If I'm being completely honest, I dont really believe we have free will. Or we do, but in an almost entirely meaningless way on a civilizational scale. While you might be able to make small choices, material conditions and the flow of history ultimately decide the course of your life. We're all just products of our environment which none of us can change on our own, and as much as we can change our environment as a collective is decided upon by current conditions which are determined by oast conditions, etc. Basically i think the entirity of history was determined at the big bang, and were all just along for the ride.
It doesn't matter - we have the illusion of free will at the very least, which is indistinguishable from actually having free will. So uh just keep doing whatever you were doing before I guess
One of the most interesting consequences of concluding that we don't have free will is that retributive justice becomes obviously pointless. If the public can be convinced that the primary cause of socially undesirable behavior is the influencing environment, then we get a lot more support for rehabilitative justice and social justice.
It doesn't make it pointless. Pushing criminals is de facto changing the environment and can influence what other people do even if they don't have free will.
It's true in theory that punishment for crime affects the environment to some degree, but all studies on the subject show that in practice it has a negligible-to-zero effect on whether people commit crimes.
Really? I always hear people say that probability of the punishment has more effect than its severity.
probability of the punishment
Interesting, hadn't heard this angle before. I can find a paper theorising via Nash game theory that this should have an effect, but didn't find any studies about this using real-world data. Didn't look too hard, though.
Oh I thought we were talking about individual imperatives and not societal perceptions, I suppose you're right
Well, for individual perspectives, the idea that I have no free will still affect how I act by abandoning attempts to "just do" hard things, and prioritise changing the influential environment, instead. Don't keep candy in your house because you'll just eat it, stuff like that.
The universe is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics tells us that at a very small scale, things seem fundamentally probabilistic. This means history was not determined at Big Bang. However, there's some bad news: this still does not mean free will exists. Anyone claiming that free will arises from quantum mechanics is a complete quack.
A lot of people discussing this seem to have this strange "negotiation" strategy, where in place of trying to prove free will exists, they take something that exists and then jump through a million hoops to claim it is free will. In my view, free will would require an interaction that only goes one way, something that changes the world but is not changed by it. This would break Newton III, and generate energy out of nothing. Believing it would require a lot more proof than it feeling like we have free will.
What are the implications of there being no free will? I don't think it means that choices don't matter (or exists), or that morality isn't real. You just have to take a bit of a different perspective on them, see them as models instead of physical reality existing outside ourselves.
Anyone claiming that free will arises from quantum mechanics is a complete quack.
I mean you're pretty much right but I wouldn't completely discount all of the non mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. Penrose (a nobel laurelate in physics) seems to be pretty convinced consciousness plays some role in quantum mechanics and I wouldn't just completely discount his opinion.
There are still a whole lot of unresolved questions when it comes to this stuff and I think we're in for another paradigm shift at some point in the future provided we don't capitalism ourselves back into the middle ages.
Yeah. David Chalmers, who's a big name in the philosophy of mind, has also been looking into this "quantum mind, free will through probability manipulation" idea. Seems unlikely to me but I wouldn't dismiss him out of hand.
It's getting likelier IMO.
I think materialist science ignores the mind-body problem too much, it cannot really be dismissed out of hand like it is today by most scientists. I have a feeling at some point in the near future quantum mechanics and/or neuroscience is gonna hit a wall and then it's gonna be back to the drawing board.
I agree that the question of consciousness is fascinating and isn't talked enough about by scientists, but I'd argue that free will (quantum or otherwise) isn't necessary for phenomenal experience and the quantum hypothesis doesn't look like the best shot at explaining consciousness.
Kastrup is pretty dope. I'm not sure I agree with all of his conjectures about the nature of consciousness (idealism, universal consciousness etc.) but I feel like his base argument against reductive materialism is rock solid. I'm still pretty agnostic what metaphysic is actually the most coherent answer but I'm pretty sure reductive materialism is a dead end.
