To me, free will is the *feeling* that the major determinant of my actions is my own brain/mind without external coercion or constraint. That is, that my actions are the result of the complex filter that is my personal and unique history of experiences, my knowledge, intelligence, predilections, desires and drives, and not the forced result of some conflicting external influence. However, what feels like an exercise of free will one day may not seem so the next day - e.g. I was manipulated!
You most certainly are in control. Control is just not what we wish it to be. Even in (semi) determinism, my choices are 100% certainly made by me. The infinite regress of "me decided to be me", however, consists eventually of deterministic events.
We can also be held accountable. When we're at fault, we are faulty machinery. Punishment is required. We should however realize, we should not punish a soul. We should place correcting input into a fellow machine. Or terminate it, if necessary.
who died and made this physicist guy a neuro surgeon?
this quantum religion crap is a joke, ok particles behave differently at the subatomic level, great. how does that jump to electrical and chemical reactions in a humans brain?
the electrical and chemical happenings in the brain happen before we are conscious of them, just accept the fact that you were conceived, have lived and will have died exactly and only as you would or could have. you are not in anyway in control.
I think that we have a margin of option available. I think people have Free Will in the sense that we make choices through cognitive thought. We also do things without thinking(mostly our habits), but they are not decisions as there was no thought involved. We generally know how most things(not people) are going to behave. We get a certain amount of room into which any given person's behavior in any given situation, circumstantial environment, will unfold. Free will? Yes. Unlimited will? No.
Prepare to trip substantial balls: If a murderer is predetermined to commit murders, then people say he can't be held responsible, therefore he can't be punished. But the punishment was ALSO predetermined, therefore there's nothing you can do anyway. omgomgomgomgomgomg
Do we have free will? Yes we do! And it's at the core of what we are, in an absolute sense. Before time and space emerged there was not nothing. Rather, there was no-thing, uncertainty, an ocean of quantum potential with no-thing outside of it to affect it. Therefore the currently known universe was born out of a condition of free will. As we are both an expression of that process and the process itself, we too are a manifestation of a being with total free will.
well i believe that things ARE set in stone. What i eat 10 years from now will be set in stone because there is no true "random." I dont know, i suppose that to truly understand a realm you have to be above that realm, and we as humans are trapped in that realm and as such there are higher workings in existence that we dont understand and will never understand.
If they're predetermined then you tell me what the interactions will be 5 minutes from now. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that random interactions are predictable.
as a scientist who has studied quantum theory extensively, i love watching other physicists pontificate on meta-physical concepts using the "Quantum" pass card. Interpretation: naturalism can't provide a satisfactory explanation for human free will/determinism, so clearly human behavior must be quantum....after all, electrons, quarks, nuclei, photons, high-energy black holes exhibit quantum behavior...the human mind must also be quantum. he says it with such conviction so it must be true
@TheBoomstickhero lol! I was thinking the exact same thing right before I read your comment. It literally laughed when I read it. He is one one of the most renowned and highly regarded physicists on the planet, and yet the second half of this video was immensely funny. Going from that fact that we can not have the knowledge to "determine" (predict) a future position and time, to concluding "determinism" is false and we must have free will... Maybe he quibbled? Determinism is bad PR for science.
@TheBoomstickhero some overfocused scholars tend to overreach with their chosen ideas instead of recognizing the insights from a more relevant discipline. at times dr. kaku reminds me of the joke someone said about a law professor, "Poor guy thinks declaratory judgments will cure cancer.''
"Is this going to enable us to understand free wil? If you look at the details, it's not really going to help because what happens is you have some very small quantum particles, and their behavior is apparently a bit random. They swerve. Their behavior is absurd in the sense that its unpredictable and we can't understand it based on anything that came before. It just does something out of the blue, according to a probabilistic framework. But is that going to help with freedom?
Now he mixes up quantum-physics (talking about electrons) and physics (persons and bigger systems)?! I totally agree with Totally (previous comment)...
i think extrapolation from uncertainty in physical properties of a particle into the accountability-levels of the behavior of a mass murderer is a bit much
@TotaIIy Well you could argue if behavior is nothing but physical processes than could this unpredictably on a molecular level be the building of free choice? Maybe our consciousness or what evers deeper inside of us directs the direction of the molecules.
@RossetaStoned91 I understood the implications and the content, just not the extrapolation. To put it in perspective, an electron is the size of an apple divided up by fourteen trillion, two hundred billion. I think we'd do better studying the fascinating criminal findings in neuroscience that focus on decisions that seem to arise before conscious detection, as opposed to mapping a trillionth of an apple onto the issue of criminal responsibility, etc.
Also what he touches on at the end, a depressing thought, but you are eternally alone in this world, every feeling you ever had, the delay between the stimuli and you feeling it means no matter how small an amount of time it is, you are alone, in your own time stream, catching little signals of people from the past. Every soul is out of synch with every other soul
free will only becomes an illusion through hindsight. in my opinion
everything seems preordained when we look back on things. but looking forward to the future, there is no certainty. only calculated guesses. some with higher probabilities than others
but hindsight makes probability meaningless. thats how i see it.
we are pretty sure of things at the macroscopic level.. look how many predictions we make about it that come true.. it's because at the macro level.. something is always being interacted with.. so it's always in a 'steady' state..
Random Will is not Free Will. Free Will means you are responsible for your actions and that those actions are free from cause and effect. Any argument against a deterministic universe negates the responsibility aspect Free Will. If you had Free will and the "randomness" at the quantum level changed your decisions then your Free Will would be effected and randomized. It would then be Random Will. Thereby releasing you of responsibility for those actions.
@TheDashboardSaint The conscious may exist with probability. When observing determinism one finds that any possibility of free will is negated due to it being predetermined. But when observing things on the quantum state of probability, the possibility of anything happening is possible. This entails the power of shifting possibilities to the observer. It reminds me of Schrodinger's Thought Experiment, seemingly these random interactions negate the possibility, but the observances permit them.
@KiddTesla What is cool about what he's saying is that even if we don't have free will it is a possibility because the universe allows random things to happen. The big question is "how" do we have it, if we do? How does it work? how is it possible?Nobody answers these basic questions.
@KiddTesla I personally think people don't have free will and that it's the biggest illusion we have to live with. Although i would like to ask this question "What would we do differently if we had Free Will?" If the answer is "nothing" then the question of weather we have it or not is a lot less important.
I don't think I can do it "in every sense of the word", nor in a clear concise way, but instead a vague and uncertain way (because of the nature of the subject matter: indeterminacy).
I think that we have to understand indeterminacy as, not random, or irrational, but instead as a certain mode of "being". What I mean by a "certain mode of being", is that what is indeterminate is potential, and as such is neither nothing nor actually something. It is a "halfway" point.
I see your line of reasoning, but saying something is at a halfway point is, I believe, inconsistent with reality. Either something exists or it doesn't. If something is potential, then it doesn't exist.
"Either something exists or it doesn't." And I didn't dispute this. I was talking about potency, and things which are potential do exist; however, things that are actual have a higher "reality" than things which are potential.
I'm not a quantum physicist, so I have to appeal to Heisenberg when he said that Aristotle is the only man who ever understood indeterminacy. In other words, that what is potency is a reality itself, not the reality that we experience, but still real.
@insidetrip101 according to what he's saying - actions are indeterminate because of the randomness at the quantum level. If your trying to say that quantum mechanics is random within a certain "tolerance" then i agree because it is. I'm not talking about some kind of buck wild randomness where anything could happen and neither is Mr Kaku. Simply substitute random with indeterminate in what i said and everything will be alright.
I'm not sure what you are tying to say. First you say, "the randomness at the quantum level." and I object to this in my previous comments saying that "random" and indeterminacy aren't the same thing. Then you say, "Simply substitute random with indeterminate". I agree with this as far as the words go, but if you are suggesting "randomness" is the same as indeterminacy, then I think you are wrong, at least as much as I understand Heisenberg and Aristotle.
@Sivels Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The constraints n this case the are laws of nature/deterministic universe? Which definition were thinking about?
@TheDashboardSaint Free will means you have choice and preferences... You're exercizing free will right now by typing your argument against free will on your computer, lol.
@TheDashboardSaint Are you saying because I'm grounded by gravity so that I don't have a choice of fllying will mean that I have no free will? That's not what free will means.
I think you're mixing up randomized particle interactions with randomized decisions. Random particle interactions could just as simply mean there's no way to predict peoples actions with certainty. Additionally, if what you''re saying is correct then how would particles interact with each other in the case of free will other than randomly?
@bball44j Well what i said is directed at what Mr Kaku is saying - that "we have a kind of free will" because of quantum uncertainty. He doesn't think we have the traditional sense of free will but he says that our actions are not determinable. And that they're not determinable because of something that's out of our control.
@TheDashboardSaint I think I've misunderstand. I thought the cause is your will, and the effect is symptom of it? 'cause and effect' are terms used by determinists.?
@TheDashboardSaint Since when does "free will" mean that those actions are free from cause and effect? Those aren't part of the criteria. "Free will" has never been in a vacuum.
Also, where are you getting that you would be released of responsibility for those actions? Everyone else's "random will" would still result in a murderer being imprisoned. It doesn't matter if you should intrinsically be blamed or not, since you couldn't help it.
