of A New Kind of Science; and the founder and CEO of Wolfram Research.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@mikefoster5277]

To answer the original question, "Do humans have free will?" we first have to accurately determine the meaning of both 'humans' and 'free will' - otherwise the question is pretty pointless.

[@legron121]

A 'human' is a biological organism of the species _homo sapiens._ 'Free will' means that, in the same set of circumstances, a human being could do a number of different things. Simple as that.

[@quantumkath]

Stephen Wolfram gives one of the best explanations I've heard on free will.

[@Azupiru]

Ahh yes, the age old invoking of the illusory "phenomenon of free will." Before anyone tries to prove that free will exists, I challenge them to prove that such a phenomenon exists. I also warn against it, because it's a fool's errand.

[@fabricekahn4752]

@@cosminvisan520 Interesting. Can you elaborate a little bit more.

[@MRnormi98]

@@cosminvisan520 Nonsense. Ability to reason doesn't require free will. To evaluate and choose doesn't require freewill. Computers can evaluate and choose between possible alternatives too. Computers don't make random answers also like humans, so the argument about giving random answers I would say even more prove that we have no freewill. Even your statement about freewill was determined by your neuronal activity of your brain.

[@colinjava8447]

I disagree, he seems to be saying if a system is complex enough so that it can't be predicted it is "free", but that makes no sense to me, just cause it is complex doesn't mean there a lifeform has free will.

[@MRnormi98]

@@cosminvisan520 Why would someone need a free will to do something? No relation. Machines doesn't need to have freewill to create other machines. It's obvious. What errors have to do with free will? What errors? Errors are determined, they don't pop up from nothing. There is always a cause of error. So it even prove otherwise that there is no freewill. I don't believe in Santa Claus the same as in freewill. Both are delusions

[@LonePigsyAndCub]

While many of these discussions end up going over my head, I just wanted to tell you how wonderful this channel is! Philosophy is fun, even if you never end up with any solid answers! Your quest is so admirable. Thanks for sharing it with us.

[@daylesuess552]

They don't go over your head. They don't have an answer so they go around and around with no conclusion. That said Wolfram has one of the best minds out there.

[@karlvann5840]

Relax please

[@robokou]

This is perhaps the most accurate take on freewill I've ever heard. 💯

[@liamc4113]

This explanation from Stephen Wolfram is legit. The hypothesis of reductionism is only apply to uniform objects with simple linear rule, like the material world. Determinism can never be proven because you can never trace the system with a lesser complex system. In other word, you cannot simulate the same detail of a simulation within the simulation.

[@donbarile8916]

ain't that the truth. hence... the often failed software simulation, in the absense of "The User".

[@liamc4113]

@championchap Computational equivalent means the class of algorithmic problems can be solved with different computational model. But the time (and energy) it takes with different computational model is not equal. Computational irreducibility means some algorithmic problems can only be computed with brute force, meaning you cannot extrapolate the result but only with a simulation by a computer each step till the answer. "capable of computing everything that can be computed." doesn't mean you can actually produce the result with a reasonable among of time. So simulating a part of the universal with the "equivalent" detail may be possible but not feasible. And it has never been tried and it may take forever to run. Again related to free will, the claim of determinism is that the future is "caused" only by the past. So there is only a linear pathway and it is determined. But no one can ever "compute" the "true cause" so why bother to go around saying people don't have free will. And no one makes decision based on the determined "true cause". People are not even the same as rational agent premises in bogus economic models. So it is really stupid to claim people don't have freewill without "the proof".

[@rodrigoff7456]

@@liamc4113 Yea, your last message is what I was expecting Wolfram to bring up in this video, cause I am pretty sure he mentions that in "A New Kind of Science", right? The fact that regardless of how things are and even if we prove it, it won't change the fact that in our perception it feels like choices made by separated individuals. 😅

[@fartpooboxohyeah8611]

Never say never.

[@mollygriswold7979]

It does NOT seem obvious. I have never felt like I have free will. When people say this, it's like talking to people who believe in Zeus... "But the existence of Zeus seems so obvious!"

[@kensey007]

I always felt like I had free will. Until I really stopped to examine my thought and behaviors a few months ago. And then my mind changed.

[@FalseCogs]

Indeed, since when do we _choose_ how to feel, about what to ruminate, and which foods, music, or aesthetics should please us?

[@theofficialness578]

I’ve had the same experience, I always thought we are just chemicals that do stuff. That was my basic understanding in adolescence. Reading about neuroscience has made it even more obvious. I believe through enough adverse experiences and the observations of adverse experiences, the absence of “free will” is obvious.

[@xmasmikewins772]

What makes a Will "free" is the presence of multiple potential outcomes. When there are multiple paths that "could" unfold is when "choice" become a factor. Our awareness of "free will" correlates with our awareness of possibility, and that our choice is a factor in what determines which possibilities will become actualized.

[@FalseCogs]

Would you say then that your definition is to the effect of free will is having the foresight into selecting a path which best satisfies one's desires or goals? Such is a fairly common take, and it makes sense from an immediate practical standpoint. The main issues seem to arise when we start asking why a person or other agent holds those particular goals or desires. If we trace back to the origins of wants and instincts, we see that they arise externally in one shape or another. For example, a grown up's strongly felt aim of achieving a certain career could all have unfolded from a random comment someone made to them as a kid, or perhaps due to some TV show they used to watch. This is not a bad thing, but it does invalidate much of what we may be accustomed to claiming as "our own choice". Often the origins of our thoughts and ideas have simply been obscured by unconscious processing while nevertheless arising externally.

