It's possible someone tomorrow could show up with a theory that explains the movement electrons. So to outright claim knowledge that free will exists or doesn't exist is just someone trying to sound smart.
free will is not limited to the realization of what we cannot do, free will is a form of self awareness of what we can do, determinism is just another way of saying "what happens happens", OR "I am constructed to live/feel a certain way, therefor my actions and desires are scripted". I'm sorry but I disagree, considering we can contemplate what is and isn't, what we can achieve and thensome, and what is objectively better for us as a whole...
Doesn't the electron only "seem" to appear to in random places because we do not yet understand the physics involved to predetermine where it will be? It seems to me like people always try to apply the concept of "randomness" to something they don't understand yet. Just because we can not determine where an electron will be does not mean it appears in random locations, but that we do not have the knowledge to know where it will end up.
There is a design to nature. There is free will. Free will is part of the design.
There is so much choice in life that we choose to limit it. Those who don't choose to do so, end up having it reduced for them by the consequences for not looking for the best choices.
WHY is it that i can't trust this guy's face? there is something in his face that is untrustworthy. Quantum Mechanics' theories cannot be proven as facts. they're just bunch of GIBBERISH mathmatics about the behaviors of the particle that don't even exist and the mathmatics have no connection to the tangible reality out there.QM is a big LIE! QM has not accomplished or produced anything yet. only the true physics is still the force behind all the inventions. QM is NOT true physics; it's a HOAX.
@CosmicCaprice Do you not understand that the modern day Laser is because of the Quantum Mechanic equations created by Neils Bohr? Also, the microchip in your computer was created by these QM equations. You are a lost mind.
Whether you believe in free will, or you don't believe is right. Free will is both an illusion in your mind, and a reality in the physical plain of existence, simultaneously! What makes this possible is the very thing a determinist believes makes free will impossible, DETERMINATION!
Humans have the unique ability to believe, or in other words, have faith, faith exists in the mind, and your faith makes your mind determined to believe it can do something.
@phorse So, if you believe in the ability to make a choice (food, exercise, sex, etc...), in direct opposition of what would satisfy your minds cravings, then your brain becomes determined to not do what your brain is telling you to do, and your mind chooses, even against it's own desire for satisfaction.
What you perceive as a choice is whats tricky. Most people believe that a choice, and an outcome are the same. They do go hand in hand, but choices themselves aren't big, only the outcomes ar
Well, quantum mechanics kills determinism, which is still valid for macroscopic systems of course. What we know now is that there are no perfect space-time coordinates for a very small object. So yeah, our destiny is unsolvable, for the major part. Still, free will is bullshit because your brain is just a machine incapable of controlling itself with supernatural powers. Nature controls your brain, not the other way around. Nature turns out to be random, so our brain is kinda random I guess...
We don't where the electron is, therefore free will exists. I reject that logic. There is always a cause, even if that cause isn't understood. The double slit test doesn't prove that there can be effects without cause, it just proves that the cause isn't obvious.
theres a natural order to things and everything is natural, if you knowingly change that order your just delaying the end point but you dont have the power to stop it
“In physics the truth is rarely perfectly clear, and that is certainly universally the case in human affairs. Hence, what is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth.”
SadSadSad thing is that She was the main inventor of most of Theory of Relativity-ordinary human,Mileva Maric, who got no couragge to be-come HolyWood whore,she was the One who educated idiot EinSwine who at the end sold Her and Their son because that does hurt thy Image on TV. for Kaku Michi) social interaction is valid i quess onli if it's worth sold like .reincarnation- Uneducated fools deserve to suffer because our Imperializam is IN with Great Forces of Uni-Multi-Verse therefore-Perfect...
don't take it seriosly...look who's talking-a commercial tool without HimSelf at first,without Free Mind as sec.well raised in a cage can you realy think that he can talk about Out-side especially Body...Mr.Sweet Dreams,an Ignorant who do not know nothing about Real World- a Sidathra Kreatura, a perfect GENTEL-man who think manypullating and telling lies is brave thing-like his Hero AEjnSWAJN who fucked his own wife-leave her and their son,born as an idiot-in nameless misery
The debate of free will/ determinism is as pathetic and one sided as the debate regarding deism. There is no God, I had the choice on whether or not to say that. The argument for the other side of the fence is only seen as legitimate because there's no real way to prove it wrong.
Why do people always have to try to ruin philosohpy like that?
Here is my scientific response......Horse shit! You will always have free will, and you always have a choice! No matter what someone with a PHD shoved up their ass tells you.
@spicecrop There might be reasons to support free will in its most profound nature, but not what Kaku points here as far as I understand. Having choice does not guarantee free will, animals could be said to have choices but they will most probably "choose" the one alligned with their nature and not more or less, maybe we do too, or maybe not.
Why would a God plan every single detail, and how everything will play out? How boring would that be to sit there and watch that for thousands of years, already knowing what will happen? And if He did want to go through with something like that, then why would he sentence some to an eternity in Hell? It differs from a "divine plan," because there is no divine plan. Religions are failed sciences.
The processes in the brain result in decisions. Free will would imply that you make the decision independently and then the brain would react?... that doesn't seem possible
There is uncertainty int he world, yes. However there is another theory in motion, i don't remember the exact phrasing, but its a common understanding. Every action in the universe has an equal an opposite reaction. Which is what the determined part of life is. Although we have the CHOICE to change the world or not, what becomes of it depends on too many factors for US to possibly comprehend. John Lennon, for example, was a preacher of peace, however he was assassinated by a man who was crazy...
Also op is terribly misunderstanding determinism, he thinks it has something to do with a predetermined plan developed by some sort of being, it refers to the idea that since you know the beginning of a set of events you can predict the outcome because physics are constant throughout the universe. Its the reason why 1+1=2 and why your computer boots up the same why every day. There is no plan for the universe, you can simply predict the outcome.
@MrThirdof12 There is just the trouble that physics specifically states that there are things that aren't predictable. You cannot by knowing the beginnings of the set - and you cannot predict the outcome.
@MrThirdof12 op actually knows what determinism means, but you obviously didn't understand op's text in the crotchbar. btw.: op doesn't like to be insulted by dumb people..
Also you must consider, that the uncertainty principle part is bullshit, its simply a practical problem, you cant predict where a particle is and where its going in real time, but you can make predictions that are realistic enough with macro level considerations. So to recap, you have free will, but not in the way we all first thought. There is also destiny maybe, but also not in the romantic way we thought, in the sense that you can essentially model the life of the universe with enough data.
I'll admit, this video isnt the best arguement, epecially since I think hes missing the meaning of free will. Its the concept of chosing your own actions. The tie-in with physics is that if you view the universe in terms of variables, something happened on jan 1, 2012 and unless you have a time machine, you cant change that or claim otherwise, same thing with any future date. We dont know if the future values exist though, but the advances in physics since them suggest in favor of that.
There is no free will, but your future is not predetermined. There are infinite possibilities for your future that can be predicted, but you can only predict the possibility of them happening, you can never say for certain, this #434,436 future will 100% happen.
In addition, there can be no true free will, because your choices are determined by your genetics and your environment growing up. Neither of which you ever had control of at the time of your birth. Therefore, no decision was ever yours.
I have reached exactly the same conclution as Kaku. I believe there is free will because, and only because of the uncertainty principle. Before I learned about this in physics, I reasoned that everything had to be cause and effect, which it isn't.
@Orbitusx I hope you continue to study physics, because you have no idea what the uncertainty principle is. I'm not being mean (or I hope I'm not being mean), I'm just sayin'
The uncertainty principle is about how we cannot measure particles without changing their velocity/position.
@DeoMachina No offence taken. What you just told me is the first thing I was taught when I was introduced to the uncertainty principle. The probability to find a particle around a point depends on a wave function. I was also taught that this together with the behavior of entangled photons is the reason as to why we have to operate with uncertainties at a quantum level. This is the debate between Einstein and Bohr about if nature is undetermined. If there is more to it, I'd love to hear about it.
@Orbitusx But aren't you saying that with enough computing power it could be determined. The spooky thing about quantum physics is that it seems to depend on the observer.
@tincoffin I don't think computing power helps, since the act of observing still changes what you observe. Unless there is an other way to observe that doesn't interfer with what you see - i believe that the future is undetermined. But more importantly, where did I say anything about computing power? D:
@tincoffin Yes but the more important thing is... it works. Also, that's the Copenhagen interpretation, there are different interpretations out there.
