There is an argument that free will doesn’t exist because there is an unbroken chain of causality we are riding on that dates back to the beginning of time. Meaning that every time you fart, scratch your nose, blink, or make lifechanging decisions there is a pre existing reason. These reasons might be anything from the sensory enviornment you were in the past minute, the hormone levels in your bloodstream at the time, hormones you were exposed to as a baby, or how you were parented growing up. No thought you have is really original and is more like a domino affect of neurons firing off in reaction to what you have experienced. What are your thoughts on this?
I think the question is ill defined. The answer is entirely dependent on the definitions you use and i don’t think answering the question really leads to a meaningfully different view of the world or has any real intellectual consequences.
Nope, I don’t.
Doesn’t really matter, though. We certainly have the illusion of free will, we behave as if it exists, so it doesn’t actually matter in a practical sense.
It is fun to think about!
I have no choice but to believe in it.
You could become convinced your perception of it is an illusion and not reality as it actually is, then you would have no choice not to believe it.
In my opinion humans are biological machines reacting to stimulus based on previous experience.
If we could theoretically perfectly map the brain and understand it, we could predict what a person would do in response to a specific stimulus.
At least that is how I have come to understand my existence.
Doesn’t mean I am off the hook for my poor decisions either. I still have to make the decision, even if theoretically we already knew what I would do.
Yeah, this is pretty much exactly how I feel about it. The universe is nothing but dead matter being pushed around by blind force, and any sense of agency is just an emergent phenomenon that exists as an illusion in the brain without having any actual bearing on reality. If you perfectly understood all of the forces and matter involved, you could perfectly predict what any given human (or anything system at all) would do.
That said, I also believe that it’s a completely useless idea when you’re trying to navigate through life, so I mostly just keep it in the back of my head like some half-forgotten piece of trivia and spend most of my time pretending to be in control like everyone else. Cheers!
Me too. The illusion of choice is what makes life interesting I suppose.
This is my favorite take on this topic. I also feel this way and its hard to get people to look at it this way I’ve noticed. People tend to loop back to “If theres no free will why do anything?” Or “If there is no free will why should murderers be punished?” Just because theres possibly no free will doesnt mean we should change the way we live our lives.
It’s a good question, though people tend to treat it as a thought-terminating cliché rather than exploring the implications. Why should murderers be punished, actually? Enacting punishment is an external incentive, a stimulus, supposedly structured to make the cost to the potential murderer higher than the benefit they hope to get by killing. Belief in punishment, therefore, is consistent with the non-free will position. But if there’s no free will, then why not instead try to “solve” murder, and not have murderers anymore, by discovering the root causes that drive people to murder, and mitigating them? We’d all be better off!
On the other hand, free will implies that the mechanism of punishment may or may not be punishing to the murderer. We don’t know what they feel in response to stimulus; they have free will! Like in the story of Br’er Rabbit, trying to determine a foolproof method of punishment that’s hateful to the murderer is an exercise in futility, since we can’t know their mind.
Doesn’t matter either way.
I agree. But then I am a pragmatist, which tends to make people extremely mad
Is there a tl;dr for that?
Sure:
It appears, then, that the rule for attaining the third grade of clearness of apprehension is as follows: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.
– C. S. Peirce
I don’t see why that would make anyone angry, but I also can’t understand what the hell it actually means. “The third grade of clearness of apprehension”? “Might conceivably”?
Well, understandable. It’s one line out of a book, out of context. What he means is that no metaphysical nonsense actually matters, if it doesn’t have real-world consequences. I.e. someone can claim Russell’s Teapot actually exists, and rest of us can just ignore them because it’s untestable and inconsequential.
This has made very many philosophers very angry, but I don’t expect anyone who’s not interested in philosophy to care.
Ah I gotcha. That’s an actual tl;dr. Makes sense to me and I agree.
There’s no evidence for free will. Every physical process involved in the function of our bodies and brains has so far proven to be deterministic in every way we can verify. That doesn’t mean you can’t have an original thought though, it just means that any original thought you have was necessarily going to happen and couldn’t possibly have happened any other way. It’s fate.