[@mikefoster5277]

@@FalseCogs Yes, what you're saying is simply the next logical step in our inquiry. But then, can we go further still? Could we say that if this is the case, then could the entire process ultimately be one single reality, as opposed to an apparent multiplicity of separate minds, each with their own personal desires and goals? In which case, presumably, this 'process' must surely be happening all by itself? In other words, fundamentally, there _is_ actually no 'external'. That everything is ultimately one in nature and is therefore happening internally? The implications of this scenario would surely paint a whole new picture on the subject of human free will and choice.

[@williamburts5495]

@@FalseCogs To me, free will just means you are free to use your will. You are the doer of action, other things may factor in and while they may have some influence in our determination they are not in themselves the doer of action. Only the person possesses will and only you the person uses that will.

[@Scott777]

In my opinion the ability to even ask “do we have free will?” Means we do in fact have free will

[@williamburts5495]

@@Scott777 Right, and when you ask or question if you have free will or not you are free to use your will to ask or question it. You are the only one using your will and that is what gives you free will.

[@hershchat]

These dodos need to define what they mean by free will first. (1) unexpected output, “a decision”? e.g., a magnet that apparently targets dark pins (2) expected but unpredictable emergent output “behaviour”? e.g., magnets that self-assemble into patterns (3) ability to make a choice without external input (“revealed preference”)? The magnet points to bigger forest fires … complexity, emergence, predictability are not per se determinants of free will. Keynes used to leave home for a walk at exactly 3 pm everyday. That didn’t refute freewill, no more than the repetitious acts of a moth do. Free will is about an internal state, about willful agency. It is subjective intent, not computational capacity. Being subjective, it is not objectively provable.

[@vadimtres]

I like the fact that discussion has cellular automata pictures on the background: something extremely simple, yet able to produce quite complex results.

[@danellwein8679]

thanks for this ... have been following the physic's project .. good stuff ..

[@comasmusica7548]

6:37-6:57 "We're going to be asking ourselves how can it be the case that when there is this kind of deterministic set of processes that we get something which to us is a phenomenon like free will, and I think this idea of computational irreducibility is the core of what allows us to understand how even when we know the underlying rules we can still have something that to us seems like the phenomenon of free will." Indeed, it's like, when you throw a die and the result is, say, a six: can you say that this six is a random ("free") number? No. The outcome is completely dependent on the force and the arc of the throw, the position of the die upon leaving your hand, the structure of the surface it lands on, the current air pressure, the material the die is made of, any wear in the die, et cetera: the "underlying rules" that mr. Wolfram mentions. We won't ever succeed in arriving at the complete set of those rules and even if we could, we would never be able to exert enough influence to each of the rules to know beforehand what the outcome of the throw will be. Another applicable comparison is perhaps the butterfly effect on weather forecasting. Our brain contains 86 billion neurons that for all we know are all involved in decision making. We can't ever grasp the processes involved, let alone influence them. So while the processes probably are entirely deterministic, the net result is something that is indistinguishable from free will and that we may therefore call "free will" just as well.

[@entwood]

We might easily call it the illusion of free will.

[@comasmusica7548]

@@entwood Just like the throw of a die is the illusion of a random number 😉

[@kensey007]

Compatibalism in other words.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

​@Danny Holland it's a bit deeper then that. When Wolfram speaks about computational irreducibility, he is referring to the fact that the behavior can never be predicted fundamentally because in order to do so requires knowledge of the entire state of the universe, which requires knowledge from all states of the universe, from the beginning of time. And the only system capable of knowing that information is the entire universe itself, and not subsystems of the universe. It means that even in principle you can't, as a computationally bounded observer embedded inside the universe, ever get to know what another subsystem in that universe will do (because you need to be the entire universe to know what that subsystem will do.) The actual answer you are looking for is that "free will" does not mean anything. It's a human construction that is poorly defined...and if Wolfram's is the case, which is highly likely, you can have determinism, that is "free" because you can never, as a computationally bounded observer, attain the ability to truly predict anything.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

​@Danny Holland This is actually not true. Physicists can't predict things with 100% accuracy. It's a well known established set of tenants and branches of science about this. I wrote a very long and lovely comment that got accidentally deleted which is unfortunate because it had lots of good information that I'm not willing to type again. Sorry. If you want to look up these tenants and branches of science, look up Nima Arkani Ahmed's "Space-time is doomed" argument lectures on KZbin...and also look into Chaos Theory which is the study of how systems produce unpredictable behavior due to lack of knowledge over a systems initial conditions.

[@anandagarwal7237]

Excellent analysis

[@Beevreeter]

You can choose what you like, but you can't choose why you like it.

[@alexanderchaplin6749]

Nice!

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"You can choose what you like, but you can't choose why you like it."* ... I can have seven food dishes placed before me to choose which one I like most. There may be some dishes that I like more than others, and I choose one I like less than these because it doesn't give me heartburn after eating it. Behold, ... I have just _chosen_ why I like it.

[@alexanderchaplin6749]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I respectfully disagree. You can’t choose why you chose to prefer having less heartburn, nor can you choose why that option even had your attention.

[@alexmagor7538]

But if you like it because you chose to like it then you did in fact choose why you like it.

[@penultimatename6677]

@@alexmagor7538 you only believe it is a choice. That is the point of the video

[@Constantinesis]

When a full interview with Stephen Wolfram?

