Can Free Will be Saved in a Deterministic Universe?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 พ.ย. 2024
- PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/Dona...
↓ More info below ↓
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
Physicists have a long history of sticking our noses where they don’t belong - and one of our favorite places to step beyond our expertise is the question of consciousness and free will. Sometimes our musings are insightful, sometimes incoherent, and usually at least somewhat naive. Which a fair description of this show, so of course Space Time needs to weigh in physics and free will..
Check out the Space Time Merch Store
pbsspacetime.com/
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
mailchi.mp/1a6...
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Matt O'Dowd & Bahar Gholipour
Graphics by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini, & Pedro Osinski
Directed by: Andrew Kornhaber
Assistant Producer: Setare Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / @julesschattenberg
Special Thanks to Our Patreon Producers
Big Bang Sponsors
Sean Maddox
Marty Yudkovitz
Brodie Rao
Scott Gray
Ahmad Jodeh
Radu Negulescu
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Juan Benet
Fabrice Eap
Mark Rosenthal
David Nicklas
Quasar Sponsors
Justin Lloyd
Christina Oegren
Mark Heising
Vinnie Falco
Hypernova
william bryan
L. Wayne Ausbrooks
Nicholas Newlin
Mark Matthew Bosko
Justin Jermyn
Jason Finn
Антон Кочков
Alec S-L
Julian Tyacke
John R. Slavik
Mathew
Danton Spivey
Donal Botkin
John Pollock
Edmund Fokschaner
Joseph Salomone
Matthew O'Connor
chuck zegar
Jordan Young
m0nk
Hank S
John Hofmann
Timothy McCulloch
Gamma Ray Burst
Cameron Sampson
Pratik Mukherjee
Geoffrey Clarion
Astronauticist
Nate
Darren Duncan
Lily kawaii
Russ Creech
Jeremy Reed
Max Bernard
Bill Blair
Eric Webster
Steven Sartore
drjyou
David Johnston
J. King
Michael Barton
Christopher Barron
James Ramsey
Mr T
Andrew Mann
Jeremiah Johnson
fieldsa eleanory
Peter Mertz
Kevin O'Connell
Richard Deighton
Isaac Suttell
Devon Rosenthal
Oliver Flanagan
Dawn M Fink
Bleys Goodson
Darryl J Lyle
Robert Walter
Bruce B
Ismael Montecel
Andrew Richmond
Simon Oliphant
Mirik Gogri
David Hughes
Mark Daniel Cohen
Brandon Lattin
Yannick Weyns
Nickolas Andrew Freeman
Brian Blanchard
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Robert Ilardi
Astaurus
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Martin Skans
Michael Conroy
Graydon Goss
Frederic Simon
Greg Smith
Sean Warniaha
Tonyface
John Robinson
A G
Kevin Lee
Adrian Hatch
Yurii Konovaliuk
John Funai
Cass Costello
Geoffrey Short
Bradley Jenkins
Kyle Hofer
Tim Stephani
Luaan
AlecZero
Malte Ubl
Nick Virtue
Scott Gossett
Dan Warren
Patrick Sutton
John Griffith
Daniel Lyons
DFaulk
Kevin Warne
Andreas Nautsch
Brandon labonte
Lucas Morgan
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
When PBS Spacetime uploads, I click. Not sure how much free will is involved there.
ok
More Pavlovian
@@LavaCreeperPeople b'okay
Emergent subscription
It were just my atoms predetermined to write this comment.
Hey everyone, I'm so excited about my first co-writing effort with Matt.
(I'm especially proud of the last line!)
You did well! I can't wait to see more of your co-writing efforts!
Could we get a part 2 maybe? (Pretty please?)
Mind blowing episode.
Don't be shy to shamelessly advertise your own channel if you ever decide to make some more of your own stuff.. You can always say you didn't have a choice afterwards, no free will.
Proud and happy that I now know you worked on the script of this episode; keep up the good work! And, push Matt to make more videos on this topic and other topics related to neuroscience!
"I'm gonna end the episode without saying "space time."
Actually, quantum mechanics forbids this.
if anything the founding principal of quantum physics forbids knowing until heard.
Data point of one, but I'm convinced.
That's a tall order to prove, but all the empirical data supports your statement. Count me jealous.
@@christophersheffield9574 Another fun epistemological category that seems unincorporated here is that which is knowable. Say you know of two unconfirmed options, the knowledge of those options has its own having been "heard"
He said it actually.
"we must believe in free will, we have no choice"
Well, then I refuse!
For many this is a valid statement.
Good one, but how ironic. The fact that you don't have a choice eliminates free will.
Sums it up pretty much
@@francoisdesnoyers3042 But you do have a choice. Given a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, every event is causally necessary and inevitably will happen. This means that it was inevitable that a choice would have to be made and equally inevitable that you would be the single object in the universe that would be making that choice. Free will is inevitable.
This channel has a knack for posing a straightforward question, and answering it so thoroughly that I come away more confused than ever.
When I clicked on the video I thought I was about to find out something almost religious. Im with you, I now question my existence and my decision to play this reality from the hollideck selection.🤷♂️🤦♂️
@Society Destroyer being taught how to think is fundamentally how education works. You don’t want to teach information because we do not retain it well; you want to teach algorithms or constructs that allow you to think in ways that you would have never thought had you not learned that skill. For instance, Machining. All the information for any machine job can be calculated by a calculator and ran independently of a person. The issue where machinists come in is when abstract concepts that adhere to multiple possible substrates of logic that could reasonably determine the correct result and how to make it. In machine class they teach you how to think like a machinist so you can machine. Just because you’re a competent person who can read manuals and apply math doesn’t mean you can just decide to be a machinist; however conversely, it is possible for someone to develop these skills on their own, as how else would we derive the systems? But to say that we should not allow another to influence how we think is the same as saying we should have the same lives we did as cavemen. We build on the foundation left by our predecessors.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure free will is just our brain reacting to our senses and stored memory. Simple as that.
U haven’t done ur job unless u come out more confused.
Yeah this could be incredibly more simple without Losing the important details. But what would be the fun in that?
Came for the science, stayed for the existential crisis!
Commented due to deterministic physical tendencies
@@Terminus316 Commented due to deterministic mental tendencies. 🙃
I always say to myself that it doesn’t change how I live so I don’t start using determinism as an excuse.
Commented late due to relativistic psychological tendencies
Just because our paths our not our to operate, does not mean we can't enjoyed the experience :)
Things I took away from this episode:
Atoms are not made of appleness
My takeaway was that i'm dumb af
That's honestly a really good takeaway.
Atoms are not red. They do not have taste. They do not grow on trees. And yet, the apple has all of those properties.
I have never thought about emergent properties in that light before, and it's...interesting....I think. Truth be told, I'm not really sure what to make of it.
It's not "appleness", but the universe is shaped like that. Imagine the earth as a seed in that apple spinning around it's core as it grows
@@tomc.5704 imo there no such thing as an apple. Apples are just an arbitrary arrangement of atoms and molecules that tend to have a general shape that we recognize as apples.they have not gained any new properties.
@@tomc.5704 a sum is more than it's parts. some sort of entropy has to be factored in
Ivan Pavlov went shopping & heard a bell ring, and he said “damnit! I forgot to feed the dog!”
lmao
Now that's funny.
"heard a bell ring" Who rang the bell? The dog did.
I love you
He made a decision to set the alarm.
This idea sent me into a 6 month existential crisis that I only got out of because I decided that, determined or not, experience is still novel to the person experiencing it.
That's why you use equations, don't go too deep on life tought or you're gonna deny the existence. Try to approach it more methodical and judging it more like a movie than attaching the tought to yourself. I've been there too ;)
And it doesnt feel deterministic to the person experiencing it!
Experience can never be novel to anything but experience since the 'person' is novel to the experience of the 'person' experiencing it.
I like thinking about philosophical questions like this, and I am pretty sure I have no free will. However I can also leave that thought behind and have fun once in a while.
@@MrBeezweeky experience can't be anything unto itself
I flipped a coin to decide, and apparently I do have free will. Take that determinism!
Oh wait a minute...
Food for thought:
If a cosmic gamma ray from a hawking pair nearby an event horizon activated a neuronal pathway when your muscles were launching the coin, causing it to spin at a slightly different speed and to a larger height, would that not be considered sufficiently of random origin to constitute free will?
If an apparently random quantum decay damaged a neuron, causing you to spontaneously choose a coin toss versus having a passive statistical distribution laid out in your neural network, could that be considered free will?
Does the existence of ionizing neutrino radiation, being hitherto unshieldable in any feasibility, rule out the concept of controllable determinism in any advanced intelligence system?
Should we build a simulation where naturally occurring intelligent agents have all the characteristic properties which we enjoy, including free will?
Are we truly fully capable of being in control of what we consider to be intrinsic sources of "free will"?
Ah, but little did you know, I always use a double headed coin. Take that Kobayashi Maru!
Oh wait a minute...
"I got here the same way the coin did" - No Country for Old Men
Been waiting a number of years for someone to come out with this topic at a sufficient level of information density and quality. Good on you.
Probably the strangest situation is when you preform an action, seemingly by free will, and then you think back on your own history to find the events in your life that would've led up to such an action. With or without free will, we are ultimately products of our environment, and had I grown up in a different environment, even if I had the same genetics, I would've made very different choices due to experiencing different situations. Sometimes a chance happening somewhere can change your fate in a way far beyond what mere choice alone could do without that luck.
I think about how I came to like the game Omori, with a simplified causal chain of 60 elements from the first "thoughtless curiosity of a 2 year old" about a computer, in the shower. The trick is that the only downside of acting like you have free will (and not spreading that knowledge unprompted) is that mass media can manipulate you a little easier, and it comes with good benefits like morale in the face of a bad situation and encouraging critical thought. I don't know what definition of free will I am in possession of, but I pretend that I have one if I don't, and exercise it if I do. Easy.
