Emergence does not negate determinism. That’s like saying a building is an emergent property of bricks, but is not subject to the laws of physics. No amount of emergence will change the fundamental nature of how those bricks will behave and those behaviors will affect the building as a whole - ie. entropy If a person were truly free to choose from any thought or action, then that person would have to know EVERY possible thought or action to choose from. The fact that we are limited to only things the universe allowed us to know, dictates we are subject to the laws and choices the universe determines. This we are not free to decide anything. I am not free to violate the theories of relativity, even though I want to, because I have no idea how I could violate those laws. I can’t choose to visit the sun, because the universe has not provided me with the knowledge of how to get there. More importantly, no matter how much might want a thing, there is absolutely nothing I can do to “unwant” it. - every day I want to believe in Jesus. I ask and I ask for signs. I get nothing. Am I free to believe in Jesus? Is it my fault if I can’t find faith, even though I search for it daily? I cannot choose to believe anything, because the universe has made me and my MIND the way it is and there’s nothing I can do to change my beliefs. Where’s the free will?! I respect Dr. Carroll in many levels, but I think this is s case of simplicity confusing the wise. You sound like a religious person saying my lack of faith in god is because I have a choice to believe or not - ergo it’s my fault for not believing Preposterous. For free will to exist, then we must have infinite options to choose from at every moment in Planck time. Anything less means our actions are governed by physics, regardless of how minuscule those governance might be. Now, could someone explain, with intelligent debate, why I might be wrong. Because I see no other way around this. We cannot know anything the universe will not divulge. We cannot know anything that doesn’t exist in the universe. Therefore, the universe determines our choice, regardless of how much we think otherwise.
I wholeheartedly agree with your position. The weirdest part for me is how his argument is essentially the same as the god of the gaps fallacy: we don't know exactly how humans operate, therefore free will. That Sean Carroll out of all people would pose such an argument is honestly baffling.
@@howlrichard1028 thank you. I was as surprised by his comments as you. I believe we are not in control of our decisions, even if those decisions are a mundane as picking a shirt from the rack. Something made us pick one shirt over the other. A madman cannot decide to be un-mad. He thoughts are the product of his brain.
Sabine Hossenfelder in her CZcams: "You don't have free will but don't worry" says: "Particles are deterministic and you are made of particles." Your feelings are an awareness of many of the factors being calculated that determine your actions but you become aware of choices that are determined by those factors. She says: "To say you could have acted differently is just words because...well, you didn't." There is no going back. Alex O'Connor, CZcamsr Cosmic Skeptic "Why free will doesn't exist," says "There are only two reasons you do anything. You're forced to or you want to. You can do what you want but you can't choose what you want. You simply become aware of what you want. You pick the blue shirt because you want it more... Why? Could be a lot of factors but at that moment you become aware that you do and act on it. Or you pick the red shirt despite preferring the blue one because you want something else more. It could be any reason but the more compelling want determines your action. The future is not set because there is randomness in the universe down to the quantum level but while that makes the universe more unpredictable it has nothing to do with will. It simply affects the factors determining your situation and your wants. Predictability has nothing to do with will. Our choices matter whether there is free will or not because they affect others but what we decide to do is the result of a myriad of factors many of which we are totally unaware affect our calculation; chemistry, mood, circumstance, subconscious trauma... but we are still responsible for our actions because, as we know "if you do harm to others they will take steps to stop you."
Oconnors argument is a tautology. You do what you want to do because you want to do it. It has no predictive value, so its not science. It has no moral or ethical value so its not philosophy or religion. Its just restating a pseudoanswer to the question “Why did you do that?” in a different set of words and pretending its deep.
So I could have acted differently because the information I have about myself is incomplete? I was with him right up to this point. I'm still making choices based on the information I have or dont have and so I'd make the best possible choice that I can based on that information. The only way I could have made a different choice is if the information I had was different at that time. Hindsight is 20/20 for a reason.
It's not really a matter of whether you could have acted differently or not. The question itself is meaningless, there is no answer. Determinism and Indeterminism are really the same thing. It's a pointless argument. Your did what you did because that's what you wanted to do. Could you have wanted something else? In a completely different universe perhaps, but in this one what you want is as fixed as who you are. Could you have been me instead? In a purely hypothetical sense, perhaps, but in this actual reality, the question doesn't even make sense.
@@ishikawa1338 but your want to achieve a goal or your want to please someone who wants you to achieve that goal is what makes you YOU. you cannot get out of this - being yourself. you can try of course, but it will eat you alive
@@SumNutOnU2b exactly. the YOU that makes a different choice is not YOU. it's someone else who had something DIFFERENT in their atoms that caused a different choice wishing to do things that "you wouldn't" isn't what free will is about you always do what you will do. and yet, you made the choice, therefore the will is there and free
so bottom line is you couldn't have acted differently. saying "given the information you have now" makes no sense, because you didn't have that information, so you couldn't have acted differently. in the end you only think you have free will, which is an essential part of making life work. So free will is an illusion, but a necessary one nonetheless.
Free will exists because it was an intention given by a Creator, The Most High. If you don’t believe in it, then explain to me an emotion. “A product of neurons?” Yeah.
@@ettvanligtkonto that’s pure relativism, I hope you know that. It ignores structure, and the measurable degree to which relative perspectives agree, I.e., invariants
I am matter organized in a system which mindlessly interacts with itself and the matter around it. My decision stems from an extremely complex calculation made by cells in my brain. If this system is free to choose whatever it wants, who is it that wants? How do we define "choice" in this context? How is the decision arrived at? This is all very mysterious.
The “want” is an incentive, incentives make us do stuff, and incentives are born from social influences and others. Some of this social influences are derived from marketing, culture, our parents behavior towards themselves and us as we grew up, etc. Free will is* an illusion.
@@10sqrftthisthat Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I guess it depends on what the fabric of the universe actually is and how stuff actually works. It seems unlikely that our will is 100% free though.
@Fearless Joy If you pay close attention you will notice you're having lots of thoughts you yourself didn't produce and had no control over. It still feels like "I" want, but the want itself I cannot control. The question then is what my consciousness is, if it's just a brain or something more.
@Fearless Joy Try it yourself. Sit down, close your eyes and focus on your breath. Watch as the thoughts come into your mind and ask yourself if it was you who decided to think the thought. It is hard to read what you're writing, you should use commas and punctuation.
@Fearless Joy I think it's more likely we're tuning into different thoughts. Most of the thoughts you have are not original, but thoughts that others had before that you're evaluating. At least that's how it feels to me. Like if I think I want to have a garden, to even know what the concept of "garden" is, I got it from others. Or if I think that I love someone, that's a concept that I did not make up new, but it existed before me and I was affected by all the culture surrounding it that passed by me.
I think he was trying to say that the person wouldn't have to physically follow through with an action if their action was predicted. But, you are right, that's a weird and very abstract example.
It's a further take on Laplace's demon - if we (or the demon, or the algorithm) can know everything about someone, we can reliably predict every time how they will act. Therefore, that someone has no free will.
I think it’s more about the thought of free will from one side to another. Sure, that person has the free will to make a choice, but by their demeanor or minor interactions, one can precut at a high probability, their choice. It doesn’t eliminate free will, but it certainly increases the predictability odds. I feel like can be related almost to poker, and why we have “poker face”. Or choosing between an obvious good or bad thing. Sure free will exist for that, but one can probably determine selection odds.
Every part of my physical being was absolutely against the idea of jumping out of a perfectly good airplane. Yet, I jumped. Free will is not about making simple choices. Free will is the ability to do as you choose, regardless of your bodies physiological response to a situation or circumstance.
I’m no expert but the way I understand it is that the next question to ask to get at the heart of the topic is “why did you jump out of an airplane?” Maybe you did it out of pure free will, or, as an example, maybe you learned of someone else doing it and that influenced you to “want” to jump out of an airplane and override your instinct (or equally, maybe you reject the notion of being a slave to your biology and actively rebelled.. pick your poison). These questions plague me and as a result I find it hard to convince myself that free will exists, though possible.
I see compatibilism as an acceptance of the illusion of free will as if it were real. Even if you can do what you want, you can't choose what you want. You become aware of what you want. Big difference. Every internal cause determining an action ultimately has it's own external cause determining that the internal cause exists.
It's not an illusion any more than a table is an illusion. It's a concept at a level higher than particle physics. Yes our decisions have internal causes -- my definition of free will is that the decision isn't forced upon us by *external* causes.
@@canicekosi9723 : Do you mean... if the premise was opposite would the conclusion be different? You don't choose what tastes good, your sexual preference, what music moves you, that a chair feels comfortable or not, how people react when they see you etc, etc, ... but if you could do all these things you can't do... would things be different? Maybe.
I think the best way to look at the concept of free will is to look at it the way we do the concept of time. Perceptually time exists, actually time is an illusion. Similarly, perceptually we have free will, actually free will is an illusion.
Unless there are infinite timelines, which would meant that free will is either completely real or only an extension of determinism. Depends how infinite the timelines are. I think functioning time travel would be the ultimate case for free will as it would go against everything that determinism stands for.
@@dannyarcher6370 According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality. As Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton’s picture of a universal ticking clock. One of my favorite quotes is by Abhijit Naskar, the author of "Love, God & Neurons: Memoir of a scientist who found himself by getting lost." He said, “Time is basically an illusion created by the mind to aid in our sense of temporal presence in the vast ocean of space. Without the neurons to create a virtual perception of the past and the future based on all our experiences, there is no actual existence of the past and the future. All that there is, is the present.” Even Einstein chimes in: "People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." In other words, time is an illusion.
I think that just like we can't explain how conscious experience arises from material processes (hard problem of consciousness), we also can't explain how the physical laws we understand explain how consciousness can appear to effect it's intention and attention, aka some degree of free will. It's another hard problem. Pretending it isn't a hard problem is like pretending we have already solved the hard problem of consciousness just because we understand correlations between nervous system states and conscious experiences. Maybe one day we'll understand, but for now, pretending like there isn't a great mystery at play here seems presumptuous to me.
I think you're falsely equating two very different things. Firstly, consciousness definitionally can't be an illusion. The very experience of consciousness means that it exists. Cogito Ergo Sum, as I'm sure you know. Free will is not the same thing, it's an entirely different category in that it could be felt to exist while objectively not existing at all. Secondly, while both may be mysterious to some degree, it's not possible to feel the nonexistence of consciousness. It IS possible to feel the nonexistence of free will. There are multiple meditations for paying incredibly close attention to your conscious experience in such a way that clearly illuminates the fact that you are not the author of your thoughts or decisions. Sam Harris has lead many of them, and I'm sure you could find them easily if you want to. Lastly, we know determinism is the death of free will, and also have determinism currently as not only the leading model for our universe, but really the only credible or even plausible model (or determinism plus randomness). There is no equivalent model that is the death of consciousness. Consciousness's origin may be mysterious, and indeed is, but its existence is undeniable. Free Will's origin is not, as you seem to think, "mysterious" in the same way. Rather it's simply impossible. Those are two quite different things. It's provable both objectively and experientially that free will does not exist, and easily possible to see that the reason people think it does is because of an experiential illusion. Consciousness shares none of those qualities. Consciousness is such a different category that we had to give the title of "The Hard Problem", but free will is neither a problem (because it does not exist), nor is it difficult to explain why we feel like it does. Not everything that we feel is true is true, and if we have objective data that goes against those feelings, a rational person must trust the objective data over their sense data.
@@Deifiable I appreciate your reply. I think I understand most of what you are saying. I shouldn't have said "some degree of free will." I should have said something more like, that consciousness does things that are not yet predictable, which I don't think are possible to predict. Determinism may be accepted as the leading model of the universe, but it has it's limits. Causality itself, as useful an assumption as it is for making sense of the universe, has it's limits (eg. why a wave function happens to collapse the way it does). Determinism just isn't enough, and where its usefulness ends there begins another mystery ("Randomness") that is similarly profound to the mystery of consciousness. I'm not a scientist, just joe shmoe, and I'm sure that there are many flaws in my thinking and understanding, but if anyone thinks the possibility of determinism being insufficient is too crazy, I'd politely remind them to blink their eyes and remind themself of the utterly, mindblowingly, unexplainable existence of the reality that they are aware of right now 😅
Pick a number between 1 and 10. As a determinist the way I imagine this working in your brain is that you have an unstable chaotic neural network that bounces determine yet chaotically between the choices. Pick a number again and the Network will give a different response but that first time you always would’ve picked the same number. However had you seen a butterfly in the corner of your eye the number would have been different.
What has any of that to do with free will? You are in control of your voluntary muscles, aren't you? If you reach out and slap someone across the face, who exactly do you think did that?
@@Krish-10 My comment was so simple and obvious that in order for it to be confusing, you must have twisted yourself into knots trying to over analyze the easily observable, natural phenomenon that is free will.
Our choices are determined by every experience we've had up to the point of deceiding, and how that influences our options. Change what colour you prefer by remembering different things during the day, and you might choose a different flower to buy for a loved one, because of the flower shops' selection. I don't believe in free will, but I believe calling how we end up making choices for free will is more useful in every day life than not.
@@bosspoke Because the alternative requires a long explanation that nobody wants or needs. I do make the decisions, but which me is it? We aren't just one voice, our subconscious rule our "self" whether we accept it or not, it just tricks us into thinking we're in control. So we do have free will, if the definition of "we" is any agent expressing its will from within our own minds.
@@martingoldfire I'd very much like to hear your alternative. Not calling how we end up making choices for free will is truthful, while the alternative is a lie. Save for the experience of thinking you have free will while you do not, what is the benefit of calling it free will anymore once it is exposed? I see no benefit from even calling it free will, hence why I'm curious why you'd think it is beneficial if you do not even believe in it.
If you can show me two people each making a decision, how do you tell which one is making a choice that is an act of free will and one that is not? I.e., what does the phrase "free will" refer to? How do I tell the difference between "free will" and "not free will"? Intuitively I feel like I have free will, but I don't know how to characterize it objectively.
I agree, we cannot distill 'free will' from our nature or nurture, genes or environment. I conclude that the concept of free will is similar to the concept of god. Does everything happens for a reason or just a result of a chain of coincidences? This topic was explored in "Devs" series.
Thanks for the reminder that free will and determinism are different. I think that distinction often gets merged into confusion. Now as to "atoms have no what ...", well, I don't know. 🤔
When Mr Carroll said that "you could have done differently because initial conditions could have been different" I had to say... well yes, but that misses the point. Initial conditions-in the past-never have been or will be different so you couldn't have done things differently... because you didn't and you can't go back. Things that were... will always be so. No take backs. You can't choose what you like and therefore what you want. You become aware of what you want. And then, when given the option, you will choose what you want.
@@ondrejsaly749 : There is no alternative past. I Could do this or that is possible. I could have done differently is only a concept. A fantasy. It is not a possibility. Even so it's not that you could do something and what you will do will be determined by whatever was happening the instant before and all the interacting factors that preceded.
It's kind of suspect that emergence allegedly only occur when a system becomes sufficiently complex. It's almost like there's a correlation between how complex something is and how difficult it is to explain. But what if... since emergent properties are produced by other emergent properties, our consciousness is not the highest layer? What if there's almost infinite layers of emergent properties within our mind? And at the very end, at the final layer, there's like an entire universe with its own layers of emergence. Dude
Emergence doesn't require much complexity only that new properties emerge from parts that don't have that quality. Wetness is an emergent property of combining hydrogen and oxygen.
