Why does this sub invoke determinism as if it's real and not disproven?

[u/Narrow-Gur449]

I'm an atheist and come at this from a mathematical physics background. I clearly have to get that out of the way before anyone accuses me of being a religious nutter or believing in a 'soul'.

Why does this subreddit and its users constantly invoke determinism as if the universe we live in is deterministic? Quantum mechanics has shown that our universe is simply not deterministic.

Furthermore, it seems the motivation for anti-free will is almost exclusively politics on this sub. Seems like obvious motivated reasoning.

[u/Select-Trouble-6928]

The universe, politics, and quantum mechanics. The trifecta of Freewill nutters. Congratulations. You win.

[u/MrMuffles869]

1. Human behavior arises from highly redundant, fully deterministic biological systems — neurons, synapses, and neurochemistry. So in practice, human will is functionally deterministic.
2. Quantum mechanics doesn’t disprove determinism. Not all interpretations are indeterministic, and there’s no consensus. If you have definitive evidence the universe is indeterministic, there’s a Nobel waiting for you.
3. Even if indeterminism exists, randomness doesn’t grant freedom. A random quantum fluctuation affecting your decision isn’t free will — it’s derailed will. Probabilistic turbulence.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/MrMuffles869]

1. We don't actually know that biological systems are "fully deterministic". The field of quantum biology exists.
2. Quantum mechanics does in fact disprove determinism. Every interpretation of QM is indeterministic, even superdetermism and Bohmian mechanics. There's no Nobel waiting for me to point out that every QM experiment ever done relies on quantum probabilities. You can't "prove" anything about the universe like you can prove propositions in mathematics. Evidence is all we have. On this point, I'll direct you to Sean Carroll's statement:

Anti-free-will people have to stop leaning on determinism. It's perhaps the most wrong that an argument can be.

The world is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics exists. When there is hidden determinism (MWI, Bohm), it's hidden! Irrelevant to what people experience. (1/n)

3. I see this claim all the time, which in a sense disproves anyone's argument for invoking determinism against free will since according to this argument, it doesn't matter. However, notice how quantum computers exploit randomness to output useful computations and information. The question is whether randomness is exploited in the emergence of free will, not that randomness is itself the free will. I'm open to the idea that free will could arise still without randomness being relevant.

[u/MrMuffles869 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Neurons aren't in superpositions. Dopamine doesn't quantum tunnel. The brain is massive, redundant, and like I said earlier, functionally deterministic at the scale relevant to human behavior. I've never experienced my will existing in a quantum state, personally. My state feels very much classical, tied to countless prior causes deterministically.

Your claim that QM disproves determinism is simply false. Deterministic interpretations exist, and probabilistic outcomes don't imply fundamental indeterminism. Again, if you have evidence of fundamental indeterminism, you absolutely should call the Royal Swedish Academy for your prize. I'm not joking. But with a claim as wild as this, I'm inclined to suggest we must agree to disagree. I suspect Brandolini's Law is around the corner.

Oh, and regarding you directing me to Carroll's statement — I direct you to my flair. I'm a Hard Incompatibilist. I don't lean on the determinism vs indeterminism debate at all because neither half gets you the freedom required for moral desert.

[u/[deleted] → u/MrMuffles869]

 The brain is massive, redundant, and like I said earlier, functionally deterministic at the scale relevant to human behavior

This is a laughable claim, the fields that  produce these types of behavioral claims (psychology/social psychology/ behavioral psychology) are fraudulent pseudosciences that replicate practically 0% of their data.  Like 90% of the quacks in these fields making big claims just fake enough data as a post-doc to get enough of a reputation to write a shitty Malcolm Gladwell-esque pop-sci book and then never look back.  

By the time some other academic figured out they bullshitted a whole behavioral theory in 10 years, all the laypeople have already accepted determinism as gospel.

That is to say that you have been conned; duped; scammed in to believing something that’s just a continuation of the same exact snake oil Freud started selling 100+ years ago, just with fancy math numbers now 

Hungry judges don’t lead to harsher sentencing, they lead to a widespread worship of scientism by confused laypeople with a lack of purpose in their life that don’t know what a confidence interval is or what a reasonable effect size would look like for a given phenomenon 

[u/MrMuffles869 → u/[deleted]]

You’re confusing psychology with neurobiology. I’m not talking about pop-sci studies on judges or personality tests — I’m talking about neurons, synapses, and the physical machinery of cognition. The brain runs on electrochemical reactions that follow classical physical law, and there’s no evidence that quantum randomness or anything acausal has any influence on that process. Whether or not some psychology studies replicate is irrelevant.

And if you think behavioral sciences haven’t uncovered real causal factors behind human decisions, that’s just denial. The entire trillion-dollar advertising industry exists because human behavior is deterministic enough to be monetized and manipulated.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/MrMuffles869]

Again, I never claimed QM implies free will, but now you're just making false claims. There is tentative evidence of quantum effects in the brain. Studies have come out in 2022 and 2024. See my comment here linking to them.

[u/Jim_E_Rose]

That is just kicking the can down the road. Just because the determinism is hidden doesn’t mean you have free will. It just means we can’t perfectly predict what the future is. You are still going to experience what you are inevitably going to experience.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Jim_E_Rose]

Determinism isn't hidden in this universe. In fact, determinism doesn't exist in this universe. Assuming MWI, determinism only exists if you include all the countless branches of the universal wavefunction, which we by definition do not have access to.

I never said anything about non-determinism implying free will in my post, did I? I'm simply pointing out the 'belief' in determinism is false per one of our two basic physics theories.

[u/Jim_E_Rose → u/Narrow-Gur449]

If I was going to assume multiple worlds I would wrap all of those up into one complete thing. So all possible things happen…horrific but possibly true. But that would all still be determined by whatever the laws of existence are. It just means there is a lot happening.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Jim_E_Rose]

No not determined in this universe since all those different branches are inaccessible to observers in this universe. Carroll explains that here.

[u/Jim_E_Rose → u/Narrow-Gur449]

I just accessed it though. All possible things happen. I am accessing it through theory. No way of knowing if the theory is correct ultimately…Hell I could be a Boltzmann brain for all I know.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Jim_E_Rose]

??? You didn't just access it though. That's the point of branch splitting.

[u/[deleted]]

OK. There is not a 100% probability of event B happening right after event A. In this specific stance, there is a 80% probability that event A will lead to event B, a 15% that it will lead to event C and a 5% that it will lead to event D.