@Morgan Allen Exactly
Imagine a different universe and with the same conditions as right now lets say you decide to eat bread, the other universe that we made has the same past and all the previous actions the same as this universe till the moment you decide to eat the bread so now tell me would you eat a pizza in that universe
Logic says you will eat bread in that universe too
Genetic determinism is the one rabbit hole that many never seem to want to go down but it, along with the environment is just as deterministic heck it might even be more so.
Yes that is called cause and effect
Reminds me of Dr. Farnsworth's Death Clock.
"So it predicts exactly the time you die?"
"Well, it can be off by a second or two, what with 'free will' and all..."
Thank you for the specific punctuation.
"Good news everyone! There is limited free will."
Lol sounds just like him
Dibs on your iPod!
The existential question ripped in half by a rational algorithm... maybe this explains the end of Futurama lol
"In the end this is all semantics"
I've noticed this is frequently more and more an issue the deeper we go. Our normal intuitions, semantics, and our way of perceiving and looking at things seems to break down.
Perhaps thats the great filter
It's more a problem with language.
@@alext5497 Well kind of, but really even our concepts start to blur, for lack of a good example right the moment.
Edit: actually the way we view time is good example. Many people have no idea what space-time is or refers to. The way we think about time in our regular everyday lives is slightly different.
Our brains aren't built to understand the world as it is. They are built to understand a heuristic model of the world that we create.
So, the deeper we go the more our heuristic fails. But it works most of the time and we can do experiments to discover the differences.
@@Wavecloudlining "Semiosis" Cheers! I just learned a new word thanks to you and wikipedia 👌
This is by far one of my most favorite channels. It excites the imagination while educating you that reality is so much stranger than what it seems
After reading your response I believe you would enjoy the Consistent Calvinism podcast. Have you heard it yet?
consistentcalvinism.podbean.com/e/free-will-is-logically-impossible-for-us-calvinism-vs-arminianism/
I’ve been watching several TH-cams on this topic. Most place a ceiling on the potential complexity (wrt Science & Philosophy) and while possibly reaching a wider audience, fall short of crucial aspects. this talk breaks those barriers without becoming too hard to follow. A good result is that we are inspired to think more about the issue rather than given hard answers. This is, after all, Good Science.
I'm usually able to say "Space Time" when he does. You got me this time. Best ending ever :D
Yeah pretty good, I was wondering how he was going to work that in there
But did he fail to use his free will or not? *ponder*
I usually catch it half a minute before it happens, I can just tell when he's wrapping up to the words "space time," it's always very pleasing having him close with the channels title, this one caught me off guard.
This is a fascinating discussion, but I'm afraid it'll never end.
One of the most fascinating things to me is that despite all we have learned about the world, we are still no closer to settling the debate on free will. For a while, it looked like determinism was going to be the clear winner. But now quantum physics and the nature of consciousness have shaken things up.
Maybe we'll never know. Maybe it's ambiguous. Maybe there's always another layer, and sometimes it will look deterministic, sometimes it won't. Maybe it's turtles all the way down.
And it is an expected comment.
I agree that here on this plane of existence, or in this universe of the multiverse we probably will never know the answer to the "free will" you question. However, I think somewhere there exists a highly intelligent conscious entity that knows the correct answer.😬🤔🥴🙄
It's like walking along the railway hoping that the two parallel rail tracks will meet at some point.
GOOD, I WOULD HATE TO SEE A UNIVERSE SO DEVOID OF MYSTERY THAT WE HAVE ANSWERED EVEN THIS QUESTION.
Probably one of my favorite episodes yet. I love how you tackle this topic in the sense that it's basically a paradox in itself and we know that more ideas or answers will simply create more questions and doubts about it. Keep up the good work!
yup. 'twas well done. :)
Another killer episode! SpaceTime's been cranking out some bangers. When Matt was talking about "emergent phenomenon, conscious free-will can recursively influence the machine itself", that was some powerful stuff and reminds me of those people who say "Computers can only do what we tell them" and little do those people realize that self-modifying programs are pretty much Artificial Intelligence 101. I also like how, on a previous episode about determinism, you essentially related the relativistic block-universe to the quantum many-worlds and that's cool because I had a serious misunderstanding that the many-world somehow meant, every future and that's not true, it's "every _possible_ future" and that's a much different landscape of reality.
This topic has been a particular interest to me so I'm really happy you covered it, love the work keep it up!
Same here. Been following Closer to Truth?
this topic bothers me since...my birth, literally, but nowadays i know that the free will is predetermined - it's just the illusion of "choosing against the expectable" which has it's root in the bigbang
Related scene from a great movie: th-cam.com/video/4arOKZvuZK4/w-d-xo.html
Suggest watching exurb1a if you're down for a philosophical joy ride, he did a podcast I can't quite recall the name of but it covers this topic excellently
@@Dichtsau your logic is illogical. Read your own Comment. You know that 'free will' is 'predetermined' is a contradictory statement. It's just the elusion of the ' choosing against the expectable'; any choosing requires freedom to choose i e. Freewill. All the confusion will disappear if and only if you believe in the God of the Bible. The Bible is the precursor to science. The scientific method is actually the Biblical method. Put everything to the test and hold fast to that which is good. People need to read the Bible for themselves and let the Bible interpret the Bible. It's the ONLY book EVER written that stated that everything detectable is MADE FROM THAT WHICH IS UNDETECTABLE. Scientists have discovered this recently. So using their own limited intelligents they surmise that the universe came from NOTHING. How Stupid is that? The Bible is the ONLY book EVER WRITTEN that stated that the universe had a beginning, has FIXED laws of physics, is expanding, and has a CAUSAL AGENT OUTSIDE OF ENERGY MATTER SPACE AND TIME. The latest spacetime theorems state that ANY UNIVERSE LIKE OURS MUST HAVE A CAUSAL AGENT OUTSIDE OF ENERGY MATTER SPACE AND TIME because all have a beginning just as the Bible stated VERY CLEARLY. The Bible also gets all the conditions and sequence of Creation events 100% correct. No OTHER book COMES close. The Old Testament PROPHECISED the birth life ministry and death of Jesus Christ and the New Testament fulfilled those PROPHECIES exactly as PROPHECISED! Only God knows the end from the beginning. Time to wake UP to the truth before it's too late. Jesus Christ FORETOLD many events that came to pass exactly as PROPHECISED. He said he is coming back and all the signs that He TOLD US to watch for, are happening right now. He said when we 'SEE' THESE SIGNS, know that He is at the door. The generation that SEES THESE SIGNS WILL NOT PASS AWAY BEFORE HE RETURNS. If all the other Prophecies have come to pass and they have, surely This Prophecy will also. MARANATHA. God bless and enlighten everyone.
I saw a video once where they explained destiny as not a line but a platform, and free will was just us moving in that platform. They put a mouse on one end of a table. The mouse was able to choose where ever it wanted to go on the table, but the table determined it would always end up at the other end of the table, no matter what the mouse chose.
14 minutes well constructed to say, 'Freewill as a concept is unknowable; much like consciousness.' I'm OK with that; it's great to continue pushing our knowledge and boundaries. It's also wise to remember this question has been and likely will be with us 'forever' (w/two little girls holding hands in a hotel hallway). Cheers Space Time
How is consciousness "unknowable" as a concept? We experience consciousness every day... However we do not experience such a thing as "free will"... Consciousness is there when you look for it - complete authorization over your neurology is NOT
@@Mageblood experiencing consciousness doesn't have anything to do with consciousness being unknowable "as a concept".
If you can generate random ideas and simulate them in your head and judge them by your own and/or hypothetical criteria, how is that not something which at the very least approximates free will?
13:19 "I am now going to exercise my free will to not end this episode with me saying "SpaceTime"..." - oops...
That's kinda deep
"I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe!"
I see this comment in every video about free will, and i like that
Bite my shiny metal ass.
u dont believe in the free will :/
m8 ur a robot xd
All of you only believe this is happening because I programmed you to believe it.
@@ToxicTerrance you think you programmed them because I programmed you to believe
This question is very interesting and I have often thought about it. Having it analyzed scientifically has really broadened my horizons. Very interesting video.
Randomness: Doesn't affect freedom, decreases reliability of choices.
Unpredictability: Doesn't affect freedom nor control of the future.
People want to feel in control. The things above won't help. For some, trusting the thinking algorithm to make good choices is comforting enough. Learning to choose better or overcome cognitive biases can increase this trust.
Yes, thank you!!!
You are talking about very different things.
The video is about physics, determinism and quantum mechanics. Your comment is about the human brain, neurology, and psychology. Two separate things.
But I totally agree that people link these things because they want to feel comforted by the notion of having control.
"Doesn't affect freedom, decreases reliability of choices" - if you dont see contradictions here and in the rest of your comment, than you are free willed to live in your bubble universe.
Matt specifically started the video explaining flow of quantum information yet you didnt even noticed that. About what cognitive biases you even talking about?
@@antares-the-one Why such angry response?
Perhaps you misunderstood what I mean by "freedom". I mean it in the way Matt presented it in the beginning of this video: being the author of your choices (as opposed to your choices being predefined, or being determined by a random coin flip). If no deterministic process and no indeterministic process leaves room for such freedom, it doesn't matter how much randomness you have. And Matt agrees.
And the reason I said that randomness decreases reliability of choices is because I'd rather know for certain that I won't randomly choose to punch myself in the face, a more deterministic decision making process is more trustworthy.
Later in his video Matt plays with a different way to define free will, but - as Sabine Hossenfelder put it - this is just verbal acrobatics. I'd rather call deterministic unpredictability by it's name, rather than attaching the label "free will" to it just to have something I can call "free will". This definition of "free will" has no value.