Whether or not we can predict behavior is immaterial to the question of free will. And again...if I were in a situation where I made a choice that I later regret, if I could rewind the entire universe to EXACTLY the same state in which I FIRST made that decision, is it at all POSSIBLE for me, with NO MORE INFORMATION than I had the first time, to make a different choice? If so, what is the basis for this choice, and what was the basis for the original choice? Where does either decision come from if NOT from the pre-existing brain state that preceded it? If you do the demonstration where you simulate a nuclear chain reaction by setting ping pong balls on mouse traps and then toss one into the midst and watch them all go flying, you could NEVER successfully predict the final resting place of every ping pong ball because there are far too many variables involved. But this doesn't mean that the ping pong balls had free will, or that they didn't strictly obey the laws of physics. If, on the other hand, our choices are simply random, that's not free will either, as we have no control over it. So really, compatibleism is just a way to try to have your cake and eat it, too, but how does it yield anything that we can reasonably take to be free will?
Reflecting on the possibility of having been able to make a different decision and making a decision are two different things. You could have made a different decision but you didn't. The fact is you ultimately made a choice and you can't take that back. Our brains allow us to use complex thought patterns in order to rationalize what could have or would have been if we had acted differently but once a choice is made its already determined thus it renders the notion of I could have, would have and should have as meaningless as you had a variety of options but you ultimately decided on the one that was most attractive to you.( You made a decision not out of choice but out of a fulfillment of a desire.)
Excactly! Because that would rid us of the "praise & blame" game. We would only see actions as a consequence of the past & a neccessity of the future, and in that way never viewing actions as evil nor good. This detached viewpoint allows true critical thinking and it that way able to strike at the cause of "problems" as we see it, and not the surface.
@@mikeg8028 how is there consequences with no moral judgment? Maybe I’m just not following you. If someone by their free will commits a crime (happens all the time) there are consequences because the law is a moral framework…
The arrow of time points forward in time because of the wave function collapse. Because causality has a speed limit every point in space sees itself as the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past.
It would have been better if the video started with the definition of free will. Once the concept of free will is defined, you could start talking about whether it violates or not the laws of physics, otherwise we could be talking and commenting from different perspectives, since free will could mean different things for different people.
I've listened to and read Carroll on the topic of free will and I still struggle to see why his reframing is a useful definition. It sounds like he is a determinist that hides behind the unpredictability of events. Yes, we can make free will exist if we define free will as some type model we use to interreact with the world i.e. we are agents with some number of degrees of freedom and we cannot predict the outcomes of the events beforehand. But this is simply just not what most people mean when they say we have free will and I don't find this new definition to provide any type of additional insight into the problem at hand. When problems are reframed or redefined in philosophy, it's usually to make some greater point, but this definition of free will is just determinism with more words. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
I agree with you. I listen to a lot of Sean Carroll and his argument for compatibilism is the first time I can't accept what he's saying... I defer always on physics but compatibilism isn't physics. It's fine to bring up emergence but I don't thing he explained how that works sufficiently. I know we feel like we're making choices completely independently but why and how we WANT things is as determined as particles. It's just not obvious. Every internal cause of a decision ultimately has an external cause. Our wants are determined by our circumstances and we don't control them.
I disagree that this is not what most people mean when they talk about free will. They talk about making decisions independently from the outside world, and I agree with Sean that it's not in conflict with determinism.
When I drive to work, how is it that I make it there, and not somewhere else? I rely on the image of the road entering my eyes. That’s a cause-effect relationship. When I tell someone my height, how is it that the information I’m saying is accurate, as opposed to a random incorrect answer? Because, I measured myself and got the result that I am now communicating. That’s a cause and effect relationship. To be free of cause is to be aimless and arbitrary.
I don’t think world is deterministic(at least in sense predictable) but it doesn’t prove free will, free will (in definition to do otherwise) even in compatibilism simply doesn’t exist. It gives me comfort to know that I couldn’t change anything by stressing about it, I never could change anxiety itself neither. The world goes on and my efforts to control it is just futile. Even with free will or without.
On an experiential level .. I “felt” that I’m less free when I “think” or when I “analyze”, especially on the objects outside. I “felt” that I’m more free when I abandon that rational side of me , and tap deep into my inner core, in utter silence. Once certain depth (which I fail to depict in words) is reached. There is a brief moment of clarity in which I no longer question whether I am free or not free . Decisions and thoughts just flow instantaneously . It was when I wonder , maybe it”s too early to argue what’s free will…when I have this distance with myself… and what”s keeping me away from it is “noise” and lack of solidarity…
Get ride of freedom and freewill is quite interesting by all the implications of it. If free will does not exist, merit does not exist and neither does the notion of responsibility, which has enormous implications. I would also say that some cultures are further from free will, in many Asian countries we talk about luck rather than success. I would also say that the difficulty in describing the word "free" realizes that we are dealing with a hollow word, and therefore that it would be wise to change this term for people who defend the existence of free will.
"If free will does not exist, merit does not exist and neither does the notion of responsibility." As a practical matter; even without free will all of us interact with each other to determine our actions. If you harm others they will take steps to stop you. If you help them they will encourage you. So we are constrained by responsibility and or rewarded for merit by deterministic factors
@@lrvogt1257 I understand what you said, but it twist the common definition of responsibility, merit... My point is that at the end this words are empty, they depend the morality of a society and echo indivu who compose them.
@@conreo : I don't think so. Responsibility and merit are both about judgement and accountability for one's actions. That doesn't change either way. Morality is conformity to principles or rules of conduct or the rules themselves. These evolve from socialization. So, it's always about society guiding behavior. One can make an argument for some cosmic objective standard but even that is subject to interpretation.
@shubamrachappanavar2708 : You are made accountable by those you affect as a practical matter. If someone does you harm, then you will take steps to prevent it. When most people agree about what they don't want done to themselves they tend to codify it so everyone knows the rules.
@shubamrachappanavar2708 : I don't think "determined" and "predestined" mean quite the same thing. "Predestined" is more fatalistic as if your future is planned. There is no plan. We constantly interact and affect each other's behavior in obvious and subtle ways... even unconsciously. Probably mostly unconsciously. We are each some part of the process of determining each others futures but that future is not PRE-determined. One moment is just the direct result of the previous moment. When we agree on what we don't want to be done to ourselves we tend to make rules to guide people's behavior. We agree to not kill or steal from each other and make sure everyone knows that's against the law and they will be punished if they do. Some people will have cause to do harm anyway but by codifying the rules we try to minimize it.
The argument for compatibilism is only stable because we don't now have, and will likely never have, a way to calculate for all the variables that would lead to an accurate prediction of the choice someone would make based on the particles that make up their mind, but that does not speak to the more fundamental question. Assuming we could calculate, we would prove there is no free will. So there is no free will fundamentally. However, we will never be able to calculate this. It would probably take a computer the size of the universe or something, so instead of saying we have free will, which we don't, because of emergence and making it sound all complicated, why not just say we don't really have free will but the illusion will always persist and we will never be able to calculate predictions so we have a version of free will based not on emergence but based simply on the unknowable outcomes and the illusion.
Your explanation is realistic and straight to the point. On the other hand there are many ways of manipulating the market, I was able to grasp the knowledge of trading crypto assets early enough, but i was still limited due to my lack of technical understanding of how to analyse the digital market , all that changed when i encountered (Carol Ann Mcelroy) strategy. I have made about $470k already from her day tradng, all i did was to copy her daily signals, am done having heart breaks hodling and trading myself lol. more emphasis should be put into day trading as it Is less affected by the unpredictable nature of the market
The market is growing daily with new strategies and trading opportunities. Financial empowerment is our everyday chase and Mrs Carol Ann Mcelroyhas proven to be a part of this mission. her strategy is the very best
When it comes to investing, we want our money to grow with the highest rates of return, and the lowest risk possible. While there are no shortcuts to getting rich, but there are smart ways to go about it
Buying crypto does not ensure profit always for you, the market price determines your profit, stop making profit depending on the market price, glad I chose to trade and found out about Carol Ann strategy
I know I've wanted to start investing for a few months, but just haven't had the courage to start because the market has been down for most of this year. Please how can I reckon with such skills and what are her services like?
@@camilamartinez8809 She covers things like investing, insurance, making sure retirement is well funded and looking at ways to have a volatility buffer for investment risk, lots of things like that. You can take a look at her full name on the internet. She is renowned. So it shouldn't be difficult to find her official webpage
The lack of understanding that there is a whole lot more about life that you don’t know and will most likely never find out about is what will keep one from believing that free will exists
every time there is a concept that makes soo much sense and someone trying to deny it for whatever reason. I mean it is crystal clear that there is no free will
Actually you are just projecting your prejudice. On the contrary, he explicitly and correctly states that he knows the world isn’t deterministic. You should learn about chaotic systems and quantum mechanics.
@@jaddaj5881the world isn't deterministic because there no such thing that can process all the information in the world. Thus, the term deterministic lost it's value to humans. Even so, the world still obey the laws of physics. And that's makes it predetermined from the past to the future.
@@profmonkey0756it's about "we do not fully understand human behavior, therefore we have free will". its like centrifugal force, an illusion that arises from a narrow perspective from which you cannot see the full picture.
This does little to quench my thirst for realistic interpretations of reality. While I appreciate the dichotomy of view, I was looking for a dissection of free will balanced upon quantum realism- ideas of quarks phasing in and out of existence, thereby resonating in a way which would unbalance a clockwork-style interpretation of the universe. I feel the interpretation presented is more of an evaluation of the same phenomena, but from a different perspective or position. Still, perspective doesn’t change the reality of what’s being perceived- we can all watch the car from different angles, but it’s still going the same speed and direction. Or there’s Bell’s Theorem and good old Heisenberg, but neither of those answers necessarily change a fundamentalist view of hard determinism; moreover, I simply wonder if the interconnectedness of the universe is simply the discovery of yet another phenomenon we have yet to interpret… If our monkey brains even can.
I am confused. One moment Sean said that freewill is emergence. Next moment he said that if people can read micromovements and predict his next action, then there's no freewill. But how can anyone predict his next movement through anything, if his freewill is due to emergence?
It's as equivalent to the delusion of control which is something we desire at every moment of time. We just not evolved to accept randomness and uncertainty hence the various beliefs we grow up being taught by our predecessors.
Everything is a giant equation. All cause and effect starting from the big bang. Everything from the four fundamental fources of nature. To Physics from how each galaxy ended up exactly how they are, all the way down to quarks. With humans who you are is predetermined by your genetics, and every enteraction with the environment you have had. Neither of which you control, but turns you into who you are. You may be an agent making choices. But based on the trajectory of everything including who you are, there would only be one outcome for any situation. If you had new knowledge and could go back to the same situation there may be a different outcome. But that's because you changed part of the equation. If you had complete knowledge of the big bang, the four forces of nature, the physics of the universe, genes, and how the environment affects psychology. You could know everything anyone would ever do in any situation.
One problem with free will not addressed here is that it plays well with the dysfunction called tle blame game. When a person does something we regard as bad or evil, we say it's their fault, and generally that categorizstion is the end of it. There are good and bad people defined by their good or bad actions or choices. When you toss free will out the window and realize that when someone does something bad, it is something they actually had to do as the result of their personal history and the patterns of the neurons firing in their brain, which are beyond any sort of direct control, it sends you into a more productive direction. The non-free will way of dealing with people acting badly is to control them or remove them until and unless we can fix them. So, are we better with the concept of free will or worse? Well, whatever answer you give is the answer you had to give. At least, that's what I have to believe.
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.
A bizarre rationalization for compatibilism. Fundamentally, the argument is that compatibilism can only exist under a state of ignorance. Clarify how the physiology of the mind works, and compatibilism disappears. The implication is that the laws of physics depend on one's own perception. This would make the study of physics, and science in general, impossible. Ignorance cannot obviate the laws of physics. And no, physics and the operation of the mind do not, to borrow a term of Stephen jay Gould's, exist in "separate magisteria."
Sean Carroll is a brilliant physicist, but - when it comes to compatibilism - I gotta agree with Immanuel Kant who labeled it "a petty word-jugglery." You can get lots of amazing stuff through emergence, but not something that's fundamentally against the nature of the underlying processing.
I think what any reasonable compatibilist is actually arguing for is just “will”. I don’t really see what is free about it. That fact they need to delineate the old concept of free will as “Libertarian free will” ie “free free will” suggests to me that maybe they should just drop the free
we don't know. but the onus is on the party that is trying to prove something exists, such as free will. i don't know if god or unicorns exist and i should not have to disprove their existence.
Determinism must imply a) there was a start to everything which knocked down the first domino or b) there is no start yet the chain of events going back is infinite. Scenario A is a contradiction and scenario B) implies infinite possible outcomes which also collapses the theory. What am i missing?
The big bang probably did start everything we know in the visible universe. Because there is randomness in the universe there are eventually a vast number of possible outcomes but in the end there is only one actual outcome. Randomness leads to unpredictability but each moment is still the direct result of the moment that preceded it.
It still comes to the atoms. We are a unique configuration of molecules and atoms. Our physical structure defines ourselves: some are more emotional than others, some get more endorphins in certain cases than others etc. Then it's the environment we grow and exist in. This, I think, will define our will. It is free, yes, but still based on the physical and environmental variables.
To me, the problem is that we can't really define what "free will" is. Is it a soul moving a body around like a suit? Is it a defiance of an otherwise predetermined outcome? Is it shifting consciousness to experience one timeline of events as opposed to the outcome of a parallel universe? Is it a way of looking at the holistic system of human behavior? Is it something infinitely more complex than any of the above? It's kind of like arguing whether a hot dog is a type of sandwich. If two people can't agree on what the definition of "sandwich" is, then no amount of studying the hot dog will give them an answer. Likewise, no analysis of human behavior or the brain or psychology or quantum mechanics will tell us if we have free will, if we can't even reach a consensus on what it means to have "free will."
Free will happens with any organism which has a mind and not a memory, a storage of information. The memory of the past makes that past actions have an impact in the present, If there is no memory, past doesnt matter and the organism is aways reinventing itself.
The real question isn't whether free will is a thing or not. We can observe people generating behaviors that they anticipate will get them what they want in a constantly changing environment. At the most basic level that can be called free will. The reason people want to say that this isn't "free" is because of the mistaken belief in the weird doctrine of determinism. Dan Dennett coined the term "intuition pump" for ideas, like determinism, that take over the normal cognitive processes and lead otherwise sensible people to believe in nonsense, like predeterminism or Fate. Determinism works fine, but only after the fact. Humans are able to use their memory to construct chains of causation that inevitably lead to whatever outcome actually happened. This fools people into believing that the chains were actually there all along, and not just figments of their imagination. Another scenario that leads otherwise sensible people to believe in determinism is the fact that you can do the same experiment over and over and always get the same result. A determinist takes this to mean that there is only one outcome to any event, as if the particle interactions somehow mandate the results, but they don't get that it isn't the atoms that determine the outcome, it is the scientist. He or she can change the conditions and get many different results. We have this human level understanding of causation that is very useful, but it is not reality.
@@caricue I may be reading too deep, but I believe the argument at hand is t one based on one’s perception. My current deterministic view doesn’t shield me from the responsibility of my choices. I know it’s counter-intuitive, but a lack of free will doesn’t absolve me from the deterministic responsibility of what feel to be choices. My responsibility for whatever actions I took are there, as I continue to act as I am and be who I am. To analogize: Even if I’m a song on a record, I’m going to keep the beat by choice.