@raymitch7410 I'm going by this definition "Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints" and so is the person in the video above. In this case the constraint is a deterministic universe/cause effect. He argues that a way that we may break away from that constraint is quantum mechanics because there is randomness .
@raymitch7410 And i said IF we already had "free will", that "free will" would be effected by quantum mechanics. Randomizing our thoughts/actions. And how could we be responsible for things that we do when they're effected by something that's completely out of our control.
@JBroMCMXCI we can't. but when thing start's to turn out to be predictable enough, we just stop testing them all the time, and look for other, more interesting, less boring phenomena
this does not end the debate..i think it was a bit of a straw man.. not having free will doesn't mean we can detect what's gonna happen.. our brains are not working at the quantum level.. when we turn around the moon is still in the sky whether we're looking or not.. it's not aplicable to the macroscopic world..
and even if everything in the macroscopic world were uncertain.. it's a non sequitur to think that = free will.. there's a jump there that is not connected by two logical points..
0:50 "You don't know where the electron is. It could be here, here, or many places simultaneously". Wow, I guess quantum mechanics IS magic. And there could a God. . .we just don't know where It is.
Seriously though, where in the uncertainty principle does it state that an electron does not have a certain position and velocity at any given moment?
Free will (the definition most people have) is just an incoherent concept that can't ever be saved by science, because it is logically flawed.
The idea that quantum randomness somehow allows for free will to exist, is dubious. While quantum randomness does (if ultimately true) rule out determinism, it replaces it with a different obstacle to the traditional notion of free will.
Random events (while non deterministic) are no more under your will's control than deterministic events.
@homerj7g No one is claiming that random events=free will. Similarly no one claims that random mutations = evolution. Only the people that belief free will is impossible equate random events with free will. Ironically, the same people generally believe in evolution but have no problem with random mutations.
From the video "[about quantum randomness] What does that mean for free will? It means that in some sense we do have some kind of free will. No one can determine your future events given your past history."
Why would someone who believed free will was impossible equate *anything* that exists with free will?
Evolution is a terrible comparison. Evolution is a purposeless process. Free will is by definition mired in purpose.
@homerj7g Well I don't agree with your definition. Capacity has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of purpose. Purpose is a goal or aim of something. Capacity is an ability or potential. For example, a rock hanging on a cliff has the capacity to fall but it has no purpose. And furthermore, if free will does not exist then one could argue that intelligence is a useless word.
I said purpose is a capacity of intelligent agents (i.e. only intelligent agents can have or bestow artifacts with purpose).
I didn't say that purpose is related to *every* kind of capacity (e.g. a capacity of a rock to fall) or the abstract concept of "capacity" itself.
Intelligence is not a useless word even if free will does not exist. There are many examples of intelligence both natural and artificial that lack the common concept of free will.
@homerj7g That depends on your definition of intelligence. It is a vague term with several independent interpretations or characteristics. If intelligence is the ability to solve problems using creativity and logic beyond what is simply learned then it has no useful meaning in a universe without free will. And your definition of purpose could apply to evolution given your vague usage of intelligent agents.
Creativity, logic, and problem solving are not excluded by the lack of free will.
The lack of free will simply means that creativity, logic, and problem solving are either determined or the result of random processes.
Maybe you think that "true creativity" can't be determined or random, but in that case I don't think "true creativity" is as meaningful as the kind we actually have.
I am using Darwin's definition of "purpose" regarding natural selection.
@homerj7g Of course I didn't say that. You took my words out of context. I said intelligence has no meaning if free will does not exists. But since intelligence is a vague term which can be defined in many different ways it is necessary to clarify which definition I am talking about. If you define intelligence as good memory then of course it still has the same meaning. But as I defined it, it becomes a misnomer.
Ok so you are saying that intelligence exists but has no meaning without free will?
I really don't see how this is any more defensible. Why would a phenomenon that still exists not have a meaningful definition?
If you want to define intelligence as requiring free will, all I can say is that I think this definition lacks utility. It simply causes everyone to use the term "free will independent intelligence" to avoid confusion with the other kind.
@homerj7g Well, intelligence would be like free will. It would be a word that describes something that does not exist. I would like to point out that it is not my definition of intelligence. Intelligence is a vague term which has many different definitions by nature. I am simply stating which one of those definitions that is problematic in a deterministic world. I agree with you here, but why even bother to use the term anymore?
What I am saying is that intelligence (i.e. the thing we as humans have) is not compromised if free will does not exist. The thing we have is still the thing we have, even if it doesn't work the way we think it does. Whatever it is we have regardless of whether free will exists should be called intelligence.
The definition of intelligence shouldn't be dependent on how it works at the quantum level, but rather simply on the capacity it provides.
@homerj7g It frankly amazes me why determinists do not understand this point. The thing we have is an illusion. You have no problem with stating that free will is an illusion and therefore useless word, right? But intelligence in a deterministic universe is also an illusion and thus a useless word. It's that simple really. You can still choose to say it exists the same as free will believers in your mind continue to say that free will exists.
First of all I am not a determinist. I think it is quite possible the world is random rather than determined.
Free will is an illusion because it's common definition is incoherent in determinist AND random universes. We could potentially adopt a definition that is coherent, as Dan Dennett suggests.
Many common definition*s* of intelligence are coherent without free will. We could restrict the definition to become incoherent without free will, but why bother?
@homerj7g Please explain to me how a random universe would work? I know you can't, but yet you already declare what cannot be defined in it. If you do not understand how something can work then you should be careful of what conclusions you draw about it. I've learned this from troubleshooting experience.
A random universe, is like the one modern physics suggests we currently live in.
There are many kinds of randomness (e.g. uniform, Guassian, exponential, etc). But they all share the same property that individual results can not be predicted.
Quantum randomness if ultimately true, puts us squarely in one such random universe.
It turns out that some random universes can seem determined at the macro level, and have some similar properties.
@homerj7g ok I was thinking you were saying everything that happens in the universe is random. btw, the deterministic features at the macro level are purely due to statistical anomalies. The same can be demonstrated with dice or other random processes with large numbers.
@homerj7g Getting back to the random universe now that I understand what you meant by it. Free Will is not incoherent in a random universe. That is a popular misconception on youtube that has no proof whatsoever. It is simply a case of I don't understand it so therefore it cannot be. This brings me back to the analogy of Evolution and random mutations.
BTW you have not ever claimed what about illusory free will excludes the possibility of intelligence. You simply equated intelligence to creativity, logic, and problem solving, but gave no explanation why these things are not possible without free will.
I think it's apparent that these things are indeed possible without free will. We could define things like creativity to require free will, but we don't have to. We can simply define it as the thing we have.
@homerj7g I really cannot understand why you want to change the definition of anything. Creativity is a self detonating idea without free will. No explanation should be required - it is self evident. Would you call a robot with a fast cpu a bunch of ram and some sensory inputs creative??? I wouldn't. Why argue with something that is so self evident?
"Would you call a robot with a fast cpu a bunch of ram and some sensory inputs creative???"
I am a functionalist. So if the robot is sufficiently sophisticated to pass the Turing test, I would absolutely call this robot creative. Alan Turing, regarded as the father of computer science has a great essay on this topic, where he presents this famous test.
Traditionally with an axiom (something that is self evident), acceptance is voluntary. I reject this axiom.
@homerj7g If..if...if but again no evidence. There is currently no robot that can pas the Turing test. And you can always say there might be in the future even if it is impossible. You might as well argue the existance of God. No way of proving you wrong because you can always resort to something that might be some day. BTW, the Turing test is an intelligence test, so you are willing to equate cerativity with intelligence but not free will? why?
I am not taking an empirical position, therefore it requires no empirical evidence. It is the philosophical position of functionalism.
The Turing test is indeed a type of intelligence test.
I would have no problem of equating free will with this type of intelligence if the common concept of free well were brought into coherence (e.g. Dennett's position), but this is not a commonly held view at all. The common view of free will is currently incoherent.
@homerj7g It is only incoherent because randomness cannot be understood functionaly. It is an inherent property of randomness. But our lack of understanding is not a logical refutal of a concept. One of my objections with determinists is that they continuously state that free will is incompatible with a random universe. However, random processes are abstract and cannot be understood logically, therefore one cannot use this argument as a logical refutal.
I accept the possibility that free will is coherent and that I just don't understand it. Most modern philosophers including amateur philosophers like myself claim not to be able to understand any arguments for coherence of traditional free will.
I am open to being convinced of the coherence of the concept. I just haven't seen it described to me or seen it myself in a way that I consider coherent.
@homerj7g I doubt it ever will be. If you follow debates on quantum reality, what you ultimately will find is that scientists to do not care about the interpretation of the science, they only care about the formulation and how to apply it correctly. There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, but none are considered the accepted interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is the taught/textbook version but it is really just a legacy.
I doubt it will be as well, but my statement is more of an admission of the limitations my own mental faculties rather than a characterization of reality.
Reality has changed a few times. Divine -> determined -> random. It would not be so surprising if it changed again.
My point is that I can't even imagine a plausible universe where free will is coherent. Certainly not in any of the 3 we've "had" so far.