I had a conversation about it here a few days ago and it was pretty frustrating honestly, it's almost as if staunch materialists are unable to metacognize their own awareness. They just keep missing the point in ever more innovative ways.
I agree with you but quantum bullshit soul doesn't necessarily need to brake laws of physics to affect outcomes.
The universe is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics tells us that at a very small scale, things seem fundamentally probabilistic.
The closest view I hold that could be considered spiritual in any way is this: For every probabilistic quantum superposition collapse, each outcome does happen, in proportion to the probability of each outcome. For example, if at a given moment, there is a 25% chance one quantum event happens and a 75% chance that the event does not happen, the universe branches into 4 child universes, 1 of which where the quantum event happened and 3 where the event did not happen.
I believe theoretical physicists refer to this as the Many Worlds Theory. And the implication of it being true is that every possible state of the universe from its initial conditions actually happens.
In terms of "free will", this would imply that you could not possibly exert influence over the collective system of states, as every branch that physics allows your consciousness to traverse gets traversed, but you can only perceive the one this instance of your consciousness resides in.
I think the concept of free will is a semantic contradiction TBH, or at the very least incompatible with a materialist (in the philosophical "non-spiritualist" meaning of the term rather than the Marxist one) worldview.
If we're talking about free will as the ability for "you" make choices that aren't just determined by interactions between the physical particles that comprise "you" and the physical particles that comprise everything else then for "you" to have free will would require that the "you" making the decisions to be some sort of spiritual (non-material) entity with a mystical ability to affect the material world for the definition to make sense.
It follows then, that discussions about free will are by necessity discussions about materialism vs spiritualism and personally I've often found that expressing dissatisfaction with a world in which you don't have free will is often an outlet for people who aren't attached to any particular spiritualist or mystical worldview to express dissatisfaction with materialism as a whole.
Sorry to triple reply, but with all that said, how can you ultimately blame people for their decisions assuming you're not spiritual and therefore see people as doing what they're "programmed to do" even if it's bad. Not to say you can't be angry by it, but I just can't seem to blame them if that makes sense.
Just saw the added third paragraph which 100% seems to go along with my point and makes sense.
So forgive me if I'm just not getting your point, but it reads like you're agreeing with me. I'm not religious or spiritual, so I don't believe in a self outside what is basically our brain (and by extension, our body). So your brain takes in the input of the world around, and then determines how you'll react. You can't control your brain (or as far as you can through medication, etc is determined whether you will or not by your brain, and the period you live in on whether you actually can). You also can't control the world and culture you're born into, so I don't see any room for free will.
I think we're pretty much on the same page 😊.
In a material world the concept of "free will" doesn't make much sense as like in your example, for "you" to be exerting over control your brain and body to get them to make "free will" decisions, the way "you" is defined has to be more than a brain and a body (which the brain is part of) and have a non-material spiritual/mystical component.
The "history was determined at the Big Bang" thing is a little trickier. The way things work at a quantum level almost certainly adds an element of true randomness to how the universe works, so even if you had perfect information about the state of the universe at the time of the Big Bang but couldn't perfectly predict how quantum states would collapse without collapsing them (which, by our experimentally verified current understanding isn't possible) you couldn't predict the history of the universe. That still doesn't add "free will" as doing so would just defer the role of the mystical "you" to manipulating quantum state collapses but it does bust determinism as a theory.
We’re all just products of our environment which none of us can change on our own, and as much as we can change our environment as a collective is decided upon by current conditions which are determined by oast conditions, etc.
I think this is an unfair reading of historical materialism. Part of the material conditions is whether or not people choose to act. It's not that people won't act or can't act if the conditions aren't right for revolution. It's just that revolution won't happen if the conditions aren't right because the conditions include people choosing to have a revolution. We shape our environment and it shapes us. It's not that our environment shapes us but we only shape it when some magical set of conditions are met. People have to choose to act as part of creating those conditions. Let me tell you right now, the world is ripe in terms of material conditions needed for change. I can't speak for every other country but at least in the US, it's time. People get paralyzed because they think that when the checklist of conditions are met, then action spontaneously happens. But it doesn't happen on its own, we're the ones who have to do the work and make it happen. It's not a chemistry set where if you just dump chemicals in a tub a reaction will happen. It requires us to make a choice. The conditions for revolution can exist indefinitely and if people choose not to have a revolution, it won't happen indefinitely.