@@LanceWinder You are illustrating my point about "deterministic" being a mind virus that makes anything sound obvious and self-evident. In fact, what determinists believe is little more than mysticism. What would be the point of even having a thinking apparatus if the decision was already predetermined by some outside forces. Not to mention that anything outside of your mind is mindless and can't possibly make choices for you since particle interactions and forces don't know anything and have no goal or direction? All human choices are based on knowledge and intention, so where in the cosmos can these things be found outside of a mind? Also, if you have no choice in moving your fingers over the keyboard then is it the universe that is writing your comments? Mysticism indeed.
What Sean is missing is the fact that human behavior is also determined by quantum physics and the nature of human consciousness, among many other things we don't really have a full understanding, so making asumptions so categorically about our decision-making mechanisms by only considering the known laws of psyhics, without really having a consistent understanding and knownledge about the quantum science, the unknown phenomena of our Universe and the nature of consciousness, only results in nothing but innacurate conclusions.
Thank you! This is just what I was hoping to read in the comments. Without a better understanding of the mechanics of consciousness, or a true theory of everything, any talk of free-will vs determinism seems highly speculative.
I think the one making assumptions is you....hard determinism is not falsifiable and anyone using HD as a reason for claiming that we have absolutely no free will is the one making assumptions.
quantum physics has never been proven to affect human behavior. and even if it did add randomness and uncertainty, we would have no control over it and therefore it is not a component of our will.
The thing about free will is that whether I actually have free will or not, I still have choices to make. I still have to decide whether or not to pay the electric bill. And afterwards, could I have done otherwise than what I chose? Well, no. Because what I chose was my choice. How could I have chosen something that wasn't my own preference? That's the thing that I wanted to do, and if the universe were different then perhaps I would prefer something else, but things are the way they are. To ask whether I could have chosen differently is a meaningless question. It isn't that the answer is in any way unlikable, rather there isn't an answer to that question at all. Much like asking "could the apple have fallen upwards?" Perhaps it could have, but only if the universe were different. Only if gravity didn't work the way we know that it does. Much the same with the choices I make. Could I have chosen differently? Sure, I could have, but only if the universe were different. Only if my preferences were not what they are.
I think the argument here about free will is better than most, but once again it fails to recognise an important fact about an agent of free will, presumably trying to make choices in its own interest and that to in fact to do so, demands a largely deterministic universe. It is through identifying patterns that reliably predict the outcome with or without the agents intervention, that in fact grants us free will, and then being able to choose to intervein with the least effort to get a desired outcome. If the universe was largely indeterminant then our predictions and possible interventions would fail much more often. As Sean Carroll points out it is foolish to say determinism precludes free will, because as I suggest free will demands it, but also hard determinism is arguably "Reductio ad absurdum". All that free will requires to be true is a very little bit of "wiggle room" and emergence is one possibility, they other may be that although deterministic, there are strong arguments there exists some level of indeterminism we can not avoid (I can give those examples if asked). These give us the desired wiggle room for an agent of free will to alter the causes and events into the future. The biggest failing in Free Will arguments is that its definition is weak, until we define it better, it remains a weak position to defend or refute, when you do define it better there are explanations that do not appear paradoxical.
Sean Carroll says we could have done otherwise if determinism is true. But he doesn't think that through. To have selected a different option I would have had to have been on a different determined path stretching back to the beginning of time. It's sheer luck which determined path I was already on. This is why we do not have free will.
I think free will is a spectrum related to lucidity/mindfulness. The less mindful you are the less likely you are to make informed decisions when doing something and the more susceptible you are to misinformation, however if you're more mindful you're more likely to make well informed and thought out decisions as well as be more skeptical of what you hear. Things like meditation and psychedelics can lead to more mindfulness. On another note: You normally never have free will in dreams, just going with the flow all the time. However if you can realize you're in a dream (lucid dream) you can disrupt the flow of the dream, either derailing the plotline, following it, or the most popular option, try to control and change the dream to suit your desires and this can be used to experience pretty much anything you can imagine and it can feel just like real life as well. Lucidity in a dream is also linked with lucidity while awake. I think this was an oversight in the experiments seeing as how we live most of our lives on autopilot. They didn't account for these possible factors
This view relies upon a dualistic interpretation of reality. In order for your mind to causally influence the material world without itself being necessarily influenced by it it would have to reside in a separate realm to that of the body, a mental realm of sorts. Only in a dual-world can the concept of mind over matter find any plausibility
@@thibaudhope2856 The mental realm that emerges from the firing of neurons in your brain is sorta separate from the neurons themselves, although totally dependent on how exactly they are firing. Everything is following the laws of physics but the mind seems, to me at least, to not only rely on information received from external sources for its state. It’s like there is a feedback loop back into itself. IOW you can change your state of mind by thinking about it. Dunno if that says anything about free will or not. 🤷🏻♂️
It's mindfulness and lucidity that leads me to the opposite conclusion, being able to step back and see your thought processes and drives play out running on their own accord no self no free will needed. Or maybe depersonalization in psyche jargon
That doesn’t make sense. Free doesn’t exits more because we dont know everything. Our choices do matter but we could not have acted differently expressly because we dont know everything you can only act according to what you know
Since people are subject to the laws of nature, as much sense as it makes to be, people are still subjected to that truth and if anyone is subjected to anything, they are by definition, operating or existing within the confines of a predetermined will i.e. the environment. If anyone would wish to experience a realm other than the one that was provided for them, they could consider this plane with all of its natural or immutable laws as a violation of their free will or the primary reason why free will doesn't exist on a fundamental level because "free" implies not being subject to anything. When your "will" unsuccessfully confronts or eliminates resistance the argument for a lack of free will is also reinforced... The awareness of resistance alone will prompt you to think that way even before attempting to use your "free will" to stop the resistance.
Sean Carroll is the best. I learn so much from him and his method of teaching. If one day we have a crazy computer we could to a high level predict what humans will do.
Free will may be analogous to quantum mechanics in that an individual’s behavior is not deterministic but we can make good predictions for many humans using probabilities.
Well, shouldn't this be testable? If we were to create two identical enclosed environments, and in each one place simple life forms (bacteria or fungus, etc) of the same exact genetic sequencing, and run each simulation, then shouldn't anything based on "decisions", such as growth pattern, growth extent, etc. be exactly the same? Wouldn't variation show evidence of some type of free will being exerted?
It seems to me that free will is a logical impossibility - Either each action I take has a cause - in which case it's not free, or no cause - in which case it's not will. I also can't see any way to make determinism compatible with an objective morality (but then again I believe that morality is subjective)
I agree, but the discussion about free will is important only if there is free will. Option number 1: There is free will - we are deceived by thinking that there is no free will, or we are correct that there is free will. Option number 2: There is no free will - we are right in thinking that there is no free will, or we are wrong, but it doesn't matter since we had no choice, and we can't change anything. Since we can't be 100% sure, you can't go wrong in believing in free will.
You are right, all events are either caused or uncaused, meaning that all actions are either caused or uncaused. Uncaused actions are as good as random, and we would not be the source of such actions. However, there are two types of caused action and event; externally-caused and self-caused. External-causation is when something outside of a thing causes it to change or “act,” and internal or self-causation is when something causes itself to change or act. If there were only external-causation, the actualization of any event in a chain of events would always be deferred by the previous event needing to be actualized, but that event wouldn’t be actualized due to requiring an external cause that isn’t actualized because its external cause isn’t actualized, ad infinitum (on to infinity) because the cause of each event is always deferred and never actualized due to each event always requiring an external cause. This is one reason why the first event in existence must be an act of free will (self-causation or internal-causation) because the first event can’t be externally-caused and since there’s only two types of causation, external and internal, the first event must be internally-caused and thus be an act of free will, implying the existence of God, since only beings have free will. To explain this further, an example of external-causation would be one pool ball striking another and causing it to move, the pool ball that gets stricken is caused to move externally. Self-causation on the other hand would be the pool ball moving itself. Since determining one’s actions is tantamount to free will, rather than having your actions determined by an external cause, we can see that self-causation is basically free will. A further point I might add is that persons (in the philosophical sense) can not by definition be material objects of any kind. This would be like me gathering a bunch of inanimate objects I find lying around and assembling them into a “person.” It wouldn’t really be a person, it would just be a collection of inanimate objects. For this reason, I think robots can never be conscious. If we are our consciousness rather than our bodies, this consciousness must ultimately be immaterial (which would explain why God doesn’t need a cause, but the universe does, in reference to the common atheist’s objection to the cosmological argument, the argument which argues that the universe’s existence requires God’s existence who is uncaused, to which the atheists usually responds in the vein of “if God can be uncaused, why can’t the universe” thus eliminating the need for God, as all form needs an explanation, but the formless and immaterial, consciousness, which is really everything in superposition, does not). Thus, being immaterial, it is not subject to mechanistic causation, but rather is capable of having will because it is a mind (as inanimate objects ultimately do not and can not “act” with will, meaning the brain being essentially inanimate can not have free will). Will, by definition, determining itself rather than being determined by something else mechanistically. Thus, if we are persons at all rather than merely objects, we must ultimately be immaterial since persons can not be material, this immateriality facilitating free will which is self-causation rather than external-causation.
@@drybeanburrito There is no point in trying to distinguish internal and external causes. If you follow your internal causes back, eventually they will be found to be caused by external causes - ultimately you were a single cell externally caused by the joining of a cell from each of your parents and then responding to its internal and external environment.
Hmm I feel like this is coming from a position of "we don't know how we don't have a choice so therefore we do have a choice" which feels like a bit of a fallacy. Just because I don't know that a face down card is a King of Hearts doesn't mean I can will it not to be. However I do then concede the potential Schrödinger/quantum elements at that point in certain circumstances...
To me the fact that we cannot see to the bottom of how atoms behave and affect our life is not a sufficient basis for an idea of a free will. It is not important whether WE know our freedom of choice, but rather whether our freedom is theoretically knowable at all to beings dependent of time. If we have only deterministic components, we are deterministic, regardless of what kinds of emergent features we see in ourselves. A completley deterministic being, a being without any freedom to choose, is not a being in the fullest sense of the word. He is reduced into a natural phenomenon, a mere vortex in the flow of events. Seeing him as a body and mind with certain separateness from the environment is just a mathematical convenience. We could not sense the difference between real and illusory existence in ourselves, but our craving to know the foundation of our moral fundaments is not satisfied before we have an answer to this question. On the other hand, when there is a genuinely free will, the freedom is paradoxical down to the level of logic itself. The free will cannot be deterministic, as it would not be free. It cannot be chaotic, because it would not express anything definable. It cannot even be a filtered version of chaos, as the filters need to be controlled by something, too. The products of a free will could not have any further source, as it would have to create its products ex nihil, making a nothing into a something. The free will is a miracle which defies both our physics and our logic.
The valueless argument about whether our will is free or not is a lot less interesting to me than whether the choice we make affects a quantum field of possible actions. We are "free" in that we make the decision to choose (observe) & it is determined in that our choice is floating around in a field of potentials that don't exist until we observe it. That quantum function could be thought of as the consciousness of matter & energy, what is always there as the inherent property of space.
"Emergence" is doing a lot of work here. What is the essence of something emergent? If it is still a physical thing governed by laws then I don't see the difference and how something can be free just because it's "emergent". For instance, patterns emerge in Conway's game of life, but those patterns are governed by the same rules that the individual cells on the grid are governed by, and you can predict them with complete accuracy. There has to be something more than emergence at play.
I like the video, gives more people the opportunity to think about topics like these. But I think you missed a crucial part. Well, 5:06. I think you need to differentiate first, how decisions are made. The argument of anti-free will is not: "I had every information available to think about, so i chose this way of acting because it was the only way i could react properly", but rather: "the constellation of our particles in our brain only follow the flow of physics, and therefore create a thought, a decision, and because it was based on physics the particles could not have ended up in a different places, resulting in a different decision." . The underlying question you have not answered, is whether or not the world and particles create our thoughts, or the other way around, whether our metaphorical mind with its thoughts can physically alter reality, by shaping the flow of the particles in our brain. How are these effects correlated? That is what it comes down to. Also 4:01, you contradict yourself, saying that if we could measure every microexpression, then the concept of free will might no longer make sense and seize to exist. But, that would only be possible if the theory was wrong in the first place? It doesnt help that we "probably will never be able to measure everything at the same time", because our technology isnt good enough, this is about theory. And if it was theoretically possible to measure everything and predict behaviour, what you stated, then yes, your theory about free will collapses in itself. Now, I do think that in the meantime, before we prove or disprove anything, we should act like everyone has free will. Otherwise, this whole kindness and civilisation thing wouldnt work, if we were to act as we were just machines made out of meat and electricity. So, be kind, civilised, and act as you are responsible for your actions.
The compatibilist idea is ridiculous. Claiming two different levels of abstraction are compatible is a contradiction in itself. If they were compatible, there would be no need for two ways of looking at it.
I hear nothing about the goal driven biology that we consist of. We have free will to decide on a cellular and bacterial level, depending on the constraints and resources this will yield an outcome. You could theoretically calculate all states of matter and, with high certainty, predict the outcome. But predictability does not rule out free will.
Everything has free will not just living things. Everything is moving and Interacting, with everything it can Alive or not. The universe isn't determined, it's all completely random. Determined is just Human organization of nature.
The question of consciousness, free will and cognition is one of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of the ultimate reality. Metaphysics entails ontology; the study of what categories of "things" exist. There are three broad ontological categories of things that exist: 1) Objective things - These are the physical things including all fundamental forces in the standard model (plus gravity), all the "particles" in the standard model and all their aggregations such as atoms, molecules, living cells, animals and plants. 2) Subjective things - These are the things of the Mind which include consciousness (awareness and self-awareness and free will) and the contents of consciousness (perceptions, thoughts, mental images, beliefs, emotions, etc.). 3) Abstract objects - Universal things; this is the Platonic realm. The question is which ontological category of things is fundamental and which is/are derivative. If you believe that the Objective (physical) things are the ultimate reality, i.e. are fundamental and that the subjective things of the Mind are derivative, you are a Materialist. As Sean Carroll said, Materialism is the prevailing view in science, at least among academic scientists. If you believe that subjective things of the Mind are fundamental and that the physical things are derived from Mind, then you are an Idealist. One or the other...either Materialism or Idealism is true. I do not think there is any "excluded middle." For Materialism to be correct, it has to be the case that the electromagnetic force (which is the only fundamental force that comes into play in the physical brain) and its effects on the molecular components of the brain have to account for all of the phenomena of the subjective conscious experience of Mind listed above. That is a very tall order. Sean Carroll's answer to that question "emergence" is hopeless inadequate. Materialist scientists should be embarrassed by Carroll's very simplistic response. He is simply applying a label to a collection of intractable mysteries. Essentially what Carroll is saying is that somehow, all these capabilities of that which we call our conscious Minds listed above, just magically appear. Does that really sound like a scientific explanation? So, which is correct, Idealism or Materialism? Stated another way, is Mind fundamental and physical things derivative? Or are Material things fundamental and Mind derivative? Well first off, one hint is that in our human experience we experience physical things only through our subjective conscious Mind. In other words, in our own experience Mind is fundamental and the objective physical things are derivative. Secondly, if we go back to Einstein's famous quotation: "The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible," from the standpoint of a Materialists, yeah, the observation that the universe eventuated in its own understanding would be astonishing and extremely improbable. However, from an Idealist perspective, that the universe eventuated in its own comprehension is exactly what you would expect. In other words, if our minds are instantiations of the ultimate Mind we would expect that we have free will and that Aristotle's Final Causes (teleology) would be apparent. And in fact, as Einstein's remark evidences, final causes are very apparent. Here is another way of thinking about it. What would be the signature of true libertarian free will? Well, the ability to direct our thoughts in order to discover new things and invent new things would be the signature of true libertarian free will. And I offer the sum total of all knowledge and all human artifacts and all human artistic renderings as a demonstration of that. These capabilities could not be explained by the putative programmatic free will functions proposed by Carroll's pseudo free will offered by compatibilism. So only one objection remains: How is it possible for an immaterial infinite Mind to become embodied in a physical entity such that it can control the physical entity. Some philosophers such as Daniel Dennett feel that this is an insurmountable hurdle. Is it? No. Obviously, if Idealism is positing an ultimate entity that created the universe and all laws in it, clearly, there must be an interface between the two ontological categories. And the method of control would almost certainly involve quantum mechanics. Robert Russell, Henry Stapp, Richard Muller, Sir John Eccles are just some of the scientists who have shown that quantum mechanics allows for a conscious immaterial mind to control a physical entity. Richard Muller in his book Now, The Physics of Time says: "There is nothing in modern science that precludes free will."
