I think it’s more complicated than free will existing or not.
If you knew every single possible value about the universe at its start and had a perfectly accurate model of physics, you could theoretically predict/simulate everything that would ever happen. For practical reasons, though, that’s impossible, even ignoring weird quantum effects, for the simple reason that that is a lot of data points, more than any of us could reasonably keep track of- it’s like how, in sufficiently controlled conditions, a fair dice can roll the exact same number 100% of the time, but there are enough variables that are hard enough to control for in a normal situation that it’s basically random.
Similarly, if you knew everything about every human on Earth, you could theoretically predict exactly what any of them would do at any given moment. Of course, that’s just not practical- the body and brain are a machine that is constantly taking in input and adapting to it, so in order to perfectly predict someone’s thoughts and actions, you’d need to know every single detail of every single thing that has ever happened to them, no matter how small. Then, you’d need to account for the fact that they’re interacting with hundreds of other people, who are also constantly changing and adapting. It’s just not possible to predict or control a person for any reasonable length of time like that, because one tiny interaction could throw off the entire model.
Just look at current work with AI- our modern machine learning algorithms are much more well-understood and are trained in much more contained environments than any human mind, and yet we still need to manually reign them in and sift through the data to prevent them from going off the rails.
So, technically, I suppose free will doesn’t exist. For practical purposes, though, what we have is indistinguishable from free will, so there’s not much point getting riled up about it.
The question is underspecified. Why do you want to know if free will exists? What will you do differently if it does exist vs if it does not exist?
This is similar to questions like, “is water wet?” You can generate endless debate on the topic, but it’s all intellectual masturbation until you are genuinely looking for the answer to a specific question.
No.
As @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org said, free will and determinism aren’t necessarily tied together. You can have one without the other. It’s been a while since my studies so I’m rusty on the academic side of philosophy so I won’t start naming names, but I’ll start off with the fact that a coin is a much more simple thing than a human. So while a coin might land on just one of its two sides or, in a freak accident on its edge. For humans, there are way more outcomes as to what could happen when someone’s thrown into a complex situation.
Personally, I am what one would call a soft determinist (I probably don’t fit the label completely, so feel free to correct me) which is considered to be a cope-out-of-the-discussion type of position, which I believe is a bit unjustified. I don’t think we have enough knowledge about the world to definitely answer the question of whether our actions are deterministic or not or whether our will is free or not. But it sure as hell feels like we have free will, that’s acting at least if not always then frequently. And as Argv already said, physics involves a heavy dose of randomness. So going by that I tend to sway towards the non-deterministic side. You can will yourself out of situations that other people would consider beyond their control, but if there’s a boulder rolling towards you through a narrow tunnel it’s very likely that you are going to run away from it, not towards it. In that sense, some action is determined by the instinct of self-preservation. But again, theoretically, who’s to stop someone from accepting the situation and letting the boulder roll over them?
So yeah, for me, as with most things, free will and determinism are on a spectrum, not binary. It depends on the context and level (quantum to Newtonian physics) that we’re speaking about.
P.S. How do I mention someone in the thread? I just linked Argv’s comment in a very brute way.
The whole conversation heavily relies on the definition of free will, which tends to vary greatly from person to person. As far as the forces of reality go, while the world is not deterministic (based on the physics definitions and consequences of randomness of quantum events), we don’t have any good evidence to suggest that our brains have a conscious ability to decide anything irrespective of their surroundings or your history. That is to say that any “choice” we make is entirely a result of the inputs to our brains and potentially a bit of quantum randomness, not some independent decision making system. There is what is called a ”compatiblists” definition of free will, which essentially states that a specific person will always make the same decision because that’s who they are. I don’t generally regard that as free will, but some people do. I do agree with them that the classical idea of free will is nonsensical when you think about it; the idea that you could make any imaginable choice given a situation. You could imagine any number of insane ideas that you wouldn’t do, because they’re, well, insane. And some people might try something extreme to prove their free will because they feel challenged by the idea, but that’s not proof of free will, that’s proof of contrarianism. Wanting to do something because someone tells you that you can’t is a well documented human phenomenon. It’s a little like reverse psychology.