@George4943 The problem I had with the free will issue is just where do you draw the line between just what is free and what isn't. Just what does a person do that is completely ramdom? What does person do that lies completely outside the realm of scientific investigation? Answer: nothing! All actions are determined by genetics and environment, which includes personal history with it's bias', likes, dislikes. What appears as free or random will find its place in a larger chain of cause/effect
This guy needs to get out of celebrity and hit the books. This is the dozenth or so grandiose claim Ive heard from Michio Kaku that is completely off-base. He relies so heavily on assumptions, its ridiculous.
You have to have a brain to understand what Michio Kaku saying. Even though I see so many comments criticizing him. When come about "free will" I'm 100%with him. That comment is very accurate. This year I will brake it down that explanations why we have "free will".
@Levon9404 ... the randon location of an electron has nothing to do with free will. Just because the future is uncertain doe not mean you are in control of the ship!
@chessslut We are individually just like Columbus him self. He was control of the ship but he wasn't sure of the destination. You can shape the future but you cannot predict the future.
@Levon9404 Columbus had choice, just as a rat in a maze does. But the psychologist does not assume the rat to have free will. Glaciers shape the future, do they have fre will? Just where does your free will control start? Do any other animals have free will? This is a fine example of what Carl Jung said whan he said 'people can't stand too mch reality'. I've kept an open mind on this subject and merely go where the facts and reason lead. Free will does not exist, it is an illusion.
@chessslut Free will it is a generalized subject. If you want to see things that way yes I will say no body has "free will" including the electrons the way Michio Kaku stated in this video clips. Electrons are under control of nucleus. They are rotating round of nucleus because nucleus forcing them to. But their is another part of free will no body will force any one how to live their life people are total control of their own life. Depend how you approach that subject.
Regardless of whether or not we have free will our societies act as if we do.
Without free will there is no responsibility nor blame. Every anti-social act is a pathology in the individual in need of correction. (Hence departments of Correction.)
The role of judges becomes meaningless. All his judgements determined by physics alone.
We, in fact, have limited will. There are unreachable choices. I may will myself to survive under water for an hour.
I like your comment except for the "limited" word. In truth there is NO free will. If you disagree, tell me what you have unbiased control over. Lack of knowledge of the variables in any situation, and thus failure to predict, should not cause one to label 'randon' actions as 'free'. Everything finds it way in a larger chain of cause and effect.
@George4943 I disagree with both examples. Whatw we you decide to do when bored depends on past experiences ... whatever is most self serving. Think about it.
If determinism exists then say goodbye to peace on Earth because if everyone agreed to have peace , sooner or later someone's going to break that cycle and cause chaos because they were determined to. What a shame.
It also takes 80 miliseconds for your brain to conceive on what you saw from your eyes to your brain so basically yes plus the light from the mirror adds on to the delay a little bit.
Free will vs determinism is a false dichotomy. Determinism is predicated on the assumption that all events are extant and it is only the arrival of one upon a coincident moment that makes the event probability become real. This is unprovable. In the same manner, "free will" is a meaningless phrase: all decisions are made through a subtle and sometimes massive computation of beneficial or detrimental results, but it is absurd to think that one can chose to be other than one is.
You know there are philosophical rather than scientific arguments in favour of determinism? For example, every effect has a cause, and every cause has a cause, and so on. No one can control his "causes". Even if there IS randomness, randomness is not choice. Uncertainty =/= choice. I think free will is not just practically impossible, it's logically impossible. It's a chimera.
Michio Kaku, why do you assume that the Newtonian determinism vs. quantum uncertainty debate has any direct bearing on the free will vs. determinism debate? To say that "an electron has uncertainty, and therefore free will exists" potentially opens us up to the same logical fallacy which determinists made when they said "Newton's laws of motion are deterministic in nature, therefore free will does not exist". Though an interesting parallel, we can not assume that they exist in the same domain
@TheDon2101 You go to make a choice.... Your brain is composed of atoms, and those atoms have electrons... so there is uncertainty. If there is uncertainty then you must make choices that can not be predicted, and if you make choices that can not be predicted, than your choices are not predetermined, thus your will has an effect on the outcome.
@captcorajus There is no honest neurobiologist who claims to understand how an ambiguous concept such as “the will” works on the level of individual neurons or systems of neurons interacting within the brain. Without that understanding, it is impossible to say how the uncertainty of particular wave functions at a subatomic level affects the functions of single neurons or interactions between neurons, let alone “free will” on a macroscopic scale.
@captcorajus Except that the choices cannot be predicted *even by you.* So how does this unpredictability give you an effect on the outcome? It sounds like your notion of free will is flawed.
@danielt63 Consider this: It would be impossible, practically speaking, to calculate the precise course and time span involved in, say, the decent of an autumn leaf from the top of a particular tree to the ground. Obviously the large number of unknown determining variables would make such calculations impossible in any mathmetical sense. At the same time, however, no one would doubt for a moment the intricate operation of strict lawfulness pertaining to this event, ....
@chessslut Your decisions are based on two or three factors, the state of your mind, the state of the inputs into your mind and if indeterminism is true, some random factor. Even people who believe in immaterial souls can't escape this (just exchange 'mind' above with 'soul'.) That doesn't negate choice, that *is* choice.
To require that the only way I can be free is if I am free from myself, is silly on its face, but that is exactly what you seem to be requiring for free will to exist.
@chessslut Your comment says nothing about the free will status of the leaf or of people. If you think it does have some bearing, then again I think your notion of free will is flawed.
Quantum physics has absolutely no bearing on the free will debate. It's absolutely retarded to pull inherent randomness as an argument FOR free will. If anything, it works against it. Kaku must have realised this, which makes him the fraud.
Also DocFosters it's slightly silly and very dishonest to compare predictability to divine plans. Would you argue that the laws of motion are no different from a divine plan? Of course not.
@DeoMachina who is the silly one here? i've said it time and time again, randomness isn't an argument for free will, it's an argument against determinism.
as to me being dishonest: either you didn't understand what i wrote in the crotchbar, or you are simply constructing a strawman, which makes you the dishonest one.
@DocFosters I suppose it's an argument against determinism in that it makes tiny things unpredictable, but on the larger scale our predictions are very accurate.
Regardless of our ability to predict things however, the fact that casuality exists means that free will cannot. Unless our brains are somehow exempt from the laws of physics.
@DocFosters "i've said it time and time again, randomness isn't an argument for free will, it's an argument against determinism."
Yet your video is titled "Why Quantum Physics Ends the Free Will Debate". You need to listen closer to the posters who are trying to explain why randomness (aka quantum physics) proves nothing for or against free will.
@DocFosters And still the title of your video is: ''Why Quantum Physics Ends the Free Will Debate''. I haven't watched the video yet though. Someone sent it to me.
this was an interesting video but the guy who published this video seems retarded according to his describtion. i dont think we are at that level where we can actually decide who of these theories are correct because of the lack of scientific proof :/ so far the only reason of someone taking side of this debate seems to be past experience.
Let's keep this strictly philosophical and not theological. If determinism is true, which Kaku says it is not, then we don't have free will. But if determinism is not true, then it means that events are random. This still does not grant us free will, for to have will and for it to be free, our choices must have a causal effect on future events. Yet both determinism and quantum uncertainty necessarily deny this.
Okay, first, as an Atheist I totally believe in freewill. When the word freewill comes from the mouth of a Christian it is totally contradictory, even to the bible, which clearly states that "God" created everything predestine with love. You cannot have freewill if your belief or non belief condemns you to "hell" for eternity! Second, evolution doesn't care about the origin of life, only how is has changed since its beginning. There are many example of this.
God knows every event that ever happened and every event that will happen so he's not placing dice or gambling on anyone. What is unpredictable to us is extremely predtictable to God. Yet, even knowing what we will do, God still loves us anyway.
@WebVManReturns If he know EVERYTHING that will happen. SO if I kill you, it's no a crime or sin, because he allowed me to be born with knowledge what I will do in my life. So he has no issue with it. So I'm free to do it. I'm not responsible for your death, he is. I'm just a tool, a weapon in his hand.....
@LoluskPoo "but god doesn't exist" A meaningless assertion, untestable and unprovable. If someone has an experience of transcendental awareness, a communion with God, that is no less real because it cannot be demonstrated to another than is the awareness of self existence because self cognition cannot be proven to another.
@EternalRecursion alright i'll rephrase.. there has never, nor will there ever be evidence or proof to prove that god exists, therefore, i conclude that the chances of his/her existence is 1/infinite
@AdamDLDixon I'm a christfag and didn't dislike. I have a view of this that I do believe but at the same time just don't understand enough. Though I DO know enough to believe in a somewhat predetermined path. I'm still trying to learn more about the subject of free will but before, as a christfag, I denied the belief of predetermined path but due to.. "first-hand experience" I now consider it along with religious views. I believe in a scientific and religious view subsequently.