Your analysis is pretty good, but it isn't the only way of seeing things. If you invert the paradigm and say that our everyday reality is fundamental and ultimate, and any other superlative, then nothing is derivative. There is only one reality, the one in which we evolved, the everyday world. There are many aspects of this universe that we don't understand, but this doesn't require extra categories or realms, just a little humility to accept that a bunch of hairless apes will probably never have access to what might be called ontological truth, or just Truth with a capital T.
Hello Steve C. Thx for the comment. Sorry I missed your comment until now. You appear to be advocating that the standard monism of Materialism can account for our subjective conscious experience. Is that what you are saying? Pls clarify before I respond. Thx be well.
@@Salv-lj8kj Any categories we apply to nature are by necessity subjective and have no impact on reality outside of our minds, so if by monism you mean that we can make a single category called The Universe which would include everything that happens in said universe, then that's fine, but we make and use categories because they are useful for understanding, so if they inhibit understanding, I am happy to dump them unceremoniously. I don't really want to be saddled with the historical understanding of monism or materialism, so I would not apply them to any of my ideas in most circumstances. I especially dislike the idea that something is derivative, and reductionism in general. I only recently realized that most people don't just see reductionism as a mental construct to help understand nature, but think that it is some kind of organizing principle of nature. Someone insisted that if you split water into hydrogen and oxygen you have "reduced" the water in reality. You may find yourself with an empty water vile and two vili with hydrogen and oxygen, but you have the same amount of substance, but now two different sets of properties to consider. Any talk of "reduction" is only in your perception and understanding, not in the containers. Having established my eccentric view of things, this is my idea about consciousness. We are solid physical creatures, so while perception, memory, feelings, and cognition are brain functions, that which experiences these things is the living tissue of the brain. The self is physical and anchors the mind to the body, and the mind is simply the output of the brain.
@@caricue Okay Steve but your last paragraph puts you in the category of the current received physicalist view which posits that that which we call mind is something that arises from the physical activity of the brain. But if that is the case then the burden would be on you to explain how our subjective experience is produced by the brain. As I mentioned, I think that is a "tall order" and certainly Carroll did not lay a glove on the intractability of that problem--"emergence" is a word masquerading as an explanation. Philosopher of mind, Jerry Fodor once said, "Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material (one ontological category) could be conscious (a second ontological category). Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious." If you are saying, as you seem to be, that the "mind is simply the output of the brain" then you have to show the causal physical principles that produce the mind. And this would entail explaining consciousness, the contents of consciousness including how it is represented, how it is generated, how it stored and how it interacts with consciousness as well as the overwhelming sense that we have free will. This conversation would certainly seem to require that we have the ability to direct our thoughts. But how can we direct their thoughts without free will? Best regards.
@@Salv-lj8kj I can't imagine how I could have been more explicit. I don't think I believe in what you are calling "consciousness", maybe that's the confusion. I also don't think that determinism is a thing, and causality is mostly a human level, evolved perception and not a feature of reality. We use our memory to construct chains of causation, but they don't exist in nature. In terms of free will, this means that the parts do not control the whole, and the past does not control the present, so our choices are part of the functioning of the universe and not a link in some imaginary causal chain. This whole subject is coco-loco, to use the technical term. If you meditate and contemplate your consciousness and self from the inside, you can come to many wild conclusions, but if you look at humans from the outside, like an alien visitor might, then you will see a solid physical organism with a rich internal life, and that's it. I don't see any evidence to go any farther, even if what we see doesn't really seem to make any sense. Out of curiosity, what is your view of consciousness and the self?
Summary: There's three sides. First, libertarian free will, which says the choices we make cannot be explained by physics in principle. Second, determinism, which says everything can be explained through laws of physics and even predict the future, if we know the position and velocity of everything. Third, compatiblist free will, which says everything except the human personality and their choices, can be explained through physics, because humans are very complex and have many layers. But, these two views of reality that can co-exist together. However with significant improvement in scientific understanding, we may be able to predict the future and the human choices could be explained. But that is in the future. I didn’t understand the objection.
Free will is a SOCIAL concept -- it really boils down to who is held responsible for what. Humans didn't CARE whether they had free will, or what it even might be, until they realized that somebody else might try to punish or control them -- the tribe, a god, a government, etc. That's when we started trying to define it, so we could map out the nature of these arbitrary "responsibilities" and develop ways to avoid them or exploit them. It's just another natural competitive behavior, fundamentally no different from mating display.
The belief in free will adds accountability for actions, but the thing is that it is of both positive and negative consequence. You get praise, but you also get blame. The nonbelief in free-will removes the concepts of both praise and of blame. This means that any "criminal" that walks the earth are not "criminals" at all, but neither are there any "heroes" or "saints" so to speak who do what we like to call "righteous" actions deserving of praise. Why did I wake up this morning when I did? I didn't wake myself up, something else did, and I mean an alarm. Why have I visited the toilet a gazillion times over the cource of my life? Certainly not because I like to be at the toilet, but because I have to. Why do I perform any action given the choice between two actions or several actions? Why favour one over the other? Because one of them "feels" right in the moment. In hindsight it may seem that it wasn't "right" but how can I tell as I cannot predict all possible outcomes of any action I take? I am blindly taking actions at all times, therefore I have no real choice. Taking it even further to a basal level: what if someone were to come stab me to death, would I have any choice but to die? What if I as a completely defenceless baby were killed of during infancy, where's the choice there? I was completely at the mercy of caretakers. Thus all my life has been completely at the mercy of others. Thus there is literally no choice whatsover. You are who you are, and you do what you do, that's all. But the benefit of not believing in free-will anymore is that you open up the possibility of discovering why people do what they do instead of spending all the time pointing fingers for no God damn reason.
Two preachers were to meet at a train station. One was a deterministic, the other a free will believer.. The deterministic said to the free will preacher ah we were ment to meet today. The free will preacher no saying anything got back on his train and leaving the station called out. I changed my mind I'm not meeting you today!
Asimov's idea of psychohisotry is a bit compatiblist. In the far future we have equations that can be used to predict human history, but the individual remains unpredictable. Similar to our ability to predict that a table will not fly apart unless under certain circumstances, while if we look at the individual subatomic particles that make up the table we cannot predict the location or momentum of any one of them, only in a probablistic way.
For now, perhaps. I genuinely feel that at some point. someone will be able to grasp some fundamental physical mechanism(s) that will shift the way quantum mechanics is viewed and understood, much like how Einstein completely revolutionized how we viewed gravity, space and time.
The determinism of the cosmos is what enables all probabilistic systems within it. Quantum physics is a mechanistic system that requires determinism - individual events may have 'random' outcomes (where random is a highly constrained term), but the system that produces that outcome is deterministic. If physical laws were optional, then probabilistic systems would not provide reliable results either. When we say a math model is deterministic vs probabilistic, we are using those terms in a special limited way, to address ONLY the ability to forecast a specific event's outcome. We are not addressing the nature of the math itself, which is always deterministic. And none of that addresses free will. We could live in a cosmos in which there where no physics laws, just endless random events. But that wouldn't give us free will. To have free will you need to describe what exactly it is, and how a creature that is a collection of mechanical processes could "have" it.
Free Will can only be said to be the illogical aspect of the human mind . In principle consciousness has not yet been revealed including its source . However, you still have to undergo the problem of mentalism and things that go against what is deemed not possible
I dont think we CAN know if we have free-will or not at this point of time and maybe not ever. For instance, even if we do have "free-will", that "free-will" is still guided by evolution. From the big picture perspective, evolution seems to be guiding life in a negentropic fashion. However, we don't know what the end goal is or why there is even a force of evolution in the first place. From a more personal/little picture perspective of evolution guiding us, everything we "do" is determined by what we think will maximize positivity (negentropic growth) and/or minimize negativity (entropy). When we synthesize the big and little pictures, we see that even if we make mistakes in the little picture (i.e we "do" something that is not conducive to maximizing positivity/negentropic growth as a result of ignorance), we still can't help but learn and grow from our mistakes. This means that ultimately from the bigger picture perspective, we are still headed towards evolutions "goal" even if we make mistakes in our little picture day-to-day lives. So in conclusion, from both the little and big picture perspective, our "free-will" is really determined by evolution. It would therefore appear as though we don't have free-will by virtue of not knowing why we really do anything. However, it could very well be that upon reaching evolutions endgoal or perhaps somewhere along the journey, it might be revealed to us that we actually do have free-will by some means or another. Nonetheless, at this moment in time, all we can say is that it would appear as though we don't have free-will but simply can't say for sure. My guess is that if we ever can know the truth to the free-will question, it will at the very least require us to overcome the human condition 🤙
In the Laplace universe, quantum mechanics can be represented as classical Brownian or Lucretian motion on the scale of Planck's constant. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is replaced by the Fuerth Uncertainty Principle. The interaction between random motion and chaotic dynamics wrecks the Poincare cycle. Lucretians would then argue this this allows for free will. The brain is a mixture of random number generator and logical processor. The possession of an RNG is just as well, or you would always lose the rock-scissors-paper game even when I disclose to you my prediction of what you will do. Personally I think this is going off on a tangent for the moment. In the quantum universe, we need a mechanism to destroy unitarity and allow big increases in entropy, such as when an alpha particle hits a couple of molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide. I propose this mechanism is the tripartite interaction between tachyonic Brownian motion, the wave function and the electromagnetic field. We may need to throw in chaotic dynamics as well. The point is that TBM is orthogonal to the wave function on its own, which is permitted by the fact that there is more than one way to travel faster than light. I would be interested to hear of other ideas.
You're not your atoms, you are your specific combinations of atoms and how they interact with each other. Atoms combine to make compounds/chemicals which combine to make cells which combine to make tissues which combine to make organs which combine to make your body, brain, etc, everything you are.
So if someone persuades another to do something outside of their normal behaviour , have they stolen their free will? How about people with depression. They know they need to do things that support their self identity but lack the mental and physical drive to do it. Are those free will choices?
Yeah with compatibalism you can see agency is emergent. I think the problem comes when you call it free will, as its not very free in that case. Like in his blue shirt red shirt example, you do have the choice what to wear but its limited by what is in your closet what options you have. I dont think anyone would say willpower doesnt exist, its just that it is in no way free from limitations or influence.
I don’t really know, every act I do is on information I have through time, but, I will think when I get new information this is a way to act differently, but is it for the new information or for my free will then?
Biology and evolution absolutely prove we evolved with a wide range of latent genetics that may or may not be unlocked depending on the experience and environmental input. (Epigenetics). This implies agency. And so the determinist would have to demonstrate why we evolved with this latent backdrop of genetic code. It serves no evolutionary purpose sans agency.
Its simple. One does not choose his past , his genetics , his environment and how he grew up. So i'm not even including physicisme in here. We are just a collection of memories and genes
That's not the point, Mr Carroll. The point is... if there were an exact replica of our universe out there, and in that universe there is an exact replica of you, with all your memories and feelings and cravings and dreams and experiences, will your clone ever diverge from you on any decision-making? The experiences of one's life might determine their actions. And that is a physics-compatible process. We are not necessarily free in so far as our experiences make us what we are. Cause and effect. If everything in our lives has cause and effect, and everyone is victim to cause and effect, how could a replica universe ever diverge from ours and how could our clones ever be different from us?
What's the counterargument to this sort of looking backward perspective: you could have done something so therefore you had a choice, but you didn't do something different. It was a possibility that wasn't fulfilled. Since you didn't do something different, you can't look back and say with certainly that you could have. That possibility is, I guess, unprovable or untestable. Since you didn't do something different then you couldn't have, even if you entertained the idea and therefore perceptually made a choice. Since you can't go back and change it, was there ever a real choice. And that's a related question - choice vs possibility
Emergence does not negate determinism. That’s like saying a building is an emergent property of bricks, but is not subject to the laws of physics. No amount of emergence will change the fundamental nature of how those bricks will behave and those behaviors will affect the building as a whole - ie. entropy
If a person were truly free to choose from any thought or action, then that person would have to know EVERY possible thought or action to choose from. The fact that we are limited to only things the universe allowed us to know, dictates we are subject to the laws and choices the universe determines. This we are not free to decide anything.
I am not free to violate the theories of relativity, even though I want to, because I have no idea how I could violate those laws. I can’t choose to visit the sun, because the universe has not provided me with the knowledge of how to get there.
More importantly, no matter how much might want a thing, there is absolutely nothing I can do to “unwant” it.
- every day I want to believe in Jesus. I ask and I ask for signs. I get nothing. Am I free to believe in Jesus? Is it my fault if I can’t find faith, even though I search for it daily? I cannot choose to believe anything, because the universe has made me and my MIND the way it is and there’s nothing I can do to change my beliefs. Where’s the free will?!
I respect Dr. Carroll in many levels, but I think this is s case of simplicity confusing the wise. You sound like a religious person saying my lack of faith in god is because I have a choice to believe or not - ergo it’s my fault for not believing Preposterous.
For free will to exist, then we must have infinite options to choose from at every moment in Planck time. Anything less means our actions are governed by physics, regardless of how minuscule those governance might be.
Now, could someone explain, with intelligent debate, why I might be wrong. Because I see no other way around this. We cannot know anything the universe will not divulge. We cannot know anything that doesn’t exist in the universe. Therefore, the universe determines our choice, regardless of how much we think otherwise.
I wholeheartedly agree with your position. The weirdest part for me is how his argument is essentially the same as the god of the gaps fallacy: we don't know exactly how humans operate, therefore free will.
That Sean Carroll out of all people would pose such an argument is honestly baffling.
@@howlrichard1028 thank you. I was as surprised by his comments as you.
I believe we are not in control of our decisions, even if those decisions are a mundane as picking a shirt from the rack. Something made us pick one shirt over the other.
A madman cannot decide to be un-mad. He thoughts are the product of his brain.
So y'all believe y'all are robots basically? And y'all are happy with thar? How empowering....
Sabine Hossenfelder in her CZcams: "You don't have free will but don't worry" says: "Particles are deterministic and you are made of particles." Your feelings are an awareness of many of the factors being calculated that determine your actions but you become aware of choices that are determined by those factors. She says: "To say you could have acted differently is just words because...well, you didn't." There is no going back.
Alex O'Connor, CZcamsr Cosmic Skeptic "Why free will doesn't exist," says "There are only two reasons you do anything. You're forced to or you want to. You can do what you want but you can't choose what you want. You simply become aware of what you want.