I recommend you watch Sabine Hossenfelder's video on free will, I agree with her entirely and she explains it much better than me.
@@potato4360 deterministic unpredictability - now we talking! I think it is obvious given current state of physics. And it removes the "free" part from free will in both cases of determinism and all levels of randomness. In this case it should be called "unpredictably determined will" or you name it
I can't really comprehend nor understand what is even being described anymore
Hahaha, I was asking myself how were you going to end this espisode saying “Spacetime”. That was witty :D
Yep, this one made me grin wide!
One of the best Space Times I've seen.
Great ending.
Deep Thought : "I think your problem is that you don't really know the question"
I really yes the question
I don't know the question, but the answer is 42
@@masattac what??
"Is that all you have to show for five and a half years of videos?!"
@@masattac Brilliant
This episode was definitely a "okay I need to rewatch that again to be able to make some sense out of it" type. I really enjoyed this shallow little dive into physics and philosophy, and I'm very interested for the quantum and consciousness sequel.
I see a video, I click. No free will here
Even if its quantum and unpredictable, its still not free will - its just a roll of dice.
And we are at its mercy.
@Reverend I think it goes further than that. I know of no definition for "free" and "will" that I'd be able to recognize, such that we have "free will". Now I'm sure you can come up with _some_ definition, but those would be about as similar as a byte in IT and a bite of bread - your ideas about the one have pretty much nothing to do with your ideas about the other.
And roll of a dice is not unpredictable. Our perspective of it makes it look random.
The universe is neither completely random nor completely deterministic. It is a mix of both, and therein lies the possibility of free will.
@@KaiHenningsen free will is the ability to grasp the extent to which you can interact with your enviroment (this includes the ways you can't interact aswell)
, those interactions include hypothetical interactions, that can take form in subjective ideas
Reminded me of Christopher Hitchens' quip during a debate "Of course we have free will. We have no choice but to have it." Miss that guy.
Isaac Bashevis Singer said a similar quote, "We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
I once knew a guy with the same name as u :o
@@3moirai though i still don´t see how we even experience an illusion of free will. no reason to assume it.
Reminds me of a story I read from an ancient greek philosopher. A man catches a robber in his house so he starts beating him. The thief says "Do not beat me up, I can not help but steal, this is my nature". The man replies "Do not complain, I can not help but beat those who rob me, this is my nature".
The conclusion that "free will" can exist if it is defined as an emergent property does not negate the fact that cause and effect are never broken, and that a "new thought thread" can never happen.
I find it interesting WHY people have such a bias toward "free will"
WHY is that??
I don't have a problem with living in a deterministic universe at all
Perhaps you are unique, but most people seek to live virtuously and do good in some way or another. Not having free will changes the way we interact with the concept of virtue and the gods
@@benmorgan1718 agree that a belief that everything is determined lets a person ignore moral and ethical responsibility before God---and that allows us to opt out of the need to react justly and in love toward one another. A totally deterministic view comes at great price.
It might be helpful toward your answer as to why you find determinism satisfying, to explore what you like about that view.
"I don't have a problem with living in a deterministic universe at all"
Then you don't really have a choice to have a problem or not, do you?
I think people are very confused about what "free will" means, switching definitions of free will mid-argument sometimes. For example, someone might argue that you are only responsible for your actions if you have "free will". Then they will say that if the universe is deterministic, you do not have "free will". So in a deterministic universe, nobody is responsible for their actions, legally & morally speaking. However, the "free will" of a discussion around personal legal and moral responsibility is more about saying that you were not forced to do it, it wasn't an accident, and you were not suffering from some kind of mental issue that prevents you from making decisions as a human normally would. These are not really relevant to a discussion of a deterministic universe.
Free Willy: about to jump out of the tank
PBS Spacetime: Actually, quantum mechanics forbids this
Underrated comment.
Sir, you made my day.
Loved the last part about emergent phenomena , you made a great precisation ! Reductionist science has always been correct but that doesn't mean its always the full story...especially on deep , complex and not fully understood subjects as consciusness or free will. Electrons in your brain might not be forced to make you say "spacetime" as your last word in every video...but they might just be loving it !
When I was very little I could enter sometimes in some very peculiar state of mind. It feels like a deja vu but isn't. It started with the question "what happened if I chose another action?" that popped in my mind every time I did something, anything, even moving a part of my body. "What happened if I chose differently? Would the future be the same? Do my actions have a domino effect going indeffinitely?" I knew nothing then about physics or quantum mechanics but it bugged me so bad. It got so intense that I felt tired when it was over. It's safe to say that now, 20 years later I still can't answer those questions satisfyingly
Standing policy for me is that wether or not I COULD have chosen differently, I would not want to gamble with my whole life. I mean, if a single choice a decade back can just leave me in a similar world but with half my friends and an addiction, then it's no deal.
Matt you deserve an award for the script of this episode, it was not just insigtfull but also fun and full of wordplay, thanks a lot for the great work, I would like to ask if you could make a video about emergence, both soft and hard emergence and if possible about the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor (you mention it a long time ago but haven't got to it yet)? I know you are super busy with all your work so sorry to bother but if you read this I will be very gratefull :3 hehehe
Bahar Gholipour is co writer
@@mmoviefan7 Thanks for letting me know :3 I will search about her :3
“Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them.” ― John von Neumann
“Invoking quantum effects is just hand-waving. Just means we don’t know." - Dennis Taylor: We Are Legion (We Are Bob) (Bobiverse Book 1)
As a human, you do not need to understand free will, you just need to get use to it and believe you have it.
As an engineer, you do not need to understand Quantum Mechanics - just need to get use to it.
As a human, we must simply accept that our definition of free will, which western nations inherited from christianity, is simply false. If free will exists, we would currently not consider it free.
@@xellos5262 is not false, it just an illusion
Time also is an illusion and it's not false.
And christianity didn't invented free will, that is a universal believe
@@ThePowerLover I now assume you missed the word definition in my comment.
@@xellos5262 Yes, I did.
But I insist on that this definition preexist avery religion. It's exist, basically, because of our ego...
@@ThePowerLover So you think that saying a "definition is an illusion" makes sense? I gave you an out, a chance to think clearly about what you just said, and instead you double down. Our definition of free will, in the western nations, is clearly and fully derived from our christian heritage. Other cultures might have had similar definitions for it, but certainly not this particular one. Free will on its own can neither be proven nor disproven. When a deterministic system is too complex to overview, you cannot distinguish it from a chaotic system. To claim otherwise is lunacy. Just as unrestricted free will is.
Katsumoto: “You believe a man can change his destiny?”
Algren: “I believe a man does what he can, until his destiny is revealed.”
Damn, bro!
but how do you know his will to change destiny is not pre-determined?
They are all perfect...
Alot of nothing
@@never._.mind._. This is a quote from a movie, and it is a simple explanation that I like to share with laymen. Me personally I had the exact idea of Laplace's demon when I was a teenager, before even knowing who Laplace was. Quantum mechanics did not change that theory, it actually verified it in a way. So it is all pre-determined (not that some other consciousness pre-determined it for us humans; it is just pre-determined by the nature of the laws of physics.) It is this way in our perspectives i.e. human brains cannot and will never ever evolve in a way to surpass this. Assuming there are higher dimensions (very high probability there is) we will always be limited to the 3 physical and 1 time dimensions because our brains and bodies are made in such a way it will not allow us to be aware or conscious of other dimensions.
Excellent discussion. I love the example of an apple's atoms not having redness or "appleness". Emergence in Systems Thinking/Systems Theory, the idea that a system can have properties that it's parts do not have, is key to this debate. The brain is not randomly processing information in a random way. It evolved to solve problems and make decisions that increased the chances of surviving long enough to pass genes onto the next generation.
Each individual calculation by the brain is driven by deterministic laws of physics, but they all align to the state or memory of the system. Your brain has a mental model of yourself, the world around you and your place in it. A cosmic ray might might hit one of your neurons and cause a cascade of effects that pops a strange idea into your head. But if that idea doesn't conform to your values, beliefs and world view it will be dismissed. Our behaviour isn't random and it is justifiable to say we make decisions of our own volition without denying the deterministic nature of the parts that generated that outcome.
i tend to think of a computer... it's software is practically a wholly more expansive paradigm than just the sum of binary hardware, ever more so what you personally choose to do with it, and even more so the resulting informational culture ecosystem... to just say, oh, the entire history of the internet is just you know bits, whatever, is about as reductive as saying art is nothing more than sensory perception and thus devoid of any more significance to anyone full stop, and the entirety of human culture and psychological experience as devoid of meaning as any random pile of rocks, an accidental aberration of arbitrary matter, as if human experience can't possibly exist as its own realm of consequential meaningfulness within itself (regardless of what "harder" substrate it might be generated upon/within) despite that underlying fundamentally all of our entire lived experiences of it, however unexamined.....
Thought experiment! If I were to make a perfect quantum level copy of myself, put him and myself in 2 separate but perfectly identical rooms with telephones in them connected to each other, and tried to have a conversation with myself. Would I ever be able to converse? Or would we just keep interrupting each other endlessly saying the same thing at the same time?
That’s a stunning thought experiment.
Maybe for a little while. Then you would get annoyed and hang up.
The rooms would have to be a closed system with no influence from anything on the outside. Say there was a gravity wave that made one room expand and the other contract, you would then be two different quantum systems and would not be the same any more and then be able to converse with someone very similar to yourself.
@@Aquillyne Yeah, it's been driving me nuts for years now as I've not had the physics skills to really answer it. But this Space Time episode seems to do it, or at least come really close. The physics (as explained in this episode) seems to point to conversation being possible because of the random qualities of quantum mechanics (regardless of Copenhagen vs many worlds). That randomness would eventually manifest itself into consciousness and cause a "split" in what each copy would want to say. Eventually (or maybe instantly) each copy would have made different "choices" as to what to say and a conversation could be had.
