The Nonsensical Concept of Free Will in the Context of Physics
TLDR; Free will is incompatible with the laws of nature and logically incoherent, but understanding this can lead to a more informed decision-making process.
⏳ Free Will and Physics
The concept of free will is incompatible with the laws of nature and ultimately meaningless.
The laws of nature, including deterministic and quantum mechanics, dictate that the future is predetermined by the present.
Deterministic laws apply to human brains, as they are made of particles, and quantum mechanics, with its random events, does not allow for free will either.
The idea of free will is logically incoherent and has been acknowledged by philosophers who understand physics.
The speaker emphasizes that the inability to select among possible futures is a fundamental aspect of the laws of nature, making the concept of free will nonsensical in the context of physics.
🤔 Defining Free Will
The discussion focuses on free will as the idea that individuals can choose among different possible futures.
This aligns with the common intuition of how the world operates.
The speaker clarifies that the discussion here does not involve the neurological aspect of free will, but rather the intuitive idea of selecting a future based on free will.
🔬 Incompatibility with Laws of Nature
The deterministic laws of nature, based on differential equations, dictate that the entire story of the universe, including human actions, was determined at the big bang.
This applies to the brain as well, as it is made of particles.
Chaos and quantum mechanics do not alter this conclusion, as chaos is still deterministic and quantum events are fundamentally random and not influenced by individuals.
The conclusion is that free will, as the ability to select among possible futures, is fundamentally incompatible with the laws of nature as we currently understand them.
🔀 Nonsense of Free Will
The discussion concludes that the idea of free will, as the possibility to select among different futures, is nonsensical and logically incoherent.
The speaker highlights that this viewpoint is not new and has been acknowledged by philosophers who understand physics.
Various attempts to redefine free will are also addressed, including the argument that free will means no one can predict an individual's decision.
However, the speaker dismisses these attempts as verbal acrobatics.
The crucial point is that, regardless of how free will is defined, the ability to select among possible futures remains fundamentally impossible based on our current understanding of physics.
🧠 Decision-Making Process
The speaker emphasizes that when making a decision, the brain is essentially running a calculation, and the impression of free will arises from our self-awareness and inability to predict the outcome of our thinking.
Addressing the claim that human behavior is unpredictable, the speaker refutes this argument, emphasizing that reacting to a prediction does not equate to free will.
This is further illustrated using an example of computer codes.
Additionally, the speaker dismisses the notion that eroding the belief in free will would lead to a decline in moral behavior, highlighting that moral responsibility is not contingent upon the existence of free will.
📚 Moral Behavior and Free Will
The concern that denying the existence of free will would erode people's moral behavior is dismissed as nonsense.
The speaker clarifies that moral responsibility is not derived from free will but from the consequences of one's actions.
Research studies that supposedly showed a relation between disbelief in free will and immoral behavior are also discussed, with the speaker highlighting the flawed setup of these studies and presenting a more nuanced study that showed disbelief in free will had a positive impact on moral decisions.
🌱 Living Without Free Will
The speaker acknowledges the difficulty in thinking of oneself without the concept of free will and provides a perspective on how to navigate this realization.
It is emphasized that acknowledging free will as an illusion does not mean individuals are not allowed to use it as a thinking aid.
The speaker encourages individuals to think of their lives as stories yet to be told, emphasizing the importance of understanding how one's thinking apparatus works and being aware of cognitive biases and logical fallacies.