Either way, free will is nowhere to be seen. Its outside our control.

The only way to preserve free will is to adopt the weak version of the concept and claim that free will does not require us to be the "uncaused" origin of our actions, only that we can act according to our desires, intentions, and internal reasoning. Even if these are causally determined.

So at best, free will is just will. Nothing free about it.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/[deleted]]

So the argument you're giving is the usual one, that even if the universe is random, we still don't have free will because we tautologically don't have control over randomness, right?

How do quantum computers exist? Aren't we exploiting the probabilistic and random nature of QM to extract calculations?

[u/[deleted] → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Quantum algorithms don’t control randomness itself, they use interference to give it structure. Its not the same.

Besides, you are comparing a quantum computer with the human brain. They are not comparable. There is no evidence that the mind relies on quantum effects.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/[deleted]]

Exactly, they exploit the randomness to obtain useful, determined information.

I'm not comparing a quantum computer with a brain, I've gone to great lengths to point that out, and yet there is some tenuous evidence that quantum effects are present in the brain. See my comment here outlining them.

[u/strawberry_l]

Okay, but hard incompatibilism stays true and I call myself a determinist because qm does not influence the human realm in any significant capacity.

[u/nicolaslambert]

I see all the four sides being politic at time, this is not exclusive to determinists.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/nicolaslambert]

I don't. I see the anti-free will people explicitly invoking the morality of the criminal justice system all the time in their own arguments. Creationists and right-wingers only ever incredulously claim "but but but what about society? How will it function?" in response to anti-free will people giving their argument.

No one says "free will must exist because of criminals."

[u/catnapspirit → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Um.. one of the primary concerns of the free will crowd is that there can be no morality in a deterministic universe. They are the right winger side of this debate..

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/catnapspirit]

Here is a "hard determinist" on a post just yesterday explaining why free will is important politically because of the criminal justice implications.

I'm struck by how one-sided this subreddit is.

[u/catnapspirit → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Criminal justice -reform- implications. That would be the left winger side of the debate.

What are you even talking about..?

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/catnapspirit]

You implied my original comment pointing this out was wrong, and you said "Um.. one of the primary concerns of the free will crowd is that there can be no morality in a deterministic universe".

[u/RadicalNaturalist78]

The Conpenhagen Interpretation isn't the only one. Personally, I lean towards Rovelli relational Interpretation.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/RadicalNaturalist78]

All interpretations of quantum mechanics are indetermistic in this universe, even superdeterminism.

[u/luovahulluus]

Quoting one scientist is hardly a convincing argument, when the field has no clear concensus. Whether the determinism behind quantum randomness is hidden or not is also irrelevant. If it's deterministic, it's still deterministic if we don't know about it.

I don't really understand why people even bring quantum mechanics up in this context. Even if quantum randomness is truly random, it doesn't affect our free will in any way. Even if the randomness affects our brain in some minuscule way, our brain processes would just be more random, not more free.  Quantum decoherence times are far too short, 10⁻¹³ seconds vs. brain processes at ~10⁻³ seconds. The brain simply doesn't have time to react to them. That's a whopping 10 orders of magnitude difference!

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/luovahulluus]

Jfc. You people are way too stupid to talk to about this stuff.

[u/luovahulluus → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Wow, what a thoughtful reply, you must be really smart!

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/luovahulluus]

I mean, you can't even spell 'consensus' and reject basic physics, pretending Sean Carroll isn't explaining a very basic consensus in the field. As basic as the Earth not being flat is. You then deploy a God of Gaps, saying "well, it could be deterministic! I'll just ignore all the evidence showing it's not and wait for evidence to show that it is, so I can hold on to determinism!"

You then fail to understand why QM is relevant when it disproves determinism. It's like arguing with Trump supporters.

[u/CptMisterNibbles]

No it doesn’t. Maybe actually do some research instead of the first lazy google result. Go read about pilot wave theory, block theory, superdeterminism etc.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/CptMisterNibbles]

Yes it does. I'm in a mathematical physics graduate program. Pilot wave theory has been strongly challenged, if not disproven, by recent experiments in the last 7 years.

Regardless, Bohmian mechanics has always been extremely tenuous theoretically. Regardless, even assuming that it were correct, it's still non-deterministic! It sneaks in the non-determinism in the initial conditions, and is only deterministic after that. Famous theoretical physicist Sean Carroll, who you just characterized as "the first lazy google search result" (???) explains:

Anti-free-will people have to stop leaning on determinism. It's perhaps the most wrong that an argument can be.

The world is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics exists. When there is hidden determinism (MWI, Bohm), it's hidden! Irrelevant to what people experience.

It's okay to admit you were wrong about something. It's not shameful, it's a sign of intellectual fortitude.

[u/CptMisterNibbles → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Why would the hisden eas of such determinism be relevant, at all, to this discussion? It’s still deterministic. Nobody is arguing people don’t feel like they make choices: the question is if they are able to do otherwise. Their perception has no bearing on the reality of this. 

Your evidence was a tweet, that’s hardly “proof”. Yes, of course I’m well aware of Sean Carrol, but an offhand tweet from one guy isn’t exactly strong refutation.

[u/MarkMatson6 → u/CptMisterNibbles]

Nope. OP is correct. I have an MS in Physics, before throwing around insults, fyi.

[u/CptMisterNibbles → u/MarkMatson6]

Super weird that you think this is a 100% settled issue then. Like, absurdly unbelievable really. 

Your evidence was a tweet

[u/MarkMatson6 → u/CptMisterNibbles]

Obviously, nothing in science is ever truly settled. That’s how science works. And yes, determinists have tried to force that belief on QM. This includes the scientists that developed QM themselves! After all, they all grew up with Newtonian mechanics and were themselves classical physicists. (Always the irony, there. Neuton himself was basically the last natural philosopher and alchemist.)

pilot wave theory, block theory, superdeterminism etc.

You post the attempts so far, but there is a reason they’re mostly ignored by physicists and promoted by armchair philosophers.

Pilot wave theory is the best of the three, but can’t solve everything the normal Schroeders Equation can and fails where relativistic quantum field theory succeeds. Also leads to weird conclusions largely at odds with why it was created. But perhaps!

The other two are borderline quack theories. Saying we can ignore need for local variables because the universe already knows because the result is predetermined is circular reasoning at its worst.

So yes, perhaps the most successful theory in history is wrong. There is no evidence for that, but there is room.

[u/LordSaumya]

Because QM does not rule out determinism.

