You don't have free will, but don't worry.

Summary

This video challenges the concept of free will, arguing it's incompatible with natural laws and logically incoherent. It explains determinism through differential equations and the deterministic nature of chaos, dismissing quantum mechanics as a source of free will due to its inherent randomness. The script critiques redefinitions of free will and suggests that our sense of it arises from self-awareness and the unpredictability of our own thought processes. It concludes by emphasizing the importance of understanding our cognitive biases and decision-making processes, rather than relying on the illusion of free will.

Takeaways

• 🔬 Free will is incompatible with the laws of nature and is logically incoherent.
• 🧠 Neurology debates free will in terms of subconscious decision-making, but this script focuses on the broader idea of selecting among possible futures.
• ⚙️ Deterministic laws of nature, governed by differential equations, imply that the universe's future is already determined by its initial conditions.
• 🌌 Human brains, made of particles, follow the same deterministic rules, rendering the idea of free will an illusion.
• 💡 Quantum mechanics introduces randomness, but these events are not influenced by any will, making them irrelevant to free will.
• 🤔 Redefining free will as unpredictability or internal decision-making does not resolve its fundamental logical issues.
• 📖 Human decision-making is a calculation process, and the illusion of free will comes from our self-awareness and inability to predict outcomes.
• 🔄 Arguments about free will affecting moral behavior are unfounded; people will still be held accountable for their actions.
• 📚 Research studies on free will and morality show mixed results, with some recent studies suggesting disbelief in free will can positively impact moral decisions.
• 🧩 Understanding the illusion of free will can help people recognize cognitive biases and improve their decision-making processes.

Q & A

What is the main argument presented in the video script regarding free will?

The main argument is that the concept of free will is both incompatible with the laws of nature and logically incoherent. The script suggests that the idea of free will being able to select among possible futures is an illusion.

How does the script relate the deterministic laws of nature to the concept of free will?

The script argues that deterministic laws of nature, which dictate that the future is determined by the present, make the concept of free will irrelevant. Since everything, including human brains, is made of particles governed by these laws, free will as an independent selector of future outcomes is negated.

What is the script's stance on the role of quantum mechanics in the debate about free will?

The script dismisses the idea that quantum mechanics provides a basis for free will. It states that the randomness in quantum mechanics is not influenced by any 'will', and thus does not support the notion of free will.

What is the 'ability to have done otherwise' definition of free will, and why does the script reject it?

The 'ability to have done otherwise' definition suggests that free will is the capacity to make different choices. The script rejects this by stating that if one action was taken, there is no evidence of an alternative being possible, rendering the concept empty and logically flawed.

How does the script address the potential for redefining free will to align with natural laws?

The script acknowledges that some philosophers have attempted to redefine free will to make it compatible with natural laws, such as the unpredictability of human behavior or decisions being influenced by internal brain processes. However, it argues that these redefinitions are merely verbal acrobatics and do not change the fundamental incompatibility of free will with the laws of nature.

What is the script's explanation for the illusion of free will?

The illusion of free will arises from our self-awareness and the process of thinking about what to do, coupled with our inability to predict the outcome of our thoughts before we complete the process. The script suggests that the feeling of choice comes from this internal deliberation, not from an actual ability to select among futures.

How does the script respond to the argument that unpredictability in human behavior implies free will?

The script refutes this by explaining that unpredictability does not equate to free will. It uses the analogy of a computer code that can be altered to always output the opposite of a prediction, showing that unpredictability can be engineered without invoking free will.

What is the script's position on the moral implications of denying the existence of free will?

The script argues that denying the existence of free will does not erode moral behavior. It suggests that responsibility for actions is not based on free will but on the consequences of one's behavior and the need to prevent harm.

How does the script counter the claim that believing in free will is necessary for moral behavior?

The script cites studies that have shown disbelief in free will can have a positive impact on moral decisions. It argues that moral behavior is influenced by understanding the consequences of actions, not by the belief in free will.

What advice does the script offer for those who find the concept of free will difficult to abandon?

The script suggests that one can continue to use the concept of free will as a thinking aid without it being a literal truth. It encourages viewing life as a story yet to be told, with the understanding that our actions are determined but we must still engage in the process of thinking and decision-making.

What is the script's final recommendation for understanding the role of our 'thinking apparatus'?