@homerj7g Well there is still no robot that can currently pass the Turing test. Requiring empirical evidence or not you have nothing but future hopes which arguably will never occur. You are taking a non-falsifiable position. Call it what you want, but it is simply convenient.
No there is nothing coming remotely close to passing the Turing test. That doesn't mean that something couldn't in the future or that it is logically impossible.
It is no more unfalsifiable than the standard axiom of science itself, that the world is governed by unchanging physical laws.
The functionalist philosophical position is simply the application of the axiom of science to all of reality.
The idea that fairies don't exist is also unfalsifiable.
@homerj7g But quantum indeterminism is not saying that fairies exist. It merely states that the world might not operate in the newtonian way that we are used to. As a result, we may never comprehend the most basic functionality of the universe, but that is not a valid reason for creating a false model of the universe. Well, it is for some purposes, but ultimately science must conform to the universe not the universe must conform to science.
Yes quantum indeterminism is an empirical fact. You claimed that I took an unfalsifiable position with respect to strong AI. What I am saying is that this position is no more unfalsifiable than someone claiming it is theoretically possible to go to the moon in 1950. There was no evidence that we could go to the moon. No one had ever come close yet.
I never questioned the validity of quantum theory. I don't know why you think I did.
i love his mirror analogy. what we see the world is not as it is but as it was. our minds are simply not fast or effecient enough to process real time in those tiny tiny measurements of time.
If everything in the universe is fixed, by definition of the theory, everything is determinable. if it is not determinable, then it is not fixed, by the theory, and the choices we make, therefore, are also not fixed. free will. People still believeing in determinism need to increase their IQ.
We have no free will. We're nature's machine and we would react the same way every time to any certain event if you reverse it and forward it again. A godly intellect, assuming it exists, will be able to predict our every actions, because ofcourse, free will doesn't exist.
@Nebster173 Well this is contrary to the scientific view of quantum events. So you are effectively throwing quantum mechanics out the window. Do you have a new theory to replace it with?
@Nebster173 How can you be so certain? Do you not perceive free will. I certainly do, and I assume most other people do as well. The only reason that people doubt free will is because of the apparent deterministic functionality of the universe. And of course that is certainly a valid viewpoint until one examines quantum evidence. After one rules out determinism, the best evidence is once again perception.
@dartplayer170 Quantum evidence does not rule out determinism. Whatever is going on at the subatomic level, it's not magic, it's more like a magic trick. Things are going to do what they are going to do based on mechanics. We cannot independently control the mechanics of our brains. Thoughts arise in the brain before we are aware of the thoughts. We are merely witnessing the thoughts being made by the brain.
@DeterministicOne Interesting. Is there any evidence to support your subatomic theory or is this just belief in the supernatural? I hear this same argument time and time again by the same people that would argue that arguments without any scientific proof is of no value yet are perfectly ok with supporting quantum theories with no evidence!
@dartplayer170 It's not my suggestion. It is the current model of particle physics and quantum physics. There is no known causal and deterministic mechanism for quantum events. Science doesn't make things up when it doesn't know. Electrons are described by stochastic formulas. That is the best we can do.
And if you could, what part of my comment led you state that I believed in the supernatural? I ask because I specifically stated that what was happening was not magic, i.e., supernatural.
@DeterministicOne My comment was related to your belief in how quantum mechanics works but has no actual evidence to support it. In fact Einstein argued this or a similar point about hidden variables for decades with no success. Science cannot say that quantum mechanics has hidden mechanical causation since there is simply no evidence to support it. Refusal to accept this and asssert that there must be because it makes sense is well......supernatural
@dartplayer170 It is quantum mechanics, not quantum supernatural. Assuming the answer is mechanical is not like saying it's supernatural. Stating that a particle could be in many places simultaneously would be closer to the supernatural. Does the professor have anything to justify that statement?
@DeterministicOne There is evidence to support the claim that a particle can be in many places at once. It is called the double slit experiment. I'm sorry that this doesn't sound like the way the universe should be but science is not about what we think, it's about what the evidence says. Electrons don't move randomly. They exist as probability clouds. But there is a random aspect to events that electrons encounter. We don't know why this is.
@dartplayer170 The double slit experiment showed that particles have properties of waves. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the DS experiment that says a particle can be in two places at the same time. I did find that some claim that one must concede that a neutron fed into an interferometer takes both paths through the device, but I am not sure how they can make that claim. Can you send me a link that might explain the two places at once notion. (cont)
@DeterministicOne You need to investigate the DS a little more my friend. There are many continuations on the DS experiment that are even more troublesome. You seem satisifed with a particle being a wave. Did you not question what that means? In the DS experiment the particle interferes with itself as it passes through both slits. The interference is the wave property. It can only interfere with itself if there is more than one location to be at. In the case two slits.
@dartplayer170 I am not satisfied with a particle being a wave, I am satisfied that a particle has properties of wave.
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."
@DeterministicOne Believe me when I say i have already read the pilot wave theory and many other explanations of the two slit experiment including many determinist points of view. But there is no actual evidence to support any determinist interpretation of the two slit experiment. There is other experimental evidence other than the two slit experiment which leads physicists to believe that it is not a hidden variable problem.
@dartplayer170 Has there ever been an observation of one particle going through two slits? Can you send me a link or give me the names of those that did the other than two slit experiments?
@DeterministicOne There have been many enhancements on the double slit experiment including single photon interference, delayed choice, EPR. So, yes. But always indirectly do to the uncertainty principle. It is of course always possible to interpret differently but this is always going to be the case do the the restrictions of the UP. Just Google, it has been widely publicized for a long time. I've been reading about DS and such for two decades.
@dartplayer170 "But always indirectly do to the uncertainty principle". What we are observing with a particle is not the same as we see with a wave. With a particle the interference pattern builds up over time while the wave interference pattern is immediate. I will keep searching, but until we can actually observe a particle in two places at one time, I will stick with with particles only going through one slit at a time.
@DeterministicOne Not true actually. Single photon interference builds slowly to a pattern that is a wave distribution. It is not the time to build the pattern that distinguishes them. It is the distribution of the pattern.
@dartplayer170 Understood, but we still don't get an immediate interference pattern with particles. One particle is fired and one particle reaches the detector. Only with plane waves to we get an immediate interference pattern. Again, until we can observe a particle in more than one place, I am going to have a hard time accepting the idea. My wife had an interesting thought: If particles can be in more than one place at a time, then perhaps time travel is possible.
@DeterministicOne The idea of particles traveling backwards in time is equivalent to anti-particles traveling forward in time in QED. But this concept is only valid within the constraints of UP so it has no practical value as far as human time travel.
@dartplayer170 Since we do not know why there are random aspects to events that electrons encounter, we cannot state with certainty whether it's deterministic or not. I would be willing to concede that there is indeterminism at the quantum level, but I don't think this ends the free will debate. We are still biological robots. We have no control over whatever randomness occurs in our brains.
@wburton16 Why don't you try to answer my questions instead of repeating the same argument over and over? Open your mind. "Not fixed" does not mean "free will". Answer my questions about physics laws (and their deterministic behaviour despite quantum randomness) and we'll be able to keep a high level conversation.
@fmocastro They are only deterministic at the macroscopic level and even these are only approximations in theory. Simply put, the errors of measurements caused by instrumentation are generally a lot larger than errors caused by the actual uncertainty inherent by randomness.
The idea of having no free will sounded ridiculous to me! Thinking about it more I can now see how it's possible that we are just biological computers. The thought is kind of scary, but I could accept it. On the other hand we don't know nearly as much about physics as we think we do. For example much of the modern physics were based on that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and yet now it seems that neutrinos might be able to travel faster than that. Thanks for making me think!
@LordLastDay Nice! Now you'll probably start to question different aspects of human life under the light of free will inexistence. Human responsibility, difficult choices, crisis and social behaviors all gain a very interesting aspect when reexamined through what you now think. I hope you get to the conclusion that, despite not free, you still have responsibility for your actions and the duty to reflex and think. Even if your conclusion is already determined :)
@fmocastro What an amusing comment! ("Despite not free, you still have responsibility for your actions and the duty to reflect and think.") If by "duty" you mean "no choice otherwise" (at least insofar as determinism is concerned) ... I suppose that under determinism there could be no other definition of "duty." And choice = not choice. Ted Chiang wrote a wonderful short story about determinism I'm sure you've read. If you haven't read it yet then perhaps you will!
@cavillor1 Sorry but I don't know Ted Chiang's work. I'll look for it. What I was trying to achieve with my message was that we can not let determinism and the inexistence of free will to turn us into will-less, irresponsible persons (despite the fact that it is already determined how you will react to this thought). I've heard so many people saying "Oh, if it's determined than life has no meaning". Perhaps the universe predicted the need of people propagating this idea :D
@fmocastro It is incoherent to say, "We cannot let the inexistence of free will turn us into will-less persons." Either we have free will, or don't. And if we don't--then either we will believe that we do, or we won't, depending on the predetermined flow of electricity in our brains. How can you imply that we choose our beliefs if you don't believe in free will?