@HevensRath Though I know many would say it's all for one or the other, but I believe we (christfags) might not have the correct understanding of what our God speaks of in the Bible. When I say "first-hand experience" (and I know many won't believe me but its why I have the mixed views which I have), I am referring to something very... peculiar. I have had experience with predicting the future. I don't understand it, but long story short that's why I believe in a somewhat predetermined set path
@chrishdman87 wow... a) my comment was a philosophical one, not one about the science of physics. b) its obvious that particles don't have agency. c) its obvious that brain function is predictable d) its obvious, philosophically speaking, that hes talking about fatalism, not determinism.
So congratulation on knowing less than I do about both physics and philosophy.
If our choices are physical and inevitable, we are no more capable of logic, reason, IR consciousness than any other complex adaptive physical system... I.e. the universe itself.
There is another way to look at free will. And I say it doesn't exist. Because everything you do or think is influenced in one way or another by the environment you exist in, there is no free will.
the last point about looking at yourself and seeing yourself a billionth of a second in the past isn't even the whole story. Because of how the brain works, you're actually seeing you at least 80 miliseconds in the past. Your brain doesn't really respond any sooner then that to what it sees.
If nothing else, I'd say that "free will" is the most atheistic notion ever. If "free will" is not determinism, then it would require you to do things for no reason at all. It would require you to stand above reason, to be able to ignore physical law. "Free will" requires that you exist outside the chain of reasons started by the "First Cause," which you may easily call "God" if you wish. To claim "free will" is to claim "freedom" from God as far as I'm concerned.
The notion of freewill maybe is what you describe it to be. I know there are philosophers who will disagree with you here, but I happen to agree to a certain extent. The idea of determinism is all over the bible. And the problem of accountability is also dealt with therein. So yeah it totally supports the Christian view of the sovereignity of God as taught by the reformers. Even within the theological realm there is a lot of debate on this but it looks lik science can end this.
Another thing I have to say is that the question of "free will" is entirely separate from the question of "God." Yes, if you logically follow the reasoning of determinism, there must indeed be a "First Cause" that starts the chain that follows, but there is nothing to say who or what the "First Cause" is (personally, you can call it what you want, it's technically the same thing to me.)
But whatever you do, do not mistake determinism for fatalism. In fatalism, *you* are removed from the equation and *your* reasons and choices are meaningless and everything occurs in spite of you. In determinism, things happen because of *you* and *your* choices and *your* reasons. Though you must accept your limitations, you still make your choices that have an effect on your own future actions and your surroundings.
The only other option that exists is that things do not happen for a reason, and that you do not do things for reasons. This assumes that things happen randomly. Is randomness "free will"? I wouldn't think so; I wouldn't want to think so. There is no middle ground where "free will" can exist: things either happen reasonably, or things happen randomly.
You make choices because you have reasons for those choices, and you have those reasons because of previous choices you had made which were made by further preceding reasons. Many of the reasons you do things are beyond your control, such as the circumstances of your birth. This is the fundamental concept of determinism: you do things for reasons, and those reasons exist for other reasons and this chain goes on until the very beginning of everything.
Speaking of birth, that's something else that is beyond the control of "free will" that leads up to the reasons you do the things you do today. First of all, you can't choose to do anything until you are born. Second, the circumstances of your birth greatly control what kind of "choices" you will even have the chance of making in the future (though, by "choices" I mean more of "reasons you decide to do things.") Where's the "free" in "free will"? Where's the freedom?
requires that you do actually go to work. At this point, a person might say, "well, I have the free will to choose my reasons for why I do things." To this I also say, no you don't. Why would you want money? Because you've learned all your life that money is what you need to survive, to obtain your wants and needs. Why would you want to see an attractive co-worker? Because you're genetically predisposed to want to mate with attractive members of the opposite sex. You're just born that way.
Before you can ask whether or not you have free will, you must first define it. What does it mean to have free will? Most people would say something like "I went to work today when I didn't have to" and that being able to make that choice means you have free will. But does a person not have a reason why they made that choice? Maybe you want your paycheck, or maybe there's an attractive co-worker you want to see. The content of your reason isn't relevant, but your reason for going to work
Just because there is quantum-mechanical randomness in the universe does not mean we have free will. It would indeed make our actions (and those of everything else in the universe) somewhat unpredictable, but that by no means implies that we have any control over the outcome. All it would mean is that rather than situation A leading only to situation B, it would mean that situation A leads to one of x possible futures. The future that occurs is decided randomly, not willfully.
0:50 of course we don't know where the electron is, since it can be very elusive for us humans. But still, with big bang nature has made them with a specific characteristics so they should follow a path in which they were made for. Even though it might be an amazingly complex pattern, since we have to involve every existing matter/antimatter in the universe, they still follow a predetermined interaction which nature made them as. Einstein was right
@Greev84 so what about hawking radiation? virtual particles at the fuzzy levels of spacetime come into existence in pairs but immediately annihilate each other, except when one of them is near a black hole, and gets sucked in. the other one is free to stay in existence. that's not determined is it?
@potatohead93 well, then again, what do we really know about these particles?. That they come into existence to all of a sudden "annihilate" each other. Does that really mean they cease to exist? perhaps they are transformed into another dimension of space and time or perhaps even converted to an unknown energy source like dark energy? which we know very little about. Our knowledge is limited to be requiring answers such as these at this very moment.
@potatohead93 Also if particles did behave like you mentioned, I still could see how nature could be linked to it. Perhaps the particles vanishes with a specific form of pattern controlled by nature in our perception of reality, that would be way too advanced for us to even try reading it.
Every atom/electron has its predetermined path since the big bang. Even complex beings as our self, build up of billions of atoms/electrons has a predetermined direction of interaction for an outcome to occur. Take the water molecule for an example H20,It has some specific properties uniquely characterizing it.As a single component it isn't very complex in movement, but take billions of these molecules and you get a orchestra of complex water molecule interactions, but still predetermined path
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal states that we can't know the exact location and momentum of an electron. This is because in order to know something about the electron, we first must interact with it, maybe by hitting it with a photon of light so that we can see it. The problem is the photon destroys some of the information we wanted.
Notice that the electron might still have an absolute location and momentum, and it might behave completely deterministically, but we cannot know.
Free will doesn't depend on which system--Newtonian or quantum--governs the motion of matter. It is about whether man can be a cause or is wholly caused; whether he can be a first cause or a formal cause. As a cause, free will imposes itself on the material world from the outside and thus introduces new possiblities absent from matter moving strictly according to its own laws. Dr. Kaku assumes that the universe is just matter and the natural laws which govern it.
If I flip a coin, and with the use of powerful computations I can predict every movement and bounce, the outcome could be "determined" by me the observer, even though we know the coin is not a "free agent" capable of making choices.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, operating at the quantum level only affects us as observers. God, being the omniscient observer, would not be bound by the randomness of quantum physics, the outcome of our existence would still be determined.
He never said there is free will - only that you can't predict with 100% certainty future events. Quantum physics killed hard determinism only. We can still calculate the possible outcomes and what the probabilities are for certain events to happen. So we still have determinism, in that matter seem to follow certain "laws of physics" that let us calculate the future - but with probabilities attached to the answer. It doesn't neccesarily mean that "consciousness" can affect processes in the brain
Determinism is only relevant to the observer who has all the data with which to determine the future.
If God is an omniscient observer, he would not be limited by the uncertainty of quantum randomness. Outcomes at the quantum level are only uncertain to human observers because we don't have a full understanding. In this sense doesn't hard determinism still survive from the perspective of the observer God who can predict the unpredictable?
I would say that another explanation (possibly more relevant than quantum mechanics) of why it is impossible to predict every future action is due to the chaotic nature of human dynamics. This would be similar to the problem of predicting the path of each water molecule in a river: we know that the Navier Stokes equations accurately describe the fluid dynamics, it's just impossible to solve it exactly. Whenever chaos increases (like chaotic weather) the prediction loses power. It's built in.
@gininginin "it is impossible to predict every future action is due to the chaotic nature of human dynamics"
Human dynamics, or the dynamics of any complex system, are not truly chaotic in the view of hard determinism. They only appear random or chaotic from the perspective of an imperfect observer that lacks the knowledge of every event in the causative chain.
If the observer had all the data, he would be able to make an accurate prediction and the outcome could be determined.
@PressXtonotdie haha. sure (i guess that was sort of vague). michio's main point here is that the properties of quantum physics (uncertainty) rejects the notion of a "clockwork" universe. or, that knowing every detail about the universe at a certain point in time would not allow one to know the future (no laplace's demon). i agree with him up to there. he then goes on to confidently assume that this supports the idea of free will. i don't think randomness equals free will. why should it?