The script recommends that to make the best use of our cognitive abilities, we should understand how they work, be aware of cognitive biases and logical fallacies, and pay attention to the information we are exposed to, as it greatly influences our decisions.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 The Paradox of Free Will in Physics

This paragraph introduces the argument that free will is incompatible with the laws of nature and logically incoherent. The speaker emphasizes that the concept of free will as the ability to choose among possible futures contradicts the deterministic nature of the universe as described by differential equations and known physical laws. The explanation includes a reference to differential equations and the deterministic nature of the universe from the Big Bang, concluding that our sense of free will is an illusion given these deterministic principles.

05:00

🧠 Reinterpreting Free Will and Human Behavior

This paragraph addresses philosophical attempts to redefine free will to align with scientific understanding. It discusses the unpredictability of human behavior and the distinction between decisions influenced internally versus externally. The speaker critiques these redefinitions as verbal acrobatics and insists that regardless of these definitions, we cannot select among multiple possible futures. The paragraph also explores the role of self-awareness in the perception of free will and dismisses the notion that unpredictability equates to free will.

10:02

📚 Embracing Determinism in Decision Making

The final paragraph encourages viewers to think of their lives as determined yet still requiring thoughtful decisions. It argues that understanding free will as an illusion can help people recognize the influences on their decisions and improve their thinking processes. The speaker suggests viewing life as an unfolding story where the outcome is determined, yet the thinking process is essential. The goal is to help viewers become more aware of cognitive biases and logical fallacies, ultimately making better decisions.

Keywords

💡Free Will

Free will refers to the idea that individuals can choose among different possible futures and make decisions independently of any pre-determined factors. In the video, the speaker argues that free will is incompatible with the laws of nature, as our decisions are either determined by prior conditions or are random, which does not allow for true choice.

💡Determinism

Determinism is the philosophical concept that all events, including moral choices, are determined completely by previously existing causes. The video explains that according to the laws of physics, the future is determined by the present, and therefore, everything in the universe, including human behavior, is pre-determined since the Big Bang.

💡Laws of Nature

Laws of nature refer to the fundamental principles that govern the behavior of the physical universe. The speaker highlights that all known laws of nature work with differential equations, meaning that given an initial condition, one can calculate future events, thus implying a deterministic universe where free will cannot exist.

💡Chaos

Chaos in the context of physics refers to systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, making long-term predictions difficult. Despite this unpredictability, chaotic systems are still deterministic. The video mentions that even though the human brain might exhibit chaotic behavior, it does not provide room for free will as the outcomes are still determined by initial conditions.

💡Quantum Mechanics

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that describes nature at the smallest scales of energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles. The video addresses that while quantum mechanics involves random events, these random events are not influenced by any will, thus negating the possibility of free will being rooted in quantum mechanics.

💡Materialism

Materialism is the philosophical viewpoint that everything that exists is either made up of matter or is dependent on material processes. The speaker argues that denying the materialistic view of the brain and its functions is equivalent to denying scientific evidence, reinforcing the idea that our thoughts and decisions are the result of physical processes.

💡Reductionism

Reductionism is the approach of understanding complex phenomena by reducing them to their fundamental parts. The video explains that understanding human behavior through the laws governing particles in the brain is a reductionist approach. This approach supports the argument against free will by showing that complex behaviors can be explained by simpler physical laws.

💡Initial Conditions

Initial conditions refer to the state of a system at the beginning of a process. The video emphasizes that given the initial conditions of particles in the brain, one can determine the future state of the brain and its decisions, thus arguing against the existence of free will as the future is predetermined.

💡Cognitive Biases

Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, leading to illogical inferences or decisions. The speaker suggests that understanding how our thinking apparatus works, including awareness of cognitive biases, can help us make better decisions, even if free will does not exist.

💡Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. The video encourages viewers to be aware of logical fallacies to improve their decision-making processes. This understanding is presented as crucial for making the best use of our thinking abilities, despite the deterministic nature of our decisions.

Highlights

Free will is incompatible with the laws of nature and logically incoherent.

The intuitive idea of free will as the ability to select among possible futures is flawed.

All laws of nature work with differential equations, meaning the future is determined by initial conditions.

The deterministic laws of nature apply to the brain, making free will an illusion.

Quantum mechanics introduces randomness, but it does not support the concept of free will.

Determinism and randomness together still do not allow for free will.