@cavillor1 I don't know if your question is due to a possible english mistake of mine or not. I used "will-less" as "volition-less". If that's what you understood then what you're asking is a very interesting philosophical question and the incoherency you brought is perfect at first sight. But there's a problem. Suppose the human brain (psychologically) doesn't respond well to the deterministic thought. Suppose it needs an external impulse, reconstructing its needed sense of meaning (cont)
@cavillor1 (continuation) Despite pre-determined, this external impulse could come on the form of an "encouraging" phrase like "We cannot let the inexistence of free will turn us into will-less persons." (please allow me to call that "encouraging"). You cannot deny volition as a human drive and you cannot stop discussing about it, even if not free, not only because it is probably needed for the sake of our own mental health but also because denying any though is the first step to stop thinking.
@fmocastro Volition would be an illusion in a deterministic universe. But then all emotion relies on illusion. I see your distinction now between the emotion of volition and the fact (or falsity) of will.
@fmocastro And determinism doesn't imply that there is no meaning. It just implies that meaning (might) exist independently of our (perceived) choices. Perhaps the clock that is the universe was wound up with intent.
@cavillor1 Exactly but that kind of meaning is not so appealing to most people. Please note that I was talking about the difficulty to disseminate determinism and free will inexistence because the first reaction is most likely a sense of meaningless and powerless. Under this scope, I tried to bring the sense of responsibility as something important, even if predetermined, to undermine a possible first sense of meaningless. I'm a determinist myself.
According to determinism, not only our actions, but the actions of everything are determined by everything that happened previously.
His point is, if randomness exists anywhere in the universe, as it does with electrons, the theory of determinism breaks down. It's not to say that our actions are random, only that they are not determined, thus, free will exists.
If the actions of one part of the universe are not effected by determinism, there's no reason to think the rest is either.
@wburton16 First of all, we have to be very careful not to mistake uncertainty for indeterminism. Heisenberg principle alone does not grant indeterminism, only uncertainty. You could call for Bell's theorem but then one could call for Superdeterminism. On the other hand, indetermination has nothing to do with free will. Is it free a choice that's not predetermined? What is triggering the coice? Randomness? Is randomness enough for you to consider yourself free?
@fmocastro Determinism is suppose to act on everything in the universe. The position of electrons,however, are random. The theory of determinism suggests that if everything in the universe were known, everything could be determined. this doesn't work if anything in the universe is random, as electrons are.
If one part of the universe is not controlled by determinism, there's no reason to think the rest would be either. don't try to reword my argument, your doing a shitty job of it.
@wburton16 The point I'm trying to address is free will, not determinism vs. indeterminism. What I'm trying to say is that indetermination is different from freedom. The choice is not free because it is undetermined. Ok, so you can not predict what the choice will be, but that does not imply that it had no cause. The cause, by itself, must be explained only by the previous state of the brain or you would have to use things like spirituality or god to explain choices or you would have randomness.
@fmocastro It's not an issue of experiencing decision making or not. we all experience the though process. The issue is that determinists believe that process is an illusion because the decision we are going to make is ultimately the same decision we were destined to make because the universe works as a giant clock. however, we know because of electrons and the existence of randomness, that it is not a giant clock, that our decisions are not fixed, and that we have free will.
@wburton16 Don't you see that indetermination and free will are two completely separate things? Forget determinism. I don't need that to refute free will. Do you "believe" in physics laws? I hope so. If so, do you see that we can predict electric currents and the behavior of electric circuits despite quantum randomness? Do you have any reason to think our brain is not regulated by Maxwell's equations? Free will would be like saying the earth orbits the sun because it wants to!!
If everything in the universe is fixed, by definition of the theory, everything is determinable. if it is not determinable, then it is not fixed, by the theory, and the choices we make, therefore, are also not fixed. free will.
@wburton16 Please try to answer my questions instead of repeating the same argument over and over. I've already told you the unfixed, undetermined, or any other type of unknown future has nothing to do with the free will of the human brain. Even if it's unknown, it's not chosen by you, it's following universal rules (laws) that result on a specific output. Your perceived will has no way of changing anything, unless you believe your will can twist physics laws as it pleases.
@wburton16 Please try to answer my questions instead of repeating the same argument over and over. I've already told you the unfixed, undetermined, or any other type of unknown future has nothing to do with the free will of the human brain. Even if it's unknown, it's not chosen by you, it's following universal rules (laws) that result on a specific output. Your perceived will has no way of changing anything, unless you believe your will can twist physics laws as it pleases.
@fmocastro the term "undertermined" in this sense means free will because the theory of determinism says that if everything that has every happened ever is known, then everything in the future can be predicted. because there is randomness and that cannot happen (i.e. you can't predict the decision someone will make with 100% certainty, even if you know everything that has ever happened), free will is definite.
@fmocastro You don't have to use spirituality or god to explain the choices. Instead you can admit that we don't have a very good explanation and the issue remains unsolved. You can start looking into the idea that perhaps we are missing something, defining things wrong, and creating a paradox of meaning in a similar fashion as the tortoise-Achilles paradox which seems to prove motion cannot exist, but is obviously flawed due to our observation of motion.
@theduderabides The last thing I want is to use spirituality to explain choices. I was trying to show the absurd of having to recur to something like that to explain something quite simple as the outcome of an electric circuit (a choice of our electric brain). People tend to overestimate human consciousness and its "will" when it's nothing more than a complex electro-chemical circuit. For a determined input, there will always be an output, no matter how complex the process is.
@fmocastro So you're saying that even though we can't be certain based on our own subjective observation, OBJECTIVELY it is certain (predetermined--the two being synonymous) what will occur, regardless of what we perceive as occurring?
Ok, so we have randomness. So determinism is wrong. But you cannot 'will' something through randomness, because then it wouldn't be random. So free will is wrong. So really the most we can say is this:
If you say you got free will, you gotta believe there's a "you" to make a decision. That's the deeper part of free will.
TaterGumfries 1 day ago
Even in a purely deterministic universe we would act as if we had free will - we would have no choice...
DomainRider 2 days ago
To me, free will is the *feeling* that the major determinant of my actions is my own brain/mind without external coercion or constraint. That is, that my actions are the result of the complex filter that is my personal and unique history of experiences, my knowledge, intelligence, predilections, desires and drives, and not the forced result of some conflicting external influence. However, what feels like an exercise of free will one day may not seem so the next day - e.g. I was manipulated!
DomainRider 2 days ago
You most certainly are in control. Control is just not what we wish it to be. Even in (semi) determinism, my choices are 100% certainly made by me. The infinite regress of "me decided to be me", however, consists eventually of deterministic events.
We can also be held accountable. When we're at fault, we are faulty machinery. Punishment is required. We should however realize, we should not punish a soul. We should place correcting input into a fellow machine. Or terminate it, if necessary.
sorsocksfake 2 days ago
who died and made this physicist guy a neuro surgeon?
this quantum religion crap is a joke, ok particles behave differently at the subatomic level, great. how does that jump to electrical and chemical reactions in a humans brain?
the electrical and chemical happenings in the brain happen before we are conscious of them, just accept the fact that you were conceived, have lived and will have died exactly and only as you would or could have. you are not in anyway in control.
monkeyrocketsurgeon 2 days ago
I hate how the determinism and free will are pitted against each other.
The debates should be "determinism vs indeterminism" and "free will vs no free will".
We're conflating issues here.
reckonaut 3 days ago
I think that we have a margin of option available. I think people have Free Will in the sense that we make choices through cognitive thought. We also do things without thinking(mostly our habits), but they are not decisions as there was no thought involved. We generally know how most things(not people) are going to behave. We get a certain amount of room into which any given person's behavior in any given situation, circumstantial environment, will unfold. Free will? Yes. Unlimited will? No.
Realmslover 3 days ago
Prepare to trip substantial balls: If a murderer is predetermined to commit murders, then people say he can't be held responsible, therefore he can't be punished. But the punishment was ALSO predetermined, therefore there's nothing you can do anyway. omgomgomgomgomgomg
JaaaaaaaaaakeS 4 days ago
@JaaaaaaaaaakeS It relates to the sub-philosophical field of ethics, read up on it, it's quite interesting!
TTunczz 4 days ago
Do we have free will? Yes we do! And it's at the core of what we are, in an absolute sense. Before time and space emerged there was not nothing. Rather, there was no-thing, uncertainty, an ocean of quantum potential with no-thing outside of it to affect it. Therefore the currently known universe was born out of a condition of free will. As we are both an expression of that process and the process itself, we too are a manifestation of a being with total free will.
4DINTEGRAL 5 days ago
"I will chose a path that's clear. I will chose free will!" -RUSh
YouHaveWonAFreeiPad 5 days ago 2
I love this guy, he thinks big
purplericee 1 week ago
well i believe that things ARE set in stone. What i eat 10 years from now will be set in stone because there is no true "random." I dont know, i suppose that to truly understand a realm you have to be above that realm, and we as humans are trapped in that realm and as such there are higher workings in existence that we dont understand and will never understand.