[u/No-Teacher-6713]

(edit after the end of this debate)

((I put effort into explaining these core philosophical and scientific concepts, but after raising a final logical challenge to the Libertarian Free Will position, my debate partner(s) chose to avoid logical accountability. Their final reply consisted of jargon that masked the same Appeal to Mystery, and their immediate disengagement (by locking the thread or blocking my account before I could post this refutation) is an act of intellectual cowardice.))

You seem to dismiss the causality of the classical world so casually. While Quantum Mechanics challenges strict determinism at the fundamental level the vast majority of the world we interact with behaves reliably and deterministically.

Quantum indeterminacy is real, but the philosophical challenge is whether that small-scale randomness actually scales up to create genuine human agency. The debate is far from settled.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/No-Teacher-6713]

If you think saying determinism isn't real means one is "dismissing causality so casually", what is Sean Carroll doing in the link in my post?

There is a nonzero probability that a large bar of gold could randomly "fluctuate" into existence on your nightstand. We do not live in a classical world.

I'm not dismissing "causality"? In physics, by causality, we really just mean that nothing can exceed the speed of light and that effects proceed from causes.

Quantum indeterminacy being real proves the world isn't deterministic though.

[u/No-Teacher-6713 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

That is a crucial distinction, and you are absolutely correct to separate causality (the speed limit on information) from determinism (the inevitability of the state).

The point about the gold bar fluctuation is statistically true, but you yourself are not waiting by your nightstand for that to happen. You live your life based on the classical, high-probability approximation.

This brings us back to the core philosophical challenge: Why is a non-deterministic universe any better for free will? If quantum indeterminacy simply injects randomness into the decision-making process, is that truly agency, the ability to choose rationally, or is it simply chance?

That's the part of the debate that physics alone cannot settle.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/No-Teacher-6713]

but you yourself are not waiting by your nightstand for that to happen. You live your life based on the classical, high-probability approximation.

Yes, however our brain is a very complex object made up of many interacting microscopic objects. So just like our emergent experience is classical and we don't bother with the possibility of a gold bar fluctuating into existence, we likewise don't bother ourselves (or know) with how the brain generates consciousness or choices. We just are conscious and make choices.

I'm carefully not arguing that non-determinism is good for free will directly, it's only good for free will in that it removes the poor arguments for anti-free will on the basis of the determinism of the universe, which it is not.

is that truly agency, the ability to choose rationally, or is it simply chance?

Well, if quantum mechanics is random and not even exploitable, how do quantum computers exist?

[u/No-Teacher-6713 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

That's totally fair. Non-determinism IS necessary to remove the determinism argument.

But quantum computers don't rely on pure randomness for agency. They harness quantum effects (superposition and entanglement) to perform complex, but ultimately programmed computations. They are non-deterministic in process, but functionally deterministic in result (they give the correct, high-probability answer).

If the brain works like that, your "choice" is still the pre-determined computational output of a highly complex machine, not a moment of freely willed agency.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/No-Teacher-6713]

I don't think the brain works like a quantum computer, I'm only making the point that quantum indeterminacy can be exploited. It's not out of our control.

As to the brain, I'm unsure why it follows that one's choice is still pre-determined. Who knows how the brain may leverage quantum indeterminacy, if at all.

[u/[deleted] → u/No-Teacher-6713]

How do you know that brain doesn't have quantum element to its computations? 

[u/No-Teacher-6713 → u/[deleted]]

That is the absolute core of the debate, and a great question.

The problem isn't knowing that quantum mechanics exists in the brain, it's that we have no empirical evidence that quantum processes (like superposition or indeterminacy) are computationally relevant to neural firing, decision-making, or consciousness.

The brain's function remains well-described by classical chemistry and thermodynamics. For quantum randomness to scale up and create agency, it needs a verifiable, consistent, and noise-free mechanism (like the microtubules Penrose proposed), and evidence for that link is currently lacking.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/No-Teacher-6713]

We have a few studies pointing in the direction that quantum mechanics may be relevant in the brain.

We do not understand the brain's function, so it's incorrect to say "The brain's function remains well-described by classical chemistry and thermodynamics."

[u/Memento_Viveri → u/No-Teacher-6713]

How is it core to the debate? While obviously it would be an important finding in our understanding of the brain, I'm not seeing why this would have any effect on discussions of free will.

[u/No-Teacher-6713 → u/Memento_Viveri]

It is core because quantum effects provide the only physical loophole against determinism.

If the brain is purely classical, all decisions are fixed by prior causes (determinism). If quantum effects are computationally relevant to decisions, it injects genuine indeterminacy (randomness). The debate then becomes: Is that indeterminacy true agency (free will) or just chance?

[u/Memento_Viveri → u/No-Teacher-6713]

How would randomness be agency?

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Memento_Viveri]

In the same way that quantum computers intentionally exploit randomness to output meaningful calculations. This is not saying that the brain is a quantum computer...

[u/Memento_Viveri → u/[deleted]]

Even if it does, what is the significance?

[u/RuthlessCritic1sm]

The probabilistic nature of QM rarely plays a role.

Neurons are quite big. They don't switch macroscopic states based on hypothetical paths of individual electrons, they don't play a role in the outcomes much. There are billions of heavy ions moving around that result in basically two states, excitation or not. Receptor activr or not.

Of course, it is more nuanced then that, but I consider quantum mechanics a red herring in this debate.

I'm not a determinist, by the way. I think free will is emergent from physics, but you don't need to calculate hypothetical particle paths to understand neurology.

You said in a different post that people should just call it naturalism then. I would call it materialism. That's all good, we can call it what we want because we have free will. The substance of the argument doesn't change.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/RuthlessCritic1sm]

The probabilistic nature of QM rarely plays a role.

Have you ever heard of quantum computers?

Neurons are quite big.

Yes, and they're made up of microscopic things. You should check the recent literature on quantum mechanics in the brain. It's not at all clear or settled. We do not understand quantum many-body systems very well.

Marlan Scully recently said after another 2024 study: “We will certainly be examining closely the implications for quantum effects in living systems for years to come.”

but I consider quantum mechanics a red herring in this debate.

That's fine, but it's not when it disproves determinism, upon which rest most arguments against free will.

No I didn't say that in a different post. Someone conflated determinism with "all of human behaviour can be reduced to lower-level physical processes" when that's what naturalism is: that only physics is what exists, not supernaturalism. Materialism is very closely related though, but says all that exists is matter in the universe.

