There is no free will?

[thedaywillcome]

Our brain decide automatically?

 

[Enigmatic Sailor]

I believe there's free will in how you react to situations, such as choosing to smile at tragedy or crying or even holding back all emotions and becoming stoic.

 

[Doombox]

It might help to think of it as free choice rather than free will.

 

[Shu]

According to all the bill nyes and materialist of this website no. We have no free will. Lol

 

[thedaywillcome]

I believe there's free will in how you react to situations, such as choosing to smile at tragedy or crying or even holding back all emotions and becoming stoic.

Not even that. Is the automatic laughing reflex after something funny free will?

 

[Enigmatic Sailor]

Not even that. Is the automatic laughing reflex after something funny free will?

No, we're a slave to our genes and algorithms.

 

[Al Cappella]

I don't think that's quite true. There is evidence that says your brain is involved before you're actually aware that a decision is being made. That's argument one.

Argument two says that you're part of a social/cultural construct that greatly, and unavoidably, influences your decision making process. Crudely put, all your friends & family watch The Flintstones, odds are you will too. Of course that's a silly example, but you can easily see how moral decision making can be affected by your surroundings.

Third argument says that, as far as classical physics/general relativity has it, meaning ours is a calculated universe where everything can be mathematically predicted—well then we can determine what the future holds, and how you will behave in it. In other words it's a wholly deterministic universe, if I've understood any of that correctly.

But we clearly experience something that we consider as free will. As in, I'm choosing what words to put in what order, what I wore this morning, whether to be on this forum at all. Is all of that an illusion? Could be.

But there's the pesky problem of quantum mechanics, and uncertainties. Now that's way beyond my tiny little pea-brain, but we can say the thing is far from settled.

It gets interesting when it comes to suicide—whether there is actually choice there or not. My gut says "not". Again, we don't know. Yet.

 

[thedaywillcome]

No, we're a slave to our genes and algorithms.

I don't think that's quite true. There is evidence that says your brain is involved before you're actually aware that a decision is being made. That's argument one.

Argument two says that you're part of a social/cultural construct that greatly, and unavoidably, influences your decision making process. Crudely put, all your friends & family watch The Flintstones, odds are you will too. Of course that's a silly example, but you can easily see how moral decision making can be affected by your surroundings.

Third argument says that, as far as classical physics/general relativity has it, meaning ours is a calculated universe where everything can be mathematically predicted—well then we can determine what the future holds, and how you will behave in it. In other words it's a wholly deterministic universe, if I've understood any of that correctly.

But we clearly experience something that we consider as free will. As in, I'm choosing what words to put in what order, what I wore this morning, whether to be on this forum at all. Is all of that an illusion? Could be.

But there's the pesky problem of quantum mechanics, and uncertainties. Now that's way beyond my tiny little pea-brain, but we can say the thing is far from settled.

It gets interesting when it comes to suicide—whether there is actually choice there or not. My gut says "not". Again, we don't know. Yet.

If suicide was a free choice, I would have been gone long tume ago.

 

[Loaf of bread]

We have no free will. Everything is predetermined by our @GenesAndEnvironment .

 

[Insomniac]

Our brain decide automatically?

no, no free will bro.

 

[Doombox]

I don't think that's quite true. There is evidence that says your brain is involved before you're actually aware that a decision is being made. That's argument one.

Argument two says that you're part of a social/cultural construct that greatly, and unavoidably, influences your decision making process. Crudely put, all your friends & family watch The Flintstones, odds are you will too. Of course that's a silly example, but you can easily see how moral decision making can be affected by your surroundings.

Third argument says that, as far as classical physics/general relativity has it, meaning ours is a calculated universe where everything can be mathematically predicted—well then we can determine what the future holds, and how you will behave in it. In other words it's a wholly deterministic universe, if I've understood any of that correctly.

But we clearly experience something that we consider as free will. As in, I'm choosing what words to put in what order, what I wore this morning, whether to be on this forum at all. Is all of that an illusion? Could be.

But there's the pesky problem of quantum mechanics, and uncertainties. Now that's way beyond my tiny little pea-brain, but we can say the thing is far from settled.

It gets interesting when it comes to suicide—whether there is actually choice there or not. My gut says "not". Again, we don't know. Yet.

I found out that that research that allegedly showed brain activity prior to a conscious decision being made was flawed and is no longer considered valid. I do think that the universe has to be deterministic...each thing that happens could happen no other way. I prefer to think of what we experience as free choice...we always have choices we can make, whether they are determined or not. You can choose a flavor of ice cream and feel that freedom to choose, but we know that if you "reran the tape" you would always choose that flavor in that moment because all the variable would be identical. I don't think that quantum mechanics complicates things because quantum physics does not describe macrophenomena.

 

[Enigmatic Sailor]

Weird take: I'm okay with not having free will. No free will means that everything is as it should be. Everything is in the right place at the right time and it's just smooth sailing from here on out.