The main challenge of this leftist shit is to get people to realize they have more control than they think. It's to get people to choose something more than the status quo. And it's true that a person with 3 jobs won't revolt if the alternative is destroying society and starving to death or being killed by fascists. But that's why it's up to us to create an alternative to the status quo that doesn't involve those things. If you think the only choice is exist right now or go try to overthrow the government and be shot, then of course it seems hopeless. That's why we should be working to create an alternative vision. The revolution will fail if we don't have a plan for what happens if we win.
This is why I go on tears about people putting so much importance in creating and managing online spaces. People need to come up with how a new society will work and our political operatives need to be building a popular campaign around that idea and then we need people on the streets talking to people face to face. Users here will shit on electoralism all day long because they want an excuse for why they don't have to do anything other than keep posting. Electoralism is the building popularity part. The reason why electoralism doesn't work as it exists right now is because there needs to be a clear and unified vision to build popularity around. We just don't have that yet. The DSA, the People's Movement, etc all have different ideas about what should happen. They're focused on getting people into power rather than what should happen once people are in power (outside of a few issues like healthcare and taxes). That's fine because it's necessary but we really have to build our vision for the future. To do that we have to talk to people, not just other chronically online leftists. We have to actually go do politics rather than convincing people to come to a website or reading more Jacobin articles or getting them to listen to the right podcast. It means a lot of tedious, boring shit that people are either scared to do, or they just don't feel like it. But then that makes them feel guilty so they construct this idea of how politics works where arguing with liberals on reddit is doing politics and convincing people to join us. The indicator for their political change? They now go to a different website and listen to a good podcast. When doing this for years doesn't result in Bernie winning, people feel defeated and like everything is hopeless.
It’s not a chemistry set where if you just dump chemicals in a tub a reaction will happen. It requires us to make a choice
but if free will is an illusion, that "choice" is itself just a reaction determined by nature.
That’s why we should be working to create an alternative vision. The revolution will fail if we don’t have a plan for what happens if we win.
the Bolsheviks did the opposite.
The reason why electoralism doesn’t work as it exists right now is because there needs to be a clear and unified vision
We have to actually go do politics rather than convincing people to come to a website or reading more Jacobin articles
"we need a theory not a politics...we don't need theory, just do politics"
Never said we don't need theory. Consumer choices aren't theory nor politics.
free will is probablty not a real thing, and tbh that makes me feel a whole lot better about things; i'm not a fuckup and certain actions weren't failures if there was no realistic alternative to whatever happened. my anxity got so much better when i realised all this.
"I didn't punch you in the face. The Big Bang did. Why are you mad at me?"
This is by far my favorite reply so far (no offense to other replies). Don't really have anything to add but I'll check out that wiki
I think free will is a matter of perspective. At the largest scale, as you say, I think we're all just along for the ride. Or rather, if time is just another spatial dimension of the universe, then everything we do is pre-scripted.
But we don't and can't ever have the perspective of the whole universe simultaneously, so from our perspective we do have some degree of agency. We don't have 100% freedom to do anything at any time, but we can make decisions from among however many options are available to us.
I don't know if these perspectives are even necessarily in conflict. Like, if the pre-determined shape of the universe at exactly X point in space and time is you deciding that you want pizza instead of tacos, does that temove the meaningfulness of your decision? Does the inevitability of a decision negate the fact the someone had to decide it?
