Sean Carroll - Physics of Free Will
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 07. 2024
- Free will has traditionally been a problem in philosophy. Recently, the battleground of free will has shifted to neuroscience. Now some claim that to solve the problem of free will, we must go far deeper, to the fundamentals of physics, down to subatomic forces and particles. But don't free will and physics operate at vastly different levels or size scales?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on philosophy of physics: bit.ly/3EgIE9S
Sean Carroll is a Research Professor in Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research focuses on fundamental physics and cosmology.
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.
Carroll is one of my favourite physicist 👨🔬. Actually he is a true renaissance man.
حشيش تمام ؟
Great illustrative explanation of what is meant by 'turning round in circles'
Is Sean answering out of his Free Will ? Or is this programmed emergence of the Universe only ?
@@mojoomla 😄
A.K.A. the popular game "Semantic Twister"
@@mojoomla both
I like him. He talks fast and to the point
Ouf! This is a real exchange of ideas. The type that you only see on this fabulous channel!
Yeah, it’s a real meeting of the mind.
Disagree. What you have is an interviewer constantly interrupting the guest and doing as much talking.
Rather hear Sean express his opinion and justify it. Listeners can make up their own mind.
Remember Sean Carroll is a superb communicator
@@PetraKann I agree and appreciate Sean like you do. But usually Sean has plenty of time to express himself. He made so many illuminating vlogs and courses. What I liked here is that someone I appreciate also was pushing him a bit so he could go further sharing his view. In my case, this interview helped me to better appreciate both men and their way of thinking.
@@mauricelevasseur9987 I understand that it can be useful - i like back and forth discussions as well. What I dont like is Sean saying something and mentioning a concept and the interviewer interrupting him and trying to define the concept for him (as if to show the audience that he knows something).
I think it took something away from the interview and made it less informative. It also breaks the thought processes and continuity of the guest when he is interrupted like this.
It reminds me of a dinner table discussion where one person wants to be heard more than the other.
As we know Sean Carroll is also very polite and patient - I don't recall him ever raising his voice in annoyance let alone be aggressive in the past.
Overall it was a lost opportunity by the Interviewer. If this interview was over 1 hour long I could possibly tolerate some of this childishness, but when only 8 or so minutes is uploaded, it gave me the impression that it was more about the interviewer than what Sean Carroll thinks about this complex subject.,
I still watched until the end.......Cheers
Yeah but they didn't answer the question. Describing "free will" as "emergent" from the laws of physics is fine, but DO WE HAVE A CHOICE? That is, can we act in ways that are not predetermined merely by the arrangement of matter and energy in the universe? The laws of physics can go either way on that, and nobody knows the answer. One can be a materialist and still believe in a degree of free will. It would simply mean that matter and energy are arranged in living beings so that they can choose among options.
I love starting my day with these videos.
I start loving my day with these videos
Amazing ,that's exactly how I feel. Lifts my spirits ,stimulates my mind.
Always especially enjoy the back and forth between Sean and Robert
That was funny. I agree with Kuhn that you can interpret what Carol was saying as free will not really existing.
Except that Kuhn NEVER defines free-will in any video he makes about the subject.
Kuhn is just stringing his viewers along with unanswerable questions about undefined concepts. Closer to another pay-cheque.
@@con.troller4183 You from a probabilistic position claim something? Ridiculous. You don't have clue what you are saying. Free will is defined as not being contingent on the matter, time, and space and being unique to the existing sentient. No one will be proving you 2+2=4 here by 1+1+1+1=4, go to bed. Only what you are close to is your inevitable meaningless end.
@@jesusmygodmylove
So 2+2=4 cannot be proven but zombie Jesus can?
OK, Sparkie.
Thanks for the non-definition of free will BTW.
@@con.troller4183 You speak "zombie" from your untannable and proven to be the wrong position so you contradict yourself. And Jesus isn't a zombie - you don't even know what that means and define it in an atheistic world. By definition you will give me I can say you are a zombie - since there is nothing like "you" - yo are just a clump of atoms that randomly happens to be together floating in space without purpose. By your miserably pathetic wrong definition "you" change faster than plank second when the ability of neurotransmitters to communicate between 2 neurons is on the level of nanoseconds so Octillions times faster.
You r visibly speaking from incompetence and have no idea what you(domino of meaningless atoms) talking about.
"No one will be proving you 2+2=4 here by 1+1+1+1=4, go to bed" doesn't mean "2+2=4 cannot be prove" - learn to read in elementary school.
@@stephengee4182
I think the term free will is problematic because as humans the best can have is optimal agency. We don't have an infinity of choices so we cannot be totally free.
We can make choices within the constraints of our nature. To call those choices free is a stretch, IMHO.
This was an excellent clip!
Yoo mythvision
This is a very interesting way to describe free will, but how does Sean Carroll reconcile "assigning responsibility to people who make choices" with "the wave function of the universe evolving according to the laws of physics"? Isn't this like saying that the position and the velocity of air molecules in the room are fully determined, but the room temperature could be anything?
I totally agree with you Falco.
Bad analogy. Emergence of a will is not analogous to room temperature, even if physical process is the same
He doesn’t believe in free will. He just refuses to say that and instead ops out by saying it’s a perfectly fine way to describe the macro phenomenon of the experience. Very charlatan
@@thomasshepard9149 yeah, it's like refusing to say what it really means, if I remember
I think it's more like saying "the position and velocity of the air molecules in the room are fully determined, and that there's a useful shorthand for the bulk properties which we call 'temperature' and if the useful shorthand we call 'free will' for the state of the molecules in your brain states that you don't like that temperature, you ought to change the thermostat."
Excellent 👍 enjoyed very much 😄 Thank you
Brilliant. Clear thinking at its best!
Sean's latest book is on the foundations of quantum mechanics: Something Deeply Hidden. There he admits that those foundations are not only mysterious, but many physicists are encouraged, nay, almost forced, to not dig there. We don't know where the ground is. The wave function that's supposed to model it all has imaginary parts (complex numbers are very useful, but they are not real! :-) And gravity is not accounted for. Our subjective experience, our deepest reality, is beyond what physics can explain, so far. That's why we need good philosophers like Socrates, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant and more...
It's good that Sean just moved to the philosophy department then :)
Nope. We just need to accept the fact ... that only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintains, improves, fine tunes Abstract & Physical Functions .. that have clear & obvious purpose, properties, form, processes & DESIGN.