The question is meaningless, the answer doesn’t affect reality, unless you propose an external mind that is controlling or at least influencing our decisions.
Even with the external mind it’d be irrelevant. As long as we have no way of knowing the future or being able to predict it, having or not having free will is observed in exactly the same way.
If there were some external mind, one might at least speculate about its reasons. Which would probably be futile since it would influence those considerations too. Hm. Yeah.
I don’t think free will can be dismissed just because the framework that it runs on is deterministic.
Let’s say you program a text editor. A computer runs the program, but the computer has no influence on what text the user is going to write.
I think that consciousness is a user like that. It runs on deterministic hardware but it’s not necessarily deterministic due to that. It might be for other reasons, but the laws of physics isn’t it, because physics doesn’t prohibit free will from existing.
Consciousness is wildly complex. It’s a self illusion and we really have no good idea about where decisions even come from.
If it is deterministic, it would have to involve every single atom in the universe that in one way or another have influenced the person. Wings of a butterfly and light from distant stars etc. Attempting to predict it would require a simulation of everything. That leads to other questions. If a simulation is a 1:1 replica of the real thing, which one is then real and what happens if we run it backwards, can we see what caused the big bang, etc.
So, even if this is about free will, the enquiry falls short on trying to figure out what even causes anything to happen at all.
If we are happy with accepting that the universe was caused by something before or outside the universe, then it’s really easy to point in that direction and say that free will also comes from there - somewhere outside the deterministic physics.
Of course the actual universe and the laws of physics are really not separate as data and functions. The data itself contains the instructions. Any system that can contain itself that way is incomplete as proved by Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. Truths do exist that can’t be proven so perhaps the concept of free will is an example of such a thing, or maybe it’s not. The point is that we can’t rule it out, just because it exists in a deterministic system.
Personally I don’t think it matters all that much. Similarly to how we can only ever experience things that exists inside of the universe,or see the light that hits our eye, we can also only ever hope to experience free will on the level of our own consciousness, even if we acknowledge that it is influenced by all kinds of other things from all levels from atoms to the big bang.
Free will is real and it’s an illusion at the same time.
Our actions are reactions. And we are very limited in our execution of will by the most basic physical boundaries. For example I cannot fly, no matter how much I will it to be so.
We have free will to control the actions of the biological apparatus which is our body, to an extent, though even those are limited by circumstances and consequences.
Overall we have limited free will, or free will “lite”
No, we don’t have free will. HOWEVER, I don’t think that arguement will hold up in court.
It can’t hold up in court. It ultimately does not matter whether someone is compelled to do evil, or chooses to do evil. Society must be protected in either case
Even if the universe is nondeterministic like quantum physics suggests you still don’t have free will because your thoughts and feelings are still ruled by physical processes even when they are random.
But you don’t need physics to dispute free will. Schopenhauer already said that you may do what you want. But you cannot will what you want. Einstein used that realisation to not take everything too seriously even when people act infuriating.
your thoughts and feelings are still ruled by physical processes
citation needed
You exist in the brain, which is ruled by physical processes. Not sure what citations you need for that.
/me gestures in the general direction of the model of particle physics (and neuroscience)
For real though, they have even identified the hormone responsible for the “this was my idea” feeling. But I’m too lazy to google it.
It doesn’t matter.
In a deterministic reality, where all things are due and subject to causation, there can be no free will. If we did not live in a causal reality, we’d never be able to make accurate predictions or models.
“Randomness” is not free will either. If you’re not in complete control of your influences, then you can not be said to have free will. Randomness does nothing to help the argument for free will.
With that said. Regardless of the existence of free will, what does exists is your awareness of what it’s like to be you. To be in the circumstances that currently govern your life. And in that awareness exists the boundless capacity for compassion. Once you understand that no one is in control of their lives, that all things are causal, it allows you to be less judgmental.
"If a man is crossing a river and an empty boat collides with his own skiff, he will not become angry. He will simply guide his boat around it.
But if he sees a person in the boat, he will shout at the other to steer clear. If the shout is not heard, and the boats collide, he will curse the other person.
Yet, if the boat were empty, he would not be angry."
— Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi)
I wrote a simple explanation of determinism in a blog post earlier this year (there’s an audio version available as well.) https://mrfunkedude.wordpress.com/2024/12/03/following-the-strings/
Just pointing this out - we don’t live in a deterministic reality. Quantum interactions are inherently probabilistic and can’t be predetermined. This usually doesn’t matter, but you can chain larger classical systems onto quantum interactions (i.e. Schrödingers cat), which makes them non-deterministic as well.
Thanks for the reply.
“inherently probabilistic and can’t be determined” is just another way of saying “random” or “we don’t know yet”.
If reality was not deterministic, the reliability of models and predictions in physics would be upended.
“inherently probabilistic and can’t be determined” is just another way of saying “random” or “we don’t know yet”.
Well yes, it means “random”. Of course there’s always a chance that we’re just missing something fundamental, but it would mean that literally every model we have is completely wrong. Unless we find indications for that (and there don’t seem to be any so far) I think it’s fair to assume that quantum interactions are actually random.
If reality was not deterministic, the reliability of models and predictions in physics would be upended.
No, because reality is not deterministic, yet the reliability of models and predictions in physics is not upended. There simply are enough of these interactions happening that, in the “macro” world, we can talk about them deterministically, since they are probabilistic. But that doesn’t mean the “micro” interactions are deterministic, and it also doesn’t mean it’s impossible for a “macro” interaction to be non-deterministic - again, the example of Schrödingers cat comes to mind.
You could literally build a non-deterministic experiment right now if you wanted to.
In a sense it is deterministic. It’s just when most people think of determinism, they think of conditioning on the initial state, and that this provides sufficient constraints to predict all future states. In quantum mechanics, conditioning on the initial state does not provide sufficient constraints to predict all future states and leads to ambiguities. However, if you condition on both the initial state and the final state, you appear to get determinstic values for all of the observables. It seems to be deterministic, just not forwards-in-time deterministic, but “all-at-once” deterministic. Laplace’s demon would just need to know the very initial conditions of the universe and the very final conditions.
Hm, I’m not sure if I understand the abstract correctly.
Say I build two Schrödingers cat experiments next to each other, and connect them so that each vial dispersing the poison also makes the other vial disperse poison. I go away, and come back to both vials having triggered and both nuclear decays having occurred. How could I determine the path the whole system took?
I am not that good with abstract language. It helps to put it into more logical terms.
It sounds like what you are saying is that you begin with something a superposition of states like (1/√2)(|0⟩ + |1⟩) which we could achieve with the H operator applied to |0⟩ and then you make that be the cause of something else which we would achieve with the CX operator and would give us (1/√2)(|00⟩ + |11⟩) and then measure it. We can call these t=0 starting in the |00⟩ state, then t=1 we apply H operator to the least significant, and then t=2 is the CX operator with the control on the least significant.
I can’t answer it for the two cats literally because they are made up it a gorillion particles and computing it for all of them would be computationally impossible. But in this simple case you would just compute the weak values which requires you to also condition on the final state which in this case the final states could be |00⟩ or |11⟩. For each observable, let’s say we’re interested in the one at t=x, you construct your final state vector by starting on this final state, specifically its Hermitian transpose, and multiplying it by the reversed unitary evolution from t=2 to t=x and multiply that by the observable then multiply that by the forwards-in-time evolution from t=0 to t=x multiplied by the initial state, and then normalize the whole thing by dividing it by the Hermitian transpose of the final state times the whole reverse time evolution from t=2 to t=0 and then by the final state.
In the case where the measured state at t=3 is |00⟩ we get for the observables (most significant followed by least significant)…
- t=0: (0,0,+1);(+1,+i,+1)
- t=1: (0,0,+1);(+1,-i,+1)
- t=2: (0,0,+1);(0,0,+1)
In the case where the measured state at t=3 is |11⟩ we get for the observables…
- t=0: (0,0,+1);(-1,-i,+1)
- t=1: (0,0,+1);(+1,+i,-1)
- t=2: (0,0,-1);(0,0,-1)
The values |0⟩ and |1⟩ just mean that the Z observable has a value of +1 or -1, so if we just look at the values of the Z observables we can rewrite this in something a bit more readable.