And that seems to point to free will being real.
@@DestinovaDrakar Yeah I understand, I mean for thought experiments it's not really about it being actually possible to execute it. Just imagining for a moment that all conditions were perfect for the experiment would a conversation between exact perfect copies be possible or not.
@@mattk3233 I agree up to a point. It's a great thought experiment because it really targets the question of whether the universe is deterministic. I agree that according to current quantum theories, you could have the conversation due to randomness. However - as is noted in the episode - it doesn't help the case of free will to have actions caused by randomness. That's just random actions, not freely chosen actions.
Hot take: as long as it feels like free will and is actionable like free will, it doesn't matter if it actually is or not via physics
Pray tell, what do you mean by "actionable"? You have a thought, you have a reaction to it (me like/ me no like), and what you've decided to do is now another thought.
@@godsofwarmaycry right, which feels for every intent and purpose like free will. So if it feels and acts like free will for every intent and purpose, it doesn't really matter if it's because of underlying predictable chemistry and physics.
Now if you could start to change people's decisions based on perfect knowledge of their underlying chemistry and physics, that'd be a different story because that's actionable. Now it comes into play in real life terms and consequences
We'll never know because free will and non free will are just equal to each other
Furthermore, even if our brains turn out to be purely mechanical and relielable algorithm executors, you are the only individual with your specific set of inputs (all your life up to now), so nobody else would be able to output the same decision, even at the same time in the same situation
We are all in the Matrix.
I read the title as “does physics negate free wifi”
Yes, yes it does.
Absolutely not...it provides for it 😎
That's economics.
@@Sam_on_TH-cam That's thermodynamics.
Free Wifi creates a gravitational data field which attracts mobile data misers, negating the availability of free Wifi. So the answer is Yes.
13:00 That covers just about all paradox (paradoxes?). If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound? That depends on your definition of sound. Do you consider sound to be the pressure waves traveling through the air, or the perception of those waves by a conscious being? The "Ship of Theseus" takes this to the ultimately absurd extreme. It asks if an object that has had all of its parts gradually replaced remains the same object once it no longer contains any of its original components. You can't answer that question without first defining "identity" (and there will likely be more than one definition". Of course, once you define identity the question answers itself.
Absolutely brilliant, the uncertainty principle blows my mind. What is remarkable is how well these explanations agree with the Buddhist understanding of free will and choice, that when we don’t use awareness then our lives become predetermined, only through careful observation of the mind can we begin to make more fully conscious choices to change things around us.
Budhists dont really say that. (With respect)
They say that by observing the mind and by using awareness you escape samsara and enter nirvana. Samsara is cycle of life and death. So using those things you get no body, no brain, no mind etc whatsoever. The only reason why they dont promote suicide is because they beleive it makes things worse in the next life, otherwise without that trigger it would be perfect.
They do tell the story that you are saying in some schools on the surface, but only reason for that is so people would not run away.. people like samsara and like to live..
Well death is not uncertain 😐seems to me that’s the opposite 😐as death is for certain if anything o would say the uncertainty principle is us being born again 😐as their is no telling how long all of us were all ready dead before we were even born what is it ?😐1 sextillion years ? 1 goggle years ?🧐1 septillion years ? I don’t know 😐I say death is certain and life is the uncertainty
Best ending phrase of a space time episode so far.
The real question is, "what is free will?"
If your definition of free will is that human choices are completely independent of physical/chemical influence, then no, free will doesn't exist. If free will is just a euphemism for consciousness and the uncertainty of personal perspective, then yes, free will is certainly an experience we're perceiving.
My definition would be "Human choices are not completely dependant on physical/chemical influence."
Although, not quite. It is conceivable for the above to be true and yet us still not have free will. I feel like there's always going to be a clause at the end of every possible definition: "Beyond that, use your intuition."
The greatest inventions of all, and indeed all new things are a process of imagination and action - creation of a mental image of some form.
Where does imagination come from?
Electro-chemical processes?
Or does the imagination come first, and then the physical process?
O do they occur simultaneously... But then you have two processes that are completely dfifferent in appearance and apparent kind, format and mode - just basically vastly different in any kind of conception... Ie, the actual experienced process of imagining seems vastly different to watching a dynamic electro-chemical network in process.
Does one necessitate the other? _Which? Conscioussness maybe..?
If you think about it (and this may not be the most accurate metaphor for brain , yes, but it still works here I think) , if the biological process were the physical computer.. and consciousness were the combination of the software (the particular individual's mental arrangement) and display / interaction devices - even There.., it begets the question which comes first?.. or do they occur simultaneously? Yet for a consciousness to create a device with a specific purpose in mind - such as a particular software program - 'elevates' the software/device aspect as primary.. and yet the actual 'occurence' seems to suggest a beginnnig from specific binary electrical impulses...
*I guess it's like the seed does the 'plan' for the seed come first, or does the physical manifestation? - yet in each seed there is the plan.. the 'image' of a grown seed, which contains the image for new plans - image being the active process of the characteristic 'imagination' , is how I'm referring to it here..
Ultimately people always end up splitting on the point .. does consciousness necessitate matter? Or does matter necessitate consciousness? ... Or I guess the third alternative would be they occur together? - and perhaps simultaneously, depending on conceptions of time and realms of eternity , / esoteric conceptions etc...
What if we are just over-interpretating our own ability to make decisions and projecting some kind of metaphysical being onto it? Our mind could be completely deterministic, and still be able to make a decision (like any statistical model). Why do we even need our mind to be independent from physics? Why do we need a "free will", other than to protect ourself from narcissistic injury?
And that first part is how most physicists and eliminative materialists see the world. It'd be less pathetic if they all simply conceded that they believe in fate, no matter how flowery their language is to avoid using the term. Pretty sad they've yet to provide convincing evidence beyond the same upheaval you get from posing the old tree in a forest question. Logical deduction, no matter how seemingly solid, is not a substitute for empirical evidence.
@@custos3249 fate usually implies meaning or purpose. The deterministic universe does not need either. You suggest that something is pathetic... I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to... I mean I think I know, but it's not clear and if I'm right, I would ask, "what's the alternative?"
One thing I appreciate is your self awareness. Many of your peers lack this trait. You da man
What is the problem of having no free will if you have the illusion to have one.
Exactly my point. Just like that dude who chose to go back to the Matrix. He saw and knew how real life is but he still preferred the life in the Matrix, at least that illusion was a good one.
Because it breaks the illusion knowing.
And if deterministic, its like our computational directive or something so the system doesnt operate that well.
It's actually a super important question when it comes to society. If someone commits a crime, but people don't have free will, is punishment ethical?
Hilariously though, if we DO live with determinism then whether we act ethically or not isn't up to us.
@@zeikjt well every thing happens in unconscious mind...decisions are made there...we can just observe them consciously...but even when you observe...that impulse comes from the inside
@@zeikjt Punishment for its own sake may not be ethical, but protecting society from the crime recurring is. (I don't necessarily think prison is the best way to do that in most cases, but that's another story).
I've always felt that my ability to choose freely isn't really impacted one way or another by the fact that someone else already knows what I'm going to do, either because their spacetime trajectory gives them such a time-slice of the loaf universe or because they have sufficient knowledge of the particles in my brain to be able to predict. I have been told that I'm very predictable, even without special quantum insight, but I don't think that negates my freedom to choose.
Is free will an illusion? Depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Exactly my sentiments. All the known laws of nature are but in perspective of the human experience of nature. In my opinion, any law of sciences should begin with "According to the human perspective, .... bla bla bla"
I believe that when one speaks of free will, it generally relates to freedom of speech, or being allowed to do things freely as needed or as desired. Otherwise, I simply have no clue what free will means! It makes no sense to me at all. Wanting something implies that a will has been generated somehow by circumstance, a will which did not exist before that circumstance occurred. So, the will is a process which occurs in reaction to one's environment. It is the effect of not accepting one's current state.
Maybe not wanting anything is the meaning of freedom. Death.
XD
@@kosiilondu Yeah, sun evaporates the water. It's not unique to "the human perspective"
@@deepstariaenigmatica2601 Unless you can prove the existence of another species that understands your statement, your argument is flawed on arrival. Reality is much more complicated than our reality - heck! there's no absolute reality - but you should already know this.
Personally, I like the idea of the many worlds interpretation meaning that either the future is undeterminable, or every possible future is determined, since it means that you do actually have choice. The latter option, I feel, is also ideal for religeous individuals who believe in an omniscient entity, as it allows for that, whilst also not destroying the notion of free will.
Also, I think it doesn't entirely matter whether or not free will exists. If it does, then great! If it doesn't, then there's nothing we can really do about it, so there's no point in worrying about it - as far as we need to be concerned on a day to day basis, we make our own choices that have an impact on the world around us, and the only way believing that there is no free will can truly impact you is if you let it stop you from living your life.
"your" future doesn't seem determined only because you cannot know it. But in many worlds, every possible configuration of Hilbert space that doesn't break the laws of physics is happening / will happen. It can't be called free will just to simply not know which angle of this your current state thinks is reality. In fact, they all are. And most importantly, you cannot choose to change your angle.
i love you for this response
According to Penrose, the human brain functions as a quantum computer, and since quantum information is eternal and cannot be destroyed, it must exist somewhere. Since we know the human body will eventually decay into dirt, (at least when not tampered with filled with chemicals, and sealed in an armored metal box), and we know that dirt does not contain all the quantum information of every computation our quantum computer brain ever made, then it must exist elsewhere. Process of elimination seems to leave one answer that doesnt take playing mental twister to justify, which is that we have some other, non physical, consciousness, where all those computations continue to exist, eternally, as we know quantum information must.