Religion is a natural phenomena where most believe in a soul/spirit & a supernatural entity that made everything ... because Man has known for thousands of years that only an intelligence ( like Man) makes rules & Laws and anything with clear & obvious DESIGN, function & purpose.
We know for a fact that nature & natural processes over any period of time, ... will never ever make & operate a simple mechanical or electrical machine. The simplest machines include wheel, lever, wedge, nail, screw, hammer, nut, bolt ....... and have no moving parts but are a single solid object. These simple physical Functions can never been made & operated by Nature & natural processes.
And the three types of machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ).
We don't need more philosophers telling us how to think. We need to be objective, rational, logical, reasonable & ethical and accept what the facts are clearly telling us about the origin of the Universe & Life.
Man is a NATURAL intelligence with a mind, free will & a NATURE .... made by ... an UNNATURAL intelligence with a mind, free will & a NATURE.
The Universe never had a Natural origin 13.7 billion years ago. This is complete nonsense & contradicts the facts from the Natural Functions & thermodynamic Systems in our Universe.
All thermodynamic Systems .... are Functions ... and originate from the SURROUNDING system(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature to exist & to FUNCTION.
Everything is a Function from the quantum to the cosmic level ... and science is simply reverse engineering Natural Functions to learn how they work.
A religion is an organized FIRM BELIEF in an unnatural origin of the Universe. Abiogenesis & evolution .. are unnatural belief ... that Nature & natural processes can make & operate a living machine. They are religions ... and that simply replaced "the gods" with the nonsense from "the Man."
Where is a rock solid evidence proving nature & natural processes can make & operate an abstract or physical Function? There is no evidence, because all Functions require INFORMATION in the form of design, properties, form, purpose ... to exist & to function.
The Laws of Physics are only possible because everything in the Universe .. has purpose, form, design, PROPERTIES, & function.
Wake up and stop being numbnuts.
@@abelincoln8885 Everything you just postulated was philosophical - except it was bad philosophy, by virtue of you engaging in a performative contradiction.
@@vauchomarx6733 lol. Gtfo numbnut.
There is nothing remotely philosophical about:
1. Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes abstract & physical Functions with purpose, form design & properties.
2. All thermodynamic systems are Functions with set purpose, form, design & properties ... and originate from the SURROUNDING System(s) that must provide the matter, energy, time, space, & Laws of nature to exist & to function.
These are statements of fact ... as is the Universe & Life are natural thermodynamic systems.
Facts like these are not open to philosophical interpretation.
Man has free will & a Nature ... to think & do good or evil. OMG. Yet another rock solid fact unless you believe murders, rape, slavery, racist, bestiality, pedophilia, stealing, lying, corruption, greed, gluttony, etc are NOT evil. Well do you? lol.
Man is a NATURAL intelligence with free will & a Nature ..... made by ... an UNNATURAL intelligence with free will & a Nature. This is actually a fact of science, that is being ignored ... because Man has free will & a nature to think & do whatever he wants with actual facts of science.
C'mon. Disprove any of the facts I have stated shows the unnatural origin of the Universe or Life. Good luck.
@@Robinson8491 Yes! I think he will make a great philosopher by the time he is as old as Socrates was when he drank the hemlock instead of running away to exile.
One of my favorite clips ever.
Sean carrol and Brian Greene make physics exciting
If them shows evidence true instead speculations guys certainly had been showing them honest minds.
Beautiful exploration. "...it's not an illusion anymore than temperature is illusion. An illusion is something you think is there, that's not there." "They don't find it useful to use free-will language." I love thinking about how somehow the 'big bang' birthed two people discussing free-will and whether 'it' exists or not.
Why do you pin this discussion to origins in the Big Bang event, arguably something preceded the Big Bang. Wouldn't this discussion, therefor, have its origin in the beginning of beginnings, as would all things? One could as easily categorize the Big Bang as an emergent event, and so on and so on. We have no known way of arriving at a beginning, at the origin of origins, so to speak. In such a model ALL THINGS should be categorized as emergent, I would say.
@@arbez101 Not sure why you're framing this as a 'pinning'? A positing, a jestful musing - yes. Of course the 'big bang' is simply a theory, and I used quotes therein to indicate tongue and cheek. My orientation is that the language we use to communicate as well as the language of scientific discovery, expressing of facts and truth, even the process of reasoning all have limitation...and have emerged from some prior intelligence. I don't know, don't need to know, and rely on an experiential coexistence of epistemology and ontology. I can see how making a taxonomy of emergence might support some level of epistemology, and it brings to mind the thinking of Joseph Chilton Pearce, specifically in his Strange Loops and Gestures of Creation.
@@arbez101 It is generally accepted that the BB is where this iteration of space-time began so its use here is totally proper. For some reason you feel the need to append a prior existence on this question but it is unwarranted and irrelevant.
love the camera! beautiful film
So he's basically giving a descriptivist outline of free will, as a behavioral feature of human beings that justifies some utility in assigning responsibilities to individuals in a social context. He was right in saying that it's a bad idea to ask a good physicist about free will, since it will almost be heretical for them to talk about free-will when they start from a materialist logical premise (which rejects the possibility of there being an immaterial cause). But a good philosopher will never cede totally to any one class of theories to dogmatically reject other potential theories that can inform our daily life practices. This is why it's not totally pointless (for a common man) to even talk about free will as a fundamental feature of reality. Or at the least, scientists can engage with arguments related to reverse-causality (i.e., the emergent whole being able to affect the constituent parts) to account for domain adequacy of different sciences. Example: Changes in mental state can affect bodily processes(wherein this change can be produced by self-reflection and the desire to reorient oneself in life). Without this possibility, psychology and other related disciplines will have no real basis to justify it's internal practical logic.
We usually think of entities as beeing the cause of the existence of properties, but if you think the other way around, as properties beeing the cause for the existence of entities, maybe that makes sense... it's like asking, is there electronegativity of an electron in itself or does the interaction of the perceived duo (electron-electron, electron-proton) makes it a discrete property of the perceived individual particle?
@@fredkrause4509 Yes, Relationality is necessary and sufficient to explain emergence and evolution, and therefore scientific epistemology need not explicitly address or prioritize the 'entity' that pre-exists the properties that emerge out of relations. However, this is merely one of the questions that has an explanatory capacity, I believe..I also respect metaphysicians who ask why are there electrons and protons and why do these particles interact in the first place, which entails the real properties that we perceive through experiments.. relational ontology, I suspect, has it's limitation on that front since it secretly denies its own implicit preconditions (sometimes by eternalizing microcosmic 'particles' or 'energy' or whatever). I want to get a better explanation for this impasse, and I still don't have one.