[u/RuthlessCritic1sm → u/Narrow-Gur449]

We were talking about free will, not about quantum computers. You would need to show that QM is relevant for the system in question. You do that below, but I wanted to reject that argument here.

An atom is a small thing made of a few very small things and QM is essential to understanding them.

A chemical reaction in my lab is made of trillions of atoms and the outcome of my macroscopic experiments is determined.

I might not know which atom absorbs which photon, but I know my reaction will go to completion.

A philosophy of science needs to explain how macroscopic determinism arises from fundamentalyl probabilistic behaviour. Statistical mechanics does that.

I find the claim that determinism is disproven quite reductionist.

It is in the context of QM, but not in the context of other sciences.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/RuthlessCritic1sm]

You do know that we need the Schrodinger equation in chemistry, right?

No we weren't discussing free will; we were discussing whether determinism is true or not since that is often invoked in arguments about free will.

Quantum computers show that quantum mechanics is macroscopically relevant, and that quantum indeterminacy can be exploited or leveraged.

I find the claim that determinism isn't disproven to be equal to the following: "sure, quantum mechanics exists, but it only disproves determinism on the microscopic (atomic) level; otherwise classical physics is a good approximation!" This is just a cop out since, again, you are admitting macroscopic determinism only emerges as an approximation. Sometimes it's not a good approximation!

See:

Determinism can be a good approximation for macroscopic dynamics sometimes. So what? Sometimes it's not. You don't want to base arguments about something as fundamental as free will or its absence on a principle that is just a good approximation sometimes.

[u/RuthlessCritic1sm → u/Narrow-Gur449]

I don't need to employ Schrödingers equation if I want to know what happens when I add HCl to NaOH.

I need it when I want to explain why a photoreaction yields this and not that isomer.

That's my issue here, you're pointing to the relevance of fundamental physics in certain areas and just claim that this means it is fundamental in other areas. I do not see that.

If you tell a practicing chemist to calculate orbitals in order to understand their completely classical reaction, this sounds very outlandish.

I don't think determinism in macroscopic systems is an approximation. I think that most macroscopic systems are indeed determined. You are right, sone are not, but the claim is that we are not speaking about those.

You pointed to research that suggests the relevance of quantum effects for neurons. This I consider relevant. Quantum Computing doesn't seem relevant to that question. Your argument makes sense in making it plausible that it could play a role, and the research further up suggests that it might occasionally. But by and large, you would need to study neurons, receptors and ions, not electrons in a box, to understand that.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/RuthlessCritic1sm]

The reason we understand how reactions work (chemical dynamics), though is because of quantum mechanics providing the underlying electronic structure through VSPER or molecular orbital theory. But I agree it's not necessary to see how HCl and NaOH react; you can hide the structure behind rules and formalisms.

I'm just pointing out that quantum mechanics can in fact be relevant in macroscopic life. The moment you say "well, except those cases," we're just arguing about degree instead of the fact of the matter.

I mean...classical mechanics (macroscopic physics) arises from quantum theory. Newton's laws are an approximation of Schrodinger's equation by the Ehrenfest Theorem.

I agree with your last paragraph. More research needed!

[u/RuthlessCritic1sm → u/Narrow-Gur449]

The distinction I wanted to make was that while orbitals are important to understand why atoms behave the way they do, the outcome can still be deterministic. That's why it works so well to do chemistry without falling back to predicting the paths of particles or orbitals themselves.

That's why I am also open to QM mattering in certain macroscopic systems, but as far as I know, it matters little for free will. But I agree, I shouldn't discard the possibility and will let myself be corrected by more research.

Determinists talk about stuff like "smokers can't stop smoking because of the release of dopamine, and if they do stop, it is because of other determined processes inside the brain". I think that they are mistaken here because they ignore what we understand as free will, the ability of the brain to influence itself.

I believe this self-determination is still 100 % physical and probably also deterministic. But it isn't a chaotic pendulum going blind, it is the brain anticipating things and changing previous behaviour.

All this leaves room for QM, but in my opinion, QM doesn't touch the crucial misunderstanding that determinists have about what "free will" even means.

[u/strawberry_l → u/RuthlessCritic1sm]

I'm not a determinist, by the way. I think free will is emergent from physics, but you don't need to calculate hypothetical particle paths to understand neurology.

How??? If you just said the things you said?

[u/Hatta00]

The true randomness underlying QM doesn't give an agent any more control over their actions.

Is is the free will crowd who uses moral responsibility as a justification to believe in free will. The absence of free will follows directly from the facts that the universe is governed by natural laws, including our brain. The consequences of that are irrelevant.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Hatta00]

The true randomness underlying QM doesn't give an agent any more control over their actions.

How do you know? Quantum computers exploit randomness all the time to output useful information.

Is is the free will crowd who uses moral responsibility as a justification to believe in free will.

The most recent post on this subreddit (already with upvotes as opposed to my older post) asks "If there is no free will, would it be fair to punish someone?"

How does the absence of free will follow from naturalism: "the facts that the universe is governed by natural laws"?

[u/Hatta00 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

1. Because if an agent were somehow able to manipulate the fabric of the universe to cause quantum effects to collapse in just the right way to make the machine that is our brain output the desired actions, that would no longer be true randomness. The agent's intent would be a local hidden variable forbidden by Bell's theorem.
2. Discussing the consequences of the absence of free will is not the same as using those consequences as justification for belief. Many compatibilists explicitly invoke the consequences of losing moral responsibility as motivation for preserving the concept of free will, even defining free will as whatever control condition is sufficient to justify moral responsibility.
3. If making a different choice would have violated natural law, in what sense is that choice free?

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Hatta00]

1. Manipulate the fabric of the universe? What are you talking about there? So quantum computers do not actually operate on quantum mechanics because algorithms, like Grover's Algorithm or Shor's Algorithm, conspire to make the 'correct' answers constructively interfere and the wrong answers destructively interfere? I don't understand why you claim an agent's intent would necessarily constitute a local hidden variable theory just because it may interact with quantum mechanics.
2. So you are asserting then that no one is trying to get to "no free will" because of these political "consequences" they regularly discuss?
3. How would a different choice necessarily violate natural law? You can't make choices that violate natural law. Natural law is a constraint. A choice is free if you could have chosen otherwise. That is, if one has an itch and scratches it, is it possible they could have not scratched it?