As a layman with limited understanding, I would love to hear a response that addresses the matter of the loss of quantum information when the brain stops functioning and decays into soil, vs my argument that consciousness must exist independently of our physical bodies, in order to prevent the loss off that quantum information, which would be a clear cut violation of the laws of physics. (if we operate under the assumption that Penrose was correct about the human brain being a quantum computer.)
Sadly the many world interpretation fails in Afshar experiment (hence is incorrect). Transactional interpretation of QM (TIQM) correctly predicts the outcome, but shuts down free will.
The first sunrise determined the warld up to the last sunset (Omar Khayyam).
this is EXACTLY what I've been waiting to see a physics video about, thank God, free will and consciousness are very interesting and itd be nice to see more videos about these fundamental properties
Thanks I thought I was out of excuses to use for not doing my homework...
Spacetime, the greatest excuse of all time. Also, it has the biggest collection of t&a. What??!
"I'm sorry teacher, there was only one path in the universe sadly it choose me to not do my homework."
@@GentleRainRobbert super determinism is a life saver😈
@@GentleRainRobbert And teacher be like " I know kid. Inorder to maintain the thread from that information I have to talk to your parents."
OMG this is the most complete analisys about determinism I've ever seen ! Most of the thoughts I had alone about it you just talked in it and made me feel a little bit more contemplated . Determined or not , thank you very much for this !!!
The fundamental flaw in the approach of physicists who adamantly argue for a definitive position on this issue is exactly that . . . they are looking for something definitive, when the very definition bears on the truth of the matter. I argue that free-will-denying physicists are not defining the term as it is commonly used. Words mean what they are used to mean, and what free will is almost universally used to mean is the process by which we choose, independent of external control. That we are never independent of internal control does not violate that concept.
"We'll ignore what happened at the beginning of time, for today"
Little does he know the universe is eternal.
@@Zero-pe3iq Yes it would have to be, wouldn't it?
@@ThePeaceableKingdom always has been
@@heisenmountainb6854 "It ever was, and is, and shall be, an ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus, 2600 years ago. But whadda he know?
I find it interesting that, more or less, as long as humans have been human, we've been.. well, human. Thousands of years ago they were asking the same questions we were, we just have the added advantage of being millenia on the shoulders of prior thinkers.
When Spacetime uploads I simply click the video. There's no free will to prevent this from happening.
Being a VERY simple-minded person, I have absolutely no idea how quantum physicists manage to reconcile the law of conservation of quantum information with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They seem to completely negate one another to me. I could use an explanation. Thanks
The uncertainty principle does not state that things are actually uncertain, just that we change the outcome of something by making the observation, said another way, by interacting with the thing we are observing.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is actually just a statement about the observable properties of waves, and only applies to quantum mechanics because of its formulation in terms of probability waves. Quantum information is information about the probability waves and so it conserves the wave uncertainty as well. I think the uncertainty principle should be called the indeterminacy principle or something, because we are precisely certain about the limit to which we can determine paired properties of waves.
I just remembered that this topic was an old pbs space time video: th-cam.com/video/izqaWyZsEtY/w-d-xo.html
"conservation of quantum information", or of "unitarity", are really ambigous/shifty expressions, TBW; if we're talking "conservation of energy", just saying ' |Psi(t)> = exp(iHt/h)|Psi(0)> ' in no way conflicts with ' sigma_A*sigma_B
@@dustman96 this is wrong. You're talking about observer effect, which is unrelated. Heisenberg uncertainty principle states fundamentally there are certain pairs of things where knowing one better means the other one has to be ill-defined to larger extent.
I think a (good enough) layperson explanation is that the conservation refers to the information that exists and the uncertainty principle refers to what we can learn about that information.
Determinism cannot adequately account for possibilities originating from human imagination & creativity, nor the possibilities that arise from synthesized novelties within and between complex process systems.
My free will is telling me it's not free, there is always a cost
It costs about a buck oh five.
Your will and it's existence costs energy if nothing else.
Tree-fity!
@@Megalomaniakaal Not energy. Entropy.
@@dlevi67 aka usable energy
That Laplacian demon was utterly terrifying. Was it predetermined that I would have to see that nightmare today? If so, curse you oh universe!!
Loved it. One of the only treatments of the topic that not only left room for non deterministic emergent processes, but also (although too briefly) unmasked the entire debate as having as its fulcrum a sloppy, ambiguous semantic antiquity that hardly begins to describe the actual miraculous enigma its supposed to represent.
First, love that you did this episode - can be a risky subject, but should be addressed, and you addressed it pretty well, so kudos.
Having said that, I have some quibbles, because... of course I do. ;)
1) I don't think the creation of NEW information is a requirement for agency, simply influencing the DIRECTION of information could represent a choice - or even just the ability to affect a probability distribution in a non-deterministic manner could demonstrate free will. If encountering a "Free Agent" (brain, or whatever) ALTERS the course of events in a manner that is not normally observed where no agent is involved, then that agent has made a free choice. They have taken a set of inputs and caused an atypical result. IE: They have acted on the information in a manner that demonstrates the ability to control, rather than be controlled by, the information. I don't think it's necessary to completely disconnect from a system to demonstrate free will, freedom to move WITHIN a constrained system is still freedom - and more importantly is the only presumption that makes any sense. The ability to create something from nothing is Godhood, not free agency... and a bit of an unreasonable ask in my opinion. ;)
2) On free will and randomness. I think this comparison is something of a problem. Since we generally define "random" as "unpredictable", free will MUST, to any outside observer, appear random. If an outside observer could perfectly predict the outcome from an encounter with the agent, then it can only be presumed that no CHOICES are being made by that agent, which doesn't necessarily mean the agent doesn't have free will, but only indicates they did not exercise it, or have already used it previously to "lock in" their future behavior, and aren't any longer exerting it) and thus free will in that encounter isn't even something that can be discussed. The observed outcome would be indistinguishable whether free will is present or not. The agent/event in question is simply acting as a transformation function and could be represented as a natural law (or perhaps a complex combination of laws, but same basic principle). Therefore, the question of free will can only ever even be ASKED when a non-predicted (ie random to the outside observer) outcome/event is observed.
My personal postulate at this time is that the inherent non-deterministic nature of the micro universe demonstrates that free will is not only possible, but inherently present. The "apparent" deterministic "laws" we observe in the macro world (and the fact that they ONLY seem to apply at macro scales) are simply the results of emergent statistical principles like the "law of large numbers". That is to say, that the predictability of the macro world is not proof of a deterministic universe, only evidence that when you get enough free agents together that their GROUP BEHAVIOR becomes statistically VERY RELIABLY predictable.
Basically, what I'm saying is that if I took a few billion people and handed them an egg crate and 12 colored eggs (each egg of a different color, but each person receiving the same 12 colors) and instruct each to put the eggs in the crate, the fact that the outcome is deterministic on the macro scale (I have 12 eggs in each crate) at the end doesn't demonstrate a lack of free will, only a set of restrictions on the range of choices available. Each person will likely fill their crate with a different color arrangement (micro scale). Again, from the final perspective the micro-world arrangements will appear random to an outside observer (the final result state no longer contains the information on how decisions were made, and therefore appears "random") and I can even make very reliably predictions about the overall arrangement patterns using the principles of statistics (like how many crates of a given color arrangement I can expect to see). Nevertheless, neither the predictability (or lack of randomness) of the end state, nor the failure to create a new/unpredictable outcome (like a crate with only 11 eggs in it) demonstrates a lack of free will. It only shows that we have lost the information involved in making those free choices by the time we see the results.
In other words, I don't believe the existence of a deterministic macro universe precludes free choice, it only shows that those choices are constrained and reliably predictable on a macro scale, or that the information used in making the decision was lost or hidden... (not that I particularly subscribe to the idea of a perfectly deterministic universe as that has never been remotely proven except on HUGELY macro scales where individual "choices" would be so overwhelmed by statistical forces as to be no longer discernible from error margins anyways...)
question: why assumes that in the many worlds interpretation we would be "choosing" our reality instead of reacting to simply being in that instance of it?
this seems to assume free will before the discussion of whether it exists.
I don't think such an assumptions is made. The intention is to highlight that we either "choose" the instance we are in, or that we are just randomly in the instance we're in. One indicates a level of free-will, the other indicates pre-determinism. Both are possible, and currently untestable, so we cannot determine that one is true and the other false.
@@AlabasterJazz So if both are of equal possibility then stating "we choose which reality to experience" (it's been a day since I watched it so i may not have that verbatim) would be begging the question, why can we "choose" that if we don't already have free will?
Exactly. There is also other thing that I think should be addressed.
At 5:10 he gives the criteria by which he argues a brain could be reasonably considered free. Any combination of the first three criteria that he wants to use can be applied to simple computers. Just take a true random number generator (like hardware random generator using quantum events as a source) and boom you have a computer card with free will.
In fact such computer takes in quantum information, processes it and spits out an answer that it is not predictable, neither in principle nor in practice. At the the host adds that the brain can also recursively influence itself via consciousness, but a recursive influence could be programmed into a machine easily as well.
It certainly will not be an influence as complex as consciousness, but the end result would be the same: a machine that makes decisions which are unpredictable (both in principle and in practice) by incorporating both outside and inside information.
Even though this is perfectly consistent with the parameters he laid out, I don't think most people would agree that true random number generators have free will.
In other words, sure, the laws of physics leave room for free will for humans, but such free will is something that many other not living objects could posses.
Connecting this to his statement at about 12:05: one can assign whatever meaning they "feel" to assign to something, but that does not make it objectively meaningful. I, as a human being, can assign a lot of meaning to the complex chemical reaction that I call love, while also accepting that it is no different from any chemical reaction I can make in a lab to which I do not assign meaning.
In the same way, I can also assign importance and meaning to my complex decision making process while also accepting that it is essentially no different from that of a complex random number generator.