@@lokayatavishwam9594 me neither lol great reflections!
Have we all a free will ,I belive that is a good Question but ,it is better to Put it on or to more Questions.
What for the People of this World Not Important is, that is the Inferiority complexes.
The Inferiority complexes can we Put on this Question ,then is it the low Self esteem and the Inferiority complexes and the Mony what the People Forward moves or drive and is it here not more the Reason, or the Sense, or the free will.
What does the People Around the World so ,for a Dopamin or a Seratonin Kick and what moves the People more, is it the Consciousness or is it more the Inferiority complexes and the Subconscious.
The People make it Visible what the Mass so Move, at taht is not so much the Free will ,how the most People that Belive.
I belive the Human has a free will, but we work not so good with the Free will.
We have lose a Part from the Controll About us and we work more with or for the Subconscious as with and for the awarness in this Time .
Subconscious is an Important Topic and the most People Put that not on the Topic ,or the Questions ,to the Consciousness ,or the Free will.
My Englisch is not the best, but I hope it is ok so, and the most People Understand my Message.
The Subconscious makes the Mass more Problems and Inferiority complexes ,as the most People that can or will see .
De can Put many Topics in That Topic or this Proplem and that has a deeper ground.
The Kapitalism makes it Visible what the People so Move .
I belive Not so Right ,that this the Free will is ,that here moves the Mass.
To the Question have we a Free will is the Question Important what the Human Urges so with us Make or with the Life als us .
Move I my Boss or is taht more The Human Urges.
The People make it Visible that the most People the Human Urges drive or move als not the Reason or the Sense.
The most People have with the Psychologic Material not so much to do ,that makes the Job from the Psychologist Visible for us all.
The Psychologist works with the Right Logik and the Right Methods but not so much the Folk.
That makes a Big Problem Visible and the Inferiority complexes to.
This Topic is in Line to the Topic with the Klima Problem or the Kapitalism or the Greed .
That is a Topic ,what we can put on many Problems here .
Waht the Human so Need for his Crippled self Esteem,that is not so good for the World .
What Need the Materialism is taht the Life and more the Subconscious or is it more the Consciousness als the Free will.
I belive the most Humans can not so Right say what they so need, or what they so will ,the most People works more with or for the Subconscious and the Next Seratonin Kick and not so much with the Right Logik and the Consciousness.
@@Baba-fy1jc I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but what you're saying sounds similar to a psychoanalytic insight (Lacanian one, maybe). Namely, that self-perception of a lack is what drives our actions forward (towards an object of desire). And this makes the question of free-will much more specific as our behaviors and actions are not merely driven by material/biological structures, but also by socio-economic structures and our conscious-unconscious/psychological structures. I find a quote by Hegel quite insightful regarding the question of freedom, which ofcourse has been used by Marx and Engels too: "Freedom is the recognition of necessity". We always have the choice to analyze (collectively as a scientific community, or by self reflection) the structures that mediate our behaviors and tendencies, in order to correct or reorient them. This is precisely the essence of free will, and it is to be found in the gaps between knowledge and practice. Hope that makes sense
Sean Carroll is just awesome!
I love this so much
Sean Carroll is possibly the most lucid human ever, which he combines with infinite patience and excitement in his teaching. And props to Robert Lawrence Kuhn for his deep ability to elicit such conversations!
People often use the term "emergent" without considering what the word means. A property - such as consciousness and free will - can only "emerge" in the material universe if it is already in some sense present, just as the form of a crystal emerges from the underlying molecular structure of the substance. The mole emerges from the molehill only if it's already in there! Sean's position is essentially a form of compatibilism whereby we sort of don't have free will, but also we sort of do - a "quagmire of evasion" as compatibilism has been described. Robert is right to say that Sean is really denying free will, but there is a huge difficulty here - for if we are seriously saying that all our thoughts are determined by the mindless forces of the material universe, then we cannot know any of them to be true or false, since we could not have thought otherwise. This means we cannot know our denial of free will to be true or false either. Put another way, if determinism is true we can never know it be true, since all our thoughts are determined - including determinism! The denial of free will is the denial of reason, and therefore ultimately of the science Sean so rightly values. I'm afraid we do have to give serious consideration (as so many great scientists, including Schrodinger, have done) to the concept of consciousness as a fundamental aspect of reality, not as an incidental by-product of mindless material forces.
You are rightly pointing out an absurdity inherent in the doctrine of determinism, but that is not the only one. Determinism posits that there is only one way for the universe to unfold given the initial conditions at the big bang. This means that everything that was to happen was already there in those initial conditions, just waiting for the laws of physics to reveal them. This would have to include all works of literature like Shakespeare's plays, which results in books, songs and plays that have no author, unless you count the differential equations of quantum mechanics. How ridiculous to imagine creative works being created by no one.
I couldn't agree more. We might add that denial of free will is psychologically impossible for us - if we truly thought that we were not the authors of our own thoughts and decisions, we would be totally paralysed (though that paralysis would also be determined!). Somewhere on CZcams you can find Daniel Dennett arguing, apparently seriously, that of course we don't have free will, but we mustn't tell the general public, otherwise they would ignore moral rules - an example of the irrational positions determinism entails.
BTW, great points and style, Robert. Sean seemed to have been talking himself out of a corner, so to speak, and you seemed to gracefully put him back.
These two always joust - I hope they enjoy it. I like them both
Another awesome interview. So glad I was notified of this.
Superb.
That was fantastic.
No it wasn't. It definitely hurts our progression.
I"m an emergentist, too. I believe each level of organization in our complex universe is really truly there, not just the lower levels.
I love listening to Sean Carroll, my favourite - that said I have found that we differ (odd because I am wholly unqualified to hold or defend a contrary notion to his) on certain conclusions - but still I wish he was less “certain / strident” on some subjects rather than relying so strictly to the literal interpretations of the math. Makes me feel this might be his (only) blind spot. But then again, I’m a comparative chimp :)
I like him going fanatic for many worlds, makes you take notice and consider it. And it can solve problems, so good job. Especially because it sounds silly but the logic is so coherent. You don't want to look at it, but according to Sean you have to. I appreciate that, it keeps you sharp even when you don't agree
Going by that analogy. Temparature can be explained as the macroscopic effect of microscopic phenomenon ( motion of particles and statistical mechanics ). Now can we do the same for Free Will? Have anybody taken that approach..
that’s a great show
If true AI sentient being is possible, then that would then have to be a form of emergence also, meaning it could also ‘die’? Or does that mean consciousness follows configuration? How can one get closer to that question?