@lordhighevolutionary He said that the fact that electrons act randomly is one way to refute the argument that the universe is deterministic, everything happens a certain way and it always would -because- of every event before it, and that this is how the universe works. Therefore something acting entirely randomly regardless of what prior events there have been does complicate the issue. I assume he's using his quantum phyiscs uncertainty principle to highlight one flaw with deterimisms view.
nice to meet you friend . i also do not claim any answers and have the upmost respect for you not forcing your views upon anyone .
would like to ask your opinion though.
looking at how and where we see. in my personal opinion an inner universe where we are 1 mind and this 1 collective mind being exactly what the world is ?
i also find that an atom being 10 to the power of 15 empty space mind blowing .
even at that the power of 15 is quite conservative . and then we have non locality! lol
there is always uncertainty sure, so no one can predict what outcome will happen, but what happens is just that one possible outcome occurred, and in that sense, that outcome was always going to happen. for example, if you were to pick a hand, left or right, the processes in your head that determine your choice were going to happen, and those processes would end with a decision, but those processes and how they happened weren't free will, they were just how things happened.
@noahsego Exactly, Heisenberg said you can't _measure_ things with absolute certainty, not that they wouldn't replay the same way every time if the universe was wound back and forth.
All this video says is that future can't be clearly determined. Doesn't mean that your next action won't be influenced by the previous. So if his definition of free will is wild random chance + action influenced by previous experiences (pre-determinism), I can live with that.
@eswyatt let's not focus on the video sir. why don't you read the description? the uploader sure raised valid points about no free will and having a divine plan.
@TritusNeptune let's not focus on the video sir. why don't you read the description? the uploader sure raised valid points about no free will and having a divine plan.
@FordPrefect23 let's not focus on the video sir. why don't you read the description? the uploader sure raised valid points about no free will and having a divine plan.
@wynsezhello Still doesn't burn since whether there is free will or determinism does not prove if there is a god or not. Even if a deterministic universe did prove there was some being with a divine plan it would say nothing about the being so it wouldn't validate any religion and it still wouldn't burn an atheist since we lack believe due to a lack of evidence for this higher being, if it were found that one existed we'd have to acknowledge that like we acknowledge relativity.
@FordPrefect23 i don't disagree with you. actually, i'm not saying burn because this proves god. i'm saying burn because, if there's a plan, then where does evolution fit in? and if there's no plan, why is there order in the universe?
don't you see the beauty in that? i bet you don't because you need evidence. let's just live life brother, instead of stalking boards like this. makes me think atheism really is a religion you need to zealously defend.
@wynsezhello I don't stalk boards, this video just popped up in my recommendations and I wondered what it was all about. Anyways, evolution could fit in if evolution were part of the plan surely? Thus far on the large scale in the universe we find a certain amount of determinism created by the natural laws that govern the universe. But there's enough uncertainty that if the universe started anew it needn't simply reproduce what we have now. It's not defence, it's asking questions.
"[I]n some sense we do have some kind of free will. No one can determine your future events given your past history." Yay I have free will! And so does the weather! Sorry, to be bound by the flip of a coin is not free will.
Actually weather can be somewhat controlled, look at global warming. Our Government actually has a weather countermeasure, if global warming gets too out of hand, which it will, they will release chemicals in the air by missiles and planes that would get rid of CO2 emissions, and block some of the suns' rays.
It's possible someone tomorrow could show up with a theory that explains the movement electrons. So to outright claim knowledge that free will exists or doesn't exist is just someone trying to sound smart.
tireironman 6 hours ago
free will is not limited to the realization of what we cannot do, free will is a form of self awareness of what we can do, determinism is just another way of saying "what happens happens", OR "I am constructed to live/feel a certain way, therefor my actions and desires are scripted". I'm sorry but I disagree, considering we can contemplate what is and isn't, what we can achieve and thensome, and what is objectively better for us as a whole...
ImDed2 7 hours ago
a billionth of a second? it takes the brain over a tenth of a second, this guy is meant to be a scientist.
TReoS96 18 hours ago
Doesn't the electron only "seem" to appear to in random places because we do not yet understand the physics involved to predetermine where it will be? It seems to me like people always try to apply the concept of "randomness" to something they don't understand yet. Just because we can not determine where an electron will be does not mean it appears in random locations, but that we do not have the knowledge to know where it will end up.
eugkra34 20 hours ago
There is a design to nature. There is free will. Free will is part of the design.
There is so much choice in life that we choose to limit it. Those who don't choose to do so, end up having it reduced for them by the consequences for not looking for the best choices.
sbkidde 1 day ago
Calculus Ignorance = Free Will = Bliss
Alternativeknow 2 days ago
WHY is it that i can't trust this guy's face? there is something in his face that is untrustworthy. Quantum Mechanics' theories cannot be proven as facts. they're just bunch of GIBBERISH mathmatics about the behaviors of the particle that don't even exist and the mathmatics have no connection to the tangible reality out there.QM is a big LIE! QM has not accomplished or produced anything yet. only the true physics is still the force behind all the inventions. QM is NOT true physics; it's a HOAX.
CosmicCaprice 3 days ago
@CosmicCaprice Do you not understand that the modern day Laser is because of the Quantum Mechanic equations created by Neils Bohr? Also, the microchip in your computer was created by these QM equations. You are a lost mind.
JayGatsbyOdysseus 18 hours ago
Whether you believe in free will, or you don't believe is right. Free will is both an illusion in your mind, and a reality in the physical plain of existence, simultaneously! What makes this possible is the very thing a determinist believes makes free will impossible, DETERMINATION!
Humans have the unique ability to believe, or in other words, have faith, faith exists in the mind, and your faith makes your mind determined to believe it can do something.
phorse 4 days ago
@phorse So, if you believe in the ability to make a choice (food, exercise, sex, etc...), in direct opposition of what would satisfy your minds cravings, then your brain becomes determined to not do what your brain is telling you to do, and your mind chooses, even against it's own desire for satisfaction.
What you perceive as a choice is whats tricky. Most people believe that a choice, and an outcome are the same. They do go hand in hand, but choices themselves aren't big, only the outcomes ar
phorse 4 days ago
Well, quantum mechanics kills determinism, which is still valid for macroscopic systems of course. What we know now is that there are no perfect space-time coordinates for a very small object. So yeah, our destiny is unsolvable, for the major part. Still, free will is bullshit because your brain is just a machine incapable of controlling itself with supernatural powers. Nature controls your brain, not the other way around. Nature turns out to be random, so our brain is kinda random I guess...
Hack3r91 4 days ago
he is talking of conditionalism perhaps where some things are determined, and some things are of our own free will. there is always great mystery.
Wildwoodflowerify 5 days ago
We don't where the electron is, therefore free will exists. I reject that logic. There is always a cause, even if that cause isn't understood. The double slit test doesn't prove that there can be effects without cause, it just proves that the cause isn't obvious.
jakegamesnake 5 days ago
theres a natural order to things and everything is natural, if you knowingly change that order your just delaying the end point but you dont have the power to stop it
DaRealFiberOptix 5 days ago
“In physics the truth is rarely perfectly clear, and that is certainly universally the case in human affairs. Hence, what is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth.”
― Richard P. Feynman
bozolazic 5 days ago
SadSadSad thing is that She was the main inventor of most of Theory of Relativity-ordinary human,Mileva Maric, who got no couragge to be-come HolyWood whore,she was the One who educated idiot EinSwine who at the end sold Her and Their son because that does hurt thy Image on TV. for Kaku Michi) social interaction is valid i quess onli if it's worth sold like .reincarnation- Uneducated fools deserve to suffer because our Imperializam is IN with Great Forces of Uni-Multi-Verse therefore-Perfect...
boyo416 5 days ago
don't take it seriosly...look who's talking-a commercial tool without HimSelf at first,without Free Mind as sec.well raised in a cage can you realy think that he can talk about Out-side especially Body...Mr.Sweet Dreams,an Ignorant who do not know nothing about Real World- a Sidathra Kreatura, a perfect GENTEL-man who think manypullating and telling lies is brave thing-like his Hero AEjnSWAJN who fucked his own wife-leave her and their son,born as an idiot-in nameless misery
boyo416 5 days ago
The debate of free will/ determinism is as pathetic and one sided as the debate regarding deism. There is no God, I had the choice on whether or not to say that. The argument for the other side of the fence is only seen as legitimate because there's no real way to prove it wrong.