My whole point here is that, the "free will" that meets the criteria laid out in the video may not be an illusion. The illusion would be the belief that such free will sets us apart from complex machines (none of which was stated in the video, but which is normally implied when discussing free will).
@@eliomonaco147 I want to thank you. This may be the first response to one of my TH-cam comments that I 100% agree with. I feel just the tiniest bit normal again.
😊
@@justunderreality nice to hear :)
My grade school teacher: "This is the kind of question that will bake your noodle." LOL
It's more of a boiling oil bath than a baking oven.
Your grade school teacher was 'The Oracle' ?
@Buse Toköz bruh
@@jedaaa Would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything?
Speaking of deterministic universe this seems fitting
@@AliKandirr did you just see a cat..?
I've watched this five times and I still feel like I'm having a stroke. semantic satiation has murdered the words 'cause, free, will, principle, fundamental, brain', to name a few
I still don't know if I have free will or not but now im worried that I, as a human, might be too stupid to know
Bet dolphins know the answer.
Rather than wondering if you have free will, try defining what that even means. My bet is you'll say something like " I can do what I want'...and to an extent that's true if it's within your abilities and other desires don't surface to stop you. But all you're really doing, is saying that your desire module has connectivity to action modules. That's not really what "free will" is about in a philosophical sense.
@Luke McHugh That's what most people think of when you say "free will", but it's not what philosophers mean. It feels like free will, but firstly, you are not in control of what you want. Secondly, getting to your goals is all still determined by physics. We're all really just biological robots.
@Luke McHugh Sure. Agree. The lack of free will does not in any way diminish life.
Devs is a great show that touches on this topic. Recommended
I think when most people talk about free will they're referring to their higher-order decisions, not "anything their brain decides". Most people would not call their heart beating an act of free will even though their brain is deciding to cause it to beat. Therefore, in order to prove free will it's not enough to show that any old brain region is doing things on purpose, but instead that your conscious decisions or thoughts are non-deterministic. From my understanding of physics, I don't see how it's *not* all deterministic. That is, even if we find that quantum processes are actually random, free will would require that we would be able to consciously and deliberately influence those quantum processes which is not possible. Bottom-up non-determinism is not free will, only top-down non-determinism is. And influencing quantum outcomes with the power of my thoughts is way too pseudosciency for me.
I also disagree with #2 on your list. If a "choice" is deterministic (an oxymoron) it's not a choice, regardless of whether or not it can be predicted.
"From my understanding of physics, I don't see how it's not all deterministic" That's simple: the consciousness that grounds said free-will isn't ultimately material, and therefore physics has nothing meaningful to say about it; but if this sounds "too pseudosciency" for you, note how you only presume the converse because of NCCs and untested assumptions...
@@thstroyur Sure, he assumed consciousness was ultimately emergent from the material. But then again, so did Matt at the beginning of the video. If you wish to make a claim that consciousness is not rooted in the material (whereas every other known phenomenon in the universe decisively is) then you'd carry the burden of proof along with that. Otherwise, the default position is that consciousness is emergent from the material, if for no other reason than because everything else is.
@@thstroyur How can something immaterial have influence over the material though? What is so special about certain matter configurations like human bodies (brains specifically) that allows this to happen? I don't see how you could possibly decouple consciousness from the material.
@@ThatCrazyKid0007 "How can something immaterial have influence over the material though?" Simple; "immaterial" just has to not be synonymous with "nonexistent", as many seem to take for granted...
"What is so special about certain matter configurations like human bodies (brains specifically) that allows this to happen?" That's not _my_ assumption, anyway - I am merely content in stating there's a statistical correlation between certain kinds of brain activity and cognitive faculties, because that's what can be empirically ascertained. If you have a problem with _why_ this should be so and render the scoop of porridge we call the brain any more special than any other flavor of porridge, that's really more of a naturalistic problem than a dualistic one (which is my position)
"I don't see how you could possibly decouple consciousness from the material" Answer the _Gedanken_ in my previous comment, then
Some of what you talking here about I've read in Roger Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind".
Penrose believes in quantum consciousness I think. Something not really backed by scientific evidence.
@@sluxi he believes in some far out connection between consciousness and an as-yet-unknown theory of quantum gravity.
However, even if you don't find that very likely (I certainly don't), I can still recommend The Emperor's New Mind. Despite its title and its ostensible purpose, it deals very little with consciousness until the end of the book. Most of it is a beautifully-written exploration of theoretical physics
@@sluxi Penrose doesn't argue, that his evidence makes his theory highly probable.
Free will is automatically eliminated when any limitations are placed on it. Can't wave your hand and be in your personal paradise? Then you only have limited-will.
@@sluxi He doesn't "believe" it. He has a convincing theory that can be experimentally verified (in the far future). It's called Orch OR.
I love how often whenever I challenge someone's free will belief, they respond by doing something random to try to demonstrate their ability to freely choose. One of my friends was getting frustrated once, so he said, "Oh yea, well I freely choose to do this" and he throws a shot glass at the wall and it shatters, and my other friend goes, "and now you freely choose to go clean it up." lol.
Yeah, even highly intelligent people, or sometimes geniuses have trouble to understand free will. It is very complex unsolved problem. You can't expect from someone, not knowing anything of the subject to give you any meaningful answer. He will probably use common folk psychology, or common sense to give you reason. After all free will is illusion, we are likely programmed to believe in it, it makes perfect sense from evolutionary perspective. And evolution is fact! Also check en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will Sometimes people couldn't tell why they did something, if acting impulsively. th-cam.com/video/pjDS578FROw/w-d-xo.html
@@jirivesely5697 I have trouble understanding why people are so stuck on holding onto the concept. You have to work really hard with acrobatics--mostly just changing the definition--to find any consistent way of justifying it. Why? Is it ego maybe?
@@joed180 Yeah, i mostly gave up on the idea of free will when I struggled to define it in any meaningful way. If you define it as a randomness in the brain due to its quantum nature, sure you can say it exists, but it's pretty worthless.
@@nishd7161 How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Determinism 😂
@@nishd7161 This is at the core of it for me. Sure you can explore all sorts of science-based issues with free will, but before that, can you define it? I can't see anything at all between 'deterministic' and 'random', which to me immediately excludes anything we would colloquially describe as 'free will' on a purely logical level.
It's useful to consider the word "will" in free will in the same way we think of "will power". Will power is a relatively recent evolutionary attribute, that gives us a significant survival advantage. there are deterministic ways to explain will power, but it's also reasonable to think that the brain could have evolved to take advantage of quantum randomness to get a little extra help in breaking pre-defined behavior patterns.
this view of free will is real free will, the ability to make choices that are not predetermined. it doesn't contradict our understanding of motivation and psychology. it doesn't rely on appeals to the supernatural. and it's still actually pretty satisfying.
UBotDevTeam, I think will power is almost more important than free will as an issue. The universal laws of cause and effect do not change based on your view of free will. In fact, nothing changes, even in a person who suddenly is caught up in the delusion that the choice they just made was not made at all, but was just the unfolding of the universe following a set of unbreakable laws. Will power shows up in every action and choice of people. It works right along with impulse control to separate the wheat from the chaff. The fossil record seems to indicate that anatomically modern humans have been running around for anywhere from 50,000 to even 200,000 years, and I always wondered, "What were they doing all that time?" that prevented them from building civilization and using technology. I don't think they were modern in terms of will power/impulse control, just like much of the population today.
I think it's important to note that even if choices are quantum they emerge within a context. If I roll a dice, 1-6 will emerge, but 7 definitely will not. I think this puts some bounds on the "free" in free will.
7 possible, simply somewhat less probable
I don't think the wavefunction is actually bounded. Quantum tunneling is an example of this. There is a nonzero chance that you will spontaneously instantly teleport to the other side of the observable universe in the next moment. However, I don't think you'll ever come across a number as small as the chance of this happening. I'd guess it has more than TREE(3) zeros before any significant digits.
@@renato360a Some experiments indicate that tunneling actually takes time and is not instantaneous. There was a paper about it recently when rubidium atoms were used. Yet there were also experiments that show it is indeed instantaneous using photons. My guess is time dilation takes effect for particles with mass during tunneling. So I don't think we have to worry about an infinitesimally small chance of suddenly popping up in the other corner of the universe haha
...but it's not a "choice" for any number to emerge from a chance roll. So what's quantum is never a choice, but an outcome. Free will involves choices by definition, I think, if the definition was prechosen as it is.
@@abeautifuldayful yes, that's what Matt was saying
This emergent phenomenon was randomly determined to think that it does not have free will
How you talk about point 4 has always been how I've ever thought about this question. It seems nonsensical to me to say we do not have free will just because someone with all the information might be able to predict perfectly what we're gonna do next.
Heck, I'm pretty good at predicting what my best friend is gonna do next, doesn't mean that isn't his decision.
For free will to exist there merely needs to be a single phenomena whose cause is awareness, value, meaning, perception itself, if your system denies such things exist then it is consistent in denying free will.
The hypocrisy is simply that you have perception and value, if you argue free will does not exist you also do not have perception or value, better and worse cease to be meaningful, as does the word meaning.
The hypocrisy is you are happy to deny free will exists, but continue to orchestrate your existence as though values, meaning, and perception are real.
"Apples aren't imaginary" is possibly the best argument in favour of free will I've heard to date!
All pedantry, really.
A pretty disappointing argument to be honest, given the fact that it bases what is “real” on what is “perceived.” At that reality is subjective, and meaningless.
Thé problem is that apples are imaginary, in facts. It’s only a human concept.
@@numero6285 well, if you're going to say both apples and free will are imaginary, then at least you're being consistent. I'd say both are real as emergent phenomena. If emergent phenomena aren't real, then probably nothing we know of is real. Even the quarks that make up protons and neutrons are emergent phenomena of a more fundamental reality (strings, possibly?)
@@iambatdan You are absolutely right: almost everything we know of is somehow an emerging phenomenon.