The view being discussed here is known as "compatiblism" or "soft determinism". It's basically the view that we don't have to abandon the language of agency if we discover we're deterministic. Just as the thing we referred to as "the Earth" when we thought it was flat we continued to refer to as "the Earth" when we discovered it was round, and the things we referred to as "stars" when we thought they were little points of light we continued to refer to as "stars" when we discovered they were giant balls of gas, so to the things we referred to as "acts of free will", "choices", and so on, when we thought they were indeterministic we can continue to refer to as such if we discover they're deterministic. Our understandings of them may have changed, but we're still referring to the same things.
1. If there is uncertainty, then one cannot say with certainty that we don't have free will.
2. There is uncertainty. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)
3. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that we don't have free will.
Can't this same argument be applied to any other philosophical topic? Just switch out free will with objective morality or dualism and it'd still follow.
If "free will," the ability for humans to make choices, is determined by the underlying details, then how can we be held responsible when the underlying details, controlled entirely by physics, caused the choice to be made?
To get to the bottom of the "free will" question, we need to know: (1) The neural circuits (networks) that cause a choice to be made, (2) The mechanism, that we refer to as "me," that actually "makes a choice," (3) The answer to, "Are emergent phenomena free from those processes that cause it? (4) Answer, "Can the "me" circuits override the deterministic neural chain of events?
That's a start.
Wow! Sean Carrol explains free will even in a deterministic universe. To paraphrase, it's a perfectly fine way of describing what we're doing, what we are.
He is basically dismissing the question. I was hoping for a harder line. Ofcourse we, the thing experiencing something, are deciding on things and our experience of free will is setting things in motion. Saying it's "fine" means he agrees we have free will.
That's my take. It might just be hard to know when or to what degree those choices had some inescapable inertia towards. Om the other hand, just as with individual instances of nuclear decay, there could be literally nothing else moving some of our choices before we experience making them.
I would define free will as consciousness affecting matter and energy through the mind having some minimal control over thought patterns and body movements. Driving cross country is a prime example of cognition's ability to control the movement of matter and energy in a non random way.
Yes, I think these free will talks need to define what free will is and the degree of these control abilities.
We seem to keep encountering this fatal assumption on the topic of free will, namely, that the question only applies to humans. It doesn't. Either all creatures, including humans, have free will, or none of them do. What most distinguishes human animals from nonhuman animals relates to horizon of options, and this is a question of shades of grey, not either/or. Humans have rich symbolism in language and culture, and this enables us to get into the minds of others, to apprehend possibilities across an extended horizon of options. A frog in a pond, a cow in the field, or a fish in the sea, by contrast, has a much reduced horizon of options, in comparison.
But the question of free will applies to them, too, because they must also "know how to be", they must also make the choices that make sense of their worlds. Why does this matter? Because the mind-body problem applies to them, too. Bodies wires neuroplastic, DNA-entangled brains - all brain-bodies, not just human. We carry much baggage from the human exceptionalism of our anthropocentric, Judeo-Christian traditions.
Agree 100% To me, the definition of life is the ability to make choices. I don't see any contradiction between materialism and the ability of living organisms to make a limited range of choices.
Nothing matters and nothing is real. You can literally do whatever you want.
We actually have and not have at the same time, a free will and guided will working together with different proportions
Sean offers a great explanation, and way of thinking about free will. If you believe in the type of free will where consciousness is more fundamental than the fundamental particles and forces of physics, that is no different then religion. There is no scientific evidence to support that other than your own intuition.
Subjective experience IS unlike any other known phenomena. Sean does not offer any insight on the topic of subjective experience. In other word: A SUBJECT (You, me, Sean, all subjects) that experiences AND wills. We can't pretend we understand the will by saying we somewhat understand the behavior of particles but have no clue what particles are.
@@jackarmstrong5645 Great point. The mind, or consciousness, or awareness of our thoughts and feelings and sensations, is our subjective experience. Sean did mention that our bodies are all part of the one universal wave function that evolves as per Schrodinger's equation. Similarly, and by analogy, our will might as well be the part of the one universal will. Just a possibility to consider. 🙏🏻
@@BulentBasaran Subjective experience is a subject and all the things that subject experiences. A subject.
@@jackarmstrong5645 One subject, many objects. One wave function, many particles.
@@BulentBasaran Saying a subject has any connection to this other human concept called "wave function" is a subjective choice. Not something demonstrated.
I want clearity in my thinking like Sean Carrol
Lol he's quite the opposite if you ask me. He's evading the question dilly dallying around the definition of what free will means.
I feel so out of my depth...I'm going to have to watch this at least 2 more times.
The real question is; do the parts control the whole or does the whole control the parts. If you put two atoms in close enough proximity, at a high enough energy level, then they will interact in a set way based on the laws of quantum mechanics. You can only do these calculations after the fact since the circumstances that bring the atoms together is the result of higher level functions that are not controlled by the particle interaction. The atoms are passive objects and will react to whatever circumstances they find themselves in. Particles don't determine anything.
The " whole" being?
Self-evidently imaginary-exists only as an idea, and cannot be directly immediately personally experience (as directly immediately personally sprain pain) qua "the whole" obviously because it's imaginary - effectively it's a universal all universals are imaginary are they not? - Imaginary being defined as that which cannot be directly immediately personally experienced as it is imagined or qua what is imagined - the whole is no more than idea and if that is not an example of imaginary, what is?
if the dreamer and idler Kuhn wants to examine anything he could try are all universals necessarily imaginary?
@@vhawk1951kl Are you saying that an organism that you can see and smell is imaginary? A person has pretty well defined boundaries and self-contained systems, so it is a convenient categorization, no? Or are you talking about something more nebulous?
@@caricue I define imaginary as follows: X is imaginary if it cannot be directly immediately personally experienced (as directly immediately personally as pain) are qua or *as* X- or if it is no more than an idea or exists only as an image or idea product of and in, the associative apparatus of aa creature with an associative apparatus.
asking if ideas are imaginary is identical to asking if imaginary things are imaginary or blue things are blue.