[@HeliumXenonKrypton]

This discussion is literally dancing around right on the actual solution to the free will problem, in my opinion. I really wish that more people would study very carefully these words from Wolfram. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[@kylebowles9820]

You can't have attributes the universe can't express or it couldn't express you. I'd say the act of selecting an action (free will) is very much a characteristic of a deterministic system. Deeper: Quantum systems are not deterministic, they don't do such selection operations; they do all things. Once the state becomes determined only then does it collapse into, select, a finite state. Deeper: Mathematically it's trivial to make a one way operation, where you can't tell what inputs caused the output, it's fundamentally mysterious if you will. If I told you I added 2 numbers to get 5, you can't even predict what I did. Predictability and reversibility says nothing about determinism (addition very much is!)

[@rickwyant]

It seems we have free will because we can't predict it, we don't have all the information needed to predict. Doesn't mean it can't be predicted.

[@JT-mz5oc]

This is an interesting discussion about how complexity arises from simplicity, but what Wolfram describes doesn't seem to me to describe free will. The defining feature of free will is the ability to have chosen differently. Complex unpredictable behaviour determined by simple underlying rules is still wholly deterministic.

[@jamespaternoster7354]

He definitely saying to me that we don’t appear to have free will

[@edgarmorales4476]

There is only one very important thing that we are free to choose - which will determine our level of happiness - our experience of life and how quickly we progress in our evolution - and that is our attitude towards our experience. We are free to choose to be happy about something or upset - to be sad or resentful - or accept something; although we are not in control of much of what we experience. We can choose our inner climate or attitude towards our experiences - and we can choose beliefs that will help us be happy and accepting of life.

[@nowheretobefound4431]

Free will must be outside of causality, time and space hence unknowable but determined behaviour follows the laws of causality and is knowable as the action of motives on our character leading to acting or doing.

[@robward8247]

watching compatibilists perform verbal gymnastics is always entertaining at least if the answer isn't instantly "yes", then its a just a long-drawn out "no" - but a no that tries to be 'nice' about it

[@mattsigl1426]

The question is not whether we “seem” free because we are “irreducibly complex” but rather whether certain causal outcomes are determined exclusively by non-deterministic agent causation. If we are free, “choice” functions as the necessary and sufficient causal node/power in free actions. If there is, even in principle, a hidden variable in reality that “actually” makes agents behave one wAy rather than another, we are not free.

[@firstaidsack]

The thing is, we cannot relive the same moment again. So how much does matter if it was determined or not?

[@Seekthetruth3000]

The more intelligent you are, the more free will you have.

[@charlesudoh6034]

The problem with determinism is that it’s incompatible with “truth claims”. In a deterministic universe, one wouldn’t be able to make truth claims about anything, because to do so would involve the ability to reason about things, and to reason involves the ability to FREELY evaluate and choose between possible alternatives, which in turn requires the freedom of will (freewill). If determinism is incompatible with truth claims, to say determinism is true involves a contradiction.

[@HonkletonDonkleton]

Yes but they'd just say the process of evaluation and choice is also determined

[@penultimatename6677]

The ability to freely evaluate is part of the deterministic universe. You just think you are freely evaluating an idea.

[@charlesudoh6034]

@@HonkletonDonkleton Thats the point. If the process of evaluation and choice is determined, then there is no reasoning, only the illusion of reasoning. However, if you want to maintain that reasoning is an illusion and that all our beliefs are predetermined, how then can one say anything is true. There can infact be no way to determine what is true and what isn’t if reasoning is just an illusion. More importantly, how can one come to the position that determinism is true if determinism involves an inability to truly reason and come to truth. Its a contradiction.

[@charlesudoh6034]

@@penultimatename6677 If determinism is true, then there is no “free” evaluation, just an illusion of it, like you correctly said. The problem is if you can’t freely evaluate and choose, then you can’t truly reason. If you can’t truly reason, then you can’t objectively say anything is true or false, there would be no way to know since all your beliefs are pre-determined. However, if reasoning is impossible and objective truth can’t be known, how then did you come to the conclusion that determinism is true? Its a contradiction.

[@HonkletonDonkleton]

@@charlesudoh6034 u assume u have access to truth via reasoning

[@olddecimal2736]

Do we?

[@markkennedy9767]

Computational irreducibility is fascinating but I wonder why Stephen equates it with free will. If someone runs the system that is computationally irreducible, and then repeats this the system clearly doesn't have free will- it has to do the exact same thing irrespective of whether we knew what it would do. Surely this isn't free will just because we are unable to predict what it will do. Wouldn't demonstrating free will mean repeating an experiment under the exact same conditions and showing it does something different.

[@marvinmartian8746]

I think your last sentence sums it up and is perfectly correct. Also, I've seen others talk about aspects of quantum randomness and unpredictability proving free will exists, and this doesn't make sense to me either. How does randomness feel like free will?

[@IamKlaus007]

Isn't EVERYTHING in the universe, from an atom to the most intricate structure imaginable, subject to a set of rules, regardless of how simplistic or complex they might be? If everything WASN'T subject to a set of rules, how might the structure of the universe and everything in it look? So, if a 'thing' IS subject to a set of rules, how is it possible for 'free will' to apply?

[@theofficialness578]

I agree, it’s just not possible.

[@robertogejman5311]

What he is saying is what IMHO is what we call erronously free will: the incapacity of observers of a complex system to predict its future trajectory. But that incapacity doesn't amount to the system having free will. It will still do what the laws of the universe mandate it to do. Now, we humans, in our exaggerated pride, seem to be unable to accept the inexistence of free will. We still must face the consequences of our behavior, but that doesn't prove the existence of free will.