However, the concept of "free will" should only have meaning if it corresponds to something other than an emerging phenomenon. When we talk about free will, we suppose that it refers to something other than a set of causes that we ignore.
Otherwise it would be absurd to speak of "free will" as part of justice and guilt.
well we could perceive our choices as choices just because we don't know the future of our choices. It's like discovering something
More like defining an illusion as reality because there are no way to destroy said illusion. But in the end it is pretty much the same as what you’ve written.
"the beast is in the imagination" comes to mind.
You are only making choices based on what your imagination is feeding you
Reminds me of Richard Brautigan who ended a book with the sentence "I always wanted to end a book with the word mayonnaise. "
But he ended it with a full stop. Good one, though! ;-)
So how many cookbooks did he ever write?
6:30 This is the most interesting part. Nobody will probably read this, but I would like to bring up an important aspect to human consciousness: it's a multilayered consciousness. Think of it as a pipeline which produces the conscious experiences we have, where each step may or may not loop back to a previous step in the pipeline. Why this is necessary is because of the presence of metacognition, where we consciously act upon our consciousness, leading to abilities such as thought editing, memory reintegration, lucid dreaming, cognitive discipline and purposeful design of coping mechanisms. We're simply not just one mind, but many, slaving away in the factory that generates the experience of you.
Very true. I'd akin it more to a computer since I don't think there is much feedback from our conscious experience, the main part we are in tune with. I view it more like a monitor. It's a feed of information, observation. But it doesn't send anywhere near the amount of data to the actual computer, which is the subconscious, hormones, chemicals and other machinations at work.
What's fascinating to me is that we desire to be in control. I think it's an evolutionary thing. It's more beneficial to have more options at any given time and this extrapolates into the desire for entirely free choice because it would be endless possibility.
Honestly, I'm largely unconcerned if my "free will" is predetermined from an omniscient godlike perspective. I myself do not poses that perspective and so from my perception my will is free in so far I make "choices" based upon on all the information available to me. That process could be entirely deterministic, a mere immutable consequence of every past decision I and everyone around me has ever made, but it wouldn't make a difference.
I am still me, my perspective of the universe is still uniquely my own, regardless of whether anyone can predict my behavior.
Indeed I might even further argue that such predictability is what makes me, me. I make the choices I make. If I made different choices, I would be a different person.
That's how I think, because even if I'm not self made, I'm still myself
Just don't make the mistake of thinking that your choices are the result of your intellect alone, we are far more heavily influenced in our behavior by instinct and emotion than "intellect". I'd go so far as to say that we use our intellect to justify the will of our instincts and emotions. Otherwise we would live in a very different world.
That's a illusion! An inescapable, but illusion after all!
why would you bother worrying if it was predetermined? Like ur worry isn't predetermined. THINK
@@carys5058 we can't escape certain illusions, like the illusion of free will, responsibility, merit and "hope to choice"... Not even think about illusions such as time.
"Depending on what your definition of is is."
-Bill Clinton
is is is
Pretending to care is tight!
As they say: *literally Dying* :DDDD
That reminded me to remind you that he flew with epstein 27 times. He had no choice! It was his destiny
is is a universal-consistent abstraction of is
Another reason why the Laplacian demon cannot exist even in principle is that answers to some questions are not computable (for instance to the famous Halting Problem, as proved by Turing). At least this is true given the strong Church-Turing thesis, i.e., that computing non-recursive functions is physically impossible.
Computing non-recursive functions is impossible? Could you elaborate on that please? Sounds like a fascinating statement, since in programming, it's the recursive functions that become impossible to calculate if you're not careful, not the non-recursive ones hahah
@@ThatCrazyKid0007 in this context, non-recursive functions don't refer to writing code without recursion (I guess this is slightly confusing). Rather they are the functions that are not μ-recursive in Recursion Theory. In more modern terms one would say that the μ-recursive functions are those that are computable by a Turing machine. So the strong Church-Turing thesis says that anything that is computable can be computed by a Turing machine.
First of all, determinism isn't about answering all possible questions, just the very specific question "what will the state be at time T";
Second, if I remember correctly, the halting problem requires a Turing machine with an infinite tape, which itself is physically impossible.
@@the42nddragon I couldn't agree more: the Halting Problem is a special case of "what will the state be at time T", namely when the state is "the Turing machine has haltet". Since even this is not computable (under the Church-Turing thesis), there is no chance to determine all future events either.
To your second point: if it is physically impossible to determine the future with an infinite tape (i.e., with an infinite amount of memory), then it is also impossible with a finite amount of memory. So again it means that a Laplacian demon cannot exist.
I think this only supports my original statement that the strong Church-Turing thesis makes a Laplacian demon physically impossible even in principle.
Yet another reason why Laplacian demon can't exist is because of chaotic nature of even classical systems (e. g. double pendulum). To perfectly predict their future you'd need infinite amount of information about their initial state (in other words you'd need to know positions and velocities up to arbitrary order of magnitude) since otherwise your predictions would diverge from the actual dynamic evolution at some point in time.
All that exists is one gigantic free will choice. We are witnessing that choice. The choice To Be.
I'm grateful that this was The Choice.
Three points countering much of your argument in this episode:
1. It doesn't matter in the slightest if we're actually able, even in principle, to predict a person's future choices. We can't precisely predict the outcome of virtually any sufficiently complicated system, including those with internal feedback loops (ex: the weather on Earth beyond the near future). That doesn't in any way make those systems nondeterministic, it just means they're complicated.
2. It doesn't matter if a person believes that they have free will or that they have that experience. Surely you wouldn't argue that simply because a person has had the personal experience of having connected to or spoken with God internally, that they have proven a deity or their ability to communicate with it in any kind of rigorous sense.
3. Emergent properties are deterministic - they are simply the result of the interaction of large numbers of particles in interesting ways. The redness of an apple has to do with the interaction of white light with anthocyanins in the apple's skin. The particular quantity, identity, and distribution of cellulose and fructose and water and some esters and alcohols are what gives a particular fruit its appleness. It's true that neither of those qualities is inherent in the individual atoms of the apple, but that doesn't mean that they aren't deterministic. If a brain cells start behaving in interesting ways when you dump enough in a bucket, that doesn't mean it's not deterministic.
The only point you actually made in favor of free will is that it's possible for random quantum information to be generated in the brain and later for that information to be acted upon and/or incorporated into what will ultimately become some sort of action potential/choice. That's a pretty thin argument for the future behavior of a material machine being anything other than deterministic.
A thin argument indeed. Creating brand new quantum information violates conservation of quantum information like matt said. This is why I personally don't like the Copenhagen interpretation and prefer pilot wave theory, though I guess I didn't have the free will to decide that I prefer it haha.
Great presentation, Matt. I personally find it very frustrating that so many of the people in recent times to attack the notion of free will either ignore quantum mechanics altogether (and just assume, unjustifiably, that physics is deterministic), or make some cavalier statements that attack your item 4 but leave the central question unaddressed.
One thing where I think we can go further is the question of 'where' the information comes from. It's not obvious that the information has to come from the brain (or else the brain didn't meaningfully 'choose'). For all I know, all the fundamental uncertainty that I associate with my freedom to make choices is actually already embedded in the universe since its beginning, and my brain only makes use of it, its information processing shaping the distribution of possible outcomes. Our experience of our minds being localized to within our brains could just be an artifact of all our information processing happening in it -- but if all you want is something to make meaningful choices with, you don't need it to be localized, only to be able to access it in that localized space. Scott Aaronson lays out this idea in his essay "The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine", which everyone interested in this debate should read.
Another intriguing possibility SA describes in the above is an earlier idea by Hoefer that we may not have the right boundary conditions for thinking about ourselves in the universe. He argues, sure, if you have a 'block universe' picture, free will doesn't seem to make sense, but neither does causation -- if everything just 'exists' it makes little sense to say A causes B, at most we can say B following A is consistent with whatever dynamical laws are in play. So, in that sense, you can just as well imagine that B caused A! The idea then is that these degrees of freedom in the beginning of the universe, which in the previous paragraph you could think were just a 'random number generator' for the brain, here are generated by your choices and carried back to the beginning of the universe by the usual Schrödinger equation. What we normally think of as 'causality' is emergent in this picture, but what's interesting is that, as long as you only think of your brain as effecting causation backwards when interacting with quantum bits that were undisturbed since the beginning of the universe, the usual thermodynamic arrow of time is respected and no backwards in time signaling is allowed. I'm not sure that's a fantastic solution (certainly seems arbitrary) but it's interesting to me that it seems consistent.
All in all, I think it's great to see a more balanced debate on this. The 'science disproves free will' claim is as omnipresent as it is unjustified.
It's definitely nice to see a more balanced view. Most science "communicators" these days seem like categorically disregard free will and dogmatically decides it doesn't exist whatsoever. This is wrong at worst or misleading at best. Even though when you get down to the real material on textbook or paper, there are actually quite a lot of rooms to squeeze free will somewhere.
@@hikashia.halfiah3582 there are just different ways to define free will. but the more consequences you want the thing to have, the more you are constructing the concept of a less and less existing (doesn´t take much to understand free will even as a logically completely impossible concept) thing.
@@davejacob5208
"but the more consequences you want the thing to have, the more you are constructing the concept of a less and less existing thing"
Sorry I don't really get it. For example what are "consequence" and "existing" here means?
"doesn´t take much to understand free will even as a logically completely impossible concept"
Uhh free will is logically completely impossible concept? What does it mean? You can surely have logically valid definition of free will, because no one arrested a definition of free will after all, you can always define them such and such that so and so conditions are fulfilled. If it's soundness, same reason, you can always argue there exists, though not necessarily you have to construct it (like some mathematical objects), a sound definition of free will. Sound as in logically valid form (on some logical systems at least) and having true premise.