You pick the blue shirt because you want it more... Why? Could be a lot of factors but at that moment you become aware that you do and act on it. Or you pick the red shirt despite preferring the blue one because you want something else more. It could be any reason but the more compelling want determines your action.
The future is not set because there is randomness in the universe down to the quantum level but while that makes the universe more unpredictable it has nothing to do with will. It simply affects the factors determining your situation and your wants. Predictability has nothing to do with will.
Our choices matter whether there is free will or not because they affect others but what we decide to do is the result of a myriad of factors many of which we are totally unaware affect our calculation; chemistry, mood, circumstance, subconscious trauma... but we are still responsible for our actions because, as we know "if you do harm to others they will take steps to stop you."
Oconnors argument is a tautology. You do what you want to do because you want to do it.
It has no predictive value, so its not science. It has no moral or ethical value so its not philosophy or religion.
Its just restating a pseudoanswer to the question “Why did you do that?” in a different set of words and pretending its deep.
Sabines statement is nonsensical as well. You have no choice but to worry if its all deterministic.
@@Sam-tb9xu : How is her statement nonsensical? It seems perfectly well-reasoned... and that "joke" has been done to death.
Very well written response 👏
Sabine has no idea why there is anything (like the rest us). She should be more humble and admit it is stranger than she and even Einstein can think.
So I could have acted differently because the information I have about myself is incomplete? I was with him right up to this point. I'm still making choices based on the information I have or dont have and so I'd make the best possible choice that I can based on that information. The only way I could have made a different choice is if the information I had was different at that time. Hindsight is 20/20 for a reason.
It's not really a matter of whether you could have acted differently or not. The question itself is meaningless, there is no answer. Determinism and Indeterminism are really the same thing. It's a pointless argument. Your did what you did because that's what you wanted to do. Could you have wanted something else? In a completely different universe perhaps, but in this one what you want is as fixed as who you are. Could you have been me instead? In a purely hypothetical sense, perhaps, but in this actual reality, the question doesn't even make sense.
@@SumNutOnU2b no you can and I have done many things I didn’t want to in order to achieve a goal
@@ishikawa1338 but your want to achieve a goal or your want to please someone who wants you to achieve that goal is what makes you YOU. you cannot get out of this - being yourself. you can try of course, but it will eat you alive
Yeah, it wasn't a strong argument.
@@SumNutOnU2b exactly. the YOU that makes a different choice is not YOU. it's someone else who had something DIFFERENT in their atoms that caused a different choice
wishing to do things that "you wouldn't" isn't what free will is about
you always do what you will do. and yet, you made the choice, therefore the will is there and free
so bottom line is you couldn't have acted differently. saying "given the information you have now" makes no sense, because you didn't have that information, so you couldn't have acted differently. in the end you only think you have free will, which is an essential part of making life work. So free will is an illusion, but a necessary one nonetheless.
=\
Hmmmm... It seems like a slippery slope to me
Free will exists because it was an intention given by a Creator, The Most High. If you don’t believe in it, then explain to me an emotion. “A product of neurons?” Yeah.
@@ettvanligtkonto that’s pure relativism, I hope you know that. It ignores structure, and the measurable degree to which relative perspectives agree, I.e., invariants
@@ettvanligtkonto You're suggesting it is wise to be self-biased, I'm suggesting it is wise to see the patterns in the relativity.
I am matter organized in a system which mindlessly interacts with itself and the matter around it. My decision stems from an extremely complex calculation made by cells in my brain. If this system is free to choose whatever it wants, who is it that wants? How do we define "choice" in this context? How is the decision arrived at?
This is all very mysterious.
The “want” is an incentive, incentives make us do stuff, and incentives are born from social influences and others. Some of this social influences are derived from marketing, culture, our parents behavior towards themselves and us as we grew up, etc. Free will is* an illusion.
@@10sqrftthisthat Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I guess it depends on what the fabric of the universe actually is and how stuff actually works. It seems unlikely that our will is 100% free though.
@Fearless Joy If you pay close attention you will notice you're having lots of thoughts you yourself didn't produce and had no control over. It still feels like "I" want, but the want itself I cannot control. The question then is what my consciousness is, if it's just a brain or something more.
@Fearless Joy Try it yourself. Sit down, close your eyes and focus on your breath. Watch as the thoughts come into your mind and ask yourself if it was you who decided to think the thought. It is hard to read what you're writing, you should use commas and punctuation.
@Fearless Joy I think it's more likely we're tuning into different thoughts. Most of the thoughts you have are not original, but thoughts that others had before that you're evaluating. At least that's how it feels to me. Like if I think I want to have a garden, to even know what the concept of "garden" is, I got it from others. Or if I think that I love someone, that's a concept that I did not make up new, but it existed before me and I was affected by all the culture surrounding it that passed by me.
being able to look at someone's face and predict their actions has zero to do with not having free will. that was quite a jump
I think he was trying to say that the person wouldn't have to physically follow through with an action if their action was predicted. But, you are right, that's a weird and very abstract example.
It's a further take on Laplace's demon - if we (or the demon, or the algorithm) can know everything about someone, we can reliably predict every time how they will act. Therefore, that someone has no free will.
@@katarinajanoskova even if they think they do, if everything is predetermined, it doesn’t matter what you think.
I think it’s more about the thought of free will from one side to another. Sure, that person has the free will to make a choice, but by their demeanor or minor interactions, one can precut at a high probability, their choice. It doesn’t eliminate free will, but it certainly increases the predictability odds. I feel like can be related almost to poker, and why we have “poker face”. Or choosing between an obvious good or bad thing. Sure free will exist for that, but one can probably determine selection odds.
Every part of my physical being was absolutely against the idea of jumping out of a perfectly good airplane. Yet, I jumped. Free will is not about making simple choices. Free will is the ability to do as you choose, regardless of your bodies physiological response to a situation or circumstance.
I’m no expert but the way I understand it is that the next question to ask to get at the heart of the topic is “why did you jump out of an airplane?” Maybe you did it out of pure free will, or, as an example, maybe you learned of someone else doing it and that influenced you to “want” to jump out of an airplane and override your instinct (or equally, maybe you reject the notion of being a slave to your biology and actively rebelled.. pick your poison).
These questions plague me and as a result I find it hard to convince myself that free will exists, though possible.
I see compatibilism as an acceptance of the illusion of free will as if it were real.
Even if you can do what you want, you can't choose what you want. You become aware of what you want. Big difference. Every internal cause determining an action ultimately has it's own external cause determining that the internal cause exists.
It's not an illusion any more than a table is an illusion. It's a concept at a level higher than particle physics. Yes our decisions have internal causes -- my definition of free will is that the decision isn't forced upon us by *external* causes.
If even you choose what you want...Do you have free will?
@@canicekosi9723 : Do you mean... if the premise was opposite would the conclusion be different?
You don't choose what tastes good, your sexual preference, what music moves you, that a chair feels comfortable or not, how people react when they see you etc, etc, ... but if you could do all these things you can't do... would things be different? Maybe.
yeah emergence does sound like a cop-out. Put stuff together, then MAGIC emerges!!
@@canicekosi9723 You've misread @lrvogt1257's post.
I think the best way to look at the concept of free will is to look at it the way we do the concept of time. Perceptually time exists, actually time is an illusion. Similarly, perceptually we have free will, actually free will is an illusion.
Unless there are infinite timelines, which would meant that free will is either completely real or only an extension of determinism. Depends how infinite the timelines are. I think functioning time travel would be the ultimate case for free will as it would go against everything that determinism stands for.
Time is not an illusion. How do you come to that conclusion?
@@dannyarcher6370 According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality. As Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton’s picture of a universal ticking clock.
One of my favorite quotes is by Abhijit Naskar, the author of "Love, God & Neurons: Memoir of a scientist who found himself by getting lost." He said, “Time is basically an illusion created by the mind to aid in our sense of temporal presence in the vast ocean of space. Without the neurons to create a virtual perception of the past and the future based on all our experiences, there is no actual existence of the past and the future. All that there is, is the present.”
Even Einstein chimes in: "People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." In other words, time is an illusion.
@@self-inflictedphilosophy The "passage" of time may be an illusion but that's a different statement.
@@dannyarcher6370 I believe black holes bending space-time is a proof for the existence of time. Right ?
I think that just like we can't explain how conscious experience arises from material processes (hard problem of consciousness), we also can't explain how the physical laws we understand explain how consciousness can appear to effect it's intention and attention, aka some degree of free will. It's another hard problem. Pretending it isn't a hard problem is like pretending we have already solved the hard problem of consciousness just because we understand correlations between nervous system states and conscious experiences. Maybe one day we'll understand, but for now, pretending like there isn't a great mystery at play here seems presumptuous to me.
I think you're falsely equating two very different things. Firstly, consciousness definitionally can't be an illusion. The very experience of consciousness means that it exists. Cogito Ergo Sum, as I'm sure you know. Free will is not the same thing, it's an entirely different category in that it could be felt to exist while objectively not existing at all. Secondly, while both may be mysterious to some degree, it's not possible to feel the nonexistence of consciousness. It IS possible to feel the nonexistence of free will. There are multiple meditations for paying incredibly close attention to your conscious experience in such a way that clearly illuminates the fact that you are not the author of your thoughts or decisions. Sam Harris has lead many of them, and I'm sure you could find them easily if you want to.
Lastly, we know determinism is the death of free will, and also have determinism currently as not only the leading model for our universe, but really the only credible or even plausible model (or determinism plus randomness). There is no equivalent model that is the death of consciousness. Consciousness's origin may be mysterious, and indeed is, but its existence is undeniable. Free Will's origin is not, as you seem to think, "mysterious" in the same way. Rather it's simply impossible. Those are two quite different things. It's provable both objectively and experientially that free will does not exist, and easily possible to see that the reason people think it does is because of an experiential illusion. Consciousness shares none of those qualities. Consciousness is such a different category that we had to give the title of "The Hard Problem", but free will is neither a problem (because it does not exist), nor is it difficult to explain why we feel like it does. Not everything that we feel is true is true, and if we have objective data that goes against those feelings, a rational person must trust the objective data over their sense data.
@@Deifiable I appreciate your reply. I think I understand most of what you are saying. I shouldn't have said "some degree of free will." I should have said something more like, that consciousness does things that are not yet predictable, which I don't think are possible to predict. Determinism may be accepted as the leading model of the universe, but it has it's limits. Causality itself, as useful an assumption as it is for making sense of the universe, has it's limits (eg. why a wave function happens to collapse the way it does). Determinism just isn't enough, and where its usefulness ends there begins another mystery ("Randomness") that is similarly profound to the mystery of consciousness.
I'm not a scientist, just joe shmoe, and I'm sure that there are many flaws in my thinking and understanding, but if anyone thinks the possibility of determinism being insufficient is too crazy, I'd politely remind them to blink their eyes and remind themself of the utterly, mindblowingly, unexplainable existence of the reality that they are aware of right now 😅
Pick a number between 1 and 10. As a determinist the way I imagine this working in your brain is that you have an unstable chaotic neural network that bounces determine yet chaotically between the choices. Pick a number again and the Network will give a different response but that first time you always would’ve picked the same number. However had you seen a butterfly in the corner of your eye the number would have been different.
I agree. I struggle to see how it could reasonably be argued otherwise.
What has any of that to do with free will? You are in control of your voluntary muscles, aren't you? If you reach out and slap someone across the face, who exactly do you think did that?
@@caricue I'm having paralytic attacks understanding your logic
@@Krish-10 My comment was so simple and obvious that in order for it to be confusing, you must have twisted yourself into knots trying to over analyze the easily observable, natural phenomenon that is free will.
@@caricue My response was not about the complexity of your comment. Anyway, do u believe in free will?
Our choices are determined by every experience we've had up to the point of deceiding, and how that influences our options. Change what colour you prefer by remembering different things during the day, and you might choose a different flower to buy for a loved one, because of the flower shops' selection. I don't believe in free will, but I believe calling how we end up making choices for free will is more useful in every day life than not.
What is so useful about it? Please elaborate.
@@bosspoke Because the alternative requires a long explanation that nobody wants or needs. I do make the decisions, but which me is it? We aren't just one voice, our subconscious rule our "self" whether we accept it or not, it just tricks us into thinking we're in control. So we do have free will, if the definition of "we" is any agent expressing its will from within our own minds.
@@martingoldfire I'd very much like to hear your alternative. Not calling how we end up making choices for free will is truthful, while the alternative is a lie.
Save for the experience of thinking you have free will while you do not, what is the benefit of calling it free will anymore once it is exposed? I see no benefit from even calling it free will, hence why I'm curious why you'd think it is beneficial if you do not even believe in it.
@@bosspoke My explanation does not require your immediate understanding, It's not about you.
@@martingoldfire Ohh but it is. It is about me, and it is about you, it is about everyone because everyone is connected.
If you can show me two people each making a decision, how do you tell which one is making a choice that is an act of free will and one that is not? I.e., what does the phrase "free will" refer to? How do I tell the difference between "free will" and "not free will"? Intuitively I feel like I have free will, but I don't know how to characterize it objectively.
I agree, we cannot distill 'free will' from our nature or nurture, genes or environment. I conclude that the concept of free will is similar to the concept of god. Does everything happens for a reason or just a result of a chain of coincidences? This topic was explored in "Devs" series.
Earth seems flat from my stood up perspective.
I just typed
sillsbxyzga!:$,(:6”
Nothing about the Big Bang or the laws of physics determined that.
That is free will.
Thanks for the reminder that free will and determinism are different. I think that distinction often gets merged into confusion. Now as to "atoms have no what ...", well, I don't know. 🤔
When Mr Carroll said that "you could have done differently because initial conditions could have been different" I had to say... well yes, but that misses the point. Initial conditions-in the past-never have been or will be different so you couldn't have done things differently... because you didn't and you can't go back. Things that were... will always be so. No take backs.
You can't choose what you like and therefore what you want. You become aware of what you want. And then, when given the option, you will choose what you want.
It was not meant it that way... it's simply about principle of alternative possibilities
@@ondrejsaly749 : There is no alternative past. I Could do this or that is possible. I could have done differently is only a concept. A fantasy. It is not a possibility.
Even so it's not that you could do something and what you will do will be determined by whatever was happening the instant before and all the interacting factors that preceded.
It's kind of suspect that emergence allegedly only occur when a system becomes sufficiently complex.
It's almost like there's a correlation between how complex something is and how difficult it is to explain.
But what if... since emergent properties are produced by other emergent properties, our consciousness is not the highest layer? What if there's almost infinite layers of emergent properties within our mind?
And at the very end, at the final layer, there's like an entire universe with its own layers of emergence. Dude
Emergence doesn't require much complexity only that new properties emerge from parts that don't have that quality. Wetness is an emergent property of combining hydrogen and oxygen.
yup
Whether or not we can predict behavior is immaterial to the question of free will. And again...if I were in a situation where I made a choice that I later regret, if I could rewind the entire universe to EXACTLY the same state in which I FIRST made that decision, is it at all POSSIBLE for me, with NO MORE INFORMATION than I had the first time, to make a different choice? If so, what is the basis for this choice, and what was the basis for the original choice? Where does either decision come from if NOT from the pre-existing brain state that preceded it?
If you do the demonstration where you simulate a nuclear chain reaction by setting ping pong balls on mouse traps and then toss one into the midst and watch them all go flying, you could NEVER successfully predict the final resting place of every ping pong ball because there are far too many variables involved. But this doesn't mean that the ping pong balls had free will, or that they didn't strictly obey the laws of physics.