The concept of free will is either determined by desires or random, thus not truly free.

Philosophers' redefinitions of free will often involve unpredictable behavior, but this does not imply true free will.

Unpredictability of human behavior does not equate to free will.

The impression of free will comes from self-awareness and our inability to predict outcomes.

Predicting behavior is complicated by interference, not free will.

Moral responsibility does not require free will; it's about preventing harmful behavior.

Studies on free will and morality show mixed results; some indicate disbelief in free will can improve moral decisions.

Understanding the illusion of free will can help people make better decisions by recognizing cognitive biases.

Using the concept of free will as a thinking aid can still be beneficial, even if it is an illusion.

Transcripts

Today I want to talk about an issue that must have occurred to everyone who spent some time

thinking about physics. Which is that the idea of free will is both incompatible with

the laws of nature and entirely meaningless. I know that a lot of people just do not want

to believe this. But I think you are here to hear what the science says. So, I will

tell you what the science says. In this video I first explain why free will does not exist,

indeed makes no sense, and then tell you why there are better things to worry about.

I want to say ahead that there is much discussion about free will in neurology, where the question

is whether we subconsciously make decisions before we become consciously aware of having

made one. I am not a neurologist, so this is not what I am concerned with here. I will

be talking about free will as the idea that in this present moment, several futures are

possible, and your “free will” plays a role for selecting which one of those possible

futures becomes reality. This, I think, is how most of us intuitively think of free will

because it agrees with our experience of how the world seems to works. It is not how some

philosophers have defined free will, and I will get to this later. But first, let me

tell you what’s wrong with this intuitive idea that we can somehow select among possible

futures.

Last week, I explained what differential equations are, and that all laws of nature which we

currently know work with those differential equations. These laws have the common property

that if you have an initial condition at one moment in time, for example the exact details

of the particles in your brain and all your brain’s inputs, then you can calculate what

happens at any other moment in time from those initial conditions. This means in a nutshell

that the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the

big bang. We are just watching it play out.

These deterministic laws of nature apply to you and your brain because you are made of

particles, and what happens with you is a consequence of what happens with those particles.

A lot of people seem to think this is a philosophical position. They call it “materialism” or

“reductionism” and think that giving it a name that ends on –ism is an excuse to

not believe it. Well, of course you can insist to just not believe reductionism is correct.

But this is denying scientific evidence. We do not guess, we know that brains are made

of particles. And we do not guess, we know, that we can derive from the laws for the constituents

what the whole object does. If you make a claim to the contrary, you are contradicting

well-established science. I can’t prevent you from denying scientific evidence, but

I can tell you that this way you will never understand how the universe really works.

So, the trouble with free will is that according to the laws of nature that we know describe

humans on the fundamental level, the future is determined by the present. That the system

– in this case, your brain – might be partly chaotic does not make a difference

for this conclusion, because chaos is still deterministic. Chaos makes predictions difficult,

but the future still follows from the initial condition.

What about quantum mechanics? In quantum mechanics some events are truly random and cannot be

predicted. Does this mean that quantum mechanics is where you can find free will? Sorry, but

no, this makes no sense. These random events in quantum mechanics are not influenced by

you, regardless of exactly what you mean by “you”, because they are not influenced

by anything. That’s the whole point of saying they are fundamentally random. Nothing determines

their outcome. There is no “will” in this. Not yours and not anybody else’s.

Taken together we therefore have determinism with the occasional, random quantum jump,

and no combination of these two types of laws allows for anything resembling this intuitive

idea that we can somehow choose which possible future becomes real. The reason this idea

of free will turns out to be incompatible with the laws of nature is that it never made

sense in the first place. You see, that thing you call “free will” should in some sense

allow you to choose what you want. But then it’s either determined by what you want,

in which case it’s not free, or it’s not determined, in which case it’s not a will.

Now, some have tried to define free will by the “ability to have done otherwise”.

But that’s just empty words. If you did one thing, there is no evidence you could

have done something else because, well, you didn’t. Really there is always only your

fantasy of having done otherwise.

In summary, the idea that we have a free will which gives us the possibility to select among

different futures is both incompatible with the laws of nature and logically incoherent.

I should add here that it’s not like I am saying something new. Look at the writing

of any philosopher who understand physics, and they will acknowledge this.