 

[Superdeterminist]

It depends on how you're defining it. Personally I'm most interested in the libertarian version of free will; that's the kind of freedom I care about. That is, 'the ability to have chosen otherwise'. We don't have that ability, so we don't have that kind of free will.

 

[Dysgenic Pup]

No, I believe every effect has a cause. The only thing that has no cause is the universe; it always has and always will exist in one form or another imo.

 

[Red Scare]

There is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. Every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. All events are determined completely by previously existing causes. There is nothing in the universe that is uncaused or self-caused, and everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions, a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature. This chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes.

Having said that, the illusion of choice and free will exists. That is what matters, we don't know the future, though we think we make choices every day that affect it. There is no algorithm, no math equation that can account for all the probabilities, no way for any human beings to predict what will happen in every instance. So the fact that we possess this illusion of choice is good enough for most people. You still think that you make a choice every time, and that is all that matters.

But there's the pesky problem of quantum mechanics, and uncertainties. Now that's way beyond my tiny little pea-brain, but we can say the thing is far from settled.

Like @Doombox points out above, quantum mechanics only describes the interactions of things happening on a very very small scale, the sub-atomic. Some strange things happen on that scale, but these things do not describe macrophenomena, which are the things happening on a larger scale, the world that we see with our eyes. On very very small scales those laws of nature break down, and different laws are in place. A lot of people try to use quantum-mechanics to justify a lot of kooky beliefs about what's possible on the macro level because scientists have observed these weird effects on a sub-atomic scale but that just isn't the case. On the macro level the laws and physics and nature hold true.

 

[Sunset Limited]

It is about how you draw the limit of freedom in the definition of "free will". For me, there is no freedom. When you eat apples for the first time, you either like it or you don't. You cannot decide this. Your brain tells it. Freedom is being able to decide what you like. If "free will" were really possible, people could change their characters like changing clothes. They all remain the same person when they wake up each day. I think true freedom is possible when we can exist as we think. We think as we exist. The limbic system is dominant and manipulates us. If it were not so, we would have already jumped from a high place. This forum would never exist.

 

[Al Cappella]

There is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. Every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. All events are determined completely by previously existing causes. There is nothing in the universe that is uncaused or self-caused, and everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions, a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature. This chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes.

Having said that, the illusion of choice and free will exists. That is what matters, we don't know the future, though we think we make choices every day that affect it. There is no algorithm, no math equation, no way for any human beings to predict what will happen in every instance. So the fact that we possess this illusion of choice is good enough for most people. You still think that you make a choice every time, and that is all that matters.


Like @Doombox points out above, quantum mechanics only describes the interactions of things happening on a very very small scale, the sub-atomic. Some strange things happen on that scale, but these things do not describe macrophenomena, which are the things happening on a larger scale, the world that we see with our eyes. On very very small scales those laws of nature break down, and different laws are in place. A lot of people try to use quantum-mechanics to justify a lot of kooky beliefs about what's possible on the macro level because scientists have observed these weird effects on a sub-atomic scale but that just isn't the case. On the macro level the laws and physics and nature hold true.

So, upon a little further reading, the field that looks into free will, agency and decision-making—neurophilosophy—is a highly controversial one, with no consensus. Makes sense, as we're still digging into what consciousness even is, and how exactly it works.

An interesting aside, people who do not believe in free will have been shown to behave in ways that suggest reduced accountability—in areas of job performance, and some other moral stuff. No, they don't suddenly become ax murderers.

Now as for the quantum angle—and do bear with me here—I do realize that, for now, quantum mechanics and general relativity are unhappy bedfellows. And no, I'm not about to argue that entanglement means a farmer in Oslo just determined what a proctologist had for breakfast in Duluth.

But quantum stuff does enter the picture when it comes to information. The brain is like a machine that takes information in through the senses, and then sends information back out in the form of choices. You have free will if information is newly created, or is of a sufficiently unpredictable nature.

Information is quantum. So now we can argue whether quantum events are random, or whether they obey a set of laws. I don't really know either way, I'm a hobbyist—and this stuff, well I can't really say I understand much. Not least because I can't hope to ever do the math.

The issue is that new information created in the brain violates conservation of information laws. If information comes from outside the brain, then it would suggest free will is a no.

I do know there is no single, comprehensive answer, and all sorts of things continue to be hotly debated and contested. That I suppose is the fun. Really, as much as we debate, i think the fact remains we do need at least the idea of free will. Without it, I shudder to think what the world would be like…

 

[Red Scare]

So, upon a little further reading, the field that looks into free will, agency and decision-making—neurophilosophy—is a highly controversial one, with no consensus. Makes sense, as we're still digging into what consciousness even is, and how exactly it works.

An interesting aside, people who do not believe in free will have been shown to behave in ways that suggest reduced accountability—in areas of job performance, and some other moral stuff. No, they don't suddenly become ax murderers.