If, on the other hand, our choices are simply random, that's not free will either, as we have no control over it.
So really, compatibleism is just a way to try to have your cake and eat it, too, but how does it yield anything that we can reasonably take to be free will?
Reflecting on the possibility of having been able to make a different decision and making a decision are two different things. You could have made a different decision but you didn't. The fact is you ultimately made a choice and you can't take that back. Our brains allow us to use complex thought patterns in order to rationalize what could have or would have been if we had acted differently but once a choice is made its already determined thus it renders the notion of I could have, would have and should have as meaningless as you had a variety of options but you ultimately decided on the one that was most attractive to you.( You made a decision not out of choice but out of a fulfillment of a desire.)
I'm absolutely convinced by the argument against free will, and I believe as a species we would treat each other better if this was a common view.
Agreed
Excactly! Because that would rid us of the "praise & blame" game. We would only see actions as a consequence of the past & a neccessity of the future, and in that way never viewing actions as evil nor good. This detached viewpoint allows true critical thinking and it that way able to strike at the cause of "problems" as we see it, and not the surface.
Hmmmm…no free will means no responsibility…that’s dangerous…just a thought
@@calkrahn9961 But it doesn’t mean no consequences, it simply means no moral judgement.
@@mikeg8028 how is there consequences with no moral judgment? Maybe I’m just not following you. If someone by their free will commits a crime (happens all the time) there are consequences because the law is a moral framework…
The arrow of time points forward in time because of the wave function collapse. Because causality has a speed limit every point in space sees itself as the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past.
It would have been better if the video started with the definition of free will. Once the concept of free will is defined, you could start talking about whether it violates or not the laws of physics, otherwise we could be talking and commenting from different perspectives, since free will could mean different things for different people.
Sean Carrol is the best popular science guy (with Roger Penrose). Love this guy.
I've listened to and read Carroll on the topic of free will and I still struggle to see why his reframing is a useful definition. It sounds like he is a determinist that hides behind the unpredictability of events. Yes, we can make free will exist if we define free will as some type model we use to interreact with the world i.e. we are agents with some number of degrees of freedom and we cannot predict the outcomes of the events beforehand. But this is simply just not what most people mean when they say we have free will and I don't find this new definition to provide any type of additional insight into the problem at hand. When problems are reframed or redefined in philosophy, it's usually to make some greater point, but this definition of free will is just determinism with more words. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
I agree with you. I listen to a lot of Sean Carroll and his argument for compatibilism is the first time I can't accept what he's saying... I defer always on physics but compatibilism isn't physics. It's fine to bring up emergence but I don't thing he explained how that works sufficiently. I know we feel like we're making choices completely independently but why and how we WANT things is as determined as particles. It's just not obvious. Every internal cause of a decision ultimately has an external cause. Our wants are determined by our circumstances and we don't control them.
I disagree that this is not what most people mean when they talk about free will. They talk about making decisions independently from the outside world, and I agree with Sean that it's not in conflict with determinism.
When I drive to work, how is it that I make it there, and not somewhere else? I rely on the image of the road entering my eyes. That’s a cause-effect relationship. When I tell someone my height, how is it that the information I’m saying is accurate, as opposed to a random incorrect answer? Because, I measured myself and got the result that I am now communicating. That’s a cause and effect relationship. To be free of cause is to be aimless and arbitrary.
I don’t think world is deterministic(at least in sense predictable) but it doesn’t prove free will, free will (in definition to do otherwise) even in compatibilism simply doesn’t exist. It gives me comfort to know that I couldn’t change anything by stressing about it, I never could change anxiety itself neither. The world goes on and my efforts to control it is just futile. Even with free will or without.
On an experiential level .. I “felt” that I’m less free when I “think” or when I “analyze”, especially on the objects outside.
I “felt” that I’m more free when I abandon that rational side of me , and tap deep into my inner core, in utter silence.
Once certain depth (which I fail to depict in words) is reached. There is a brief moment of clarity in which I no longer question whether I am free or not free . Decisions and thoughts just flow instantaneously .
It was when I wonder , maybe it”s too early to argue what’s free will…when I have this distance with myself… and what”s keeping me away from it is “noise” and lack of solidarity…
Free will is a powerful and useful illusion.
Get ride of freedom and freewill is quite interesting by all the implications of it. If free will does not exist, merit does not exist and neither does the notion of responsibility, which has enormous implications.
I would also say that some cultures are further from free will, in many Asian countries we talk about luck rather than success.
I would also say that the difficulty in describing the word "free" realizes that we are dealing with a hollow word, and therefore that it would be wise to change this term for people who defend the existence of free will.
"If free will does not exist, merit does not exist and neither does the notion of responsibility." As a practical matter; even without free will all of us interact with each other to determine our actions. If you harm others they will take steps to stop you. If you help them they will encourage you. So we are constrained by responsibility and or rewarded for merit by deterministic factors
@@lrvogt1257 I understand what you said, but it twist the common definition of responsibility, merit... My point is that at the end this words are empty, they depend the morality of a society and echo indivu who compose them.
@@conreo : I don't think so. Responsibility and merit are both about judgement and accountability for one's actions. That doesn't change either way. Morality is conformity to principles or rules of conduct or the rules themselves. These evolve from socialization. So, it's always about society guiding behavior.
One can make an argument for some cosmic objective standard but even that is subject to interpretation.
@shubamrachappanavar2708 : You are made accountable by those you affect as a practical matter. If someone does you harm, then you will take steps to prevent it. When most people agree about what they don't want done to themselves they tend to codify it so everyone knows the rules.
@shubamrachappanavar2708 : I don't think "determined" and "predestined" mean quite the same thing. "Predestined" is more fatalistic as if your future is planned. There is no plan.
We constantly interact and affect each other's behavior in obvious and subtle ways... even unconsciously. Probably mostly unconsciously. We are each some part of the process of determining each others futures but that future is not PRE-determined. One moment is just the direct result of the previous moment.
When we agree on what we don't want to be done to ourselves we tend to make rules to guide people's behavior. We agree to not kill or steal from each other and make sure everyone knows that's against the law and they will be punished if they do. Some people will have cause to do harm anyway but by codifying the rules we try to minimize it.
Okay. I just really couldn't understand a lot of Sean's arguments. There's a lot of logical gap in a lot what Sean has said. Big Think. Come on.
The argument for compatibilism is only stable because we don't now have, and will likely never have, a way to calculate for all the variables that would lead to an accurate prediction of the choice someone would make based on the particles that make up their mind, but that does not speak to the more fundamental question. Assuming we could calculate, we would prove there is no free will. So there is no free will fundamentally. However, we will never be able to calculate this. It would probably take a computer the size of the universe or something, so instead of saying we have free will, which we don't, because of emergence and making it sound all complicated, why not just say we don't really have free will but the illusion will always persist and we will never be able to calculate predictions so we have a version of free will based not on emergence but based simply on the unknowable outcomes and the illusion.
👍
Your explanation is realistic and straight to the point. On the other hand there are many ways of manipulating the market, I was able to grasp the knowledge of trading crypto assets early enough, but i was still limited due to my lack of technical understanding of how to analyse the digital market , all that changed when i encountered (Carol Ann Mcelroy) strategy. I have made about $470k already from her day tradng, all i did was to copy her daily signals, am done having heart breaks hodling and trading myself lol. more emphasis should be put into day trading as it Is less affected by the unpredictable nature of the market
The market is growing daily with new strategies and trading opportunities. Financial empowerment is our everyday chase and Mrs Carol Ann Mcelroyhas proven to be a part of this mission. her strategy is the very best
When it comes to investing, we want our money to grow with the highest rates of return, and the lowest risk possible. While there are no shortcuts to getting rich, but there are smart ways to go about it
Buying crypto does not ensure profit always for you, the market price determines your profit, stop making profit depending on the market price, glad I chose to trade and found out about Carol Ann strategy
I know I've wanted to start investing for a few months, but just haven't had the courage to start because the market has been down for most of this year. Please how can I reckon with such skills and what are her services like?
@@camilamartinez8809 She covers things like investing, insurance, making sure retirement is well funded and looking at ways to have a volatility buffer for investment risk, lots of things like that. You can take a look at her full name on the internet. She is renowned. So it shouldn't be difficult to find her official webpage
The lack of understanding that there is a whole lot more about life that you don’t know and will most likely never find out about is what will keep one from believing that free will exists
every time there is a concept that makes soo much sense and someone trying to deny it for whatever reason. I mean it is crystal clear that there is no free will
His argument basically is "I know everything is deterministic, but I feel like we have free will"
it's about defining free will in another way
Compatibilism is loosey goosey as fuck ~ Sean Carroll
Actually you are just projecting your prejudice. On the contrary, he explicitly and correctly states that he knows the world isn’t deterministic. You should learn about chaotic systems and quantum mechanics.
@@jaddaj5881the world isn't deterministic because there no such thing that can process all the information in the world. Thus, the term deterministic lost it's value to humans. Even so, the world still obey the laws of physics. And that's makes it predetermined from the past to the future.
@@profmonkey0756it's about "we do not fully understand human behavior, therefore we have free will". its like centrifugal force, an illusion that arises from a narrow perspective from which you cannot see the full picture.
You can do what you want but you can't want what you want.
We have a will. That‘s it. Adding „free“ before „will“ just made it complicated.
This does little to quench my thirst for realistic interpretations of reality. While I appreciate the dichotomy of view, I was looking for a dissection of free will balanced upon quantum realism- ideas of quarks phasing in and out of existence, thereby resonating in a way which would unbalance a clockwork-style interpretation of the universe.
I feel the interpretation presented is more of an evaluation of the same phenomena, but from a different perspective or position. Still, perspective doesn’t change the reality of what’s being perceived- we can all watch the car from different angles, but it’s still going the same speed and direction.
Or there’s Bell’s Theorem and good old Heisenberg, but neither of those answers necessarily change a fundamentalist view of hard determinism; moreover, I simply wonder if the interconnectedness of the universe is simply the discovery of yet another phenomenon we have yet to interpret…
If our monkey brains even can.
I am confused.
One moment Sean said that freewill is emergence.
Next moment he said that if people can read micromovements and predict his next action, then there's no freewill.
But how can anyone predict his next movement through anything, if his freewill is due to emergence?
The concept of Free Will may well be an expression of fear of the unknown.
It's as equivalent to the delusion of control which is something we desire at every moment of time. We just not evolved to accept randomness and uncertainty hence the various beliefs we grow up being taught by our predecessors.
Free will is an illusion. We are the mere conscious witnesses of decisions that deep in our brains have already been made.
The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics put an end to determinism - Free Will Rules!
Everything is a giant equation. All cause and effect starting from the big bang. Everything from the four fundamental fources of nature. To Physics from how each galaxy ended up exactly how they are, all the way down to quarks. With humans who you are is predetermined by your genetics, and every enteraction with the environment you have had. Neither of which you control, but turns you into who you are. You may be an agent making choices. But based on the trajectory of everything including who you are, there would only be one outcome for any situation. If you had new knowledge and could go back to the same situation there may be a different outcome. But that's because you changed part of the equation. If you had complete knowledge of the big bang, the four forces of nature, the physics of the universe, genes, and how the environment affects psychology. You could know everything anyone would ever do in any situation.
One problem with free will not addressed here is that it plays well with the dysfunction called tle blame game. When a person does something we regard as bad or evil, we say it's their fault, and generally that categorizstion is the end of it. There are good and bad people defined by their good or bad actions or choices.
When you toss free will out the window and realize that when someone does something bad, it is something they actually had to do as the result of their personal history and the patterns of the neurons firing in their brain, which are beyond any sort of direct control, it sends you into a more productive direction. The non-free will way of dealing with people acting badly is to control them or remove them until and unless we can fix them.
So, are we better with the concept of free will or worse?
Well, whatever answer you give is the answer you had to give. At least, that's what I have to believe.
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.
BRUH that random two button meme in the middle killed me😂😂
Same, I have never seen that version before until now 😆 Love it when established memes are still evolving
@@fightingdreamer8681 yeah he just shaka slammed both buttons!!😂😂
A bizarre rationalization for compatibilism. Fundamentally, the argument is that compatibilism can only exist under a state of ignorance. Clarify how the physiology of the mind works, and compatibilism disappears. The implication is that the laws of physics depend on one's own perception. This would make the study of physics, and science in general, impossible. Ignorance cannot obviate the laws of physics. And no, physics and the operation of the mind do not, to borrow a term of Stephen jay Gould's, exist in "separate magisteria."
Sean Carroll is a brilliant physicist, but - when it comes to compatibilism - I gotta agree with Immanuel Kant who labeled it "a petty word-jugglery." You can get lots of amazing stuff through emergence, but not something that's fundamentally against the nature of the underlying processing.
I think what any reasonable compatibilist is actually arguing for is just “will”. I don’t really see what is free about it. That fact they need to delineate the old concept of free will as “Libertarian free will” ie “free free will” suggests to me that maybe they should just drop the free
How do you know there's no feeling on the level of neurons/atoms? Not saying there are, just how do you know?
we don't know. but the onus is on the party that is trying to prove something exists, such as free will.
i don't know if god or unicorns exist and i should not have to disprove their existence.
The nature of free will is not physical or material.
Compatibilist free will is just a hacky workaround. It's what the rest of us call the _illusion_ of free will.
Wouldn't be the first time that the laws of physics need revising to accommodate the facts.
God doesn't play dice with the universe but D&D players do.
Determinism must imply a) there was a start to everything which knocked down the first domino or b) there is no start yet the chain of events going back is infinite. Scenario A is a contradiction and scenario B) implies infinite possible outcomes which also collapses the theory. What am i missing?
The big bang probably did start everything we know in the visible universe. Because there is randomness in the universe there are eventually a vast number of possible outcomes but in the end there is only one actual outcome. Randomness leads to unpredictability but each moment is still the direct result of the moment that preceded it.
this is so far the best explanation of what is free will.
It is not surprise most people think they are the expert to reason about freewill when they don't have freewill to reason with.
It still comes to the atoms. We are a unique configuration of molecules and atoms. Our physical structure defines ourselves: some are more emotional than others, some get more endorphins in certain cases than others etc. Then it's the environment we grow and exist in. This, I think, will define our will. It is free, yes, but still based on the physical and environmental variables.
So therefore it is not free. You’re always confined. You can’t choose to jump to the moon when someone asks you what you have for breakfast.
Give a Computer powerful enough to scan all the neurons of the brain and simultaneously simulate it, I'll show you how free we are. Lol
@@Gabbargaamada Exactly! We are defined by our physical properties (brain, body) and by the environment we live in. That's it.
A real scientist doesn’t just state his beliefs, he addresses the arguments against him as equally possible as well
I strongly recommend das Buch of Robert Sapolsky: "Behave"
To me, the problem is that we can't really define what "free will" is. Is it a soul moving a body around like a suit? Is it a defiance of an otherwise predetermined outcome? Is it shifting consciousness to experience one timeline of events as opposed to the outcome of a parallel universe? Is it a way of looking at the holistic system of human behavior? Is it something infinitely more complex than any of the above?
It's kind of like arguing whether a hot dog is a type of sandwich. If two people can't agree on what the definition of "sandwich" is, then no amount of studying the hot dog will give them an answer. Likewise, no analysis of human behavior or the brain or psychology or quantum mechanics will tell us if we have free will, if we can't even reach a consensus on what it means to have "free will."
Free will happens with any organism which has a mind and not a memory, a storage of information. The memory of the past makes that past actions have an impact in the present, If there is no memory, past doesnt matter and the organism is aways reinventing itself.