Why do people always have to try to ruin philosohpy like that?
jackhwo1 6 days ago
/watch?v=Q7McGUXFgJ
hai, bai
Driku12 1 week ago
It seems being a scientist and smart does not automatically makes a philosopher nor an accurate thinker in all matters.
am101171 1 week ago
Here is my scientific response......Horse shit! You will always have free will, and you always have a choice! No matter what someone with a PHD shoved up their ass tells you.
spicecrop 1 week ago
@spicecrop There might be reasons to support free will in its most profound nature, but not what Kaku points here as far as I understand. Having choice does not guarantee free will, animals could be said to have choices but they will most probably "choose" the one alligned with their nature and not more or less, maybe we do too, or maybe not.
am101171 1 week ago
quantum physics brought me here....get it? :)
brettluckman 1 week ago 4
Why would a God plan every single detail, and how everything will play out? How boring would that be to sit there and watch that for thousands of years, already knowing what will happen? And if He did want to go through with something like that, then why would he sentence some to an eternity in Hell? It differs from a "divine plan," because there is no divine plan. Religions are failed sciences.
jjjester123321 1 week ago
@jjjester123321 Religions do not argue against free will otherwise they would be pointless.
tincoffin 1 week ago
@tincoffin It was an answer to the guys question in the video discription.
jjjester123321 1 week ago
The processes in the brain result in decisions. Free will would imply that you make the decision independently and then the brain would react?... that doesn't seem possible
ajf1381 1 week ago
There is uncertainty int he world, yes. However there is another theory in motion, i don't remember the exact phrasing, but its a common understanding. Every action in the universe has an equal an opposite reaction. Which is what the determined part of life is. Although we have the CHOICE to change the world or not, what becomes of it depends on too many factors for US to possibly comprehend. John Lennon, for example, was a preacher of peace, however he was assassinated by a man who was crazy...
TallAleTales 1 week ago
bullshit! nothing can be proved but yet nothing can be disproved...
abortion4life666 1 week ago
It freaks me out that depending on where the electron is observed it will appear in different locations. What the!
benaberry 1 week ago
Also op is terribly misunderstanding determinism, he thinks it has something to do with a predetermined plan developed by some sort of being, it refers to the idea that since you know the beginning of a set of events you can predict the outcome because physics are constant throughout the universe. Its the reason why 1+1=2 and why your computer boots up the same why every day. There is no plan for the universe, you can simply predict the outcome.
Op can fuck off pretty much.
MrThirdof12 1 week ago
@MrThirdof12 There is just the trouble that physics specifically states that there are things that aren't predictable. You cannot by knowing the beginnings of the set - and you cannot predict the outcome.
kimdpetersen 1 week ago
@MrThirdof12 op actually knows what determinism means, but you obviously didn't understand op's text in the crotchbar. btw.: op doesn't like to be insulted by dumb people..
DocFosters 1 week ago 7
@DocFosters LOL!
phorse 4 days ago
Also you must consider, that the uncertainty principle part is bullshit, its simply a practical problem, you cant predict where a particle is and where its going in real time, but you can make predictions that are realistic enough with macro level considerations. So to recap, you have free will, but not in the way we all first thought. There is also destiny maybe, but also not in the romantic way we thought, in the sense that you can essentially model the life of the universe with enough data.
MrThirdof12 1 week ago
I'll admit, this video isnt the best arguement, epecially since I think hes missing the meaning of free will. Its the concept of chosing your own actions. The tie-in with physics is that if you view the universe in terms of variables, something happened on jan 1, 2012 and unless you have a time machine, you cant change that or claim otherwise, same thing with any future date. We dont know if the future values exist though, but the advances in physics since them suggest in favor of that.
MrThirdof12 1 week ago
There is no free will, but your future is not predetermined. There are infinite possibilities for your future that can be predicted, but you can only predict the possibility of them happening, you can never say for certain, this #434,436 future will 100% happen.
In addition, there can be no true free will, because your choices are determined by your genetics and your environment growing up. Neither of which you ever had control of at the time of your birth. Therefore, no decision was ever yours.
bootlegapparel 1 week ago
I have reached exactly the same conclution as Kaku. I believe there is free will because, and only because of the uncertainty principle. Before I learned about this in physics, I reasoned that everything had to be cause and effect, which it isn't.
Orbitusx 1 week ago
@Orbitusx I hope you continue to study physics, because you have no idea what the uncertainty principle is. I'm not being mean (or I hope I'm not being mean), I'm just sayin'
The uncertainty principle is about how we cannot measure particles without changing their velocity/position.
DeoMachina 1 week ago
@DeoMachina No offence taken. What you just told me is the first thing I was taught when I was introduced to the uncertainty principle. The probability to find a particle around a point depends on a wave function. I was also taught that this together with the behavior of entangled photons is the reason as to why we have to operate with uncertainties at a quantum level. This is the debate between Einstein and Bohr about if nature is undetermined. If there is more to it, I'd love to hear about it.
Orbitusx 1 week ago
@Orbitusx But aren't you saying that with enough computing power it could be determined. The spooky thing about quantum physics is that it seems to depend on the observer.
tincoffin 1 week ago
@tincoffin I don't think computing power helps, since the act of observing still changes what you observe. Unless there is an other way to observe that doesn't interfer with what you see - i believe that the future is undetermined. But more importantly, where did I say anything about computing power? D:
Orbitusx 1 week ago
@tincoffin Yes but the more important thing is... it works. Also, that's the Copenhagen interpretation, there are different interpretations out there.
TheFratmanbootcake 6 days ago
: /
straighter100 1 week ago
he-he thanks!
tmarpe 1 week ago
@George4943 The problem I had with the free will issue is just where do you draw the line between just what is free and what isn't. Just what does a person do that is completely ramdom? What does person do that lies completely outside the realm of scientific investigation? Answer: nothing! All actions are determined by genetics and environment, which includes personal history with it's bias', likes, dislikes. What appears as free or random will find its place in a larger chain of cause/effect
chessslut 1 week ago
This guy needs to get out of celebrity and hit the books. This is the dozenth or so grandiose claim Ive heard from Michio Kaku that is completely off-base. He relies so heavily on assumptions, its ridiculous.
CogitoErgoCogitoSum 2 weeks ago
You have to have a brain to understand what Michio Kaku saying. Even though I see so many comments criticizing him. When come about "free will" I'm 100%with him. That comment is very accurate. This year I will brake it down that explanations why we have "free will".
Levon9404 2 weeks ago
@Levon9404 ... the randon location of an electron has nothing to do with free will. Just because the future is uncertain doe not mean you are in control of the ship!
chessslut 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@chessslut We are individually just like Columbus him self. He was control of the ship but he wasn't sure of the destination. You can shape the future but you cannot predict the future.
Levon9404 1 week ago
@Levon9404 Columbus had choice, just as a rat in a maze does. But the psychologist does not assume the rat to have free will. Glaciers shape the future, do they have fre will? Just where does your free will control start? Do any other animals have free will? This is a fine example of what Carl Jung said whan he said 'people can't stand too mch reality'. I've kept an open mind on this subject and merely go where the facts and reason lead. Free will does not exist, it is an illusion.
chessslut 1 week ago
@chessslut Free will it is a generalized subject. If you want to see things that way yes I will say no body has "free will" including the electrons the way Michio Kaku stated in this video clips. Electrons are under control of nucleus. They are rotating round of nucleus because nucleus forcing them to. But their is another part of free will no body will force any one how to live their life people are total control of their own life. Depend how you approach that subject.
Levon9404 1 week ago
Regardless of whether or not we have free will our societies act as if we do.
Without free will there is no responsibility nor blame. Every anti-social act is a pathology in the individual in need of correction. (Hence departments of Correction.)
The role of judges becomes meaningless. All his judgements determined by physics alone.
We, in fact, have limited will. There are unreachable choices. I may will myself to survive under water for an hour.
George4943 2 weeks ago
@George4943
I like your comment except for the "limited" word. In truth there is NO free will. If you disagree, tell me what you have unbiased control over. Lack of knowledge of the variables in any situation, and thus failure to predict, should not cause one to label 'randon' actions as 'free'. Everything finds it way in a larger chain of cause and effect.
chessslut 2 weeks ago
@chessslut "...tell me what you have unbiased control over"
One situation when one has limited will when bored. What shall I do next.
Another is when two tasks must be done but the order doesn't matter.
George4943 2 weeks ago
@George4943 I disagree with both examples. Whatw we you decide to do when bored depends on past experiences ... whatever is most self serving. Think about it.
chessslut 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@chessslut "What you DECIDE to do when bored depends on past experiences." You shot yourself in the foot. Either I was COMPELLED or I myself DECIDED.
I have a choice. That choice is mine. It is an exercise of limited will.
If I startle at a crash in the house, that I am compelled to do. It is an instinct.