How else would you define imaginary?
You can't? - No surprises there. Look at the etymology of the word it means no more than being no more than an image- the clue is written on the tin as we say in England.
Almost inescapably or inevitably all universals are imaginary because they cannot be directly immediately personally experienced qua universals.
asking if ideas are imaginary is identical to asking if imaginary things are imaginary or blue things are blue.
@@vhawk1951kl I don't think I questioned the definition of imaginary, only its application to people. Are you saying that a whole person is an imaginary thing?
@@caricue possibly yes but that would depend on what you mean by "whole" if you are going to query imaginary, you yourself need to define it, and also" whole person" because one definition of healthy is whole, and oddly enough holy also means whole or healthy. Person comes from the Greek persona meaning mask; are yo discussing masks. Words are like shadows, as soon as you try to examine them, the runaway from you as you approach them. Most of what goes on in the associative or dreaming apparatus of men is shadow-chasing for screamingly obvious reasons.
Doesn’t chaos prevent us following particle trajectories to predict the future, even in principle? And wouldn’t the simple ability to roll a dice qualify as free will? Edit: I mean to roll a dice within the brain.
The amount of information in this realm of existence is incalculable
Emergence is imagined.
So consciousness is like a "side effect" of physical processes? Big bang leads to this this leads to that billions of years go by and as a part of those physical processes human consciousness arises? That is such a difficult thing to accept
Are you sure he is a scientist and not a politician?
Amen
Interesting perspective, particularly that analogy with temperature, but Sean just wasn't going in the direction of explanation that is of interest for the philosopher, as Robert was trying to put the the position, in a way that's more useful.
One of the only problems I can think of in using free will to describe such physical processes as those of the brain is that physical processes appear to follow laws of nature that never appear to change their behaviors. But also, people punish other people using free will as a way to separate an individual's actions from all of the physical processes of the past 3.8 billion years of life that directly lead up to that individual's actions.
I think the best way to find answers for these deep questions would be to make some sort of field that was a mix between philosophy and science where these people would use scientific facts and use that information to try and figure out what philosophy is correct.
Exactly that's why philosophy and science were not separated at all in the begining.
@@OsvaldoBayerista I know science and philosophy were once the same thing but nowadays it just seems like they've separated so much to the point where it feels like you have to be a scientist or a philosopher when I'm sure you could be both but I guess a mix between a scientist and a philosopher would just be a philosopher.
@@izzymosley1970 They're called 'naturalists.'
No way.
Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes Abstract & physical Functions with clear purpose, form, properties, design & processes.
All functions possess & require INFORMATION to exist & to function,which can only come from an intelligence ( like Man).
Everything in the Universe has clear purpose, form, properties, & design
Man has always known ... the origin of anything that is a function. And Man certainly did not make everything in the Universe.
Man is a NATURAL intelligence with a mind, free will & NATURE .... made by ... an UNNATURAL intelligence with a mind, free will & NATURE.
To use the sciences to prove God and a soul/spirit ... you must have a causal link or share property between a natural & unnatural phenomena.
There is literally a field called "Philosophy of Science" lol, it already exists, and has for a long time.
I fully understand every *word* of this conversation. It's making sense of the *sentences* that's impossble. Free will means the human brain is not deterministic. And if cause-effect doesn't determine the future, then what does? Nobody knows and it seems nobody ever will.
You should look up compatibilism. Determinism doesn’t go against free will, in fact it’s necessary. If I decide to go on a walk, there must be some determined set of actions that go with that in order for my will to be played out. If my body did undetermined and random things when I ‘decided’ to go on the walk, then the walk wouldn’t happen and my will would be meaningless and certainly not free.
@@gravitystorm58 you could argue from the other side as well. If actions taken are deterministic, then we're no different from robots. Our fate was decided on the moment of the big bang, and all events followed as a result of that. Similar to the first hit on a pool table and you could calculate where each ball will end up.
Freedom is "insight into necessity" (Hegel) or equivalence with the "holy will" (Kant). Everything can be determined, freedom depends on who is the lawmaker..
@@gravitystorm58 Free will and consciousness are FUNCTIONS of the Mind of an entity.
Animals & Man ... are PHYSICAL entities ... with a physical mind(brain), and a consciousness & free will ... of & in a PHYSICAL environment. Of course the physical environment will have an influence on the choices made for the physical body. But free will involves thoughts & actions. And the only way the physical environment influences thoughts from a healthy normal brain .... is if you freely choose to make it so.
Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe, with a clearly fine tuned brain ... to separated the Mind ( & therefore functions) of Man from that of Animals. Chimps share 99% of Human DNA but it can never think & do 1% of what Humans can & have done. The Mind of Man is more than the brain.
Natural Functions & thermodynamic Systems prove the Universe & Life have an unnatural origin by an intelligence.
The mind of an intelligence ... is unnatural & no-physical ( ie soul/spirit).
The Mind of Man is physical ( brain) & non-physical( soul). And again, .... consciousness & free will ... are functions of the MIND of an entity. So the free will of Man .. is both natural & unnatural.
@@gravitystorm58 Brilliant !
Is this good time to talk about consciousness
We are wave functions of the universe evolving according to the laws of physics (ultimate verdict) AND we are responsible for our decisions. Am I the only person who finds that inconsistent given the probabilistic nature of QM?
~ The Singularity Is Still Here ~
Does the universe have free will?
If the universe is alive and conscious through us and its other creatures, whether here or on other planets-- and all entangled in realtime, far faster than light-- are those conversations, in a very real sense, conversations of the universe with and within itself?
If the universe has free will, then do we if we are the universe?
What is a thought, a dream? Where do they go? How can they be quantified?
What can determinism mean in the fundamental context of infinity and realtime entanglement across distances that may not actually be distant at all, but in the same place, within a singularity?
It is the criterion of “who” rather than “how”.
to be really mean you could break down free-will as a sheer phenomenon of the human mind to use words ( a.k.a.: still just sound waves! that get meaning through reflection ergo posthum) to describe our behavior afterwards but never at the millisecond being done in time and that would only be relevant if we all would go mute forever...
magical emergance
.....I finally see the problem physicists have with free will, they assume that this free will or ability to choose to do or not do a thing would violate particle physics ability to extrapolate what is supposed to happen with particles; (you do A, and B happens). "If a particle interaction happened yesterday at that point, then today it should be at this point, then at any tomorrow it should be at the prescribed point, its mathematics." but formula or computer can extrapolate with so many variables, its madness to even attempt. (if so the lottery would be void.) PEACE.