Jumbaguy 1 week ago
Kind of funny that in a weird way it almost sounds like Einstein believed in intelligent design.....kinda
candymanMVHS 1 week ago
Einstein was pretty much a fail.
gaaraman082 1 week ago
you gotta love this guy
letsplay14me 1 week ago
THIS ISN'T MY HAND!
luciddeception 1 week ago
An uncertain future is not free will.
thekkl 1 week ago
Lol he said god.
roadrash90 1 week ago
but aren't those random uncertainties still predetermined in the flow of time?
flicamc 1 week ago
@flicamc
If they're predetermined then you tell me what the interactions will be 5 minutes from now. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that random interactions are predictable.
bball44j 1 week ago
as a scientist who has studied quantum theory extensively, i love watching other physicists pontificate on meta-physical concepts using the "Quantum" pass card. Interpretation: naturalism can't provide a satisfactory explanation for human free will/determinism, so clearly human behavior must be quantum....after all, electrons, quarks, nuclei, photons, high-energy black holes exhibit quantum behavior...the human mind must also be quantum. he says it with such conviction so it must be true
clericbop 1 week ago
I'm astounded that such a smart guy doesn't understand free will
TheBoomstickhero 1 week ago
@TheBoomstickhero lol! I was thinking the exact same thing right before I read your comment. It literally laughed when I read it. He is one one of the most renowned and highly regarded physicists on the planet, and yet the second half of this video was immensely funny. Going from that fact that we can not have the knowledge to "determine" (predict) a future position and time, to concluding "determinism" is false and we must have free will... Maybe he quibbled? Determinism is bad PR for science.
streetmagicstyle 1 week ago
@TheBoomstickhero some overfocused scholars tend to overreach with their chosen ideas instead of recognizing the insights from a more relevant discipline. at times dr. kaku reminds me of the joke someone said about a law professor, "Poor guy thinks declaratory judgments will cure cancer.''
TotaIIy 1 week ago
There's not a single argument that ends the debate in this video. If there is then please tell me what it is.
shlockofgod 1 week ago
"Is this going to enable us to understand free wil? If you look at the details, it's not really going to help because what happens is you have some very small quantum particles, and their behavior is apparently a bit random. They swerve. Their behavior is absurd in the sense that its unpredictable and we can't understand it based on anything that came before. It just does something out of the blue, according to a probabilistic framework. But is that going to help with freedom?
RossetaStoned91 1 week ago
Chaos and order are both slave of destiny
itsiwhatitsi 2 weeks ago
Now he mixes up quantum-physics (talking about electrons) and physics (persons and bigger systems)?! I totally agree with Totally (previous comment)...
Walnuss 2 weeks ago
i think extrapolation from uncertainty in physical properties of a particle into the accountability-levels of the behavior of a mass murderer is a bit much
TotaIIy 2 weeks ago
@TotaIIy Well you could argue if behavior is nothing but physical processes than could this unpredictably on a molecular level be the building of free choice? Maybe our consciousness or what evers deeper inside of us directs the direction of the molecules.
RossetaStoned91 1 week ago
@RossetaStoned91 I understood the implications and the content, just not the extrapolation. To put it in perspective, an electron is the size of an apple divided up by fourteen trillion, two hundred billion. I think we'd do better studying the fascinating criminal findings in neuroscience that focus on decisions that seem to arise before conscious detection, as opposed to mapping a trillionth of an apple onto the issue of criminal responsibility, etc.
TotaIIy 1 week ago
Also what he touches on at the end, a depressing thought, but you are eternally alone in this world, every feeling you ever had, the delay between the stimuli and you feeling it means no matter how small an amount of time it is, you are alone, in your own time stream, catching little signals of people from the past. Every soul is out of synch with every other soul
youwinoneinternets 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
youwinoneinternets 2 weeks ago
"When I look to the mirror, I see a BAMF. And, yes, that's me." - Dr. Kaku
gbrlgrct 2 weeks ago
free will only becomes an illusion through hindsight. in my opinion
everything seems preordained when we look back on things. but looking forward to the future, there is no certainty. only calculated guesses. some with higher probabilities than others
but hindsight makes probability meaningless. thats how i see it.
carlose0318 2 weeks ago
@carlose0318 right on.
TheDashboardSaint 5 days ago
@JBroMCMXCI
we are pretty sure of things at the macroscopic level.. look how many predictions we make about it that come true.. it's because at the macro level.. something is always being interacted with.. so it's always in a 'steady' state..
koreanprideno1 2 weeks ago 6
so?
Excelsoft 2 weeks ago
Random Will is not Free Will. Free Will means you are responsible for your actions and that those actions are free from cause and effect. Any argument against a deterministic universe negates the responsibility aspect Free Will. If you had Free will and the "randomness" at the quantum level changed your decisions then your Free Will would be effected and randomized. It would then be Random Will. Thereby releasing you of responsibility for those actions.
TheDashboardSaint 2 weeks ago 30
@TheDashboardSaint The conscious may exist with probability. When observing determinism one finds that any possibility of free will is negated due to it being predetermined. But when observing things on the quantum state of probability, the possibility of anything happening is possible. This entails the power of shifting possibilities to the observer. It reminds me of Schrodinger's Thought Experiment, seemingly these random interactions negate the possibility, but the observances permit them.
KiddTesla 1 week ago
@KiddTesla What is cool about what he's saying is that even if we don't have free will it is a possibility because the universe allows random things to happen. The big question is "how" do we have it, if we do? How does it work? how is it possible?Nobody answers these basic questions.
TheDashboardSaint 5 days ago
@KiddTesla I personally think people don't have free will and that it's the biggest illusion we have to live with. Although i would like to ask this question "What would we do differently if we had Free Will?" If the answer is "nothing" then the question of weather we have it or not is a lot less important.
TheDashboardSaint 5 days ago
@TheDashboardSaint
"Random Will is not Free Will."
And indeterminate is not random.
insidetrip101 1 week ago
@insidetrip101
Explain. If it is impossible, in every sense of the word, to determine a future event or a certain type of interaction, how is it not random?
bball44j 1 week ago
@bball44j
I don't think I can do it "in every sense of the word", nor in a clear concise way, but instead a vague and uncertain way (because of the nature of the subject matter: indeterminacy).
I think that we have to understand indeterminacy as, not random, or irrational, but instead as a certain mode of "being". What I mean by a "certain mode of being", is that what is indeterminate is potential, and as such is neither nothing nor actually something. It is a "halfway" point.
insidetrip101 1 week ago
@insidetrip101
I see your line of reasoning, but saying something is at a halfway point is, I believe, inconsistent with reality. Either something exists or it doesn't. If something is potential, then it doesn't exist.
bball44j 1 week ago
@bball44j
"Either something exists or it doesn't." And I didn't dispute this. I was talking about potency, and things which are potential do exist; however, things that are actual have a higher "reality" than things which are potential.
I'm not a quantum physicist, so I have to appeal to Heisenberg when he said that Aristotle is the only man who ever understood indeterminacy. In other words, that what is potency is a reality itself, not the reality that we experience, but still real.
insidetrip101 1 week ago
@insidetrip101 according to what he's saying - actions are indeterminate because of the randomness at the quantum level. If your trying to say that quantum mechanics is random within a certain "tolerance" then i agree because it is. I'm not talking about some kind of buck wild randomness where anything could happen and neither is Mr Kaku. Simply substitute random with indeterminate in what i said and everything will be alright.
TheDashboardSaint 5 days ago
@TheDashboardSaint
I'm not sure what you are tying to say. First you say, "the randomness at the quantum level." and I object to this in my previous comments saying that "random" and indeterminacy aren't the same thing. Then you say, "Simply substitute random with indeterminate". I agree with this as far as the words go, but if you are suggesting "randomness" is the same as indeterminacy, then I think you are wrong, at least as much as I understand Heisenberg and Aristotle.
insidetrip101 5 days ago
@TheDashboardSaint uh no, that's not the definition of free will, try again.
Sivels 1 week ago
@Sivels Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The constraints n this case the are laws of nature/deterministic universe? Which definition were thinking about?
TheDashboardSaint 5 days ago
@TheDashboardSaint Free will means you have choice and preferences... You're exercizing free will right now by typing your argument against free will on your computer, lol.
Sivels 5 days ago
@TheDashboardSaint Are you saying because I'm grounded by gravity so that I don't have a choice of fllying will mean that I have no free will? That's not what free will means.
Sivels 5 days ago
@TheDashboardSaint
I think you're mixing up randomized particle interactions with randomized decisions. Random particle interactions could just as simply mean there's no way to predict peoples actions with certainty. Additionally, if what you''re saying is correct then how would particles interact with each other in the case of free will other than randomly?
bball44j 1 week ago
@bball44j Well what i said is directed at what Mr Kaku is saying - that "we have a kind of free will" because of quantum uncertainty. He doesn't think we have the traditional sense of free will but he says that our actions are not determinable. And that they're not determinable because of something that's out of our control.
TheDashboardSaint 5 days ago
@TheDashboardSaint I think I've misunderstand. I thought the cause is your will, and the effect is symptom of it? 'cause and effect' are terms used by determinists.?
wexxxxx 1 week ago
@TheDashboardSaint Since when does "free will" mean that those actions are free from cause and effect? Those aren't part of the criteria. "Free will" has never been in a vacuum.
Also, where are you getting that you would be released of responsibility for those actions? Everyone else's "random will" would still result in a murderer being imprisoned. It doesn't matter if you should intrinsically be blamed or not, since you couldn't help it.
raymitch7410 1 day ago
@raymitch7410 I'm going by this definition "Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints" and so is the person in the video above. In this case the constraint is a deterministic universe/cause effect. He argues that a way that we may break away from that constraint is quantum mechanics because there is randomness .