[@TheTroofSayer]

Direction of causation is wrong. With the reference to computers & at 2:01 to computational irreducibility, it's clearly all bottom-up. To understand free will, however, we need to consider: 1) Bodies wire brains (short form) translates to "experiences intercepted by bodies wire neuroplastic, DNA-entangled brains" (long form); 2) Accordingly, *experiences* also includes "choices made." We make choices from the experiences that we encounter. The choices we make (free will) wire our brains; 3) The wiring of brains is experiential and meaning-driven (associations, habituation), and not determined by the bottom-up. To live is to "know how to be" (habituation); 4) Bottom-up causation, by contrast, precludes the "knowing how to be." 5) In order to understand free will, we need to accept top-down causation as primary. The bottom-up merely constrains what the top-down commands; 6) If bodies wire brains, it follows that *all* life has free will. To live is to have the free will to choose from among the options that wire the brain. What distinguishes human free will from other forms is the much extended horizon of options in human culture. The horizon of options of a frog in a pond is much smaller in comparison to the horizon of options of a human in culture. The top-down that wires non-human mind-bodies encounters bottom-up constraints that the top-down of humans in culture does not. Hence derives the false illusion that only humans have free will, while all other creatures are dominated by the bottom-up that we define as "instinct."

[@MrJustSomeGuy87]

Please feature Terrence Deacon and/or Jeremy Sherman on the show. An episode on biosemiotics would be spectacular!

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

The debate originates around the idea that mind is matter-based, and therefore has to follow the rules of inanimate matter. If mind is fundamental, free will is no longer a question, as cognition is free to think, introspect, reflect, intend, and operate the body to carry out said cognition

[@gr500music6]

I have three pebbles on my desk. They can be arranged in only one of two ways - as a line or a triangle. Whichever I choose, the mass and other characteristics of the Universe will not change. And yet it will not be the same Universe, depending upon my choice, because the pebbles will either be aligned or form a triangle. I won't tell you which way I arranged them. Was my choice free will?

[@gr500music6]

@Dog boy Thanks for the reply! I always wonder where the scientific concept of Determinism shades into the religious concept of Predestination (personally, I don't like either, they just seem too absolute). Seems to me the Universe is set up to accommodate free will. From a scientific viewpoint, free will might be described as the activities exercised by life in its resolutely anti-entropic pursuits, such as rolling stones back up hills when walls fall down (Ants may have free will!). From a religious standpoint, a system that generated unpredictable outcomes might be seen as the most delightful thing an all-powerful force could make for itself. And that force would likely make every effort to stay out of the way - as seems to be the case, if it exists. Because we're at the mercy of forces beyond our control, humans tend to posit that an all-powerful force would seek to control everything, because that's what we would do. But isn't the opposite more likely?

[@BIngeilski]

Free will begins where descrete way of thinking ends.

[@jaystone5036]

Now we don't. I don't believe we do but it's a nice debate to see how we could possibly have a free will

[@rustyshimstock8653]

I think that he is saying that you can have a deterministic. rule based system that is unpredictable. Like a game that surprises us abd forces us to make decisions.

[@markberman6708]

Big words and philosophical mental gymnastics the answer is in the simplicity of things: yes, or nothing work's as designed or intended. Discussing the myriad versions of red apples and countless ways of classifying the different "hues" of red changes not the fact that it is red. Though perhaps we learn much about ourselves within the endeavor to be the best red apple describer.

[@ahmedbellankas2549]

Why should i not think that a human being has its own rules which permit free will? Why should i accept the unification account? Above all why should i accept his analogy in reference to human beings? Why should i think that a human being is emergent from wolfram's rules?why would i not think that wolfram's rules are in a human being and they're necessary for its functioning but not sufficiant for its behavior,and acting freely is what determines human being behaviors (or some behaviors) ?

[@RootinrPootine]

+1. It’s so stupid. It’s just a category error. I can, for example, doubt that the whole physical world really exists, but I cannot doubt that I have intentional consciousness (free will), since doubt is itself a form of conscious intention.

[@barry.anderberg]

Free will is the outworking of our desires. Most of the time, one desire trumps another quite easily. Sometimes, one desire is only slightly ahead of another desire. Often there are many desires competing against one another. Our "decisions" are the manifestation of the winning desire. The question is whether or not we can change what we desire. I think we can, but it usually happens very slowly, over a lifetime. How that happens, I have no idea. Another interesting question is whether or not there can ever be a stalemate between competing desires. If so, what happens? How is the stalemate arbitrated? I would again suggest that the agent is the arbitrator. These are known as 'torn decisions'.

[@andersonl819]

So what is Wolfram's conclusion? yay or nay to Free Will?

[@austinland81]

A potential example of an answer to "Is it possible that one can go from simple rules to behavior that is complex enough ath one can imagine that behavior is free of those underlying rules?" from human behavior. Suppose a simple rule-1) Survive/persist-with some subrules-1A) Procreate & 1B) Altruism: 1B1) Biological altriusm, protect (likely/perceived) genetic relatives & 1B2) Explore/generate fitnness-conferring discoveries for group. Individuals following these rules face collective action problems in groups solved by norm adoption. The propensity to adhere to norms confers fitness to the group. This fitness-conferring propensity gave rise to the “god gene” and established a new rule: Follow the leader’s/group’s rules. Leader’s/group’s rules (religious, etc.) often conflict with (are free of) the “starting rule(s)“, e.g. mass suicides in cults.

[@Gringohuevon]

Stephan, a simple 'No' would have been suffcient.

[@francesco5581]

A deterministic flow of reality would have really caused us to make those questions ? In the primordial set of our universe was embedded that after a deterministic flow of milleanias we would have put up the question if we have free will or not ? Highly unrealistic ...