Interesting and still, like in all the other discussions I have seen, we don't have an obvious and much less a testable definition of free will. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
When talking to physicists it seems, that we are still siting in at the Bohr-Einstein debate of what can we actually say about the world, perhaps seasoned with Bell's inequality and what it says of local reality.
Science can in principal only recognize determined and finite things, but never the Living entity and so not freedom. Freedom is only in execution, spoken with Kant and Kierkegaard, but never "in abstracto"!
Enjoyable. Our minds need a Command Center. A position that is a nexus of all stimuli. This magnified to the aural point with a somewhat holographic aspect, this becomes mind.
~ An Emergent Property of Superset Free Will & Infinity? ~
What if the universe, itself, was alive and had free will by virtue of itself being free and could transfer its 'wave-function' free will to us?
Where do the laws of physics come from anyway? Who or what grants the universe, gravity, for example, or does the universe grant itself, gravity, and all the rest of what it needs to operate?
Often in debates like this, philosophers and scientists talk about predictions, but has it not already been proven that predictability is impossible? Uncertainty Principle? Heisenberg? So if we live in a universe that is based upon uncertainty, what does this suggest about free will?
If the universe is in a sense, or in more than one sense, infinite, how can we fathom all that goes into our behavior, then, and could the universe's infinite nature render us essentially free-willed? IOW perhaps, what does it mean to behave according to infinite variables that go into who we are and how we act?
Sean Carroll mentions here and elsewhere, almost as a locus, base or underscore of his premise, that 'free will' is emergent, with the keyword being emergent. He said this twice or more times in this video if recalled. So is gravity and all other laws of physics emergent too? What does he mean by emergent and can it be construed as a kind of free will?
IOW, is free will an emergent property of infinity?
I don't think you can fully predict what a living being will do by calulating the motion of atoms etc
You can if you have the information of all atoms.
The Life-Desire, is the MOTOR of the Eternal Life.
In direct extension, We have the 'Will', (Life-side)
and 'Gravity', (Stuff-side)
'Free Will', is speculation, the Will, is Eternal, going in Circuits, from minimum-performance to maximum-performance, from Development-circuit to higher circuits, and so on.
So, 'Will', is Not physical, but the Stuff-side, ('effect of Gravity') is.
At the core.
I'm trying to decide whether his answer is profound or meaningless. I'm leaning towards the latter. I can see how consciousness can be an "emergent property," but not so much free will. You either have it or you don't. If the universe is totally deterministic, then I don't see how free will can come in.
I also don't like how he brushed off the question about the statistical nature of quantum mechanics. Just because there's an equation that describes the system, that doesn't mean it's deterministic (at least not in the sense of the term that is relevant here) when the equation is statistical in nature. Quantum mechanics tells us that knowing the state of the system in the present doesn't allow us to predict the state in the future -- at the micro level anyway -- and who knows if that may have implications for free will.
@@ShyguyMM atheists can believe in free will. Me for example.
@@ShyguyMM I am not sure from this video whether he does or not. He dodged the question.
@@ShyguyMM Probably. OTOH he compares free will to temperature. Temperature actually exists, it isn't just an illusion. This wasn't a very deep discussion. I would like to see a physicist actually take on the compatibilist position, ie that the laws of physics do not exclude the possibility that living beings can exercise a degree of choice.
@@ShyguyMM The fact that temperature is an average of energy doesn't make it less real, and I don't care what individual atoms think about it. The fact that events can be reduced to physical properties does not prevent some amazing events from occurring. Free will might be one of them.
Kind of disappointed with the answers ... Was expecting better from a physicist ... Good questions as usual by Kuhn ...
do we have 'free will?'
the answer, I think, is the one often given to great question - yes and no.
no, in the sense that the university is bound to predictable causation, or if you like - all of space/ time exists,
and yes.
we are organic machines with somewhat (to put it mildly) limited senses to perceive 'reality'. to us we perseve we have 'free will' even though, ultimately, that belief is false.
If free will is just an illusion, that doesn't change anything for us, because we are inside this illusion. We can't see into the future. Therefore, for us, free will "exists". We have the illusion that we can make our own choices. So, relax... and enjoy your illusion of free will. You are still responsible for your actions.
Is your assertion that there is no free will a result of free will? You might not allow yourself to choose based on what you believe and that doesn’t stop others from choosing differently.
Dont know what they are talking about. Just lost. But it's ok. I just looked at another video where the concluding remark was "nothing matters".
Wow! Excellent. Thank you!
We did not determine our genetics, our birthplace and what crossed our path to mold us; we are descendants of causality. We might wish to be separate from causality; we might desire its revelations; we might hate it; we are lucky if we revere it; we are it.
Professor Carroll is Awesome! ^.^
In principle there is no such thing as free will, but in practice, there is.
Even if you have a soul, that doesn’t change anything.
Free will is an illusion… The only choice we have is the road we take to the already predetermined destination.
why do you write as as the only choice I have? In fact you did do that when you ask when you suggest that the only choice "we" have, because when you use the term "we", you indicate the user of the term which is yourself sunshine and you have no immediate interlocutor and given that you have no immediate interlocutor, you were effectively saying "I"o.
Only you can know whether or not *you* have a choice - you can know absolutely nothing of the experience of others by way of direct immediate personal experience which is what knowledge or no means, does it not?
There is a Chan Buddhist saying: "the unenlightened man has no choice for he is a slave.
The man on the way to enlightenment has a choice.
The enlightened man has no choice; he does what is necessary".
@@vhawk1951kl As Einstein had said: "God does not play dice". As much as you or I can choose different experiences, our overall destiny has been already determined. If you are the man on the way to enlightenment than you have more choices, but the final effect had been written into your existence long before. To me that is soul growing. We come to this plane of reality to choose different experiences, but the given to us road is already set as a part of our agreement to incarnate.
He avoided answering. Free will means we can change, at least to some extent, our future. How does deterministic quantum mechs deal with that? His answer seems to be that he doesn't have a problem with undecided futures as a side-effect of deterministic quantum mechs.
Let's just assume we have "free will". That free will is going to operate via some mechanism, some operation. Magic, laws of physics, whatever, it doesn't matter. Just because we can describe those mechanisms and build models and make predictions doesn't negate the "free-ness" of the choice. We just understand why you made the choice, who's likely to make the choice, etc.