Now as for the quantum angle—and do bear with me here—I do realize that, for now, quantum mechanics and general relativity are unhappy bedfellows. And no, I'm not about to argue that entanglement means a farmer in Oslo just determined what a proctologist had for breakfast in Duluth.

But quantum stuff does enter the picture when it comes to information. The brain is like a machine that takes information in through the senses, and then sends information back out in the form of choices. You have free will if information is newly created, or is of a sufficiently unpredictable nature.

Information is quantum. So now we can argue whether quantum events are random, or whether they obey a set of laws. I don't really know either way, I'm a hobbyist—and this stuff, well I can't really say I understand much. Not least because I can't hope to ever do the math.

The issue is that new information created in the brain violates conservation of information laws. If information comes from outside the brain, then it would suggest free will is a no.

I do know there is no single, comprehensive answer, and all sorts of things continue to be hotly debated and contested. That I suppose is the fun. Really, as much as we debate, i think the fact remains we do need at least the idea of free will. Without it, I shudder to think what the world would be like…

There's no contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. I'll say this one more time: quantum physics, quantum mechanics, only describes how things work on a very very small scale. And no offense, I'm really not trying to be rude but statements like "information is quantum", don't really mean anything. The brain processes sensory information yes. But the way the brain processes information as far as we can tell is by electrochemical activity zapping different neurons and sending chemical signals. All that stuff is made of atoms, and quantum mechanics describes how things work on like a sub atomic level. It can't be extrapolated to things on a macro level.

 

[Superdeterminist]

There's no contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. I'll say this one more time: quantum physics, quantum mechanics, only describes how things work on a very very small scale. And no offense, I'm really not trying to be rude but statements like "information is quantum", don't really mean anything. The brain processes sensory information yes. But the way the brain processes information as far as we can tell is by electrochemical activity zapping different neurons and sending chemical signals. All that stuff is made of atoms, and quantum mechanics describes how things work on like a sub atomic level. It can't be extrapolated to things on a macro level.

Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder says that QM describes both the micro and macro:



I think there are discrepancies between GR and QM, but I don't know the details.

 

[Darkover]

we are deterministic with limited choice, do i choose to drink tea or coffee, its selecting things from a list of things to do it's very limited i mean i don't have any choice in the way i look or if i can fly or not, but we are deterministic also we must drink or suffer a horrible death not really a choice there,

 

[Doombox]

Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder says that QM describes both the micro and macro:



I think there are discrepancies between GR and QM, but I don't know the details.

That's interesting and I hope @Red Scare weighs in on it because we have officially exceeded my pay grade. In terms of "free will," though, I think @Al Cappella may have been wondering if QM might contribute the random variable necessary for us to make a different choice than the one we made. That's what proponents of free will need to provide: evidence of a random variable.

 

[Red Scare]

Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder says that QM describes both the micro and macro:



I think there are discrepancies between GR and QM, but I don't know the details.

There's a lot of quacks out there, and yes, even some physicists are among them.

This sort of video is not aimed at other physicists. It's aimed at people like you, who eat it up. Physicists are mostly doing hard work writing grants to do more research, and passing peer reviewed info along to credible journals. Not making YouTube videos.

 

[Superdeterminist]

That's interesting and I hope @Red Scare weighs in on it because we have officially exceeded my pay grade. In terms of "free will," though, I think @Al Cappella may have been wondering if QM might contribute the random variable necessary for us to make a different choice than the one we made. That's what proponents of free will need to provide: evidence of a random variable.

I don't think randomness is enough to salvage libertarian free will. There is a supposed randomness to QM, if QM is taken to be fundamental, which is to say that nothing influences QM, it just is how it is (i.e. it's randomly that way). QM supposedly produces probabilities for outcomes, but it fails to explain why the outcomes ACTUALLY observed were what they were, rather than being any of the alternatives. "This outcome was most probable, so that's why we observed it" isn't explanatorily adequate.

There's a lot of quacks out there, and yes, even some physicists are among them.

This sort of video is not aimed at other physicists. It's aimed at people like you, who eat it up. Physicists are mostly doing hard work writing grants to do more research, and passing peer reviewed info along to credible journals. Not making YouTube videos.

So you're not keen on Sabine...well you're free to disagree with her. But it's wrong to suggest that she stands outside of academia. She's a researcher at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, has almost 4000 citations overall, and you can see here she's been publishing papers all the way up to this year:

Sabine Hossenfelder

MCMP - Cited by 5,495 - Physics

scholar.google.com

But to be honest, I'm not really a fan of all this academic grandstanding, as if it makes a person's ideas any more credible. She herself has said that she makes the videos in large part to support herself financially, because attaining a grant is difficult, and because she has 2 children who she is still supporting. Making YT vids doesn't suddenly render a physicist invalid.