If you take the compatibilst’s definition, I’d agree that it exists, but it seems disingenuous to the phrase “free will”. As far as I can see, there isn’t a good argument that the free will to make choices exists. Your choices are always dependent on your inputs. And sure you can argue that maybe you will make the crazy decision because of quantum randomness, but that’s not arguing for free will, that’s arguing for randomness.
You react to choices the specific way you do because of experiences you’ve had previously.
Reverse time without changing anything, you’ll always make the same choices because you’re having the same thoughts each time every time, because you’ve been conditioned the way you are.
The universe doesn’t “know” where it’s going, but the plan is already in action. You can choose whatever you want to do, but if you were the same person in the same circumstance, you would and will always make the same decision.
You forget, the underpinnings of physics involve a heavy dose of randomness. Contrary to the opinion of a certain famous scientist, God does, in fact, play dice. Lots and lots of dice.
So no, the universe is not deterministic.
Note that this doesn’t mean free will exists. Your decisions may not be entirely predetermined, but them being determined by random chance doesn’t fit the definition of free will, either.
I have the feeling most people cling to free will as a concept because not having free will raises questions if a “self” truly exists. However the existence of free will can be as scary if not more, since how could we define a “self” if it could freely do something not based on what defines it.
-
Non-deterministic, because I think that the wavefunction collapses within a single universe, and this process is not deterministic.
-
I do not believe in telekinesis. I am not able to bend a spoon with my “mind”, and I also don’t think that with this movie that I get to experience I can open an ion channel to trigger an action potential. So, in that sense, no I don’t believe in “free will”. But I am me. And the concept of the ego in itself already weird. How far do I actually extend? Quality, the ego, and free will are nonsensical gifts from the universe. I have as much free will as I have the concept of me - and physics is the motor!
-
Indeterministic + free-will doesn’t exist and can’t exist. You literally end in impossible contradictions if you entail its existence in a consistent universe (as in, one where everything that exists is subjected to the same natural laws).
As a side note for OP, Hisenberg has proven there’s no such thing as “knowing the initial condition”.
I live my life as if I have unlimited free will, and I view the world as if everyone else is fully determined by their circumstances. And then I just ignore the contradiction. Ez pz
My brother and I have been having an ongoing debate about this and Simulation Theory for a good few years.
In my mind, it’s a pointless question to try and answer. It makes for a nice thought experiment, but actually having a belief in it is useless.
The concept of belief is rooted in free will, is it not?
Not necessarily, no. You may believe something and yet not be free to believe otherwise.
Some entities are more deterministic than others. A rock is more deterministic than an animal and a human is less deterministic than an animal because its “causal inertia” is weaker: it can be influenced by more factors than the rock and is more unpredictable.
I would say you’re referring more to complexity than determinism. More variables increases complexity but doesn’t necessarily decrease determinism. It depends on whether you believe some of those variables include true randomness though. For example, does quantum randomness affect anything? We’re led to believe it has no real effect on a macroscopic scale, but perhaps over a large enough amount of time and across a large enough set of variables the effect becomes noticeable. If that’s the case, determinism breaks down.
Hard determinist here. It doesn’t make the future predictable by me, but I don’t see how randomness could really occur. And then likewise there’s no such thing as free will.
Quantum mechanics are probabilistic, which serves as a good argument for the universe as a whole being probabilistic. The position of a single particle could change a great many things!
Which leaves the question: Has our mind the ability to use this randomness and shape it by our will? Because if not the universe might be probabilistic and still we’d probably not have any free will of our own; being determined to act according to the setup of our nerves and synapses and their activation status at any given moment, plus a bit of incalculable randomness.
Deterministic with no actual free will, but complex enough that we’ll never be able to tell the difference. Essentially, our choices may technically be predetermined but for all intents and purposes, they are indistinguishable from free will and can’t be predicted.