TheDashboardSaint 1 day ago
@raymitch7410 And i said IF we already had "free will", that "free will" would be effected by quantum mechanics. Randomizing our thoughts/actions. And how could we be responsible for things that we do when they're effected by something that's completely out of our control.
TheDashboardSaint 1 day ago
I don't understand. If there is any uncertainty at any level whatsoever, how can we be so sure of anything?
JBroMCMXCI 2 weeks ago
@JBroMCMXCI we can't. but when thing start's to turn out to be predictable enough, we just stop testing them all the time, and look for other, more interesting, less boring phenomena
totemizer 2 weeks ago
this does not end the debate..i think it was a bit of a straw man.. not having free will doesn't mean we can detect what's gonna happen.. our brains are not working at the quantum level.. when we turn around the moon is still in the sky whether we're looking or not.. it's not aplicable to the macroscopic world..
and even if everything in the macroscopic world were uncertain.. it's a non sequitur to think that = free will.. there's a jump there that is not connected by two logical points..
koreanprideno1 2 weeks ago
My mind used to be stuck between the two free will debates, but it was recently sufficed with the following conclusion:
Heisenberg and Einstein were both correct to an extent.
The future is unpredictable (Heisenberg), but probabilistic (Einstein).
eqeek 2 weeks ago
0:50 "You don't know where the electron is. It could be here, here, or many places simultaneously". Wow, I guess quantum mechanics IS magic. And there could a God. . .we just don't know where It is.
Seriously though, where in the uncertainty principle does it state that an electron does not have a certain position and velocity at any given moment?
DeterministicOne 3 weeks ago
Free will (the definition most people have) is just an incoherent concept that can't ever be saved by science, because it is logically flawed.
The idea that quantum randomness somehow allows for free will to exist, is dubious. While quantum randomness does (if ultimately true) rule out determinism, it replaces it with a different obstacle to the traditional notion of free will.
Random events (while non deterministic) are no more under your will's control than deterministic events.
homerj7g 3 weeks ago
@homerj7g No one is claiming that random events=free will. Similarly no one claims that random mutations = evolution. Only the people that belief free will is impossible equate random events with free will. Ironically, the same people generally believe in evolution but have no problem with random mutations.
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
From the video "[about quantum randomness] What does that mean for free will? It means that in some sense we do have some kind of free will. No one can determine your future events given your past history."
Why would someone who believed free will was impossible equate *anything* that exists with free will?
Evolution is a terrible comparison. Evolution is a purposeless process. Free will is by definition mired in purpose.
homerj7g 3 weeks ago
@homerj7g Evolution is a process which selects better adapted creatures to an environment. Hardly purposeless.
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
You are confusing purpose with function.
Something can have a function without purpose. Purpose is a capacity of an intelligent agent.
Darwin himself in "The origin of Species" described the process of of natural selection as a "mindless, purposeless, mechanical process".
homerj7g 3 weeks ago
@homerj7g Well I don't agree with your definition. Capacity has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of purpose. Purpose is a goal or aim of something. Capacity is an ability or potential. For example, a rock hanging on a cliff has the capacity to fall but it has no purpose. And furthermore, if free will does not exist then one could argue that intelligence is a useless word.
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
I said purpose is a capacity of intelligent agents (i.e. only intelligent agents can have or bestow artifacts with purpose).
I didn't say that purpose is related to *every* kind of capacity (e.g. a capacity of a rock to fall) or the abstract concept of "capacity" itself.
Intelligence is not a useless word even if free will does not exist. There are many examples of intelligence both natural and artificial that lack the common concept of free will.
homerj7g 3 weeks ago
@homerj7g That depends on your definition of intelligence. It is a vague term with several independent interpretations or characteristics. If intelligence is the ability to solve problems using creativity and logic beyond what is simply learned then it has no useful meaning in a universe without free will. And your definition of purpose could apply to evolution given your vague usage of intelligent agents.
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
Creativity, logic, and problem solving are not excluded by the lack of free will.
The lack of free will simply means that creativity, logic, and problem solving are either determined or the result of random processes.
Maybe you think that "true creativity" can't be determined or random, but in that case I don't think "true creativity" is as meaningful as the kind we actually have.
I am using Darwin's definition of "purpose" regarding natural selection.
homerj7g 3 weeks ago
@homerj7g Of course I didn't say that. You took my words out of context. I said intelligence has no meaning if free will does not exists. But since intelligence is a vague term which can be defined in many different ways it is necessary to clarify which definition I am talking about. If you define intelligence as good memory then of course it still has the same meaning. But as I defined it, it becomes a misnomer.
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
Ok so you are saying that intelligence exists but has no meaning without free will?
I really don't see how this is any more defensible. Why would a phenomenon that still exists not have a meaningful definition?
If you want to define intelligence as requiring free will, all I can say is that I think this definition lacks utility. It simply causes everyone to use the term "free will independent intelligence" to avoid confusion with the other kind.
homerj7g 3 weeks ago
@homerj7g Well, intelligence would be like free will. It would be a word that describes something that does not exist. I would like to point out that it is not my definition of intelligence. Intelligence is a vague term which has many different definitions by nature. I am simply stating which one of those definitions that is problematic in a deterministic world. I agree with you here, but why even bother to use the term anymore?
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
What I am saying is that intelligence (i.e. the thing we as humans have) is not compromised if free will does not exist. The thing we have is still the thing we have, even if it doesn't work the way we think it does. Whatever it is we have regardless of whether free will exists should be called intelligence.
The definition of intelligence shouldn't be dependent on how it works at the quantum level, but rather simply on the capacity it provides.
homerj7g 2 weeks ago
@homerj7g It frankly amazes me why determinists do not understand this point. The thing we have is an illusion. You have no problem with stating that free will is an illusion and therefore useless word, right? But intelligence in a deterministic universe is also an illusion and thus a useless word. It's that simple really. You can still choose to say it exists the same as free will believers in your mind continue to say that free will exists.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
First of all I am not a determinist. I think it is quite possible the world is random rather than determined.
Free will is an illusion because it's common definition is incoherent in determinist AND random universes. We could potentially adopt a definition that is coherent, as Dan Dennett suggests.
Many common definition*s* of intelligence are coherent without free will. We could restrict the definition to become incoherent without free will, but why bother?
homerj7g 2 weeks ago
@homerj7g Please explain to me how a random universe would work? I know you can't, but yet you already declare what cannot be defined in it. If you do not understand how something can work then you should be careful of what conclusions you draw about it. I've learned this from troubleshooting experience.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
A random universe, is like the one modern physics suggests we currently live in.
There are many kinds of randomness (e.g. uniform, Guassian, exponential, etc). But they all share the same property that individual results can not be predicted.
Quantum randomness if ultimately true, puts us squarely in one such random universe.
It turns out that some random universes can seem determined at the macro level, and have some similar properties.
homerj7g 2 weeks ago
@homerj7g ok I was thinking you were saying everything that happens in the universe is random. btw, the deterministic features at the macro level are purely due to statistical anomalies. The same can be demonstrated with dice or other random processes with large numbers.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@homerj7g Getting back to the random universe now that I understand what you meant by it. Free Will is not incoherent in a random universe. That is a popular misconception on youtube that has no proof whatsoever. It is simply a case of I don't understand it so therefore it cannot be. This brings me back to the analogy of Evolution and random mutations.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
BTW you have not ever claimed what about illusory free will excludes the possibility of intelligence. You simply equated intelligence to creativity, logic, and problem solving, but gave no explanation why these things are not possible without free will.
I think it's apparent that these things are indeed possible without free will. We could define things like creativity to require free will, but we don't have to. We can simply define it as the thing we have.
homerj7g 2 weeks ago
@homerj7g I really cannot understand why you want to change the definition of anything. Creativity is a self detonating idea without free will. No explanation should be required - it is self evident. Would you call a robot with a fast cpu a bunch of ram and some sensory inputs creative??? I wouldn't. Why argue with something that is so self evident?
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
"Would you call a robot with a fast cpu a bunch of ram and some sensory inputs creative???"
I am a functionalist. So if the robot is sufficiently sophisticated to pass the Turing test, I would absolutely call this robot creative. Alan Turing, regarded as the father of computer science has a great essay on this topic, where he presents this famous test.
Traditionally with an axiom (something that is self evident), acceptance is voluntary. I reject this axiom.
homerj7g 2 weeks ago
@homerj7g If..if...if but again no evidence. There is currently no robot that can pas the Turing test. And you can always say there might be in the future even if it is impossible. You might as well argue the existance of God. No way of proving you wrong because you can always resort to something that might be some day. BTW, the Turing test is an intelligence test, so you are willing to equate cerativity with intelligence but not free will? why?
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
I am not taking an empirical position, therefore it requires no empirical evidence. It is the philosophical position of functionalism.
The Turing test is indeed a type of intelligence test.