But some philosophers insist they want to have something they can call free will, and

have therefore tried to redefine it. For example, you may speak of free will if no one was in

practice able to predict what you would do. This is certainly presently the case, that

most human behavior is unpredictable, though I can predict that some people who didn’t

actually watch this video will leave a comment saying they had no other choice than leaving

their comment and think they are terribly original.

So, yeah, if you want you can redefine “free will” to mean “no one was able to predict

your decision.” But of course your decision was still determined or random regardless

of whether someone predicted it. Others have tried to argue that free will means some of

your decisions are dominated by processes internal to your brain and not by external

influences. But of course your decision was still determined or random, regardless of

whether it was dominated by internal or external influences. I find it silly to speak of “free

will” in these cases.

I also find it unenlightening to have an argument about the use of words. If you want to define

free will in such a way that it is still consistent with the laws of nature, that is fine by me,

though I will continue to complain that’s just verbal acrobatics. In any case, regardless

of how you want to define the word, we still cannot select among several possible futures.

This idea makes absolutely no sense if you know anything about physics.

What is really going on if you are making a decision is that your brain is running a

calculation, and while it is doing that, you do not know what the outcome of the calculation

will be. Because if you did, you wouldn’t have to do the calculation. So, the impression

of free will comes from our self-awareness, that we think about what to do, combined with

our inability to predict the result of that thinking before we’re done.

I feel like I must add here a word about the claim that human behavior is unpredictable

because if someone told you that they predicted you’d do one thing, you could decide to

do something else. This is a rubbish argument because it has nothing to do with human behavior,

it comes from interfering with the system you are making predictions for. It is easy

to see that this argument is nonsense because you can make the same claim about very simple

computer codes. Suppose you have a computer that evaluates

whether an equation has a real-valued root. The answer is yes or no. You can predict the

answer. But now you can change the algorithm so that if you input the correct answer, the

code will output the exact opposite answer, ie “yes” if you predicted “no” and

“no” if you predicted “yes”. As a consequence, your prediction will never be

correct. Clearly, this has nothing to do with free will but with the fact that the system

you make a prediction for gets input which the prediction didn’t account for. There’s

nothing interesting going on in this argument.

Another objection that I’ve heard is that I should not say free will does not exist

because that would erode people’s moral behavior. The concern is, you see, that if

people knew free will does not exist, then they would think it doesn’t matter what

they do. This is of course nonsense. If you act in ways that harm other people, then these

other people will take steps to prevent that from happening again. This has nothing to

do with free will. We are all just running software that is trying to optimize our well-being.

If you caused harm, you are responsible, not because you had “free will” but because

you embody the problem and locking you up will solve it.

There have been a few research studies that supposedly showed a relation between priming

participants to not believe in free will and them behaving immorally. The problem with

these studies, if you look at how they were set up, is that people were not primed to

not believe in free will. They were primed to think fatalistically. In some cases, for

example, they were being suggested that their genes determine their future, which, needless

to say, is only partly correct, regardless of whether you believe in free will. And some

more nuanced recent studies have actually shown the opposite. A 2017 study on free will

and moral behavior concluded “we observed that disbelief in free will had a positive

impact on the morality of decisions toward others”. Please check the information below

the video for a reference.

So I hope I have convinced you that free will is nonsense, and that the idea deserves going

into the rubbish bin. The reason this has not happened yet, I think, is that people

find it difficult to think of themselves in any other way than making decisions drawing

on this non-existent “free will.” So what can you do? You don’t need to do anything.

Just because free will is an illusion does not mean you are not allowed to use it as

a thinking aid. If you lived a happy life so far using your imagined free will, by all

means, please keep on doing so.

If it causes you cognitive dissonance to acknowledge you believe in something that doesn’t exist,

I suggest that you think of your life as a story which has not yet been told. You are

equipped with a thinking apparatus that you use to collect information and act on what

you have learned from this. The result of that thinking is determined, but you still

have to do the thinking. That’s your task. That’s why you are here. I am curious to

see what will come out of your thinking, and you should be curious about it too.

Why am I telling you this? Because I think that people who do not understand that free

will is an illusion underestimate how much their decisions are influenced by the information

they are exposed to. After watching this video, I hope, some of you will realize that to make

the best of your thinking apparatus, you need to understand how it works, and pay more attention

to cognitive biases and logical fallacies.

Thanks for watching, see you next week.