- |00⟩ → |00⟩ → |00⟩
- |00⟩ → |01⟩ → |11⟩
Even though the initial conditions both began at |00⟩ they have different values on their other observables which then plays a role in subsequent interactions. The least significant qubit in the case where the final state is |00⟩ begins with a different signage on its Y observable than in the case when the outcome is |11⟩. That causes the H opreator to have a different impact, in one case it flips the least significant qubit and in another case it does not. If it gets flipped then, since it is the control for the CX operator, it will flip the most significant qubit as well, but if it’s not then it won’t flip it.
Notice how there is also no t=3, because t=3 is when we measure, and the algorithm guarantees that the values are always in the state you will measure before you measure them. So your measurement does reveal what is really there.
If we say |0⟩ = no sleepy gas is released and the cat is awake, and |1⟩ = sleepy gas is released and the cat go sleepy time, then in the case where both cats are observed to be awake when you opened the box, at t=1: |00⟩ meaning the first one’s sleepy gas didn’t get released, and so at t=2: |00⟩ it doesn’t cause the other one’s to get released. In the case where both cats are observed to be asleep when you open the box, then t=1: |01⟩ meaning the first one’s did get released, and at t=2: |11⟩ that causes the second’s to be released.
When you compute this algorithm you find that the values of the observables are always set locally. Whenever two particles interact such that they become entangled, then they will form correlations for their observables in that moment and not later when you measure them, and you can even figure out what those values specifically are.
To borrow an analogy I heard from the physicist Emily Adlam, causality in quantum mechanics is akin to filling out a Sudoku puzzle. The global rules and some “known” values constrains the puzzle so that you are only capable of filling in very specific values, and so the “known” values plus the rules determine the rest of the values. If you are given the initial and final conditions as your “known” values plus the laws of quantum mechanics as the global rules constraining the system, then there is only one way you can fill in these numbers, those being the values for the observables.
Sorry, it’s been a long time since I last looked at the mathematical side of quantum mechanics, so most of your comment flew over my head. Let me put it in as simple terms as I can:
If there are multiple paths a system can take to reach a final state, how can you accurately determine which path was taken if you only know the initial & final state? IMO this shouldn’t be possible.
deleted by creator
Just based on my observations of my life, I seem to have the ability to choose to do or not do things, and that’s good enough for me. Is my choice just part of the infinite universe’s fixed progression through time and I would have done what I did regardless? Are there infinite parallel universes where parallel versions of me exist that have collectively made every choice I can possibly make? Don’t care. I feel like I have free will and IMO that’s what’s most relevant to my life in this universe.
Tl;Dr, yes*
I find this discussion to be an exercise in frustration. There’s a lot of philosophical jargon that gets glazed over and nuances that often get ignored. I also think it’s an incredibly complex and complicated topic that we simply do not have enough information available to us to determine in a scientific manner.
For instance: what kind of “free will” are we talking about? Often it’s “Libertarian Free Will,” that is, absolute agency uninfluenced by any external factors. This much is disproven scientifically, as our brains run countless “subconscious” calculations in response to our environment to hasten decision making and is absolutely influenced by a myriad of factors, regardless of if you’re conciously aware of it or not.
However, I think that the above only “disproves” all notions of free will if you divorce your “subconscious” from the rest of your being. Which is where the complication and nuance comes in. What is the “self?” What part of you can you point to as being the “real you?”
From a Christian perspective, you might say the “self” is your soul, which is not yet proven by science, and thus the above has no bearing on, as it cannot take the soul into account. But from the opposite side of the spectrum, from a Buddhist perspective, there is no eternal, unchanging, independently existing “self.” And as such, the mind in its entirety, concious awarness or not, is just another part of your aggregates, and from that perspective it can be argued that a decision is no less your own just because it was not made in your conscious awareness.
With my ramblings aside, I am a Buddhist and so my opinion is that we do have free will, we’re just not always consciously aware of every decision we make. And while we cannot always directly control every decision we make, we can influence and “train” our autopilot reactions to make better decisions.