I would have no problem of equating free will with this type of intelligence if the common concept of free well were brought into coherence (e.g. Dennett's position), but this is not a commonly held view at all. The common view of free will is currently incoherent.
homerj7g 2 weeks ago
@homerj7g It is only incoherent because randomness cannot be understood functionaly. It is an inherent property of randomness. But our lack of understanding is not a logical refutal of a concept. One of my objections with determinists is that they continuously state that free will is incompatible with a random universe. However, random processes are abstract and cannot be understood logically, therefore one cannot use this argument as a logical refutal.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
I accept the possibility that free will is coherent and that I just don't understand it. Most modern philosophers including amateur philosophers like myself claim not to be able to understand any arguments for coherence of traditional free will.
I am open to being convinced of the coherence of the concept. I just haven't seen it described to me or seen it myself in a way that I consider coherent.
homerj7g 2 weeks ago
@homerj7g I doubt it ever will be. If you follow debates on quantum reality, what you ultimately will find is that scientists to do not care about the interpretation of the science, they only care about the formulation and how to apply it correctly. There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, but none are considered the accepted interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is the taught/textbook version but it is really just a legacy.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
I doubt it will be as well, but my statement is more of an admission of the limitations my own mental faculties rather than a characterization of reality.
Reality has changed a few times. Divine -> determined -> random. It would not be so surprising if it changed again.
My point is that I can't even imagine a plausible universe where free will is coherent. Certainly not in any of the 3 we've "had" so far.
homerj7g 2 weeks ago
@homerj7g Well there is still no robot that can currently pass the Turing test. Requiring empirical evidence or not you have nothing but future hopes which arguably will never occur. You are taking a non-falsifiable position. Call it what you want, but it is simply convenient.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
No there is nothing coming remotely close to passing the Turing test. That doesn't mean that something couldn't in the future or that it is logically impossible.
It is no more unfalsifiable than the standard axiom of science itself, that the world is governed by unchanging physical laws.
The functionalist philosophical position is simply the application of the axiom of science to all of reality.
The idea that fairies don't exist is also unfalsifiable.
homerj7g 2 weeks ago
@homerj7g But quantum indeterminism is not saying that fairies exist. It merely states that the world might not operate in the newtonian way that we are used to. As a result, we may never comprehend the most basic functionality of the universe, but that is not a valid reason for creating a false model of the universe. Well, it is for some purposes, but ultimately science must conform to the universe not the universe must conform to science.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170
Yes quantum indeterminism is an empirical fact. You claimed that I took an unfalsifiable position with respect to strong AI. What I am saying is that this position is no more unfalsifiable than someone claiming it is theoretically possible to go to the moon in 1950. There was no evidence that we could go to the moon. No one had ever come close yet.
I never questioned the validity of quantum theory. I don't know why you think I did.
homerj7g 2 weeks ago
i love his mirror analogy. what we see the world is not as it is but as it was. our minds are simply not fast or effecient enough to process real time in those tiny tiny measurements of time.
dumaskhan 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If everything in the universe is fixed, by definition of the theory, everything is determinable. if it is not determinable, then it is not fixed, by the theory, and the choices we make, therefore, are also not fixed. free will. People still believeing in determinism need to increase their IQ.
leftoversN 3 weeks ago
We have no free will. We're nature's machine and we would react the same way every time to any certain event if you reverse it and forward it again. A godly intellect, assuming it exists, will be able to predict our every actions, because ofcourse, free will doesn't exist.
Nebster173 3 weeks ago
@Nebster173 Well this is contrary to the scientific view of quantum events. So you are effectively throwing quantum mechanics out the window. Do you have a new theory to replace it with?
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
@dartplayer170 You are right. That throws predictability out of the window, but we still don't have free will.
Nebster173 3 weeks ago
@Nebster173 How can you be so certain? Do you not perceive free will. I certainly do, and I assume most other people do as well. The only reason that people doubt free will is because of the apparent deterministic functionality of the universe. And of course that is certainly a valid viewpoint until one examines quantum evidence. After one rules out determinism, the best evidence is once again perception.
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Nebster173 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dartplayer170 Our actions, behavior and thoughts are all effects of our environment. So What choice or "free will" do we have on any matter?
Nebster173 3 weeks ago
@dartplayer170 Quantum evidence does not rule out determinism. Whatever is going on at the subatomic level, it's not magic, it's more like a magic trick. Things are going to do what they are going to do based on mechanics. We cannot independently control the mechanics of our brains. Thoughts arise in the brain before we are aware of the thoughts. We are merely witnessing the thoughts being made by the brain.
DeterministicOne 3 weeks ago
@DeterministicOne Interesting. Is there any evidence to support your subatomic theory or is this just belief in the supernatural? I hear this same argument time and time again by the same people that would argue that arguments without any scientific proof is of no value yet are perfectly ok with supporting quantum theories with no evidence!
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
@dartplayer170 Are you suggesting that what is happening at the subatomic level is magic?
DeterministicOne 3 weeks ago
@DeterministicOne Define magic
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
@dartplayer170 It's not my suggestion. It is the current model of particle physics and quantum physics. There is no known causal and deterministic mechanism for quantum events. Science doesn't make things up when it doesn't know. Electrons are described by stochastic formulas. That is the best we can do.
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
@dartplayer170 Supernatural.
And if you could, what part of my comment led you state that I believed in the supernatural? I ask because I specifically stated that what was happening was not magic, i.e., supernatural.
DeterministicOne 3 weeks ago
@DeterministicOne My comment was related to your belief in how quantum mechanics works but has no actual evidence to support it. In fact Einstein argued this or a similar point about hidden variables for decades with no success. Science cannot say that quantum mechanics has hidden mechanical causation since there is simply no evidence to support it. Refusal to accept this and asssert that there must be because it makes sense is well......supernatural
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
@dartplayer170 It is quantum mechanics, not quantum supernatural. Assuming the answer is mechanical is not like saying it's supernatural. Stating that a particle could be in many places simultaneously would be closer to the supernatural. Does the professor have anything to justify that statement?
Do we know why electrons move at random?
DeterministicOne 3 weeks ago
@DeterministicOne There is evidence to support the claim that a particle can be in many places at once. It is called the double slit experiment. I'm sorry that this doesn't sound like the way the universe should be but science is not about what we think, it's about what the evidence says. Electrons don't move randomly. They exist as probability clouds. But there is a random aspect to events that electrons encounter. We don't know why this is.
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
@dartplayer170 The double slit experiment showed that particles have properties of waves. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the DS experiment that says a particle can be in two places at the same time. I did find that some claim that one must concede that a neutron fed into an interferometer takes both paths through the device, but I am not sure how they can make that claim. Can you send me a link that might explain the two places at once notion. (cont)
DeterministicOne 3 weeks ago
@DeterministicOne You need to investigate the DS a little more my friend. There are many continuations on the DS experiment that are even more troublesome. You seem satisifed with a particle being a wave. Did you not question what that means? In the DS experiment the particle interferes with itself as it passes through both slits. The interference is the wave property. It can only interfere with itself if there is more than one location to be at. In the case two slits.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170 I am not satisfied with a particle being a wave, I am satisfied that a particle has properties of wave.
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."
I'll message you the source.
DeterministicOne 2 weeks ago
@DeterministicOne Believe me when I say i have already read the pilot wave theory and many other explanations of the two slit experiment including many determinist points of view. But there is no actual evidence to support any determinist interpretation of the two slit experiment. There is other experimental evidence other than the two slit experiment which leads physicists to believe that it is not a hidden variable problem.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170 Has there ever been an observation of one particle going through two slits? Can you send me a link or give me the names of those that did the other than two slit experiments?
DeterministicOne 2 weeks ago
@DeterministicOne There have been many enhancements on the double slit experiment including single photon interference, delayed choice, EPR. So, yes. But always indirectly do to the uncertainty principle. It is of course always possible to interpret differently but this is always going to be the case do the the restrictions of the UP. Just Google, it has been widely publicized for a long time. I've been reading about DS and such for two decades.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170 "But always indirectly do to the uncertainty principle". What we are observing with a particle is not the same as we see with a wave. With a particle the interference pattern builds up over time while the wave interference pattern is immediate. I will keep searching, but until we can actually observe a particle in two places at one time, I will stick with with particles only going through one slit at a time.
DeterministicOne 2 weeks ago
@DeterministicOne Not true actually. Single photon interference builds slowly to a pattern that is a wave distribution. It is not the time to build the pattern that distinguishes them. It is the distribution of the pattern.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170 Understood, but we still don't get an immediate interference pattern with particles. One particle is fired and one particle reaches the detector. Only with plane waves to we get an immediate interference pattern. Again, until we can observe a particle in more than one place, I am going to have a hard time accepting the idea. My wife had an interesting thought: If particles can be in more than one place at a time, then perhaps time travel is possible.
DeterministicOne 2 weeks ago
@DeterministicOne The idea of particles traveling backwards in time is equivalent to anti-particles traveling forward in time in QED. But this concept is only valid within the constraints of UP so it has no practical value as far as human time travel.
dartplayer170 2 weeks ago
@dartplayer170 Since we do not know why there are random aspects to events that electrons encounter, we cannot state with certainty whether it's deterministic or not. I would be willing to concede that there is indeterminism at the quantum level, but I don't think this ends the free will debate. We are still biological robots. We have no control over whatever randomness occurs in our brains.