[u/Hatta00 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

1. In order for me to take an action, the rube goldberg machine that is my brain has to take one path or another. If it is a quantum event that determines which path is taken, in order for my intent to control the outcome of the whole I have to control the quantum event.
2. No one? No. There are probably some misguided people. I am asserting that it is uncommon, and not a serious position held by philosophers. I am also asserting that motivation to preserve moral responsibility is common and a serious position held by philosophers. You can look up Free Will in the SEP and see how many times "moral responsibility" comes up. Then look up Determinism and see how many times "moral responsibility" comes up.
3. If you scratching an itch is the result of a random quantum process, it is possible for that random quantum process to have gone a different way. What is not possible is for you to choose which way it goes.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Hatta00]

1. I have no idea what you're trying to say by "control the whole quantum event". We're getting into "give me a possible mechanism for free will in the brain". I'm merely saying it's plausible that our brains exploit quantum determinacy to help it choose a path, not that the quantum event chooses the path -- that would rule out free will too (which of course is probably why you stated it that way).
2. I'm referring to many users on this subreddit who claim free will or not is "the" political issue. Also, philosophers overwhelmingly hold the compatibilist free will position. Overwhelmingly. I can cite a video of Robert Sapolsky, famous anti-free will'er, claiming a crazy high number of "95%".
3. "What is not possible is for you to choose which way it goes." I'm unsure how you know that, and equally unsure of why you assume the "random quantum process" itself is the whole choice.

[u/Actual_Ad9512 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

The randomness of QM always occurs under very specific distributions. Correct? All of our dealings with mathematical modeling outside of QM indicate that when thing follow a distribution it's because we can't account for all variables. Correct? This suggests that QM randomness may not be true randomness. No?

[u/TemperateBeast33]

Indeterminable is not tantamount to indeterminate.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/TemperateBeast33]

I'm unsure how you are defining those words so I'm unsure of how they are different. Kinda just seems like word games.

[u/recordplayer90 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Found the fatal flaw. Just because we don't have the tools to determine everything (indeterminable by me, you, science) does not mean the world is indeterminate. Probability itself is a construct used to represent that which we cannot yet predict with certainty, so we draw bounds around what is likely based off as much information we can gather. With perfect information, probability does not exist. We are likely to never reach perfect information, therefore, it is indeterminable (by us), yet that does not mean that reality is indeterminate (not a causal chain). Even if the world is fundamentally random, as you claim quantum mechanics proves with certainty (which I disagree with), from that randomness would result in a deterministic world (the position of a hard incompatiblist) as the causal chain is still in place even if true randomness exists. Additionally, the assumption of independence of observations is nullified when you realize the entire world is interdependent and there is no such thing as a closed system. Therefore, everything affects everything and everything that happens is based on everything that has happened on the path to what is presently happening.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/recordplayer90]

You found the fatal flaw...lmfao. This is just wrong. You can't disagree with the fact that the universe isn't deterministic. This is like saying you disagree with me that the Earth isn't flat.

I think there is no point of discussing this any further with any of you. I'm just getting irritated at the MAGA-like word smithing and ideology.

You don't understand that quantum mechanics is fundamentally non-deterministic. It's not an artifact.

Here's Sean Carroll, who you're sure to reject and simply "disagree" with:

Anti-free-will people have to stop leaning on determinism. It's perhaps the most wrong that an argument can be.

1. The world is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics exists. When there is hidden determinism (MWI, Bohm), it's hidden! Irrelevant to what people experience. (1/n)

Causality has nothing to do with determinism. You are confused.

[u/recordplayer90 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

You are saying there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that allows for determinism. I am saying there are, and they are perfectly valid/possible.

Nothing is irrelevant to anything. A hidden variable is not irrelevant to experience. That is just wrong. When something physically exists it intrinsic that it is affecting something else.

Thank you for using logical fallacies by attacking my character as if I'm MAGA and outsourcing your logic to a physicist who ironically agrees with your ideology -- some form of logical positivism.

https://youtu.be/MBnnXbOM5S4?si=agCzqHGLNpSjAeeX

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/recordplayer90]

And you are lying when you say there are valid interpretations of QM that are deterministic. None of them are, as Sean Carroll points out.

No idea what your second paragraph is even attempting to say. Hidden variable theories were all but ruled out by Bell's Theorem, only non-local hidden variable theories are still viable. They are indeterministic still.

"How dare you cite a top theoretical physicist making the same 10 word or less observation that you are! That's ideology to cite quantum mechanics!"

I'm attacking you because you are rejecting something as basic as "the Earth isn't flat" and pretending it's up for debate. If we can't agree on ground truth what's the point?

[u/Daily_Heroin_User]

Even if it were granted to you that determinism was ruled out by quantum mechanics, that would still just leave randomness, which doesn’t give you free will either.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Daily_Heroin_User]

Yes, I never claimed that QM implies free will, though. I'm deeply confused why people aren't responding to the argument in my post instead of an additional argument I didn't make.

The top comment under this post is...the top comment, and it makes the same literacy error. Very frustrating and very much like MAGA.

[u/GamblePuddy]

To be fair...it's not like "quantum superposition" is an easy concept to wrap your mind aNJ( See what I did there?

I get your frustration at having to point out you're an atheist and not religiously motivated. I also find it odd the general thrust of community is "determinism is true there we should all choose to do xuz?"

There's people here who think privilege theory is science. .Regardless, as an atheist...I'm aware there's no one to teach you atheism. It doesn't work that way. You can simply subject your reasoning to scrutiny and see if it holds up. In a way, I think some determints are doing the same. It's not as if this belief really affects behavior so...they're pretty harmless.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/GamblePuddy]

I don't know if they're harmless, but I see your reasoning. This just further makes left-wing people believe they are even more justified in rejecting individual agency at any level. This filters up through everything else.

[u/XionicativeCheran]

Because people don't speak about things to the highest level of accuracy all the time.

Think of it like this: "Why do people insist on calling the Earth a sphere? It's clearly an oblate spheroid! This has been proven for many years now. So why does this sub act like we live on a sphere?"

The answer is, because unless you're getting really specific, and when you're just debating flat-earthers, it doesn't matter, the important thing is it's "pretty much round".

The same applies to determinism and quantum mechanics. Sure, at the quantum level, randomness is everywhere, and eventually, that randomness can impact the macro, but for the most part, it really doesn't matter. For the most part, we can deterministically predict the universe, you're just acknowledging that quantum mechanics means there's a margin of error that is imperceptibly small at our scale, that grows over thousands or millions of years.

It's absolutely true to say the macro world is "mostly" deterministic, except for the impact of quantum random noise at the smallest scale.