So i definitely think you've got a point, and foe the most part, I would say I agree. With that said, I end up having trouble ever really blaming people for their actions. Which is not to say that their actions dont still make me mad or upset, etc. How can I fault,for example, cis men for the patriarchy when I think there's an inevitability to might makes right that leads to the typically stronger and more aggressive group subjugate the other (that doesn't say I approve in any way), or Europeans for colonizing for the same reason. And even me being very strongly against both is some product of me being a short, weak, "feminine" man who has had many negative experiences with the patriarchy and a combination of guilt, empathy and access to leftist spaces due to my time that made me hate colonization. I also can't feel good about people doing good things (or at least things I would classify as good) because that's also outside of their control.
If we're talking about personal responsibility, one thing that's helped me work through how I feel about others' actions is de-coupling the actions from the person.
Like, many cishet white men are the way they are because that's the way their environment shaped them. That's not their fault, but it doesn't make their actions any less harmful. You can still condemn those actions without laying existential "blame" for the actions at any one person's feet.
Plus, if their actions are inevitable, then so is your response. Maybe you can't "credit" yourself and others for pushing back against patriarchy/colonialism, but you can still appreciate that said pushback had to happen. We're all just part of the push-and-pull of history, and I've found there's a contentment that comes with embracing that.
I think that everyone should act like they have free will in their personal life. Otherwise it will just turn into defeatism. In politics on the other hand we should listen to sociological determinism and try to go towards an equal (or meritocratic) society.
Yeah basically. The fun thing is that there is no way you could differentiate between your "free will" and what you actually do. You can choose to do something and if you do it you were always going to do it at that point in that manner, but because you chose to do it, it is free will even though things had to happen that way,
It's a bit vulgar, but if you take the materialist argument to be true, then we're all clumps of matter obeying universal laws. including the firing of our neurons. You can't break the universal laws so you've got to follow them. Even if some of the quantum level stuff is a bit unpredictable, that doesn't mean it doesn't follow certain laws or that its outcomes aren't fixed. We're on The Path but since we can't possibly see it we get to feel like there is none.
We have universal access to free will but you're going to need to pull yourself up by your bootstraps to exercise it, you liberal snowflakes.
For everything to be predestined, every subatomic particle needs to have a sort of memory, or information storage, that contains the instructions for how it will act in every stochastic process, throughout all of time.
Between infinite storage in each particle and tapping into a true randomness generator, the randomness generator is more plausible to me.
This doesn't mean we have full choice over things, but there is a scope for more than just predictable behavior. The brain is affected by genetics and environment, but as a complex system it is also affected by itself. This third influence is more of a cascade of randomness than anything else.
Your premise isn't valid. I could also claim there needs to be instructions for how to behave randomly inscribed onto every election. You're contrasting the two by saying one is necessarily more complex and one is more intuitive, so the intuitive one wins out, although I don't find either proposal intuitive. Predestination could be nothing more than subatomic particles settling into place due to the angle of their initial movement, like billiards balls settling into place after being struck. One could predict where balls on a billiards table will end up before or during the moment they're struck due to the initial velocity, the angles, the friction of the table, all of that. That doesn't mean there's information implicitly stored within the balls themselves.
Predestination could be nothing more than subatomic particles settling into place due to the angle of their initial movement, like billiards balls settling into place after being struck.
You are embarrassing yourself a little here.
The laws of classical mechanics do not extend to the subatomic level. We haven't had any way of predicting the behavior of individual subatomic particles; we can only statistically model them moles at a time.
For instance, an unstable atom will eject an alpha or beta particle at some point. We can know everything we can about an atom of radium, for instance, and still have no idea when it will break down. Either that is an intrinsic lengthy characteristic carried by the elementary particles for eternity and then computed, or it's truly random.
The fact that quantum mechanics appears random doesn't meant that underlying laws are not are not deterministic. The idea that it's all cellular automata or hypergraphs or whatever convoluted math down inside is in vogue nowadays.
My physics is very rusty, but from looking up in wikipedia Bell's theorem only disproves local hidden-variable theory. Non-local ones might be stupid for other reasons but this haven't stopped supposedly knowledgeable people from talking about them.
If they were deterministic, they would have do be doing a pretty impeccable job of causing an appearance of being truly stochastic.
"God" either does play dice, or emulates playing dice.
