If the universe can be expressed as numbers plugged into an equation, doesn’t that alone answer the question of free will?
It is becoming increasingly clear in quantum mechanics that the universe cannot be expressed as number plugged into an equation.
If the universe can be expressed as numbers plugged into an equation
That “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there
There are several fields of study dedicated to that if. And a galactic supercomputer dedicated to finding the question.
Exactly. If the laws of physics are absolute, then the brain—which is made of atoms—must follow those laws. Every choice is just a chemical reaction following a set path. The fact that we don’t have a computer ‘big’ enough to calculate it doesn’t mean the equation doesn’t exist.
this to me is the problem with her argument. In order to process the data to get find out the answer if you had all the data you would need something larger than existence to take it in and do it. We effectively have free will which is fine to me.
The question is not whether we can run a simulation based on such expression, but whether everything is expressible in such a way that shows it being deterministic.
To me, having"free will" is independent of our capacity of knowledge. For example: if you tell me that, for whatever reason, it’s impossible to really predict how will a particular computer algorithm behave, I would still not say that the algorithm has “free will”, I’ll just say that there are limits to our own capacity for knowledge that prevent us from predicting it, but this doesn’t make it less deterministic.
There’s a difference between something being “predictable” and something being “deterministic”. For something to be predictable it needs to be deterministic, but something being deterministic does not necessarily make it predictable.
To be honest when we can’t really predict an algorithm we do start talking about free will. Thats whats happening with the llm’s. Now we get into the conversation of sentience and if that is different than free will. Most conversations around llms comes down to understanding. That being said nothing that exists can be impossible to predict with enough knowledge and data. That is basically my argument that it seems that the argument against free will is that if a mechanism for free will exists then its predicatable so then it can’t exist. I don’t think the how we get to decisions makes them any less relevant in making them.
To be honest when we can’t really predict an algorithm we do start talking about free will. Thats whats happening with the llm’s.
But then this makes free will something relative to own limit of knowledge… meaning that if we were sufficiently stupid to be unable to predict the behavior of the much more simplistic Eliza bot we might think that this bot has free will too.
It would also imply that a sufficiently random algorithm (ie. one that cannot be predicted) also has free will. If there was a random number generator (ie. a set of dice) that was fully random and unpredictable, would you say it has free will?
it seems that the argument against free will is that if a mechanism for free will exists then its predicatable so then it can’t exist. I don’t think the how we get to decisions makes them any less relevant in making them.
I think this is the same topic we were discussing in this other comment branch, so I’m gonna refer to that as to not repeat ourselves :)
Thanks for the interesting conversation.
honestly merging the two may be a bit much but whay you said there sorta hits the nail on the head. I feel going way back to the argument in the video that free will would just be a function of randomness. I actually do think the stupider we are the more we would think things have free will. I mean many ancient religions viewed everything as being alive often with what would seem like free will. Then again we have often had beliefs with animals that they lack cognition or feeling when I think they have free will as well down to some point of lack of complexity. Its hard to say at one point it is emergent and there are cetainly levels.
Yes, there’s been societies in the past that would attribute “free will” to fill the gaps in their knowledge, but that’s an approach that consistently has been shown to be wrong as our knowledge of the world has expanded. So for that reason I don’t think it’s not a good approach to try and define things in relation to the limits of our knowledge.
Yeah I agree the issue isn’t whether we can actually process the data within our existence but whether everything is theoretically expressible in a deterministic equation. Our limited knowledge capacity doesn’t disprove determinism it just shows our epistemic boundaries. Not fully understanding how a computer works doesn’t mean the computer has free will, it only means we have limits to our knowledge.
That is what I said.
The person I was responding to was saying that " We effectively have free will " just because "you would need something larger than existence " to process the data that predicts the Universe.
I was giving the example of the computer as a way to show that this is not typically the way we understand “free will”, it’s not about actually being able to predict things, not necessarily.
Yeah and I agree.
Yeah and I agree
Yeah and I agree I see.
Very correct, and that’s not even taking into consideration that we’re nowhere near such an equation, or even any idea if it can even exist in principle.
even on small scale. I feel its like. if we offer food to someone who is hungry they have no free will because we knew all that or like change it to the food you offered is something they like and you know they can’t resist and are not on a diet or you know they are on a diet and have an iron will so they will refuse it or you know they are stuffed to the gills and will refuse it. none of that removes the agency of deciding to me.
If an action is 100% predictable based on inputs (hunger, preference, brain state), then it’s not a choice it’s a reaction. Just because we feel like we are choosing doesn’t mean we are. We are just witnessing the result of a complex biological equation that has already been solved by our neurons. What do you think?
If i am presented with a choice, say beer or wine, I feel like I’m making an educated choice based on the circumstances and my current personal state.
If we were to rewind time to that exact choice with the exact same parameters I’d choose the same beverage over and over again. It’s my free will, but I’m completely conditioned to choose it based of the environment, my DNA and my experiences.
If there were to be some quantumancy happening that made me choose differently in one of those scenarios, that doesn’t make the argument for free (controlled) will any stronger. Just that there’s some uncertainty at play.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter, we still need to good people accountable for their actions.
I’d pick the same drink every single time, and that makes sense to me as my choice under those conditions. It feels like compatibilism: free will as acting according to my own motivations, even if those are fully determined. But honestly, I’m still leaning toward determinism being mostly true our actions seem rooted in genetics, environment, childhood coding, and brain states that we don’t ultimately control. We can overcome patterns through therapy, awareness, etc., which gives a sense of freedom, but even that overcoming desire/ability is probably caused by prior factors too. So I’m not 100% hard determinist (because practical change feels real and meaningful), but I’m not fully compatibilist either— it sometimes feels like redefining ‘free will’ to fit determinism. Quantum uncertainty adds some unpredictability, but as you said, it’s just randomness, not ‘willed’ control, so it doesn’t rescue libertarian free will. At the end of the day, I agree accountability is crucial we still need to hold people responsible for actions to keep society functioning. How do you personally draw the line where ‘conditioned choice’ becomes ‘free enough’ for moral responsibility?
I disagree. basically its impossible to have free will if it has a structure and process. Its like because your actions are driven by your senses, logic, and feelings its not free will. But that is the nature of being. There could be no free will with that because its defining anything that comes from anything as not being free will. If a god exists he would not have free will because he exists and therefore has being and therefore has mechanisms of action. Its not an argument against free will its an argument about free will being the result of some spiritual mumbo jumbo like a soul.
I feel you are defining “free will” as any form of “will”.
What would be the difference between having a “deterministic will” and having “free will” in your view?
If you think that every decision that involves our own willpower is “free”, even when that decision is 100% predictable/determined and one cannot really arbitrarily choose to “will” it differently, then calling it “free” is meaningless, since it does not really require the freedom to choose differently.
Our genetics and environment (especially childhood experiences) basically program us and shape our brains. A lot of what we do stems from those early codes we were given. But we can overcome them through therapy, awareness, new experiences, etc. That said, if the very desire and ability to overcome those patterns weren’t wired into us from the start (genetics, upbringing, etc.). That’s a different story.
The numbers don’t lie.
What if the equation is a wave function? And the free will is collapsed quantum state?
When a quantum event collapses in the brain, the result is unpredictable yet this randomness is still not something you control. True free will would require a selection process that is neither purely random nor strictly deterministic, but genuinely willed. Randomness just introduces chaos; it doesn’t produce the sense of “I chose this”.
Well, the wave function collapsing to that universal reality 🙃
That’s a very valid point ☺️