[@Azupiru]

Of course, people believed in fate for millennia before free will was introduced by the Abrahamic religions. Lol

[@francesco5581]

@@Azupiru and all this evolution, from a deterministic point of view, was randomly inserted in the primordial starting set of reality.....

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

Quantum mechanics doesn't say that world is indeterministic, it says that it can not decide if the world is deterministic or indeterministic! This is what Bohr ment with his complementary principle: it depends on from where you look!

[@vasileioszografos9318]

try to reconcile free will as a deterministic machine with entropy and quantum theory

[@kallianpublico7517]

If free will doesn't exist then how does the meaning of causation and prediction reconcile with the meaning of error? You would have to show that error can not exist. How could you possibly do that without admitting that expertise is an illusion? That the intention of doing something "right" or "correct" is a fiction. A fiction because...?

[@zatoichiable]

Theres only freewill if there are options to choose....

[@faisalabdelkarim6457]

And if I choose B, how do I know that's freewill or determined?

[@zatoichiable]

@@faisalabdelkarim6457 when it eventualized... you are not the only variable in nature that decides the outcome...

[@vasileioszografos9318]

dont confuse consciousness with free will

[@RolandHuettmann]

This means that there will never be truly random numbers? The outcome of any computarion is deterministic even if irreducable? And even if there were super natural phenomena, they also would be governed by basic rules. It is impossible to think of "something" without underlying rules. I see a way out in imagining a state that has no rules, is pure nothingness (or pure fullness), devoid of any and all relativistic aspects. It must be beyond thought. Only then and there no rules apply.

[@rabidL3M0NS]

If free will you choose, you will not lose. But if determinism you take, you’ve sealed your fate.

[@bltwegmann8431]

One or the other is true. You don’t get to pick.

[@rabidL3M0NS]

@@bltwegmann8431 you’ve sealed your fate.

[@highjenks3d]

I was born here against my will and I will die here against my will. That being said how is possible that I could possibly have free will when for the first 18 years of my life i had my parent's will forced upon me, then from 18 years old on I had to live by the rules of the system of society now granted I could murder rape steal etc, but it I did my will would be either locked up or put to death, if I had freewill I would cheat death and live forever.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

If it is against your will, you are not free! Freedom is insight into necessity (Hegel) or equivalence with the holy will (Kant). You are not only highjenks, you are the Life itself, but you don't know it. Freedom depends on who you are or as what you recognize yourself! And life grows through steady deaths and steady doom of the existing. You are the Life itself!

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"I was born here against my will and I will die here against my will. That being said how is possible that I could possibly have free will when for the first 18 years of my life i had my parent's will forced upon me, then from 18 years old on I had to live by the rules of the system of society now granted I could murder rape steal etc, but it I did my will would be either locked up or put to death, if I had freewill I would cheat death and live forever."* ... Emotion is a bad thing to bring into a technical debate over which abstract construct is in play during our decision-making processes. First, obviously you didn't have any say regarding your arrival in this world, but you do have say in whether or not you choose to hang around. Second, you could have executed your "free will" to abandon your parents anytime during those 18 years. You simply executed your "free will" choice to stay. Just because you find yourself in undesirable situations does not negate your "free will" ability to change them.

[@highjenks3d]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC thats right I did not therefore it began as someone else's will I was perfectly comfortable in the womb I was forced out of the womb that was not my will, everything that happens from birth has a bearing on your will no one has free will when you are a product of your environment, freewill does not exist it's an impossibility, it's a lot like how your religion is determined for you by your geographical location, there is only the will of the universe that is all , when does the freewill start at birth? After death? It's like saying that you can lose your soul? How is that possible you can try and lose yourself but it cannot be done, I don't have a soul I have a body I am the soul trapped inside it, until my body dies then freewill could be a possibility if death is the road to awe, but if you believe in reincarnation, freewill will not exist even after death there are choices that have been made for us that we may or may not have had control over but, as far as freewill it is non existent at least on the Astro plane in this dimension my will is as trapped as I am inside of this flesh bag until I am free of this prison if flesh it is not my will that governs this existence in this realm we are all doing time here in this dimension and our will has absolutely no bearing on that

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@highjenks3d *"verything that happens from birth has a bearing on your will no one has free will when you are a product of your environment, freewill does not exist it's an impossibility,"* ... I've asked the following question to seven other people commenting under this video. Perhaps you'd like to offer a response? *Q:* Let's say (as you claim) that everything in my existence is a result of hard determinism. Now, I personally choose out of my own "free will" to end my existence because I don't want to exist within this hard deterministic realm. Now, without succumbing to *circular reasoning,* explain to me if it was "determinism" or "free will" operating behind my decision to end my existence?

[@felafelnomics]

To my amateur mind, this is more an argument for unpredictability than for free will. At some level, our decisions don't seem to follow predictable rules - why did you choose tea when you prefer coffee? I'm not convinced though that at the level of the electron, our brains don't follow "the rules" precisely. It's just that we can not possibly make electron-level predictions about human decisions and behaviour because our brains are so complex we can't gather all the data required for prediction-making.

[@aminomar7890]

Humans have minds, morals, values, …. etc where did the curse come from?!

[@justinhughes2207]

Yes and no

[@olddecimal2736]

Came for the Wilczek…left for the, uh…not Wilczek.

[@larrymccue8097]

We live on the holideck

[@thejackdiamondart]

Possibly in that brief moment of our conscious free will our choices evolve the rules beyond the base. So we have free will and we live in the consequences of our actions. If you played it all again the results would reflect the results of free will, note; results may vary.Our physical existent will follow the simple rule of survival, in every aspect of life. Except one , a selfless act; an act that serves others. Yes I know philosophy doubts such an act by dispelling them. I have the free will to believe although rare acts of random selflessness exist.That must be free will, enough for me anyway.