DeterministicOne 3 weeks ago
@wburton16 Why don't you try to answer my questions instead of repeating the same argument over and over? Open your mind. "Not fixed" does not mean "free will". Answer my questions about physics laws (and their deterministic behaviour despite quantum randomness) and we'll be able to keep a high level conversation.
fmocastro 1 month ago
@fmocastro They are only deterministic at the macroscopic level and even these are only approximations in theory. Simply put, the errors of measurements caused by instrumentation are generally a lot larger than errors caused by the actual uncertainty inherent by randomness.
dartplayer170 3 weeks ago
My left ear enjoyed this video.
fredrick01 1 month ago
that fact that trying to observe something changes it's position has no meaning because it was predetermined you would try to observe it
DGice2 1 month ago
The idea of having no free will sounded ridiculous to me! Thinking about it more I can now see how it's possible that we are just biological computers. The thought is kind of scary, but I could accept it. On the other hand we don't know nearly as much about physics as we think we do. For example much of the modern physics were based on that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and yet now it seems that neutrinos might be able to travel faster than that. Thanks for making me think!
LordLastDay 1 month ago
@LordLastDay Nice! Now you'll probably start to question different aspects of human life under the light of free will inexistence. Human responsibility, difficult choices, crisis and social behaviors all gain a very interesting aspect when reexamined through what you now think. I hope you get to the conclusion that, despite not free, you still have responsibility for your actions and the duty to reflex and think. Even if your conclusion is already determined :)
fmocastro 1 month ago
@fmocastro What an amusing comment! ("Despite not free, you still have responsibility for your actions and the duty to reflect and think.") If by "duty" you mean "no choice otherwise" (at least insofar as determinism is concerned) ... I suppose that under determinism there could be no other definition of "duty." And choice = not choice. Ted Chiang wrote a wonderful short story about determinism I'm sure you've read. If you haven't read it yet then perhaps you will!
cavillor1 1 month ago
@cavillor1 Sorry but I don't know Ted Chiang's work. I'll look for it. What I was trying to achieve with my message was that we can not let determinism and the inexistence of free will to turn us into will-less, irresponsible persons (despite the fact that it is already determined how you will react to this thought). I've heard so many people saying "Oh, if it's determined than life has no meaning". Perhaps the universe predicted the need of people propagating this idea :D
fmocastro 1 month ago
@fmocastro It is incoherent to say, "We cannot let the inexistence of free will turn us into will-less persons." Either we have free will, or don't. And if we don't--then either we will believe that we do, or we won't, depending on the predetermined flow of electricity in our brains. How can you imply that we choose our beliefs if you don't believe in free will?
cavillor1 1 month ago
@cavillor1 I don't know if your question is due to a possible english mistake of mine or not. I used "will-less" as "volition-less". If that's what you understood then what you're asking is a very interesting philosophical question and the incoherency you brought is perfect at first sight. But there's a problem. Suppose the human brain (psychologically) doesn't respond well to the deterministic thought. Suppose it needs an external impulse, reconstructing its needed sense of meaning (cont)
fmocastro 1 month ago
@cavillor1 (continuation) Despite pre-determined, this external impulse could come on the form of an "encouraging" phrase like "We cannot let the inexistence of free will turn us into will-less persons." (please allow me to call that "encouraging"). You cannot deny volition as a human drive and you cannot stop discussing about it, even if not free, not only because it is probably needed for the sake of our own mental health but also because denying any though is the first step to stop thinking.
fmocastro 1 month ago
@fmocastro Volition would be an illusion in a deterministic universe. But then all emotion relies on illusion. I see your distinction now between the emotion of volition and the fact (or falsity) of will.
cavillor1 1 month ago
@fmocastro And determinism doesn't imply that there is no meaning. It just implies that meaning (might) exist independently of our (perceived) choices. Perhaps the clock that is the universe was wound up with intent.
cavillor1 1 month ago
@cavillor1 Exactly but that kind of meaning is not so appealing to most people. Please note that I was talking about the difficulty to disseminate determinism and free will inexistence because the first reaction is most likely a sense of meaningless and powerless. Under this scope, I tried to bring the sense of responsibility as something important, even if predetermined, to undermine a possible first sense of meaningless. I'm a determinist myself.
fmocastro 1 month ago
wild card = no free will
Franchan10 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
According to determinism, not only our actions, but the actions of everything are determined by everything that happened previously.
His point is, if randomness exists anywhere in the universe, as it does with electrons, the theory of determinism breaks down. It's not to say that our actions are random, only that they are not determined, thus, free will exists.
If the actions of one part of the universe are not effected by determinism, there's no reason to think the rest is either.
wburton16 1 month ago
@wburton16 First of all, we have to be very careful not to mistake uncertainty for indeterminism. Heisenberg principle alone does not grant indeterminism, only uncertainty. You could call for Bell's theorem but then one could call for Superdeterminism. On the other hand, indetermination has nothing to do with free will. Is it free a choice that's not predetermined? What is triggering the coice? Randomness? Is randomness enough for you to consider yourself free?
fmocastro 1 month ago
Comment removed
wburton16 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fmocastro Determinism is suppose to act on everything in the universe. The position of electrons,however, are random. The theory of determinism suggests that if everything in the universe were known, everything could be determined. this doesn't work if anything in the universe is random, as electrons are.
If one part of the universe is not controlled by determinism, there's no reason to think the rest would be either. don't try to reword my argument, your doing a shitty job of it.
wburton16 1 month ago
@wburton16 The point I'm trying to address is free will, not determinism vs. indeterminism. What I'm trying to say is that indetermination is different from freedom. The choice is not free because it is undetermined. Ok, so you can not predict what the choice will be, but that does not imply that it had no cause. The cause, by itself, must be explained only by the previous state of the brain or you would have to use things like spirituality or god to explain choices or you would have randomness.
fmocastro 1 month ago
@fmocastro It's not an issue of experiencing decision making or not. we all experience the though process. The issue is that determinists believe that process is an illusion because the decision we are going to make is ultimately the same decision we were destined to make because the universe works as a giant clock. however, we know because of electrons and the existence of randomness, that it is not a giant clock, that our decisions are not fixed, and that we have free will.
wburton16 1 month ago
@wburton16 Don't you see that indetermination and free will are two completely separate things? Forget determinism. I don't need that to refute free will. Do you "believe" in physics laws? I hope so. If so, do you see that we can predict electric currents and the behavior of electric circuits despite quantum randomness? Do you have any reason to think our brain is not regulated by Maxwell's equations? Free will would be like saying the earth orbits the sun because it wants to!!
fmocastro 1 month ago
@fmocastro
If everything in the universe is fixed, by definition of the theory, everything is determinable. if it is not determinable, then it is not fixed, by the theory, and the choices we make, therefore, are also not fixed. free will.
wburton16 1 month ago
@wburton16 Please try to answer my questions instead of repeating the same argument over and over. I've already told you the unfixed, undetermined, or any other type of unknown future has nothing to do with the free will of the human brain. Even if it's unknown, it's not chosen by you, it's following universal rules (laws) that result on a specific output. Your perceived will has no way of changing anything, unless you believe your will can twist physics laws as it pleases.
fmocastro 1 month ago
@wburton16 Please try to answer my questions instead of repeating the same argument over and over. I've already told you the unfixed, undetermined, or any other type of unknown future has nothing to do with the free will of the human brain. Even if it's unknown, it's not chosen by you, it's following universal rules (laws) that result on a specific output. Your perceived will has no way of changing anything, unless you believe your will can twist physics laws as it pleases.
fmocastro 1 month ago
Comment removed
wburton16 1 month ago
Comment removed
wburton16 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fmocastro the term "undertermined" in this sense means free will because the theory of determinism says that if everything that has every happened ever is known, then everything in the future can be predicted. because there is randomness and that cannot happen (i.e. you can't predict the decision someone will make with 100% certainty, even if you know everything that has ever happened), free will is definite.
wburton16 1 month ago
@fmocastro You don't have to use spirituality or god to explain the choices. Instead you can admit that we don't have a very good explanation and the issue remains unsolved. You can start looking into the idea that perhaps we are missing something, defining things wrong, and creating a paradox of meaning in a similar fashion as the tortoise-Achilles paradox which seems to prove motion cannot exist, but is obviously flawed due to our observation of motion.
theduderabides 1 month ago
@theduderabides The last thing I want is to use spirituality to explain choices. I was trying to show the absurd of having to recur to something like that to explain something quite simple as the outcome of an electric circuit (a choice of our electric brain). People tend to overestimate human consciousness and its "will" when it's nothing more than a complex electro-chemical circuit. For a determined input, there will always be an output, no matter how complex the process is.
fmocastro 1 month ago
@fmocastro So you're saying that even though we can't be certain based on our own subjective observation, OBJECTIVELY it is certain (predetermined--the two being synonymous) what will occur, regardless of what we perceive as occurring?
cavillor1 1 month ago
@cavillor1 Exactly!
fmocastro 1 month ago
Comment removed
wburton16 1 month ago
Comment removed
wburton16 1 month ago
What's with all the camera cuts?
ll2yan 1 month ago
Ok, so we have randomness. So determinism is wrong. But you cannot 'will' something through randomness, because then it wouldn't be random. So free will is wrong. So really the most we can say is this:
Shit happens.
africantearoa 1 month ago