The most convincing argument against free will I have heard is from Sam Harris. Prior to listening to his argument I never even considered that we don't have free will but he changed my mind. It is somewhat freeing to understand that free will is an illusion because it makes holding grudges and resentments against others much more difficult.
What is 'freeing' in context of a world without free will. I am is confused.
@@wi2rd The understanding that when people do things that you don't like you don't need to take it personally. The 'choices' that others make often have little to do with you and more to do with biochemical and physical chain reactions within them.
@@mozerm You are talking about the cause here, that which makes you experience this 'freeing'.
I was asking about the result, the 'freeing', what does 'more freeing' mean in a context where free will is an illusion.
@@movingisliving This is a part of the podcast episode that really made me think about free will. czcams.com/video/u45SP7Xv_oU/video.html
I think in your example the argument against free will is what made you decide to get in shape? Where did that thought arise from? He gives some better examples though. One way to summarize is what precedes a thought? If I asked you to name an actor, any actor, you will come up with a name and you will possibly come up with several names and 'choose' one to say BUT where did those names come from? What control did you have over those names arising from your consciousness? Why those names? Why not any of dozens of other names you also know?
free will is not illusion, it is a fact. You have choice to accept sam harris or not.
Apparently Kant argues that in addition to the proposition categories, analytic - that is evaluated as either true, or false, by the definitions of it's terms, like "One plus two equals three", with a "One plus two" subject and "equals three" predicate - and synthetic -, that is compared against the world to find it's status, like "This background is white" - and can therefore be used for science - including explanatory, but not assumed God universe existential secured predictive, theory - there is another type of proposition called synthetic apriori, where the subject contains the predicate - like "The Queen", where the synthetic predicate "of England," is connoted by the analytic subject, "The Queen" - , that is undecidable and from this, a part of moral philosophy.
The problem that Kuhn has with Carrol here, which I share, is that the accepted definition of free will requires human autonomy… being a “law unto oneself” - so it’s not only unhelpful but introduces confusion when he adopts the language and simply redefines the word. It needs a new word in his case.
Idk, this just confirmed to me that Sean Carrol is not even striving to entertain philosophical matters & really could care less about the use or application of physics in the real world.
"& really could care less about the use or application of physics in the real world" terrible conclusion to an otherwise solid comment
@@scambammer6102 well he seems happy talking at length about physics but seems increasingly disinterested when getting into the related philosophical matters - as if it is of less importance
"Emergent" is not false, but has no explanatory value. It is the academic version of "because, because".
Yes. Sean.. But QM gives you the probabilistic outcomes. Not deterministic ones. Copenhagen interpretation. What about that..
I think our brains are just so adapted to model everything that we cannot help ourselves from thinking that we're individual units of "consciousness"; subsequently ending up here talking about something as abstract as free will as if it were a tangible thing.
It's like... "Ok. Do you "will" your biological bodies' systems to continue to work? Do you will yourself to have a million dollars?"
Sean basically just has a nominal switch where determinism = free will.
Except that I'm not sure it's accurate to call the quantum wave function deterministic. It depends on which interpretation one prefers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
So if it's not deterministic, things might be stochastically predictable, but not exactly predictable.
However, in his recent book Something Deeply Hidden, Sean does say that it's almost certain that the neurological phenomena of thought and choice depend solely on classical Newtonian physics--nothing quantum is going on in the process of thought. The scale of the biological processes involved is far too large for quantum effects to matter. And so thought and choice aren't really linked with quantum effects, and can likely be explained entirely by classical mechanics.
Is Sean answering out of his Free Will ? Or is this programmed emergence of the Universe only ?
I keep hearing theories like "simulation", "holographic", or back to Leibniz' "contingent" universe.
Those theories all match up nicely with the i, j, k in quaternions.
Quaternion
MATHEMATICS
a complex number of the form w + xi + yj + zk, where w, x, y, z are real numbers and i, j, k are imaginary units that satisfy certain conditions.
RARE/biblical
a set of four parts, things or persons.
some one got a new camera.
I have heard it said by Scientists that 4 seconds before " we" do an action, like lift our arm or reach out for something, there is a part of our brain that knew we were going to do that action.
So the freewill part is in choosing to do something or not but in either case, a part of the brain knew prior to that, what we were going to choose to do!!
AWESOME.
Of course brain must know first. It send signals to arms...
Cause and effect.
@@kipponi
Hi.
Yes, you are correct, but you have missed the point.
Lets say that I have decided to move my arm BUT haven't yet done it. A part of my brain knows that I am going to move it, but we are unaware that this happens. It is when we start to move the arm that the process you mentioned starts to happen.
@@user-k229 Okay.
@@user-k229 yeah but your brain still made the choice It isn't like your brain is a foreign agent. That proves nothing.
@@scambammer6102
Your subconscious part of the brain made the decision, without "us" knowing.
Bob, you argue with Sean in ways you never do with the religous. Do you have some kind of prearrangrments with them that prevents a good back and forth, it's quite obvious in this case. Would like to see you take on the word salad of the theocrats.
~ Absolute 'Quantum' Free Will Versus General 'Classical' Unfree Will ~
Absolute free will may exist in part because infinity cannot be resolved. Sure, you have all the so-called laws of physics and whatnot all governing your thoughts and behavior, but they are in the context of infinity, so any attempts at calculations describing someone's unfree will cannot resolve. They can only be described as probabilities.
So perhaps we don't have free will in a general or classical sense but we do in an absolute, or quantum, sense."
Welcome Back Kotter
Math integration and derivation answers why we Have free will. That regression to the past event by event is like by integration, have Infinite paths to the consequence. Only the derivative of the actions towards to the future are exactly one path, commanded by the free will (although with environmental constraints) of the self. If someone look his past will be surprised why with millions of selfs and circumstances around ,this and that (good and bad by its definition) happened in his worldline , leading to his state "today".
Abusively this is used by film story creators, regressing intrincated paths to the past of characters, to entertain the spectators during 2h cinema or by years of seasons series. This stories are tiring to me, so the best is see biography films, as are the exact choices and circumstances of someone who have done something digne of that film.
Coming from the official definition of free will - the ability to make choices unimpeded, how can it be the case ,when decisions are contingent on reasons ?