[@MRnormi98]

Act that serves others is also rule of survival. We are a social creatures. Helping others help us also. Evolution made us social and to do "selfless" acts because that way we help each other. Teamwork is beneficial and has higher chance of surviving. By natural selection those creatures whose were unsocial become extinct.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

It depends on who you are or as what you recognize yourself! It depends on who is the "lawmaking"! Freedom is equivalent with determination, it only depends on who you are! Freedom is equivalence with the necessity (Hegel) or with the "holy will" (Kant). Science can only recognize determinated things, but never the real and living entity and subject of knowledge, and so also not freedom! Freedom is never "in abstracto", you can only "be in" or have freedom. Freedom is proven in the moment that we can think it, explained with Kant.

[@nihatomer1859]

Self-conscious me vs subconscious me is a battle of my life

[@FalseCogs]

If you can accept your shadows as part of what you are, no matter their emotions, you can perhaps make peace with the subconscious.

[@rodrigoff7456]

@@FalseCogs 👏Jordan Peterson? 👀

[@FalseCogs]

@@rodrigoff7456 Likely in agreement with something Peterson would say, though I was more referring to the basic teaching of Carl Jung, and later teachings by various others about shadow integration. These days I come more from the perspective of non-duality in particular, one of whose key concepts is that shadows and other repressed parts of ourselves must be embraced in full before we can escape the cycle of suffering and find liberation.

[@bobcabot]

ja all fine, but the question is not: if there is a phenomenon called free-will to us - no doubt about that illusion...

[@sonpollo8995]

sounds like his talking a mechanical malfunction or adaption as opposed to free will.

[@dixsusu]

In a system there is no free will , only options from within that system , and they are many .

[@francesco5581]

and are you free to choose between those options ?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"In a system there is no free will , only options from within that system , and they are many ."* ... I can freely choose to create a painting using whatever paint, colors, size, shape, technique, and composition I desire. The number of possible combinations paints, colors, sizes, shapes, techniques and compositions is infinite. I can also choose not to paint anything at all. Where is the purported determinism in this scenario?

[@forall1796]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC You only have the illusory belief that you have freewill and cannot demonstrate that you in fact, do have freewill. If you can feely choose to paint, you would be painting instead of writing a response to the comment above. Supposedly you start painting now, then even that action is determined by my response or something external to you. Selecting blue color for painting over all other Color, doesn't in anyway prove you have freewill. It could be the case that blue color is the best fit for the painting or that it's the color you could afford.

[@forall1796]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Lastly, you can't prove you have freewill by presupposing that you have freewill.

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@forall1796 You said this freely? People still have not answered Stanley Jaki's question...

[@mintakan003]

Human beings follow rules too. These come from biology and psychology. They need to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, etc. Hence, their behaviors are predictable along these lines. On the psychological side, there is the need for relationships, meaning, happiness. Broadly speaking, choices will flow along these lines. Maslow has documented the hierarchy of needs. The libertarian, human level sense, of "free will" would be consistent with these objectives. It's not totally free, in the sense of being arbitrary. Wolfram's notion of computational irreducibility emphasizes determinism. I know he is aware of chaos theory, which is still deterministic, but not predictable. This is due to lack of knowledge of the initial conditions, and outsized magnification of small deviations, due to non-linear dynamics. But I wonder how he would handle "randomness", not just randomness in the classical sense (epistemic), but true randomness, at an inherent level, such as in the quantum mechanics (ontic). Does quantum mechanical randomness obviate determinism?

[@shmookins]

David Walliam is deep.

[@anthonycraig274]

We don’t really know altogether the evidence say there isn’t freewill.

[@MRnormi98]

Every cause have an effect. There is no violation from this rule. Every part of the Universe confirms that. That is the evidence. Every action is predetermined = no free will

[@donespiritu1345]

Free Will is a red herring. People don't have free will because free will does not and cannot exist. People do have various levels of volition, that is the ability to act free of obvious constraints and the ability to decide how they will act.

[@amanda3172]

You must have a galaxy infinity brain with every answer to our universe. My bad, i wasn't aware super natural beings existed right here on earth.

[@TheNosarajr]

Bad question, like asking if there can be 50 percent of eternity.

[@aminomar7890]

It is only one of two possibilities: the gods of the apes prepared well for this moment or the thief apes have stolen and polluted human thoughts. there is no third choice. In both cases that will endanger future generations.

[@JamesNeilMeece]

Reminds me of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence

[@richardvannoy1198]

I freely willed to watch this episode. Some are great. This was not one of them.

[@fumble_brewski5410]

Free will? Sure. But it seems that we humans usually choose to do the wrong rather than the right. Wonder why that might be, eh? "The (human) heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

[@ablazedguy]

We should stop punishing criminals RIGHT NOW then, since they're not acting of their free will, they're just manifesting a very complex behaviour 🤣🤣🤣

[@FalseCogs]

Punishment is a cheap solution, but not the way of truth. Education is more effective long-term, but too many non-criminals lack the moral reasoning themselves to impart proper teaching, relying instead on their emotional gut feeling -- aka empathy. The true cause of immorality is ignorance, which in practice tends to permeate society. Those with empathy are sometimes protected, to an extent, but those from abusive upbringings may find trouble. A more caring solution would focus on the abuse and general well-being of all, rather than pointing fingers and other weapons. The correct target of blame for ill behaviour is the pervasive ignorance that society facilitates and perpetuates.