The plans I make as to what to do in the future (near or far), though, are my DECISIONS. I cannot do everything but I can do some things.
George4943 1 week ago
If determinism exists then say goodbye to peace on Earth because if everyone agreed to have peace , sooner or later someone's going to break that cycle and cause chaos because they were determined to. What a shame.
ShesGoinBald 2 weeks ago
so when i look into the mirror im really looking at myself in the past?
via6delta 2 weeks ago
@via6delta
It also takes 80 miliseconds for your brain to conceive on what you saw from your eyes to your brain so basically yes plus the light from the mirror adds on to the delay a little bit.
ShesGoinBald 2 weeks ago
The Asian Einstein
Aluxiry 2 weeks ago
Free will vs determinism is a false dichotomy. Determinism is predicated on the assumption that all events are extant and it is only the arrival of one upon a coincident moment that makes the event probability become real. This is unprovable. In the same manner, "free will" is a meaningless phrase: all decisions are made through a subtle and sometimes massive computation of beneficial or detrimental results, but it is absurd to think that one can chose to be other than one is.
EternalRecursion 2 weeks ago
@EternalRecursion should say "one can choose"
EternalRecursion 2 weeks ago
You know there are philosophical rather than scientific arguments in favour of determinism? For example, every effect has a cause, and every cause has a cause, and so on. No one can control his "causes". Even if there IS randomness, randomness is not choice. Uncertainty =/= choice. I think free will is not just practically impossible, it's logically impossible. It's a chimera.
Hirfel 2 weeks ago
Michio Kaku, why do you assume that the Newtonian determinism vs. quantum uncertainty debate has any direct bearing on the free will vs. determinism debate? To say that "an electron has uncertainty, and therefore free will exists" potentially opens us up to the same logical fallacy which determinists made when they said "Newton's laws of motion are deterministic in nature, therefore free will does not exist". Though an interesting parallel, we can not assume that they exist in the same domain
TheDon2101 2 weeks ago
@TheDon2101 You go to make a choice.... Your brain is composed of atoms, and those atoms have electrons... so there is uncertainty. If there is uncertainty then you must make choices that can not be predicted, and if you make choices that can not be predicted, than your choices are not predetermined, thus your will has an effect on the outcome.
captcorajus 2 weeks ago
@captcorajus There is no honest neurobiologist who claims to understand how an ambiguous concept such as “the will” works on the level of individual neurons or systems of neurons interacting within the brain. Without that understanding, it is impossible to say how the uncertainty of particular wave functions at a subatomic level affects the functions of single neurons or interactions between neurons, let alone “free will” on a macroscopic scale.
TheDon2101 2 weeks ago
@captcorajus Except that the choices cannot be predicted *even by you.* So how does this unpredictability give you an effect on the outcome? It sounds like your notion of free will is flawed.
danielt63 2 weeks ago
@danielt63 Consider this: It would be impossible, practically speaking, to calculate the precise course and time span involved in, say, the decent of an autumn leaf from the top of a particular tree to the ground. Obviously the large number of unknown determining variables would make such calculations impossible in any mathmetical sense. At the same time, however, no one would doubt for a moment the intricate operation of strict lawfulness pertaining to this event, ....
chessslut 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@danieltt63 ... nor would anybody, because of the practical unpredictability or uncertainty, imbue the leaf with any kind of "free will" attribute.
or I can cop out and say parallel universes emcompass all possibilities, but that is off subject a bit.
A lot of folks can't accept that free will doesn't exist because it violates religious beliefs where a choice is necessary for validity.
chessslut 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@chessslut Your decisions are based on two or three factors, the state of your mind, the state of the inputs into your mind and if indeterminism is true, some random factor. Even people who believe in immaterial souls can't escape this (just exchange 'mind' above with 'soul'.) That doesn't negate choice, that *is* choice.
To require that the only way I can be free is if I am free from myself, is silly on its face, but that is exactly what you seem to be requiring for free will to exist.
danielt63 2 weeks ago
@chessslut Your comment says nothing about the free will status of the leaf or of people. If you think it does have some bearing, then again I think your notion of free will is flawed.
danielt63 2 weeks ago
Kaku that was an awfull arguement.
simongibbs3601 2 weeks ago
Quantum physics has absolutely no bearing on the free will debate. It's absolutely retarded to pull inherent randomness as an argument FOR free will. If anything, it works against it. Kaku must have realised this, which makes him the fraud.
Also DocFosters it's slightly silly and very dishonest to compare predictability to divine plans. Would you argue that the laws of motion are no different from a divine plan? Of course not.
DeoMachina 2 weeks ago
@DeoMachina who is the silly one here? i've said it time and time again, randomness isn't an argument for free will, it's an argument against determinism.
as to me being dishonest: either you didn't understand what i wrote in the crotchbar, or you are simply constructing a strawman, which makes you the dishonest one.
DocFosters 2 weeks ago 6
@DocFosters I suppose it's an argument against determinism in that it makes tiny things unpredictable, but on the larger scale our predictions are very accurate.
Regardless of our ability to predict things however, the fact that casuality exists means that free will cannot. Unless our brains are somehow exempt from the laws of physics.
DeoMachina 2 weeks ago
@DocFosters "i've said it time and time again, randomness isn't an argument for free will, it's an argument against determinism."
Yet your video is titled "Why Quantum Physics Ends the Free Will Debate". You need to listen closer to the posters who are trying to explain why randomness (aka quantum physics) proves nothing for or against free will.
LegendLength 1 week ago
@DocFosters And still the title of your video is: ''Why Quantum Physics Ends the Free Will Debate''. I haven't watched the video yet though. Someone sent it to me.
Florencione 5 days ago
@DeoMachina
Kaku is cooler than you'll ever be XP
MisterFriggles 1 week ago
this was an interesting video but the guy who published this video seems retarded according to his describtion. i dont think we are at that level where we can actually decide who of these theories are correct because of the lack of scientific proof :/ so far the only reason of someone taking side of this debate seems to be past experience.
mshrum555 2 weeks ago
@mshrum555
"i dont think we are at that level where we can actually decide who of these theories are correct because of the lack of scientific proof :/"
and you call me retarded? try articulating a coherent sentence first, and then call me retarded...
DocFosters 2 weeks ago 4
@DocFosters actually i called you retarded because your describtion reminded me of hitler. and i did not like hitler,no sir.
mshrum555 2 weeks ago
@mshrum555 and you, sir, are done trolling on my channel ;)
DocFosters 2 weeks ago 6
Comment removed
mshrum555 2 weeks ago
Let's keep this strictly philosophical and not theological. If determinism is true, which Kaku says it is not, then we don't have free will. But if determinism is not true, then it means that events are random. This still does not grant us free will, for to have will and for it to be free, our choices must have a causal effect on future events. Yet both determinism and quantum uncertainty necessarily deny this.
TheCalibanNetwork 2 weeks ago
Okay, first, as an Atheist I totally believe in freewill. When the word freewill comes from the mouth of a Christian it is totally contradictory, even to the bible, which clearly states that "God" created everything predestine with love. You cannot have freewill if your belief or non belief condemns you to "hell" for eternity! Second, evolution doesn't care about the origin of life, only how is has changed since its beginning. There are many example of this.
FieryLeo13 2 weeks ago
stolen video... noob\111
AkaiAllan 2 weeks ago in playlist Albert Einstein / Michio Kaku Quotes
I just love him lol
no homo
pufixas 2 weeks ago
God knows every event that ever happened and every event that will happen so he's not placing dice or gambling on anyone. What is unpredictable to us is extremely predtictable to God. Yet, even knowing what we will do, God still loves us anyway.
WebVManReturns 2 weeks ago
@WebVManReturns If he know EVERYTHING that will happen. SO if I kill you, it's no a crime or sin, because he allowed me to be born with knowledge what I will do in my life. So he has no issue with it. So I'm free to do it. I'm not responsible for your death, he is. I'm just a tool, a weapon in his hand.....
...so where do you live?
85Damix 2 weeks ago
@WebVManReturns but god doesn't exist so... you've just wasted every sunday of your life so far..
LoluskPoo 2 weeks ago
@LoluskPoo "but god doesn't exist" A meaningless assertion, untestable and unprovable. If someone has an experience of transcendental awareness, a communion with God, that is no less real because it cannot be demonstrated to another than is the awareness of self existence because self cognition cannot be proven to another.