Reasons aren't physical forces that can control matter, they are opinions concocted after the fact. Nature gave us the ability to act and respond based on whatever was going on around us. It's a little perverse to then say that the circumstances are in control.
@@caricue The laible "reasons ", is descriptive ,reffering to the things that determine choices .Those reasons can be phisical ,biological, psychological, social ,political ,racial , mood related , part of the desired result ......Further more , we can only ever do the things we are convinced of , same goes for adopting belifes. One does not simply chooses what to belive , they have to become convinced for reasons.
@@georgigeorgiev9931 Finding reasons is a subjective exercise, and it puts the cart before the horse. Nothing happens until your brain generates a behavior. It makes no sense to say that these arbitrary circumstances have any part in this biochemical process that happens inside your head. As I said above, the fact that your behavior is appropriate to the circumstances does not mean that the circumstances controlled your behavior.
@@caricue I am currently determinist .I belive that everything prior to a perticular point ( the point of need for a decision) influences the decision itself .Prior to this point , you already have set neuro pathways which on its own is deterministic. If thise is the case , the decision is not unimpeded, therfore , no free will .To add to it , experiments show that decisions themselves are made on a subconscious level, then processed and comprehended by the consciousness. In other words , the decisions we are making are determined, not free .Even when one have set of things to choose from , one is still going to only choose the thing they are convinced to .That convincing are all the reasosns that get you to the decision.Not sure how else can I explain it 🤔 Give me an example that illustrated your point of view, something simple , preferably.
@@georgigeorgiev9931 I appreciate your openness to other points of view. Dan Dennett coined the term "intuition pump" to describe ideas that use the brain's natural inclinations to lead it astray. The word "determinism" is an intuition pump, in that it can make any silliness seem obvious and self-evident. Determinists will say that because there was chocolate cake on the table that it determined that you would eat chocolate cake. Some inanimate object is exerting this power while sitting there doing nothing. Why not blame hunger, or preference, or evolution or society. It is just a random choice to say that the cake determined anything. If you really want to go down that road, you have to conclude that everything causes everything, back to the big bang. My point being that determinism and causation are not useful in understanding free will.
Your neuro pathways are not set and are not deterministic. Nothing is deterministic, it is a useless and incoherent mind virus. The only empirical evidence for determinism is the fact that you can do the same experiment over and over and always get the same result. This shows that we live in a universe that features reliable causation, not that particle interactions control everything. The experimenter can change the conditions of the experiment and the particles will happily go along with this new configuration because they are just passive objects and don't control or determine anything.
You mentioned the idea that whatever happens in one moment influences what happens in the next moment. The first issue with this idea is that moments or particular points don't exist in nature. This is a way for our brains to organize perception, but there are no moments outside of our heads. Influence is another human concept that doesn't really apply outside of a mind. As I said, you have free will to respond appropriately, so it makes no sense to use this as an argument against free will.
i would like to know what happen if someone point a gun to who denies free will... will they say "please please dont shoot !!" ? Also i think their "non free will" have found good ways to make money ...
That explanation seems like a total copout. "It's a matter of semantics"?
If the laws of physics were the only thing that predicts outcome, than raw gold would stay in the ground and not be refined into a "more valuable" object.
Human behavior is not based on physics and is the basis of free will. The outcome from a human mind is not predictable based on physical laws. It is an evaluation from a string of qualia, each of different individual value. The outcome is not predictable by an outside observer.
Free Will might be emergent but is not only based on physical laws.
I get confused when folks who believe in free will say that randomness is not free will. If our decisions are not determined by causes, then they happen without cause. That's what random means. How can our choices be neither caused, nor uncaused? That seems like a contradiction.
The matter of 'random' actions is a red herring. It is not true that random means uncaused, since what happens by chance is random but is not uncaused (merely accidental, co-incidental, unexpected, equiprobable, etc.). You're making the wrong distinctions. It's not about determinism vs indeterminism (as Newtonian physics vs quantum physics is). You should be distinguishing between being caused to do something that is no action (like sneezing, slipping, or a reflex) and voluntary action, between reasons and causes of human action, and between being made to do something and doing something of your own free will.
And, I should note that having a 'choice' but being unable to do more than one thing is a contradiction in term. By definition, a 'choice' between x and y implies that both x and y are "on the table", as it were. It would be absurd to say that a blind person has a choice between reading a book or listening to an audiobook. He can't do one of them, and so that option is not on the table.
@@legron121 So is an event that happens without cause not random?
@@TMMx
Not if it is a human action, since humans act for reasons, and their actions are explainable by reasons. Acting for a reason is uncaused (you weren't made to do it), but obviously not 'random'.
@iarguephilosophy
Whichever professor said that, they were gravely confused. We don't determine whether the behaviour of a human being is free by reference to quantum mechanics (which is wholly irrelevant to the issue). Rather, we determine whether something was done voluntarily by reference to the circumstances in which it was done, as well as the beliefs, desires, and spoken word of the person who did it. We need not, and could not, use quantum mechanics to find out whether we do things voluntary. There are no words or concepts in the vocabulary of quantum physics that we could use to even *talk about* voluntary action, let alone *explain* it. I'm sorry, but this is just a conceptual muddle.
@@legron121 I don't understand the distinction. When I say I made a decision for a reason, I mean that the reason caused me to make the decision. The fact that I can imagine hypothetical situations in which I decided something else doesn't change that fact. My reason is what made me do it. If it didn't, then in what sense was it the "reason" for the decision?
Hello Sean. In this video, you mention like most physicists, the ' Shrodinger Equation '. I believe that this is why quantum mechanics has so many unanswerd questions. I believe that the standard model of the composition of the atom , is fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons amoungst others.
a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is over 100,000, 000 times that of the electron?
b). If the electron does act as desribed in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of timmes a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum?
c). Following on from b). this momentum and changing trajectory, would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore every atom and thus all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not?
d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holdig capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery?
e). In the standard model the proton and the neutron are each made up of three quarks, these in turn are composed of neutrinos and an electron, which is a contradiction of the accepted statement that the electron has an equal but opposite chare to the proton. If the proton is made up of three quarks, then there exists three electron in the proton and thre electrons in the neutron, which means that there are six electrons in the nucleus. This proves that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, since, the electron in the space outside the nucleus has a charge value of one, negative, and the proton is one possitive, the presence of these electrons in the nulceus, should make it negative.
can anybody answer these questions logically without mathematics, Kind regards, Tony Marsh.