[@nuqwestr]

"Penrose tiling" is non-deterministic, and while it does not prove free will, it allows for it. The world system allows for free will, but does not require it.

[@MRnormi98]

What do you mean by non-deterministic? Penrose tiling is aperiodic. Doesn't make it non-deterministic. There are rules to make Penrose tiling so it is strongly deterministic.

[@vasileioszografos9318]

the problem when you only know one theory (i.e. cellular automata) you tend to try to explain everything with that theory

[@barry.anderberg]

Who knew George Kostanza went and got a degree in philosophy?!!?

[@chamsseddin4449]

Stephen approach simply is to make an assumptions then build his conclusions on top of it without proof it, and when it comes to proof it he make it a time problem, so at the end of the day all his conclusions it's a philosophical discussions, and to make it complex and beautiful he just make fun using technical words, and say that our universe is simple and draw beautiful mathematical structures without prooving any thin, why ? because he think so ? but based on what ? nobody knows.

[@markimel4947]

Humans are the will.

[@binbots]

God was bored and lonely one day with his predictable universe. So he granted himself (the universe) the illusion of free will.

[@rayraycthree5784]

Anyone examining a less free society like totalitarian communism would probably find less apparent free will since people would generally act in their own self intrest which is more predictable in that type society.

[@kensey007]

I have a challenge for anyone who thinks they have libertine free will. Just don't. Choose not to think you have free will. Go ahead now.

[@mikel4879]

Any "aggregated realm" of any kind "has" as much freedom as the local entropic realm "gives" it in any portion and at any scale of the Universe. Any other discussions of any other nuance are simple and unuseful stupidities.

[@dr.deverylejones1306]

What is the Facts of Freewill we have the Freewill now to eat or NOT, the Freewill exercise or Not, to get Fat or Not, to drive a car or Not, to get marry or Not, to Love or Not, is the EVIDENCE Freewill exist & we have of Freewill now.

[@caricue]

If you listen carefully, you will hear Dr Kuhn specify that he is talking about a "concept" and not a phenomenon. What you are describing is the natural phenomenon on which all concepts of free will are based. For some bizarre reason, some people believe that you can use your concept to negate the very thing on which it is based.

[@jeffamos9854]

Cats have free will. Dogs have determinism

[@user-k229]

There is no such thing as free will! There is a "cost" to us having a will. The cost is that we pay for it with our life and then before death we need to write a Will!

[@blijebij]

xD

[@SingularSolarus]

So either everything has this sort of "freewill" or nothing has "freewill". It really comes down to semantics and in the common interpretation of "free" the intellectually honest have to say that no there is not magical freewill outside of natural laws. Sure, maybe some "mystical kick" (unlikely), but that also would not be freewill.

[@calvinmasters6159]

So no responsibility? No accountability? Prediction does not negate volition. Modelling is never 100%

[@FalseCogs]

These are moral concepts. Their inherent function is to sway the direction of future events and tendencies within a system of agents. Sway of future events can occur by various means, even in the absence of the concept of personal responsibility. For example, education can help people to think longer term; teaching interdependence and evolutionary genetic similarity can help to avoid bigotry; and giving people a sense of connection and purpose within the group can help to minimise selfish actions. There is no need to place blame on individuals to attain a sense of purpose. The key is making sure that people can see how we are all acting together as one lifeform. Once this can be seen, personal blame becomes unnecessary, as others are seen as part of self.

[@calvinmasters6159]

@@FalseCogs Ok, putting aside ethics... To argue against free will, granted, there is Libet's work on pre-decision neural activity, which I worked on, but it has questions of latency. Consider weather prediction. It's reasonably good these days, but to get it perfect, you'd have to model every atom on the earth. Similarly, to model a brain and its 100 billion neurons, and all the sensory input it takes in, all in real time, would take yottaflops at least.

[@FalseCogs]

@@calvinmasters6159 Was this aimed at another comment? I agree that the human brain cannot be easily predicted with certainty. The inherent randomness no doubt necessitates statistical analysis, as with science in general. Most moral codes are based on relatively simple assumptions about the systemic effects of specific local phenomena, such as individual actions. But even if the assumed effects were correct, without understanding the full contributory causal web, blame and praise, plus any proposed path of rectification, cannot be well founded.

[@stephenlawrence4821]

Robert knows free will is about having options we can select and therefore could have done otherwise. Frustrating when the guests come on and talk about something else. Brilliant as they may be, it's not free will.

[@RickydeCamargo]

The most precious thing for the human being is the FREEDOM. Never let anyone take this from you. NEVER, no matter the reason, your country, your social status. Freedom is the key to make your life, your country and the world a better place to live. Of course, rules are necessary.

[@Beevreeter]

There is no such thing as freedom - just more and more complex cages.

[@forall1796]

How's or why is freedom a precious or good thing? How do you know we have freewill or freedom ?

[@Sophie-and-Ken]

I am not free to steel. I can’t kill either. Kind of makes free will a mute point because if everything was predetermined there would be no free will. Yet, we get charged for murder so the legal system says you have free will but no freedoms.

[@stoneagedjp]

You are right.

[@HonkletonDonkleton]

What if the human doesn't want freedom?

[@markpmar0356]

Perhaps you should start by defining what you mean by "free will". Because I don't think you know what you mean. The concepts outlined by Wolfram here, however, are much closer, if not a perfect description, of what the actual human ontological milieu consists of.

[@karlvann5840]

Lmao WHAT

[@robokou]

@karl vann, I'm guessing you're Catholic?