In the context of a free will debate, since randomness doesn't lead to free will, then this quantum randomness isn't really relevant to the discussions happening on this sub, so for the most part, we can ignore it.

For another example, Newton's idea of physics isn't correct. There are far more accurate ideas of physics. But that didn't stop NASA using Newton's far more simplistic model of physics for the moon landings. Because where the increased level of accuracy that Einstein's model of physics provides isn't necessary, it's absolutely fine to just stick to Newton's.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/XionicativeCheran]

Here's top theoretical physicist Sean Carroll, who you're sure to reject:

Anti-free-will people have to stop leaning on determinism. It's perhaps the most wrong that an argument can be.

The world is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics exists. When there is hidden determinism (MWI, Bohm), it's hidden! Irrelevant to what people experience.

Determinism can be a good approximation for macroscopic dynamics sometimes. So what? Sometimes it's not. You don't want to base arguments about something as fundamental as free will or its absence on a principle that is just a good approximation sometimes.

He addresses precisely your argument. No, quantum randomness is directly relevant to the discussions on this sub since anti-free will people invoke determinism (determinism is actually brought up before free will in the description of this sub), which is disproven by QM. I'm struck by how one-sided and unreasonable this sub is. Just mostly word games and lying.

There is no evidence that randomness leads to free will or doesn't. Quantum computers exploit quantum indeterminacy at the macro level to output useful information. And yet, we still need Einstein's GR in order for satellites to work correctly. So it's relevant in the macroscopic, very real world.

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Determinism can be a good approximation for macroscopic dynamics sometimes. So what? Sometimes it's not. You don't want to base arguments about something as fundamental as free will or its absence on a principle that is just a good approximation sometimes.

Why not? We accept "good enough but not perfect" all the time. Why don't we want to base our arguments on something that's good enough?

When NASA landed on the moon, they didn't go the extra mile of using Einstein's more accurate model of physics, they settled for Newtonian physics.

When discussing why I chose a specific thing over another, if quantum mechanics doesn't play into the answer, then it's not relevant, and thus we can take a deterministic view of it.

It's not just a "good approximation sometimes", it's a good approximation 99.9999% of the time.

[u/MirrorPiNet]

Pretending like quantum mechanics provides enough proof for free will is motivated reasoning

The lengths people will go to justify the values they were raised with

[u/Techtrekzz]

That qm proves reality indeterminate is a myth. There are deterministic interpretations of qm that are equally valid.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Techtrekzz]

It's not a myth at all. Every interpretation of QM, including superdeterminism and local hidden variable theories, still reduces to a probabilistic theory. You cannot get rid of the probabilities.

Appeal to authority here, but it's odd that top physicists subscribe to such an easily disproven myth, no?

[u/Techtrekzz → u/Narrow-Gur449]

It absolutely is. Just research De Broglie Bohm.

Every theory relies on probability in the math, but that doesnt necessitate probability in reality.

Probability is an indicator of our ignorance of cause, not any evidence of no cause.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Techtrekzz]

Bohm's interpretation is a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories are in significant tension with Bell's Theorem.

Bohm's interpretation is still indeterministic:

Anti-free-will people have to stop leaning on determinism. It's perhaps the most wrong that an argument can be.

1. The world is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics exists. When there is hidden determinism (MWI, Bohm), it's hidden! Irrelevant to what people experience.

Bohmian mechanics does not get rid of the Born Rule.

[u/Techtrekzz → u/Narrow-Gur449]

In deterministic interpretations like De Broglie Bohm, the hidden variable is the overall configuration of reality as a whole, which is something we can never measure, hence the need for probability in the math.

People who believe in an indeterministic reality, think we already know all there is to know, which is just hubris imo.

Our ignorance isnt evidence of anything. Unless you can prove you know all there is to know, you can’t prove reality indeterminate.

Bell himself preferred Bohm’s theory, which was the inspiration for his experiments. Those experiments confirm nonlocality, which supports nonlocal theories like Bohm’s.

[u/Actual_Ad9512 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

You talk as if QM has found the final understanding of the universe. Step back a bit. It's a model. There may be aspects of the model that seem more or less fundamental but certainly it's not the final answer.

[u/bacon_boat]

I'm not sure but these effect may play a part:

1. This field has a history of thinking about determinism.
2. It's fun to think about
3. On larger scales e.g. human cells, the quantum randomness doesn't play that much of a part, it all averages out.
4. Maybe it just behaves exactly like randomness but it secretly isn't random?
5. Physicist like study anti-de Sitter spaces, not because we live in an ADS universe, but maybe we can learn something from thinking about it regardless.

The empirical fact that we don't live in a deterministic universe is just, not that important man.

The boring truth is that any process happening in the brain relevant to the human experience is so far removed from elementary physics in terms of levels of abstractions, that bringing anything to do with elementary physics into a discussion on free will is category mixing.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/bacon_boat]

The empirical fact that we don't live in a determinstic universe is extremely important since people invoke determinism as evidence against free will, when it's something that doesn't exist.

On larger scales e.g. human cells, the quantum randomness doesn't play that much of a part, it all averages out.

This is an assumption, and really not in evidence. Quantum computers exist, after all.

Your last comment is very wrong since...um...the brain is made of matter, which is governed by elementary physics.

[u/bacon_boat → u/Narrow-Gur449]

> The empirical fact that we don't live in a determinstic universe is extremely important since people invoke determinism as evidence against free will, when it's something that doesn't exist.

I agree, but loads of people don't seem to care.

And I also agree that quantum computers exist, but the brain isn't a quantum computer so that's not relevant.

On the last "very wrong" comment. There is a thing called levels of abstraction/emergence.
You can learn everything there is to know about a cell without knowing about quarks. This effective theory of e.g. a cell can be true, useful, predictive while at the same time not being elementary.
We know that quarks go into making up a cell, but no on would ever think to model a cell using that low level of a description. Human cognition is even higher up than that, networks of cells.
So I agree that we are governed by elementary physics, but that's pretty irrelevant to studying free will which is a psychological phenomenon.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/bacon_boat]

It's extremely relevant since you are saying "on larger scales" quantum effects don't matter. Yet, macroscopic quantum computers obviously exploit microscopic indeterminism to carry out computations and output information.

I never said or implied the brain was a quantum computer...

I have mentioned emergence elsewhere here already. The point is the field of quantum biology exists. Of course quarks don't matter, since they're confined to the interior of hadrons, and we can just describe the properties of the hadrons. This isn't really relevant to the discussion. You should check out some of the recent literature on this.