The real question isn't whether free will is a thing or not. We can observe people generating behaviors that they anticipate will get them what they want in a constantly changing environment. At the most basic level that can be called free will. The reason people want to say that this isn't "free" is because of the mistaken belief in the weird doctrine of determinism. Dan Dennett coined the term "intuition pump" for ideas, like determinism, that take over the normal cognitive processes and lead otherwise sensible people to believe in nonsense, like predeterminism or Fate.
Determinism works fine, but only after the fact. Humans are able to use their memory to construct chains of causation that inevitably lead to whatever outcome actually happened. This fools people into believing that the chains were actually there all along, and not just figments of their imagination. Another scenario that leads otherwise sensible people to believe in determinism is the fact that you can do the same experiment over and over and always get the same result. A determinist takes this to mean that there is only one outcome to any event, as if the particle interactions somehow mandate the results, but they don't get that it isn't the atoms that determine the outcome, it is the scientist. He or she can change the conditions and get many different results. We have this human level understanding of causation that is very useful, but it is not reality.
@@Nature_Consciousness what of instinct?
@@caricue I may be reading too deep, but I believe the argument at hand is t one based on one’s perception. My current deterministic view doesn’t shield me from the responsibility of my choices.
I know it’s counter-intuitive, but a lack of free will doesn’t absolve me from the deterministic responsibility of what feel to be choices. My responsibility for whatever actions I took are there, as I continue to act as I am and be who I am.
To analogize:
Even if I’m a song on a record, I’m going to keep the beat by choice.
@@LanceWinder You are illustrating my point about "deterministic" being a mind virus that makes anything sound obvious and self-evident. In fact, what determinists believe is little more than mysticism. What would be the point of even having a thinking apparatus if the decision was already predetermined by some outside forces. Not to mention that anything outside of your mind is mindless and can't possibly make choices for you since particle interactions and forces don't know anything and have no goal or direction? All human choices are based on knowledge and intention, so where in the cosmos can these things be found outside of a mind? Also, if you have no choice in moving your fingers over the keyboard then is it the universe that is writing your comments? Mysticism indeed.
What Sean is missing is the fact that human behavior is also determined by quantum physics and the nature of human consciousness, among many other things we don't really have a full understanding, so making asumptions so categorically about our decision-making mechanisms by only considering the known laws of psyhics, without really having a consistent understanding and knownledge about the quantum science, the unknown phenomena of our Universe and the nature of consciousness, only results in nothing but innacurate conclusions.
Thank you! This is just what I was hoping to read in the comments. Without a better understanding of the mechanics of consciousness, or a true theory of everything, any talk of free-will vs determinism seems highly speculative.
Uh, Sean is quite well versed in QM. Honestly I don't think there are many people on this planet who understand QM any better than SC.
I think the one making assumptions is you....hard determinism is not falsifiable and anyone using HD as a reason for claiming that we have absolutely no free will is the one making assumptions.
quantum physics has never been proven to affect human behavior.
and even if it did add randomness and uncertainty, we would have no control over it and therefore it is not a component of our will.
Yesterday is history
tomorrow is a mystery
today is the present
and that's why it's A Gift
The thing about free will is that whether I actually have free will or not, I still have choices to make. I still have to decide whether or not to pay the electric bill. And afterwards, could I have done otherwise than what I chose? Well, no. Because what I chose was my choice. How could I have chosen something that wasn't my own preference? That's the thing that I wanted to do, and if the universe were different then perhaps I would prefer something else, but things are the way they are.
To ask whether I could have chosen differently is a meaningless question. It isn't that the answer is in any way unlikable, rather there isn't an answer to that question at all. Much like asking "could the apple have fallen upwards?" Perhaps it could have, but only if the universe were different. Only if gravity didn't work the way we know that it does. Much the same with the choices I make. Could I have chosen differently? Sure, I could have, but only if the universe were different. Only if my preferences were not what they are.
I think the argument here about free will is better than most, but once again it fails to recognise an important fact about an agent of free will, presumably trying to make choices in its own interest and that to in fact to do so, demands a largely deterministic universe. It is through identifying patterns that reliably predict the outcome with or without the agents intervention, that in fact grants us free will, and then being able to choose to intervein with the least effort to get a desired outcome. If the universe was largely indeterminant then our predictions and possible interventions would fail much more often. As Sean Carroll points out it is foolish to say determinism precludes free will, because as I suggest free will demands it, but also hard determinism is arguably "Reductio ad absurdum".
All that free will requires to be true is a very little bit of "wiggle room" and emergence is one possibility, they other may be that although deterministic, there are strong arguments there exists some level of indeterminism we can not avoid (I can give those examples if asked). These give us the desired wiggle room for an agent of free will to alter the causes and events into the future. The biggest failing in Free Will arguments is that its definition is weak, until we define it better, it remains a weak position to defend or refute, when you do define it better there are explanations that do not appear paradoxical.
Sean Carroll says we could have done otherwise if determinism is true. But he doesn't think that through. To have selected a different option I would have had to have been on a different determined path stretching back to the beginning of time. It's sheer luck which determined path I was already on.
This is why we do not have free will.
I think free will is a spectrum related to lucidity/mindfulness.
The less mindful you are the less likely you are to make informed decisions when doing something and the more susceptible you are to misinformation, however if you're more mindful you're more likely to make well informed and thought out decisions as well as be more skeptical of what you hear. Things like meditation and psychedelics can lead to more mindfulness.
On another note: You normally never have free will in dreams, just going with the flow all the time. However if you can realize you're in a dream (lucid dream) you can disrupt the flow of the dream, either derailing the plotline, following it, or the most popular option, try to control and change the dream to suit your desires and this can be used to experience pretty much anything you can imagine and it can feel just like real life as well. Lucidity in a dream is also linked with lucidity while awake.
I think this was an oversight in the experiments seeing as how we live most of our lives on autopilot. They didn't account for these possible factors
This view relies upon a dualistic interpretation of reality. In order for your mind to causally influence the material world without itself being necessarily influenced by it it would have to reside in a separate realm to that of the body, a mental realm of sorts. Only in a dual-world can the concept of mind over matter find any plausibility
I would think that making a decision after careful consideration vs instinctually on autopilot involves the same free will, if such a thing exists.
@@thibaudhope2856
The mental realm that emerges from the firing of neurons in your brain is sorta separate from the neurons themselves, although totally dependent on how exactly they are firing.
Everything is following the laws of physics but the mind seems, to me at least, to not only rely on information received from external sources for its state. It’s like there is a feedback loop back into itself.
IOW you can change your state of mind by thinking about it. Dunno if that says anything about free will or not. 🤷🏻♂️
"psychedelics can lead to more mindfulness"
What does that tell you about free will?
It's mindfulness and lucidity that leads me to the opposite conclusion, being able to step back and see your thought processes and drives play out running on their own accord no self no free will needed. Or maybe depersonalization in psyche jargon
That doesn’t make sense. Free doesn’t exits more because we dont know everything. Our choices do matter but we could not have acted differently expressly because we dont know everything you can only act according to what you know
Since people are subject to the laws of nature, as much sense as it makes to be, people are still subjected to that truth and if anyone is subjected to anything, they are by definition, operating or existing within the confines of a predetermined will i.e. the environment. If anyone would wish to experience a realm other than the one that was provided for them, they could consider this plane with all of its natural or immutable laws as a violation of their free will or the primary reason why free will doesn't exist on a fundamental level because "free" implies not being subject to anything. When your "will" unsuccessfully confronts or eliminates resistance the argument for a lack of free will is also reinforced... The awareness of resistance alone will prompt you to think that way even before attempting to use your "free will" to stop the resistance.
Sean Carroll is the best. I learn so much from him and his method of teaching. If one day we have a crazy computer we could to a high level predict what humans will do.
Free will may be analogous to quantum mechanics in that an individual’s behavior is not deterministic but we can make good predictions for many humans using probabilities.
Well, shouldn't this be testable? If we were to create two identical enclosed environments, and in each one place simple life forms (bacteria or fungus, etc) of the same exact genetic sequencing, and run each simulation, then shouldn't anything based on "decisions", such as growth pattern, growth extent, etc. be exactly the same?
Wouldn't variation show evidence of some type of free will being exerted?
It seems to me that free will is a logical impossibility - Either each action I take has a cause - in which case it's not free, or no cause - in which case it's not will.
I also can't see any way to make determinism compatible with an objective morality (but then again I believe that morality is subjective)
I agree, but the discussion about free will is important only if there is free will.
Option number 1: There is free will - we are deceived by thinking that there is no free will, or we are correct that there is free will.
Option number 2: There is no free will - we are right in thinking that there is no free will, or we are wrong, but it doesn't matter since we had no choice, and we can't change anything. Since we can't be 100% sure, you can't go wrong in believing in free will.
You are right, all events are either caused or uncaused, meaning that all actions are either caused or uncaused. Uncaused actions are as good as random, and we would not be the source of such actions. However, there are two types of caused action and event; externally-caused and self-caused. External-causation is when something outside of a thing causes it to change or “act,” and internal or self-causation is when something causes itself to change or act. If there were only external-causation, the actualization of any event in a chain of events would always be deferred by the previous event needing to be actualized, but that event wouldn’t be actualized due to requiring an external cause that isn’t actualized because its external cause isn’t actualized, ad infinitum (on to infinity) because the cause of each event is always deferred and never actualized due to each event always requiring an external cause.
This is one reason why the first event in existence must be an act of free will (self-causation or internal-causation) because the first event can’t be externally-caused and since there’s only two types of causation, external and internal, the first event must be internally-caused and thus be an act of free will, implying the existence of God, since only beings have free will.
To explain this further, an example of external-causation would be one pool ball striking another and causing it to move, the pool ball that gets stricken is caused to move externally. Self-causation on the other hand would be the pool ball moving itself. Since determining one’s actions is tantamount to free will, rather than having your actions determined by an external cause, we can see that self-causation is basically free will.
A further point I might add is that persons (in the philosophical sense) can not by definition be material objects of any kind. This would be like me gathering a bunch of inanimate objects I find lying around and assembling them into a “person.” It wouldn’t really be a person, it would just be a collection of inanimate objects. For this reason, I think robots can never be conscious. If we are our consciousness rather than our bodies, this consciousness must ultimately be immaterial (which would explain why God doesn’t need a cause, but the universe does, in reference to the common atheist’s objection to the cosmological argument, the argument which argues that the universe’s existence requires God’s existence who is uncaused, to which the atheists usually responds in the vein of “if God can be uncaused, why can’t the universe” thus eliminating the need for God, as all form needs an explanation, but the formless and immaterial, consciousness, which is really everything in superposition, does not). Thus, being immaterial, it is not subject to mechanistic causation, but rather is capable of having will because it is a mind (as inanimate objects ultimately do not and can not “act” with will, meaning the brain being essentially inanimate can not have free will). Will, by definition, determining itself rather than being determined by something else mechanistically.
Thus, if we are persons at all rather than merely objects, we must ultimately be immaterial since persons can not be material, this immateriality facilitating free will which is self-causation rather than external-causation.
@@drybeanburrito There is no point in trying to distinguish internal and external causes. If you follow your internal causes back, eventually they will be found to be caused by external causes - ultimately you were a single cell externally caused by the joining of a cell from each of your parents and then responding to its internal and external environment.
@@1GTX1 You're point would only be valid if there were some doubt but my argument leaves no room for doubt.
@@SmileyEmoji42 Not even 0.1% doubt? We can only be 100% sure that we are conscious.
Hmm I feel like this is coming from a position of "we don't know how we don't have a choice so therefore we do have a choice" which feels like a bit of a fallacy. Just because I don't know that a face down card is a King of Hearts doesn't mean I can will it not to be. However I do then concede the potential Schrödinger/quantum elements at that point in certain circumstances...
To me the fact that we cannot see to the bottom of how atoms behave and affect our life is not a sufficient basis for an idea of a free will. It is not important whether WE know our freedom of choice, but rather whether our freedom is theoretically knowable at all to beings dependent of time. If we have only deterministic components, we are deterministic, regardless of what kinds of emergent features we see in ourselves. A completley deterministic being, a being without any freedom to choose, is not a being in the fullest sense of the word. He is reduced into a natural phenomenon, a mere vortex in the flow of events. Seeing him as a body and mind with certain separateness from the environment is just a mathematical convenience. We could not sense the difference between real and illusory existence in ourselves, but our craving to know the foundation of our moral fundaments is not satisfied before we have an answer to this question.
On the other hand, when there is a genuinely free will, the freedom is paradoxical down to the level of logic itself. The free will cannot be deterministic, as it would not be free. It cannot be chaotic, because it would not express anything definable. It cannot even be a filtered version of chaos, as the filters need to be controlled by something, too. The products of a free will could not have any further source, as it would have to create its products ex nihil, making a nothing into a something. The free will is a miracle which defies both our physics and our logic.
The valueless argument about whether our will is free or not is a lot less interesting to me than whether the choice we make affects a quantum field of possible actions. We are "free" in that we make the decision to choose (observe) & it is determined in that our choice is floating around in a field of potentials that don't exist until we observe it. That quantum function could be thought of as the consciousness of matter & energy, what is always there as the inherent property of space.
"Emergence" is doing a lot of work here. What is the essence of something emergent? If it is still a physical thing governed by laws then I don't see the difference and how something can be free just because it's "emergent". For instance, patterns emerge in Conway's game of life, but those patterns are governed by the same rules that the individual cells on the grid are governed by, and you can predict them with complete accuracy. There has to be something more than emergence at play.
I like the video, gives more people the opportunity to think about topics like these.
But I think you missed a crucial part.
Well, 5:06. I think you need to differentiate first, how decisions are made. The argument of anti-free will is not:
"I had every information available to think about, so i chose this way of acting because it was the only way i could react properly", but rather:
"the constellation of our particles in our brain only follow the flow of physics, and therefore create a thought, a decision, and because it was based on physics the particles could not have ended up in a different places, resulting in a different decision." .
The underlying question you have not answered, is whether or not the world and particles create our thoughts, or the other way around, whether our metaphorical mind with its thoughts can physically alter reality, by shaping the flow of the particles in our brain. How are these effects correlated? That is what it comes down to.
Also 4:01, you contradict yourself, saying that if we could measure every microexpression, then the concept of free will might no longer make sense and seize to exist. But, that would only be possible if the theory was wrong in the first place?
It doesnt help that we "probably will never be able to measure everything at the same time", because our technology isnt good enough, this is about theory. And if it was theoretically possible to measure everything and predict behaviour, what you stated, then yes, your theory about free will collapses in itself.
Now, I do think that in the meantime, before we prove or disprove anything, we should act like everyone has free will. Otherwise, this whole kindness and civilisation thing wouldnt work, if we were to act as we were just machines made out of meat and electricity.
So, be kind, civilised, and act as you are responsible for your actions.
The compatibilist idea is ridiculous. Claiming two different levels of abstraction are compatible is a contradiction in itself. If they were compatible, there would be no need for two ways of looking at it.
I agree that compatibilism doesn't make sense. It's like trying to claim a circle and a triangle are the same shape.
I hear nothing about the goal driven biology that we consist of. We have free will to decide on a cellular and bacterial level, depending on the constraints and resources this will yield an outcome. You could theoretically calculate all states of matter and, with high certainty, predict the outcome. But predictability does not rule out free will.
Everything has free will not just living things. Everything is moving and Interacting, with everything it can Alive or not. The universe isn't determined, it's all completely
random. Determined is just
Human organization of nature.