[@profskmehta]

We have seen that fundamental laws of physics cannot explain the functioning of biological systems. That is, emergent subsystems within a larger system appear to have its own evolution. It is not clear if two identically born unverses will see same evolution of emergent subsystems.

[@davidanful]

No one told you to write this post. Even if someone did you chose to do so

[@stephenlawrence4821]

We know free will is about having a choice. So having options we can select. And we know our intuitions are that free will is incompatible with determinism. We know that is because if determinism is true there is a sense in which we could not have done otherwise. So could not have selected any of the other options we had. I can go further. But the facts are known. We don't have free will.

[@OBGynKenobi]

I always come back to what I call the Hitler problem of free will. If there is no free will then you really can't place blame on bad behavior.

[@kpllc4209]

Not blame but you can punish it

[@OBGynKenobi]

@@kpllc4209 I'm on the side of free will being a thing.

[@kpllc4209]

@@OBGynKenobi I am on the side of the brain is like a computer, it can make choices but that doesn't mean it has "traditional" free will

[@OBGynKenobi]

@@kpllc4209 what is a choice?

[@kpllc4209]

@@OBGynKenobi definition: an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities

[@bysoftterry]

i dont think Stephen Wolfram understands free-will or his interpretation of free-will is different from Robert 's

[@simonhibbs887]

Who's will, and free from what? Surely our decisions must be determined by us. As a free agent one's decisions must be determined by one's intellectual capacity, skills, experience, memories and personality. Since these things are inherent to our nature, to the extent that we are consistent persons our decisions must be determined by these characteristics. Viewed this way, our decisions must be deterministic, otherwise those decisions aren't ours. My decisions must be determined by my brain state, or I'm not making the decisions.This is why I subscribe to the interpretation that our decisions are free so long as they are not unduly influenced or coerced by outside forces.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

Physics can never answer metaphysical questions like if the world or life is determined or not! You can never answer such question through empiric way, in principle never! That's what quantum mechanics shows us, that it can not decide between these questions, because the contrary reformulations do all generate same empirical results, so we can not decide!

[@MRnormi98]

Deciding the world is deterministic or not is not a metaphysical question. It is science question that can be easy verifiable. Take any part of the world. You can decide if that part is determined or not. Position of the earth on the orbit is determined and we can with certainly predict it's future position exactly. Quantum mechanics is a physical law like others. Just some of their outcome are statistical. So you can decide that measurement in quantum mechanics are indeterministic.

[@Azupiru]

Wolfram asserts that there is a phenomenon of free will, but there is no phenomenon of free will. No one knows what it is like to have free will. No one has observed their own actions or the actions of another and validly concluded that their observation was of a phenomenon of free will. It hasn't happened, and it can never happen.

[@xmasmikewins772]

POV: a robot trying to "understand" free will

[@xmasmikewins772]

Robot Santa Claus on fleek

[@RootinrPootine]

Lmao

[@Jonny-eu7le]

I think if we chose our life before we were born then we have free will. If not then no free will

[@spitfirered]

👍👍💯💯❤❤

[@agiisahebbnnwithnoobjectiv228]

simple underlying rules to complex behavior..does this guy have anything else to say?

[@TheNosarajr]

All that talk, just to say things are so complex that free will exists.

[@constructivecritique5191]

Why is this an issue? Unless there is a gun to your head you have free will to live and enjoy unhindered experience of reality.

[@jeremycrofutt7322]

Life is a free gift. People can choose to live life or they can choose to not live life. Only they themselves can determine what they will do. Just like you can choose to believe in Jesus Christ or not believe. God gives you the choice of your determination. What a loving, non forcible, and truthful God.

[@marvinmartian8746]

Can you 'really' choose to believe in Jesus Christ or God though? Ask any atheist to, as a test, believe for just for a month. Not 'pretend' to believe, but believe. They can't. Reverse that and ask any person who believes in God to not believe for month. They can't. You believe what you believe for various reasons of how you view the world and experience and what makes sense to you, but those reasons still exist even if someone asks you to do this 'test.'

[@jeremycrofutt7322]

@@marvinmartian8746 then why are there atheist that become believers, and why are there people that deconstruct from there belief? Free will choice. Just like you chose to comment, since you chose to let my comment bother you. Why does my comment bother you?

[@jeremycrofutt7322]

@@marvinmartian8746 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Acts 8:34‭-‬38 KJV

[@marvinmartian8746]

@@jeremycrofutt7322 Why would you think your comment bothered me? Did you expect to put your thoughts out there on a public forum and nobody would have a reaction or an opposing view? I wasn't making a case for or against free will, though I do have an opinion on that. I was saying simply that people don't consciously choose to believe in God (or not), on a whim or willy nilly. You aren't going to do the test out of respect for God or you are scared or you don't appreciate the tempting from me, etc. But if you tried, I don't think you would be successful because your past experience - your world view and view of what's real and possible - would not let you get that far. Free will or not, you probably couldn't do it. And same for me going the opposite direction. For those 'converting' at some point, I would say that of course I think that one's world view and measuring of the 'facts' and so on can change over time and they could 'change teams' so to speak. I was speaking more of an instantaneous change. Most people would look back on why they believe what they believe and it wouldn't come down to a distinct moment where they put all their energy into suddenly believing something.

[@jeremycrofutt7322]

@@marvinmartian8746 when people decide to change things about themselves, it is never an instant change, other than appearance. But yet people can change their mind. AA has a 12 step program. There is order to things. Like tilling the ground, planting a seed, watering, fertilizing, and care. Waiting for it to grow and produce. You are right, I can't do it, it is Jesus Christ who does it, cause all things are possible through Christ. Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. Philippians 4:11‭-‬13 KJV