But sorry, I'm honestly lost on what you mean here.
@@davejacob5208 Notice that even in the video Matt described requirement 4 as "Choice independent of any underlying, non-free-willed, mechanistic process", which seems to be a pretty fair characterization of the point of view that states you either get determinism (which is obviously not free) or randomness (which doesn't feel 'free' either, although IMO that intuition is based mostly on our experience with random processes whose randomness is a result of deterministic chaos, not fundamental randomness). But notice that the description itself contains the seeds of its own destruction: it assumes that free will doesn't exist in order to argue free will doesn't exist, so in that sense it begs the question!
It's interesting that, when you look at quantum mechanics, it is perfectly poised as an 'intermediate' possibility that's neither pure determinism nor pure randomness. The theory itself only makes sense if you allow its user the freedom to choose what experiments to do (what in the literature gets called 'Heisenberg choice' -- for example, in a Stern-Gerlach experiment, do you measure spin along the x axis or y axis?). To my knowledge, nobody has been able to come up with a theory that produces clear predictions without this ingredient. The Everettian "many worlds" picture tries to dispense with it and explain observations as a consequence of decoherence, but decoherence alone often fails to cleanly identify a branching structure because a density matrix may be diagonal (or almost diagonal) in more than one basis. Proponents have been trying to square that particular circle for decades, without success. Some, such as Lev Vaidman, have managed to come up with a version of many worlds that works (at least as far as I can tell), but it took reintroducing free choices into the theory by explicitly introducing agents and their choices as an axiom (perhaps this pushes it closer to a "many minds" theory rather than merely "many worlds"). Could it be that what looks like a free choice in every working interpretation of quantum mechanics be merely an emergent consequence of an underlying 'mechanistic' substrate? Maybe, but the fact that nobody has been able to find one in the >100 years the theory has existed suggests that it's important not to be dismissive.
TL;DR you may conclude that free will simply "doesn't exist" if you assume free will doesn't exist, but do you really learn anything from that exercise?
@@vacuumdiagrams652
"Choice independent of any underlying, non-free-willed, mechanistic process", which seems to be a pretty fair characterization of the point of view that states you either get determinism (which is obviously not free)"
not free according to certain definitions.
the whole debate about free will in the literature deals with different proposals for definitions and their consequences, half of which are called "compatibilistic", meaning that they are compatible with determinism.
"or randomness (which doesn't feel 'free' either, although IMO that intuition is based mostly on our experience with random processes whose randomness is a result of deterministic chaos, not fundamental randomness)."
fundamental randomness means that the outcome is free of any influence from anything, therefore also not influenced by whoever is supoosed to be the one who CHOOSES by using/having his own free will. therefore, randomness won´t help in terms of free will.
"But notice that the description itself contains the seeds of its own destruction: it assumes that free will doesn't exist"
how so?
"It's interesting that, when you look at quantum mechanics, it is perfectly poised as an 'intermediate' possibility that's neither pure determinism nor pure randomness."
nah, things cannot be neither. things can be determined to certain degrees/in certain aspects. more or less determined.
quantum mechanics is not magic that goes beyound this
dichotomy of
a thing being determined in a certain aspect by certain other influences
or not.
"The theory itself only makes sense if you allow its user the freedom to choose what experiments to do (what in the literature gets called 'Heisenberg choice' -- for example, in a Stern-Gerlach experiment, do you measure spin along the x axis or y axis?)."
within the actual physics-community, there is hardly any consensus in favour of saying that personal observers are getting relevance to physics in contrast to whatever "measurement" exactly is having this relevance.
yeah, people make choices about what experiment to make. and the type of experiment determines what is measured, therefore which trait of the measured object becomes fixed (wavecollapse and all that stuff - given CERTAIN interpretations of quantum physics, not the one i am in favour of)
but this does not change anything abut the nature of choice.
the choice may have certain consequences, but that does not make the choice itself have another nature in terms of being free.
"Some, such as Lev Vaidman, have managed to come up with a version of many worlds that works (at least as far as I can tell), but it took reintroducing free choices into the theory by explicitly introducing agents and their choices as an axiom (perhaps this pushes it closer to a "many minds" theory rather than merely "many worlds")."
also doesn´t change the nature of choice. for every mind making a choice, you stay within the
dichotomy of that choice either
being determined by a certain influence in terms of a certain trait that choice has
or it not being determined by any influence in terms of having this certain trait.
"Could it be that what looks like a free choice in every working interpretation of quantum mechanics be merely an emergent consequence of an underlying 'mechanistic' substrate?"
either that or pure chance. both do not give us the concept of free will most people have. as in having unforced controle over what becomes the future.
"TL;DR you may conclude that free will simply "doesn't exist" if you assume free will doesn't exist, but do you really learn anything from that exercise?"
i do not assume it does not exist. i think the common understanding of it doesn´t make sense (therefore doesn´t exist)
but i know there are other proposed definitions, at least one of which makes sense to me.
harry frankfurt has his view about higher order volitions. in that view, we have free will if the motives that guide our actions are those motives of which we wish them to be the ones that guide our actions. in simpler terms that means that we aren´t slaves to desires we do not want to take us over, but instead our concept of what character traits and motives we like about our selves or that we want to be the ones that define us really are/become the ones that define our attitude and choices.
Free will: depends what your definition of is is ;-)
Harkens back to William Jefferson Clinton in the 90's
So which definition will free William?
3:00 A 2D representation of a 3D representation of a 4D concept. Excellent.
@Space Realms I mean, it's a cool video but the title understates it a bit. Optimism to say the least. th-cam.com/video/RNFesa01llk/w-d-xo.html
Love your show!!! 💕
Please make it clear that consciousness is _not_ related to quantum mechanics.
I live in India, and there's a ton of pseudoscience talking about quantum mechanics and "consciousness energy of gods" or something like that.
But it is. Nothing to do with gods, but it still is.
If I were you, I'd spend a lot of time yelling "Brain!" at folks. If they argued with me, I'd pull their brains out of their skulls and beat them about the ears with it until they understood it's all "Brain!" It's probably good I'm not you and don't live in India.
That said, I greatly enjoy Indian food, HMT wrist watches, and India's deep, old and rich body of thought. I'll never learn enough about any of those things, so will always enjoy stumbling across something new. Peace and happiness to you and yours. Greetings from Texas, USA. :-)
Technically, everything is related to quantum mechanics but i get your point
I think he did make it pretty clear he was not suggesting that here
Do you have please some examples? I know a lot about merging of pop-culture version of quantum mechanics with spirituality in the west, but i have no idea how it looks in contemporary India. How widespread is it? Are there some prominent religious figures who talks about that, or is more like "foklore" stuff?
Is "free will" a trick?
It's not a trick, Matt... It's an ILLUSION!
*"Final Countdown" plays*
A trick is something that a ***** does for money
"Of course we have free will because we have no choice but to have it."
- Christopher Hitchens
You didn't have the free will to not steal, we don't have the free will to not hold you accountable ;)
People really need to abandon believing in free will, love, hope, etc. everything we believed about being human turned out to be wrong when we looked. It’s time to embrace that we are just cosmic accidents that don’t matter except to each other, and even that is contingent on forces beyond our control. It’s horrific to be born
I love how this channel reunites physics with philosophy.
*_Physics are philosophy, in the past, they called it "natural philosophy" or "experimental philosophy"..._*
And about this video.
Their definition of illusion is the thing that is really reductionist!
Apples and his colors, ARE ILLUSIONS, are perceptions created by our minds! According to public science, there is no apple, just a wave function, a (formal) logical concept, like the duality of Plato.
And according to that, our minds create the illusion of the Apple in order to understand the input created by the Apple's wave function.
Curiously, this science channel take the "hypothesis" of the consciousness emerging from the brain (or more exactly, from the nervous system), for granted, without questioning it at all! And that hypothesis has no scientific evidence at all, it's just a logical assumption at best!
According to scientific research done by the US Army and, besides, the CIA, consciousness does not emerge from the "physical reality", the "physical reality" emerges from the "consciousness"...
TLDR: They must stay on physics, because in the field of consciousness, and in the field of the psyche, they really sucks, and as a fan, that's hurts.
@@ThePowerLover Thank you for sharing your knowledge with me, I'm learning as much as possible as a teenager .
@@hyperduality2838 Thank you, I saw many videos about determinism, it's such an amazing topic.
@@astrophile6766 thanks to you.
Great, so if the apple is not an "illusion", my free will neither, and my identity neither, and so i didn't die crossing the teleporter, I feel better now... hmm well i'll have to go to bed and I think about that again tomorrow... which makes me remember about that video suspecting my identity is dying when
i fall asleep...
I write this comment in free will, as resulting from mechanistic causes.
Forcing free will to be supernatural is a circular argument against free will.
I have free will, therefore i decide not to write a reply to this comment
Exactly. I don't think our will has to be unpredictable in order to be free. In fact, if I like chocolate ice cream more than I like vanilla ice cream (which I do), then you would predict that I will always go for the chocolate ice cream, if given the choice. In that case, it is precisely *because* of the fact that I have free will, that you are able to predict my choices - not in spite of it.
@@ettvanligtkonto the arguments are usually about BOTH "what is free will" AND "does that exist", so the answers of both questions within such desicussions depend on each other, as they logically should. in terms of the limits of responsibility, it is highly important to question what concept of freedom really is relevant for it.
@@somedudeok1451 What would be your free will about liking chocolate ice cream? If one beleves, that one is a product of circumstances this argument doesen't hold up. The questiin is if there is something in you that can influence your behavior. Unfortunatly this is impossible to answer as of right now.
@@swiss_luri8151 Who likes chocolate ice cream? Is there someone else inside of you beside you?
It's very cool that you are exploring with this question (the meaningfulness of free will). Keep going! I believe this pursuit is worthy of more than a semantic argument.