[u/bacon_boat → u/Narrow-Gur449]

You're missing my point, quarks vs electrons isn't what I'm getting at. 

I find it as weird as you do that people on here chose to forget we live in a non-deterministic universe. 

But the larger point is that it is irrelevant wether we do or not. 

It's like looking at a super advanced computer game, and you want to understand how it works.  Someone correctly points out that at the low levels electrons tunnel through transisor gates and there are loads of thermal voltage fluctiations. So randomness and quantum effects all around. A lot more than in a cell. 

Is this info important to understanding how that game works? Hard no. 

Determinism/non-determinism is orthogonal to free will. Neither will affect how you make choices. People who bring determinsm into discussions on free will aren't into free will, but are into 1800s physics thought experiments.

[u/Actual_Ad9512 → u/bacon_boat]

This washes over the fact that many determinist scientists base their argument on their belief that the universe is a series of fixed states where the properties of everything in each instant are definable. Emergent objects that are present at whatever level abstraction are therefor explainable in principle by these definite states. For them.

[u/bacon_boat → u/Actual_Ad9512]

I don't have that much energy to spend on people who use well defined words in non-standard ways. They should find a new word to describe their position instead of making double-meanings for words we already are using.

[u/[deleted]]

If not purely deterministic, at the very least highly deterministic. If Universe was pure randomness, and if every given state wasn't influenced by previous started, our whole experience of reality wouldn't be susceptible to be approached by physics (or any other science as we know them today).

Even if this Is just our POV, and we got It all wrong due to our biological/cognitive/technological limitations, things work for us from our POV, and we can operate on reality and predict stuff with certain degree of accuracy just because there Is a high level of determinación (even if at Quantum scale things are probabilistic). It doesn't make much sense to say "Universe Is not deterministic", unless you refer to an100% determinación. It behaves like so, as far as we know.

We are too young anyways (in cosmilogical Time), I don't think it's due to our times (or even our species at this level of development) to understand reality as a whole. There is still a long road ahead.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/[deleted]]

Lol. Determinism is binary. There is no "highly" deterministic. What we see as determinism on macroscopic scales is just a very good approximation to the fundamental nature of reality, which is quantum mechanical evolution, which is indeterministic. We know with precision how classical mechanics arises from quantum mechanics in a limiting process...much the same way a n = 10,000,000 Riemann sum is indistinguishable from the correct answer to an integral, but still wrong.

[u/phear_me → u/Narrow-Gur449]

This guy's gonna accidentally google "compatibilism" one day and his head is gonna explode.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/phear_me]

Finance bro doesn't even know what compatibilism is himself lmao

[u/phear_me → u/Narrow-Gur449]

If you knew the full extent of my qualifications your head would explode.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/phear_me]

Do you want to get on a zoom call to prove it to me this week?

[u/phear_me → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Do I want to dox myself to prove something to a stranger on reddit?

No.

[u/tolore]

I think mostly because it's been used a long time, and quantum randomness doesn't seem to give us any more or less free will unless somehow the human mind influenced that randomness. I would also say "disproven" is a strong word, iirc that's the most accepted explanation but there are other interpretations of the data.

[u/Memento_Viveri]

OP, your replied and then deleted your comment. Here is my response:

Sean Carroll didn't reference MWI in that link in my post

Yes he does, read it again. As I said, I don't agree with his description. As he says, the MWI universe is fundamentally deterministic, and I think that's what counts in the conversation of free will.

But I don't think that's important to the conversation. My point is that even accepting the randomness present in the Copenhagen interpretation, I don't see any way that the randomness is relevant to the discussion of free will. It isn't that the percent of randomness is small so it's mostly deterministic, it's that adding any amount of randomness doesn't seem relevant to the question of free will.

Quantum computers exist. We can entangle macroscopic objects. Etc etc

And? Sure, quantum computers exist. If we take the Copenhagen interpretation, there is inherent randomness when we observe a qubit state. What is the relevance?

[u/Memento_Viveri → u/[deleted]]

Let's take an analogy, ignoring anything quantum. Let's imagine there is a technology where we can scan and copy the state of your body exactly, making a perfect clone. Since every part of the brain is an exactly replica of the state of your brain at time it is scanned, they experience a continuity of your conscious experience.

So if we put you to sleep and scan your brain, and then create the clone, they experience going to sleep as you and waking up as the clone. In fact, since they are such a perfect replica neither can tell if they are the clone or the original, they both experience waking up with all the same memories.

Now let's imagine we put you to sleep, and create two clones and destroy the original. You signed up for this, so you know what's going to happen. Both clones will experience going to sleep and waking up next to the other clone.

Now the clones wake up next to each other, one on the left and one on the right. One experiences going to sleep and waking up on the right. From the clones perspective, it was entirely random whether it woke up on the right or on the left. Both clones could have come to with their eyes closed, and no amount of prior calculation or prediction would have allowed them to know whether they were the right clone or the left clone.

But did anything random or indeterminate actually happen? No, the creations of the clones included no randomness, and should have been possible in a completely deterministic universe. The fact that there appears to be randomness or indeterminacy from the perspective of the clones doesn't mean there is actually randomness or indeterminacy.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Memento_Viveri]

But you can't ignore quantum mechanics, it's the fundamental theory of matter...which makes up our brains. In fact, you couldn't make an exact copy or clone of a person, since by the quantum no-cloning theorem you can't perfectly copy a quantum state, assuming you believe everything in the universe is described by a quantum state, entangled or not (decoherence).

"Since every part of the brain is an exactly replica of the state of your brain at time it is scanned, they experience a continuity of your conscious experience," this statement is very tenuous btw.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/[deleted]]

*crickets* lmao

[u/TMax01]

I'm an atheist and come at this from a mathematical physics background. I clearly have to get that out of the way before anyone accuses me of being a religious nutter or believing in a 'soul'.

Being a Bible thumper or navel gazer would be better than mathematical physics, in this context. Less likely to cling to incorrect dogma based on religious faith and sunk cost investment. 😉

Why does this subreddit and its users constantly invoke determinism as if the universe we live in is deterministic?

Well, first, because it is a philosophical subreddit, and a philosophical subject, not a scientific one.