EternalRecursion 2 weeks ago
@EternalRecursion alright i'll rephrase.. there has never, nor will there ever be evidence or proof to prove that god exists, therefore, i conclude that the chances of his/her existence is 1/infinite
LoluskPoo 2 weeks ago
200 Butthurt christfags dislike this
AdamDLDixon 2 weeks ago
@AdamDLDixon I'm a christfag and didn't dislike. I have a view of this that I do believe but at the same time just don't understand enough. Though I DO know enough to believe in a somewhat predetermined path. I'm still trying to learn more about the subject of free will but before, as a christfag, I denied the belief of predetermined path but due to.. "first-hand experience" I now consider it along with religious views. I believe in a scientific and religious view subsequently.
HevensRath 2 weeks ago
@HevensRath Though I know many would say it's all for one or the other, but I believe we (christfags) might not have the correct understanding of what our God speaks of in the Bible. When I say "first-hand experience" (and I know many won't believe me but its why I have the mixed views which I have), I am referring to something very... peculiar. I have had experience with predicting the future. I don't understand it, but long story short that's why I believe in a somewhat predetermined set path
HevensRath 2 weeks ago
Bullshit!! the theory of determinism is not capable of commenting on free will concept that we as humans experience.
curioswatcher 2 weeks ago
Particles are not things that have, what we perceive to be "agency."
Brain functions are predictable.
and what he is talking about, philosophically speaking, is fatalism. which is indeed bullshit.
dbarnes0147 2 weeks ago
@dbarnes0147 ..because you're a world world renowned physicist, and everything you say is true.
chrishdman87 2 weeks ago
@chrishdman87 wow... a) my comment was a philosophical one, not one about the science of physics. b) its obvious that particles don't have agency. c) its obvious that brain function is predictable d) its obvious, philosophically speaking, that hes talking about fatalism, not determinism.
So congratulation on knowing less than I do about both physics and philosophy.
dbarnes0147 2 weeks ago
@dbarnes0147 wow... a) dont care. b) dont care. c) still dont care. d) STILL dont care.
So congratulations on having a bunch of textbooks and no friends.
chrishdman87 2 weeks ago
Well enjoy your Housewives of Orange County or something.
johnmcblair 2 weeks ago
It would seem scientifically that we as a species have no choice but to have free will.
CyclonexxxIce 2 weeks ago
that's not what determinism means.
blahbl4hblahtoo 2 weeks ago
If our choices are physical and inevitable, we are no more capable of logic, reason, IR consciousness than any other complex adaptive physical system... I.e. the universe itself.
curthor 2 weeks ago
The uncertainty principle doesn't imply inherent indeterminacy whatsoever ... shame in hour professor of physics
curthor 2 weeks ago
There is another way to look at free will. And I say it doesn't exist. Because everything you do or think is influenced in one way or another by the environment you exist in, there is no free will.
herpiethelovebug 2 weeks ago
anything that can be claimed without evidence ( free will/god...etc) can be dismissed with no evidence.
caatabatic 2 weeks ago
the last point about looking at yourself and seeing yourself a billionth of a second in the past isn't even the whole story. Because of how the brain works, you're actually seeing you at least 80 miliseconds in the past. Your brain doesn't really respond any sooner then that to what it sees.
Altorin 2 weeks ago
If nothing else, I'd say that "free will" is the most atheistic notion ever. If "free will" is not determinism, then it would require you to do things for no reason at all. It would require you to stand above reason, to be able to ignore physical law. "Free will" requires that you exist outside the chain of reasons started by the "First Cause," which you may easily call "God" if you wish. To claim "free will" is to claim "freedom" from God as far as I'm concerned.
TheAmberFang 3 weeks ago
@TheAmberFang
The notion of freewill maybe is what you describe it to be. I know there are philosophers who will disagree with you here, but I happen to agree to a certain extent. The idea of determinism is all over the bible. And the problem of accountability is also dealt with therein. So yeah it totally supports the Christian view of the sovereignity of God as taught by the reformers. Even within the theological realm there is a lot of debate on this but it looks lik science can end this.
Ritsaart 2 weeks ago
Another thing I have to say is that the question of "free will" is entirely separate from the question of "God." Yes, if you logically follow the reasoning of determinism, there must indeed be a "First Cause" that starts the chain that follows, but there is nothing to say who or what the "First Cause" is (personally, you can call it what you want, it's technically the same thing to me.)
TheAmberFang 3 weeks ago
But whatever you do, do not mistake determinism for fatalism. In fatalism, *you* are removed from the equation and *your* reasons and choices are meaningless and everything occurs in spite of you. In determinism, things happen because of *you* and *your* choices and *your* reasons. Though you must accept your limitations, you still make your choices that have an effect on your own future actions and your surroundings.
TheAmberFang 3 weeks ago
i see.
1Deejay7 3 weeks ago
The only other option that exists is that things do not happen for a reason, and that you do not do things for reasons. This assumes that things happen randomly. Is randomness "free will"? I wouldn't think so; I wouldn't want to think so. There is no middle ground where "free will" can exist: things either happen reasonably, or things happen randomly.
TheAmberFang 3 weeks ago
You make choices because you have reasons for those choices, and you have those reasons because of previous choices you had made which were made by further preceding reasons. Many of the reasons you do things are beyond your control, such as the circumstances of your birth. This is the fundamental concept of determinism: you do things for reasons, and those reasons exist for other reasons and this chain goes on until the very beginning of everything.
TheAmberFang 3 weeks ago
Speaking of birth, that's something else that is beyond the control of "free will" that leads up to the reasons you do the things you do today. First of all, you can't choose to do anything until you are born. Second, the circumstances of your birth greatly control what kind of "choices" you will even have the chance of making in the future (though, by "choices" I mean more of "reasons you decide to do things.") Where's the "free" in "free will"? Where's the freedom?
TheAmberFang 3 weeks ago
requires that you do actually go to work. At this point, a person might say, "well, I have the free will to choose my reasons for why I do things." To this I also say, no you don't. Why would you want money? Because you've learned all your life that money is what you need to survive, to obtain your wants and needs. Why would you want to see an attractive co-worker? Because you're genetically predisposed to want to mate with attractive members of the opposite sex. You're just born that way.
TheAmberFang 3 weeks ago
Before you can ask whether or not you have free will, you must first define it. What does it mean to have free will? Most people would say something like "I went to work today when I didn't have to" and that being able to make that choice means you have free will. But does a person not have a reason why they made that choice? Maybe you want your paycheck, or maybe there's an attractive co-worker you want to see. The content of your reason isn't relevant, but your reason for going to work
TheAmberFang 3 weeks ago
Just because there is quantum-mechanical randomness in the universe does not mean we have free will. It would indeed make our actions (and those of everything else in the universe) somewhat unpredictable, but that by no means implies that we have any control over the outcome. All it would mean is that rather than situation A leading only to situation B, it would mean that situation A leads to one of x possible futures. The future that occurs is decided randomly, not willfully.
MrMadmanbob 3 weeks ago
0:50 of course we don't know where the electron is, since it can be very elusive for us humans. But still, with big bang nature has made them with a specific characteristics so they should follow a path in which they were made for. Even though it might be an amazingly complex pattern, since we have to involve every existing matter/antimatter in the universe, they still follow a predetermined interaction which nature made them as. Einstein was right
Greev84 3 weeks ago
@Greev84 so what about hawking radiation? virtual particles at the fuzzy levels of spacetime come into existence in pairs but immediately annihilate each other, except when one of them is near a black hole, and gets sucked in. the other one is free to stay in existence. that's not determined is it?
potatohead93 3 weeks ago
@potatohead93 well, then again, what do we really know about these particles?. That they come into existence to all of a sudden "annihilate" each other. Does that really mean they cease to exist? perhaps they are transformed into another dimension of space and time or perhaps even converted to an unknown energy source like dark energy? which we know very little about. Our knowledge is limited to be requiring answers such as these at this very moment.
Greev84 3 weeks ago
@potatohead93 Also if particles did behave like you mentioned, I still could see how nature could be linked to it. Perhaps the particles vanishes with a specific form of pattern controlled by nature in our perception of reality, that would be way too advanced for us to even try reading it.
Greev84 3 weeks ago
Every atom/electron has its predetermined path since the big bang. Even complex beings as our self, build up of billions of atoms/electrons has a predetermined direction of interaction for an outcome to occur. Take the water molecule for an example H20,It has some specific properties uniquely characterizing it.As a single component it isn't very complex in movement, but take billions of these molecules and you get a orchestra of complex water molecule interactions, but still predetermined path
Greev84 3 weeks ago
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal states that we can't know the exact location and momentum of an electron. This is because in order to know something about the electron, we first must interact with it, maybe by hitting it with a photon of light so that we can see it. The problem is the photon destroys some of the information we wanted.