Compatiblists: change the argument so they can feel right
The question of consciousness, free will and cognition is one of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of the ultimate reality. Metaphysics entails ontology; the study of what categories of "things" exist. There are three broad ontological categories of things that exist: 1) Objective things - These are the physical things including all fundamental forces in the standard model (plus gravity), all the "particles" in the standard model and all their aggregations such as atoms, molecules, living cells, animals and plants. 2) Subjective things - These are the things of the Mind which include consciousness (awareness and self-awareness and free will) and the contents of consciousness (perceptions, thoughts, mental images, beliefs, emotions, etc.). 3) Abstract objects - Universal things; this is the Platonic realm.
The question is which ontological category of things is fundamental and which is/are derivative. If you believe that the Objective (physical) things are the ultimate reality, i.e. are fundamental and that the subjective things of the Mind are derivative, you are a Materialist. As Sean Carroll said, Materialism is the prevailing view in science, at least among academic scientists. If you believe that subjective things of the Mind are fundamental and that the physical things are derived from Mind, then you are an Idealist. One or the other...either Materialism or Idealism is true. I do not think there is any "excluded middle." For Materialism to be correct, it has to be the case that the electromagnetic force (which is the only fundamental force that comes into play in the physical brain) and its effects on the molecular components of the brain have to account for all of the phenomena of the subjective conscious experience of Mind listed above. That is a very tall order. Sean Carroll's answer to that question "emergence" is hopeless inadequate. Materialist scientists should be embarrassed by Carroll's very simplistic response. He is simply applying a label to a collection of intractable mysteries. Essentially what Carroll is saying is that somehow, all these capabilities of that which we call our conscious Minds listed above, just magically appear. Does that really sound like a scientific explanation?
So, which is correct, Idealism or Materialism? Stated another way, is Mind fundamental and physical things derivative? Or are Material things fundamental and Mind derivative? Well first off, one hint is that in our human experience we experience physical things only through our subjective conscious Mind. In other words, in our own experience Mind is fundamental and the objective physical things are derivative. Secondly, if we go back to Einstein's famous quotation: "The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible," from the standpoint of a Materialists, yeah, the observation that the universe eventuated in its own understanding would be astonishing and extremely improbable. However, from an Idealist perspective, that the universe eventuated in its own comprehension is exactly what you would expect. In other words, if our minds are instantiations of the ultimate Mind we would expect that we have free will and that Aristotle's Final Causes (teleology) would be apparent. And in fact, as Einstein's remark evidences, final causes are very apparent. Here is another way of thinking about it. What would be the signature of true libertarian free will? Well, the ability to direct our thoughts in order to discover new things and invent new things would be the signature of true libertarian free will. And I offer the sum total of all knowledge and all human artifacts and all human artistic renderings as a demonstration of that. These capabilities could not be explained by the putative programmatic free will functions proposed by Carroll's pseudo free will offered by compatibilism.
So only one objection remains: How is it possible for an immaterial infinite Mind to become embodied in a physical entity such that it can control the physical entity. Some philosophers such as Daniel Dennett feel that this is an insurmountable hurdle. Is it? No. Obviously, if Idealism is positing an ultimate entity that created the universe and all laws in it, clearly, there must be an interface between the two ontological categories. And the method of control would almost certainly involve quantum mechanics. Robert Russell, Henry Stapp, Richard Muller, Sir John Eccles are just some of the scientists who have shown that quantum mechanics allows for a conscious immaterial mind to control a physical entity. Richard Muller in his book Now, The Physics of Time says: "There is nothing in modern science that precludes free will."
Your analysis is pretty good, but it isn't the only way of seeing things. If you invert the paradigm and say that our everyday reality is fundamental and ultimate, and any other superlative, then nothing is derivative. There is only one reality, the one in which we evolved, the everyday world. There are many aspects of this universe that we don't understand, but this doesn't require extra categories or realms, just a little humility to accept that a bunch of hairless apes will probably never have access to what might be called ontological truth, or just Truth with a capital T.
Hello Steve C. Thx for the comment. Sorry I missed your comment until now. You appear to be advocating that the standard monism of Materialism can account for our subjective conscious experience. Is that what you are saying? Pls clarify before I respond. Thx be well.
@@Salv-lj8kj Any categories we apply to nature are by necessity subjective and have no impact on reality outside of our minds, so if by monism you mean that we can make a single category called The Universe which would include everything that happens in said universe, then that's fine, but we make and use categories because they are useful for understanding, so if they inhibit understanding, I am happy to dump them unceremoniously. I don't really want to be saddled with the historical understanding of monism or materialism, so I would not apply them to any of my ideas in most circumstances. I especially dislike the idea that something is derivative, and reductionism in general. I only recently realized that most people don't just see reductionism as a mental construct to help understand nature, but think that it is some kind of organizing principle of nature. Someone insisted that if you split water into hydrogen and oxygen you have "reduced" the water in reality. You may find yourself with an empty water vile and two vili with hydrogen and oxygen, but you have the same amount of substance, but now two different sets of properties to consider. Any talk of "reduction" is only in your perception and understanding, not in the containers.
Having established my eccentric view of things, this is my idea about consciousness. We are solid physical creatures, so while perception, memory, feelings, and cognition are brain functions, that which experiences these things is the living tissue of the brain. The self is physical and anchors the mind to the body, and the mind is simply the output of the brain.
@@caricue Okay Steve but your last paragraph puts you in the category of the current received physicalist view which posits that that which we call mind is something that arises from the physical activity of the brain. But if that is the case then the burden would be on you to explain how our subjective experience is produced by the brain. As I mentioned, I think that is a "tall order" and certainly Carroll did not lay a glove on the intractability of that problem--"emergence" is a word masquerading as an explanation. Philosopher of mind, Jerry Fodor once said, "Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material (one ontological category) could be conscious (a second ontological category). Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious." If you are saying, as you seem to be, that the "mind is simply the output of the brain" then you have to show the causal physical principles that produce the mind. And this would entail explaining consciousness, the contents of consciousness including how it is represented, how it is generated, how it stored and how it interacts with consciousness as well as the overwhelming sense that we have free will. This conversation would certainly seem to require that we have the ability to direct our thoughts. But how can we direct their thoughts without free will? Best regards.
@@Salv-lj8kj I can't imagine how I could have been more explicit. I don't think I believe in what you are calling "consciousness", maybe that's the confusion. I also don't think that determinism is a thing, and causality is mostly a human level, evolved perception and not a feature of reality. We use our memory to construct chains of causation, but they don't exist in nature. In terms of free will, this means that the parts do not control the whole, and the past does not control the present, so our choices are part of the functioning of the universe and not a link in some imaginary causal chain.
This whole subject is coco-loco, to use the technical term. If you meditate and contemplate your consciousness and self from the inside, you can come to many wild conclusions, but if you look at humans from the outside, like an alien visitor might, then you will see a solid physical organism with a rich internal life, and that's it. I don't see any evidence to go any farther, even if what we see doesn't really seem to make any sense.
Out of curiosity, what is your view of consciousness and the self?
Summary: There's three sides. First, libertarian free will, which says the choices we make cannot be explained by physics in principle. Second, determinism, which says everything can be explained through laws of physics and even predict the future, if we know the position and velocity of everything. Third, compatiblist free will, which says everything except the human personality and their choices, can be explained through physics, because humans are very complex and have many layers. But, these two views of reality that can co-exist together. However with significant improvement in scientific understanding, we may be able to predict the future and the human choices could be explained. But that is in the future. I didn’t understand the objection.
Free will is a SOCIAL concept -- it really boils down to who is held responsible for what.
Humans didn't CARE whether they had free will, or what it even might be, until they realized that somebody else might try to punish or control them -- the tribe, a god, a government, etc.
That's when we started trying to define it, so we could map out the nature of these arbitrary "responsibilities" and develop ways to avoid them or exploit them.
It's just another natural competitive behavior, fundamentally no different from mating display.
The belief in free will adds accountability for actions, but the thing is that it is of both positive and negative consequence. You get praise, but you also get blame. The nonbelief in free-will removes the concepts of both praise and of blame. This means that any "criminal" that walks the earth are not "criminals" at all, but neither are there any "heroes" or "saints" so to speak who do what we like to call "righteous" actions deserving of praise.
Why did I wake up this morning when I did? I didn't wake myself up, something else did, and I mean an alarm. Why have I visited the toilet a gazillion times over the cource of my life? Certainly not because I like to be at the toilet, but because I have to. Why do I perform any action given the choice between two actions or several actions? Why favour one over the other? Because one of them "feels" right in the moment. In hindsight it may seem that it wasn't "right" but how can I tell as I cannot predict all possible outcomes of any action I take? I am blindly taking actions at all times, therefore I have no real choice. Taking it even further to a basal level: what if someone were to come stab me to death, would I have any choice but to die? What if I as a completely defenceless baby were killed of during infancy, where's the choice there? I was completely at the mercy of caretakers. Thus all my life has been completely at the mercy of others. Thus there is literally no choice whatsover. You are who you are, and you do what you do, that's all.
But the benefit of not believing in free-will anymore is that you open up the possibility of discovering why people do what they do instead of spending all the time pointing fingers for no God damn reason.
Two preachers were to meet at a train station. One was a deterministic, the other a free will believer.. The deterministic said to the free will preacher ah we were ment to meet today. The free will preacher no saying anything got back on his train and leaving the station called out. I changed my mind I'm not meeting you today!
… and yet nothing states the entire interaction wasn’t predetermined. Including his “decision” to leave.
Asimov's idea of psychohisotry is a bit compatiblist. In the far future we have equations that can be used to predict human history, but the individual remains unpredictable. Similar to our ability to predict that a table will not fly apart unless under certain circumstances, while if we look at the individual subatomic particles that make up the table we cannot predict the location or momentum of any one of them, only in a probablistic way.
For now, perhaps.
I genuinely feel that at some point. someone will be able to grasp some fundamental physical mechanism(s) that will shift the way quantum mechanics is viewed and understood, much like how Einstein completely revolutionized how we viewed gravity, space and time.
The determinism of the cosmos is what enables all probabilistic systems within it. Quantum physics is a mechanistic system that requires determinism - individual events may have 'random' outcomes (where random is a highly constrained term), but the system that produces that outcome is deterministic. If physical laws were optional, then probabilistic systems would not provide reliable results either.
When we say a math model is deterministic vs probabilistic, we are using those terms in a special limited way, to address ONLY the ability to forecast a specific event's outcome. We are not addressing the nature of the math itself, which is always deterministic.
And none of that addresses free will. We could live in a cosmos in which there where no physics laws, just endless random events. But that wouldn't give us free will. To have free will you need to describe what exactly it is, and how a creature that is a collection of mechanical processes could "have" it.
Free Will can only be said to be the illogical aspect of the human mind . In principle consciousness has not yet been revealed including its source . However, you still have to undergo the problem of mentalism and things that go against what is deemed not possible
Definitely, it's beyond physics,science. everything comes under it. Value is untouched than science.
I dont think we CAN know if we have free-will or not at this point of time and maybe not ever. For instance, even if we do have "free-will", that "free-will" is still guided by evolution. From the big picture perspective, evolution seems to be guiding life in a negentropic fashion. However, we don't know what the end goal is or why there is even a force of evolution in the first place. From a more personal/little picture perspective of evolution guiding us, everything we "do" is determined by what we think will maximize positivity (negentropic growth) and/or minimize negativity (entropy). When we synthesize the big and little pictures, we see that even if we make mistakes in the little picture (i.e we "do" something that is not conducive to maximizing positivity/negentropic growth as a result of ignorance), we still can't help but learn and grow from our mistakes. This means that ultimately from the bigger picture perspective, we are still headed towards evolutions "goal" even if we make mistakes in our little picture day-to-day lives. So in conclusion, from both the little and big picture perspective, our "free-will" is really determined by evolution. It would therefore appear as though we don't have free-will by virtue of not knowing why we really do anything. However, it could very well be that upon reaching evolutions endgoal or perhaps somewhere along the journey, it might be revealed to us that we actually do have free-will by some means or another. Nonetheless, at this moment in time, all we can say is that it would appear as though we don't have free-will but simply can't say for sure. My guess is that if we ever can know the truth to the free-will question, it will at the very least require us to overcome the human condition 🤙
The real question is "why do you want to know?"
In the Laplace universe, quantum mechanics can be represented as classical Brownian or Lucretian motion on the scale of Planck's constant. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is replaced by the Fuerth Uncertainty Principle. The interaction between random motion and chaotic dynamics wrecks the Poincare cycle. Lucretians would then argue this this allows for free will. The brain is a mixture of random number generator and logical processor. The possession of an RNG is just as well, or you would always lose the rock-scissors-paper game even when I disclose to you my prediction of what you will do. Personally I think this is going off on a tangent for the moment.
In the quantum universe, we need a mechanism to destroy unitarity and allow big increases in entropy, such as when an alpha particle hits a couple of molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide. I propose this mechanism is the tripartite interaction between tachyonic Brownian motion, the wave function and the electromagnetic field. We may need to throw in chaotic dynamics as well. The point is that TBM is orthogonal to the wave function on its own, which is permitted by the fact that there is more than one way to travel faster than light. I would be interested to hear of other ideas.
Scare is good it means awareness but danger is real and fear is choices
You're not your atoms, you are your specific combinations of atoms and how they interact with each other. Atoms combine to make compounds/chemicals which combine to make cells which combine to make tissues which combine to make organs which combine to make your body, brain, etc, everything you are.
So if someone persuades another to do something outside of their normal behaviour , have they stolen their free will? How about people with depression. They know they need to do things that support their self identity but lack the mental and physical drive to do it. Are those free will choices?
Yeah with compatibalism you can see agency is emergent. I think the problem comes when you call it free will, as its not very free in that case. Like in his blue shirt red shirt example, you do have the choice what to wear but its limited by what is in your closet what options you have.
I dont think anyone would say willpower doesnt exist, its just that it is in no way free from limitations or influence.
I don’t really know, every act I do is on information I have through time, but, I will think when I get new information this is a way to act differently, but is it for the new information or for my free will then?
Biology and evolution absolutely prove we evolved with a wide range of latent genetics that may or may not be unlocked depending on the experience and environmental input. (Epigenetics). This implies agency. And so the determinist would have to demonstrate why we evolved with this latent backdrop of genetic code. It serves no evolutionary purpose sans agency.
Yes!
Its simple. One does not choose his past , his genetics , his environment and how he grew up. So i'm not even including physicisme in here. We are just a collection of memories and genes
That's how a physicist tries to explain away a contradiction he cannot solve.
That's not the point, Mr Carroll. The point is... if there were an exact replica of our universe out there, and in that universe there is an exact replica of you, with all your memories and feelings and cravings and dreams and experiences, will your clone ever diverge from you on any decision-making? The experiences of one's life might determine their actions. And that is a physics-compatible process. We are not necessarily free in so far as our experiences make us what we are. Cause and effect. If everything in our lives has cause and effect, and everyone is victim to cause and effect, how could a replica universe ever diverge from ours and how could our clones ever be different from us?
What's the counterargument to this sort of looking backward perspective: you could have done something so therefore you had a choice, but you didn't do something different. It was a possibility that wasn't fulfilled. Since you didn't do something different, you can't look back and say with certainly that you could have. That possibility is, I guess, unprovable or untestable. Since you didn't do something different then you couldn't have, even if you entertained the idea and therefore perceptually made a choice. Since you can't go back and change it, was there ever a real choice. And that's a related question - choice vs possibility