I don’t believe free will is real. I’m not a deep physics person (and relatively bad at math), but with my undergrad understanding of chemistry, classical mechanics, and electromagnetism, it seems most rational that we are creatures entirely controlled by our environments and what we ingest and inhale.
I’m not deeply familiar with chaos theory, but at a high level understand it to be that there’s just too many variables for us to model, with current technology, today. To me that screams “god of the gaps” fallacy and implies that eventually we WILL have sufficiently powerful systems to accurately model at that scale…and there goes chaos theory.
So I’m asking you guys, fellow Lemmings, what are some arguments to causality / hard determinism, that are rooted entirely in physics and mechanics, that would give any credit to the idea that free will is real?
Please leave philosophical and religious arguments at the door.
The definition of “free” and “will” are to shady to be scientific.
So there is no scientific arguing about it, just philosophical.
Free will is tricky, but there’s interpretations of quantum mechanics that aren’t deterministic. (Although multiple worlds QM is deterministic!)
That’s it. Everything else in physics supports determinism. The fundamental physics so far even conserves information/can be traced (CP-inverted) backwards.
CP symmetry has been experimentally measured to be violated. What we still believe is that our world is invariant under CPT symmetry.
Yes. As I understand it, to preserve CPT during a T violation, you have to invert (break) CP, but it can be done.
So, you could theoretically make a kaon plasma with weird unidirectional (and so T-violating) non-thermodynamic behavior if you had a strong enough box, but in the process it would inevitably accumulate handedness and electric charge in a way that preserves information.
Yeah, when writing this I sort of had the notion that any argument against hard determinism using quantum mechanics would instead 1) actually prove multiverse theory, and 2) therefore still prove in favor of determinism.
Quantum Mechanics’ hard indeterminism doesn’t prove the multiverse interpretation, it’s just one of several potential explanations for the randomness we see.
While quantum mechanics certainly gives random jumps, by no means is anything in control of those random processes (otherwise, they wouldn’t be random)
So, even though the universe may not be fundamentally deterministic, that doesn’t mean free will exists
I have a theoretical degree in nuclear physics, and it seems to me that sub-atomic scale events like quantum tunneling suggest that reality is neither fully determined nor fully chaotic, but something in between: probabilistic. Whether we can consciously affect the probabilities of our own actions remains an open question, but we can at least say that causality is not the whole picture.
Do you have a degree in theoretical physics, or do you theoretical have a degree. ;)
Go back to work, Fantastic, you have a power plant to run.
I’m a theoretical theoretical physicist. That’s double the theory.
I am Melllvar. Reader of the books! Knower of the theories!
Slightly off topic, but the god-of-the-gaps has plenty of space in maths alone. The Incompleteness theorem by Goedel shows that in any mathematical system there will be unprovable truths.
I have no idea how to map that onto free will.
Yeah, I’ve thought about this a little bit but again my math isn’t so strong.
I guess approaching this more from computer science (something I’m more familiar with) you could compare with stuff like the NP Hard class of problems. And thus I offer that unproveable does not mean “wrong”. We generally “know” that P=NP is wrong but we cannot prove it only because we lack omniscience. Us lacking the information (in the physics sense of the word i.e. Hawking radiation) doesn’t mean the information isn’t there to be quantified.
We know cause and effect exist in the universe. We can use this to gain control of a lot of things in our world: for instance, when I push the letter “A” on my touchscreen, the letter “A” appears on my screen due to these cause/effect systems we have set up.
However, we know that the universe is not entirely describable via cause and effect. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle precludes us from fully observing all aspects of a quantum system, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem shows that our knowledge of the universe will always be incomplete, and Schrödinger’s Cat shows us the absurdity of trying to make concrete claims about observed phenomena using probabilistic models.
If the universe was purely deterministic and we were theoretically able to gain all knowledge of it, there would not be free will. But this is not the universe we live in. The universe we live in is one where:
- Probability exists, so we cannot fully predict the future state of events even with perfect knowledge (i.e. Schrödinger can never gain enough knowledge to predict whether the cat is alive or dead before opening the box, because the event is fully probabilistic.)
- There are aspects of the universe we cannot fully observe, because by focusing on some aspects we must filter out others, so observation will never be fully reliable.
- Regardless of how much we learn, there will always be knowledge we cannot fully categorize.
If events in the universe were fully deterministic, then free will would be an illusion, because everything could be traced to an earlier set of causes, and decisions would not actually exist. If events in the universe were random, free will would have no meaning, because decisions would be arbitrary.
But we live in a universe where things are not immutable, but things are not equally likely. I can roll a fair set of dice for randomness, or I can weight them to create an uneven probability, or I can select a number to eliminate probability altogether. And we all make decisions with limited observations using incomplete knowledge that will only have a partial effect to affect the probabilities of future events. And that means we shape events without controlling them, so all of our decisions have meaning. We can also tell objectively based on observations that some decisions are better than others, while at the same time conceding that no decision is 100% objectively right or wrong.
And that, my friend, is free will.
Also not very educated on this, but just throwing out what i thought was the outline here:
- Tiny differences in position or speed can lead to drastically different outcomes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
- We can only know position or speed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle Thus, predicting the future cannot reach 100% accuracy.
If this means that we might have free will i cant say, but if the world is wholly deterministic, the above at least underlines our lack of ability to predict it.
Regarding god of the gaps, annoyingly, the claim here is actually that we ”know” that we cant know:
”Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.”
Of course, only until falsified - field is always changing: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/common-interpretation-of-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-is-proven-false/
Free will can be defined as:
A state of existence in which one’s decisions are a predictor of one’s actions.
I don’t see where that conflicts with determinism, honestly. It’s two different levels of analysis.
If you define free will as, by definition, something that breaks the laws of physics, then free will, by definition, does not exist.
Kinda like when someone defines “magic” the same way. If “magic” is by definition something impossible, then by definition it doesn’t exist.
The questions get a lot more interesting when you define these things in a way that doesn’t make them, by definition, non-existent.
Maybe this type of reasoning should be called Trivial Dismissal.
Another example. If you define God as a man in the sky who controls everything, you’re not really an intellectual tour de force if you conclude he doesn’t exist. It’s the more interesting definitions of God that lead to more interesting discussion of whether God exists.
That seems to me like an entirely inadequate description of free will, because the interesting question isn’t how decisions lead to actions, but where the decisions themselves come from, i.e. whether the decisions are made freely. Unfortunately I’ve yet to see any definition of free will that doesn’t rely on hand-waving the definition of words like “free” or “could”. We have intuition about what those words mean, but they don’t appear to have any rigorous definition that applies in the context of defining free will.
The very concept of the Self, presumably the director of free will, in context, is under threat. Eastern philosophies has held this position for centuries - now science seems like the idea :
https://bigthink.com/the-well/eastern-philosophy-neuroscience-no-self/
I don’t suppose any of you meditate by any chance ?