Notice that the electron might still have an absolute location and momentum, and it might behave completely deterministically, but we cannot know.
henryaudubon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cancer is the direct result of an EGO that cannot ful-fill itself and it starts to eat itself on a bodily level - ARVUT
Markle6 3 weeks ago
Why couldn't the placement of the electron be "preordained"
djalexmac 3 weeks ago 2
Free will doesn't depend on which system--Newtonian or quantum--governs the motion of matter. It is about whether man can be a cause or is wholly caused; whether he can be a first cause or a formal cause. As a cause, free will imposes itself on the material world from the outside and thus introduces new possiblities absent from matter moving strictly according to its own laws. Dr. Kaku assumes that the universe is just matter and the natural laws which govern it.
douglasskinner 3 weeks ago
If I flip a coin, and with the use of powerful computations I can predict every movement and bounce, the outcome could be "determined" by me the observer, even though we know the coin is not a "free agent" capable of making choices.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, operating at the quantum level only affects us as observers. God, being the omniscient observer, would not be bound by the randomness of quantum physics, the outcome of our existence would still be determined.
burkerow 3 weeks ago
Just because something is random doesn't mean it is free. Kaku is mistaken here.
OscarBrasa 3 weeks ago
FREE BOOK 124,000 CHANNEL VIEWS , SEE CHANNEL , GRAVITATIONAL SINGULARITY .
matmicmj 3 weeks ago
He never said there is free will - only that you can't predict with 100% certainty future events. Quantum physics killed hard determinism only. We can still calculate the possible outcomes and what the probabilities are for certain events to happen. So we still have determinism, in that matter seem to follow certain "laws of physics" that let us calculate the future - but with probabilities attached to the answer. It doesn't neccesarily mean that "consciousness" can affect processes in the brain
Rumpftw 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rumpftw "Quantum physics killed hard determinism"
Determinism is only relevant to the observer who has all the data with which to determine the future.
If God is an omniscient observer, he would not be limited by the uncertainty of quantum randomness. Outcomes at the quantum level are only uncertain to human observers because we don't have a full understanding. In this sense doesn't hard determinism still survive from the perspective of the observer God who can predict the unpredictable?
burkerow 3 weeks ago
I would say that another explanation (possibly more relevant than quantum mechanics) of why it is impossible to predict every future action is due to the chaotic nature of human dynamics. This would be similar to the problem of predicting the path of each water molecule in a river: we know that the Navier Stokes equations accurately describe the fluid dynamics, it's just impossible to solve it exactly. Whenever chaos increases (like chaotic weather) the prediction loses power. It's built in.
gininginin 3 weeks ago
@gininginin "it is impossible to predict every future action is due to the chaotic nature of human dynamics"
Human dynamics, or the dynamics of any complex system, are not truly chaotic in the view of hard determinism. They only appear random or chaotic from the perspective of an imperfect observer that lacks the knowledge of every event in the causative chain.
If the observer had all the data, he would be able to make an accurate prediction and the outcome could be determined.
burkerow 3 weeks ago
i disagree with michio's opinions in this video.
lordhighevolutionary 3 weeks ago
@lordhighevolutionary Elaborate?
PressXtonotdie 3 weeks ago
@PressXtonotdie haha. sure (i guess that was sort of vague). michio's main point here is that the properties of quantum physics (uncertainty) rejects the notion of a "clockwork" universe. or, that knowing every detail about the universe at a certain point in time would not allow one to know the future (no laplace's demon). i agree with him up to there. he then goes on to confidently assume that this supports the idea of free will. i don't think randomness equals free will. why should it?
lordhighevolutionary 3 weeks ago
@lordhighevolutionary He said that the fact that electrons act randomly is one way to refute the argument that the universe is deterministic, everything happens a certain way and it always would -because- of every event before it, and that this is how the universe works. Therefore something acting entirely randomly regardless of what prior events there have been does complicate the issue. I assume he's using his quantum phyiscs uncertainty principle to highlight one flaw with deterimisms view.
PressXtonotdie 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
but what are your expectations of god?
is it possible to find the projectionist in the projection?
has the search become like the last detective in search of the last detective?
stelin7385 3 weeks ago
but what are your expectations of god?
is it possible to find the projectionist in the projection?
has the search become like the last detective in search of the last detective?
stelin7385 3 weeks ago
love to hear your thoughts cos i cant or more truthfully i am unable to come to any other answer than a devine presence.
dont get me wrong im not like a bible basher id be more like a sinner .
actually what i am is a good person who has done bad things like most of us i belive
stelin7385 3 weeks ago
nice to meet you friend . i also do not claim any answers and have the upmost respect for you not forcing your views upon anyone .
would like to ask your opinion though.
looking at how and where we see. in my personal opinion an inner universe where we are 1 mind and this 1 collective mind being exactly what the world is ?
i also find that an atom being 10 to the power of 15 empty space mind blowing .
even at that the power of 15 is quite conservative . and then we have non locality! lol
stelin7385 3 weeks ago
there is always uncertainty sure, so no one can predict what outcome will happen, but what happens is just that one possible outcome occurred, and in that sense, that outcome was always going to happen. for example, if you were to pick a hand, left or right, the processes in your head that determine your choice were going to happen, and those processes would end with a decision, but those processes and how they happened weren't free will, they were just how things happened.
noahsego 3 weeks ago
@noahsego Exactly, Heisenberg said you can't _measure_ things with absolute certainty, not that they wouldn't replay the same way every time if the universe was wound back and forth.
rnicey 3 weeks ago
All this video says is that future can't be clearly determined. Doesn't mean that your next action won't be influenced by the previous. So if his definition of free will is wild random chance + action influenced by previous experiences (pre-determinism), I can live with that.
iSOdushman 3 weeks ago
wow dude, you just burned a lot of atheists. +1000 internets to you sir.
wynsezhello 4 weeks ago
@wynsezhello What tortuous path of reasoning do you take to see this video as having "burned a lot of atheists"?
eswyatt 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eswyatt let's not focus on the video sir. why don't you read the description? the uploader sure raised valid points about no free will and having a divine plan.
wynsezhello 3 weeks ago
@wynsezhello Kaku doesn't believe in God so...I don't see the connection between what you said and what Kaku said.
TritusNeptune 3 weeks ago
@TritusNeptune he believes in "god" in an abstract pantheist sort of way (like einstein), not in a theistic personal sense
ritrunnero 3 weeks ago
@ritrunnero I know, but the implication I was making was that he doesn't pray to a personal god.
TritusNeptune 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
wynsezhello 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TritusNeptune let's not focus on the video sir. why don't you read the description? the uploader sure raised valid points about no free will and having a divine plan.
wynsezhello 3 weeks ago
@wynsezhello *examines self* Nope, not even a single singed hair. What exactly about this video is intended to burn hmmm?
FordPrefect23 3 weeks ago
@FordPrefect23 let's not focus on the video sir. why don't you read the description? the uploader sure raised valid points about no free will and having a divine plan.
wynsezhello 3 weeks ago
@wynsezhello Still doesn't burn since whether there is free will or determinism does not prove if there is a god or not. Even if a deterministic universe did prove there was some being with a divine plan it would say nothing about the being so it wouldn't validate any religion and it still wouldn't burn an atheist since we lack believe due to a lack of evidence for this higher being, if it were found that one existed we'd have to acknowledge that like we acknowledge relativity.
FordPrefect23 3 weeks ago
@FordPrefect23 i don't disagree with you. actually, i'm not saying burn because this proves god. i'm saying burn because, if there's a plan, then where does evolution fit in? and if there's no plan, why is there order in the universe?
don't you see the beauty in that? i bet you don't because you need evidence. let's just live life brother, instead of stalking boards like this. makes me think atheism really is a religion you need to zealously defend.
wynsezhello 3 weeks ago
@wynsezhello I don't stalk boards, this video just popped up in my recommendations and I wondered what it was all about. Anyways, evolution could fit in if evolution were part of the plan surely? Thus far on the large scale in the universe we find a certain amount of determinism created by the natural laws that govern the universe. But there's enough uncertainty that if the universe started anew it needn't simply reproduce what we have now. It's not defence, it's asking questions.
FordPrefect23 3 weeks ago
fuck
lanuevagranada 4 weeks ago
"[I]n some sense we do have some kind of free will. No one can determine your future events given your past history." Yay I have free will! And so does the weather! Sorry, to be bound by the flip of a coin is not free will.
eswyatt 4 weeks ago
Actually weather can be somewhat controlled, look at global warming. Our Government actually has a weather countermeasure, if global warming gets too out of hand, which it will, they will release chemicals in the air by missiles and planes that would get rid of CO2 emissions, and block some of the suns' rays.
Ced8897 4 weeks ago
@Ced8897