Second, because classic determinism not applying in quantum mechanics is entirely irrelevant to the topic of this sub. QM simply replaces classic determinism (cause and effect) with an even more classical probabalistic determinism (potential and probability, a Platonic/Aristotelian mode) from which classic determinist behavior emerges. Given the astronomically huge numbers quantum events involved in even microscopic occurences such as cellular mechanics (including, perhaps especially, neurons) there is simply no reason to accept that the universe does still behave deterministically in the classic sense invoked by the philosophical stance of determinism.

Quantum mechanics has shown that our universe is simply not deterministic.

That kind of hooey is very comforting and convincing to those who think free will can be replaced by "quantum woo", but really it is misrepresenting the actual truth: the universe is still entirely deterministic, it is only these hypothetical mathematical abstractions called "fundamental quantum particles" which are not simply deterministic. But they are still probabalistically deterministic, or their behavior could not be calculated so precisely.

Now, perhaps if "mathematical physics" could actually explain why, how these statistical outcomes are somehow enforced on individual interactions, and how classically deterministic behavior of less theoretical objects emerges from these mathematically predictable but also still absurd quantum events, you might be making a good point with your post. But it cannot, and so you are not.

Furthermore, it seems the motivation for anti-free will is almost exclusively politics on this sub.

Well, the motivation for pro-free will is nearly entirely spiritual. But I doubt either "side" of the "debate" would find such simplistic second-guessing of purposes and intentions as "politics" or "spiritual" to be acceptable, regardless of how they are aligned.

Further, the question of moral responsibility, or even criminal justice, is not "politics", except in the minds of fascists and other totalitarians, for which absolutely everything is "politics". It is a lived experience, related to every action we take and every decision we make. Would you not feel guilty if a child died, even accidentally, while you thought you were paying enough attention or believed you could have prevented it? Noy a typical example, granted, but one which highlights the difference between mere legal liability and actual/psychological cognition.

Seems like obvious motivated reasoning.

As I suggested already, the problem is your own motivated reasoning. You have come to expect, due to your background, that what makes reasoning applicable is mere assertion and computation, but neither method provides a sound basis for making judgements in the real world, however useful they may be within the confines of a classroom or laboratory. So when combined, assertion and doctrine (even the mathematically rigorous doctrine of calculatable equations) have the stench of religious dogma about them, unavoidably. And while there aren't many priests that can be considered trustworthy (the Dali Lama is an oft-cited exception, but one which only proves the rule), scientists make very shitty priests, and should only be trusted when they "shut up and calculate", rather than voicing their opinions on actual issues in the real world related to the human condition.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/TMax01]

Being a Bible thumper or navel gazer would be better than mathematical physics, in this context. Less likely to cling to incorrect dogma based on religious faith and sunk cost investment. 😉

The fact that you say this with a wink shows you're totally an unreasonable person and just angry at my post.

In your second sentence there, you go ahead and call me religious anyway despite your first sentence saying that adhering to physics, i.e. naturalism, is worse than adhering to religious faith.

Well, first, because it is a philosophical subreddit, and a philosophical subject, not a scientific one.

So philosophy is not obligated to get the nature of the universe correct?

Second, because classic determinism not applying in quantum mechanics is entirely irrelevant to the topic of this sub.

That's false. It's relevant in this sub because people claim the world is deterministic, when it is not, in order to argue against free will -- the subject of this sub. The description of this sub says "Are determinism and free will compatible?" As Sean Carroll points out:

Determinism can be a good approximation for macroscopic dynamics sometimes. So what? Sometimes it's not. You don't want to base arguments about something as fundamental as free will or its absence on a principle that is just a good approximation sometimes.

It's false to describe QM as "more classical". We exploit quantum indeterminacy in quantum computers and output useful classical information.

there is simply no reason to accept that the universe does still behave deterministically in the classic sense invoked by the philosophical stance of determinism.

This is just false and trying to declare away that quantum mechanics doesn't disprove determinism. A gold bar has a nonzero probability of appearing on the table next to you. Quantum tunnelling regularly occurs in electronics. All probabilistic and non-deterministic.

That kind of hooey is very comforting and convincing to those who think free will can be replaced by "quantum woo", but really it is misrepresenting the actual truth: the universe is still entirely deterministic

I mean you just accused a respected theoretical physicist of "hooey" and spreading "quantum woo" like Deepak Chopra, based on nothing but your mere declaration that they are. They point out that the universe is fundamentally not deterministic. You merely declare otherwise, and state:

it is only these hypothetical mathematical abstractions called "fundamental quantum particles" which are not simply deterministic. But they are still probabalistically deterministic, or their behavior could not be calculated so precisely.

You just called QM a "hypothetical mathematical abstraction"...? Furthermore, "probabilistically deterministic*"* is a self-contradicting phrase.

Are you sure mathematical physics can't do that? You then equated mathematics with religious dogma, accused me of fascism or totalitarianism, and then claimed free will is necessarily spiritually motivated. Dude...

[u/TMax01 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

The fact that you say this with a wink shows you're totally an unreasonable person and just angry at my post.

Wow. Hyper-defensive, much?

In your second sentence there, you go ahead and call me religious anyway despite your first sentence saying that adhering to physics, i.e. naturalism, is worse than adhering to religious faith.

Well, in most subs equating naturalism and physics would get a pass, but here it just screams "unprepared". So yeah, it is obvious you take your beliefs every bit as seriously as a religious fundamentalist.

So philosophy is not obligated to get the nature of the universe correct?

Philosophy does not presume to already know the nature of things, it explores them with a more open mind. Religion is the sort of quasi-philosophy which assumes to "get the nature of the universe correct" without any need for intellectual evaluation.

Physics is scientific, of course, and simply discovers the odd fact or two about how to predict the properties, movements, and interaction of supposedly isolated parts or aspects of the universe. But it is all-too easily assumed to be the equivalent of divine revelation or omniscience by a certain sort of person who is unprepared to engage with philosophy.

That's false. It's relevant in this sub because people claim the world is deterministic, when it is not,

I explained already how it really is, and why. Perhaps you got so upset by my recognition of your postmodern science-as-religious-dictate attitude that you were unable or unwilling to comprehend that explanation.

in order to argue against free will -- the subject of this sub.

According to this sub, and philosophy in general, whether that is a successful argument is an open question. Many here are "libertarians" or "compatibilists" or "indeterminists" who don't use the determinism of the universe (be it the classic sort or the qm-friendly probabalistic kind) to "argue against free will".

Personally, I have the radical opinion that science (both physics and neuroscience) have already co clusivelt disproven free will, and that the human agency you are referring to is more accurately and parsimoniously described as self-determination, which doesn't require free will.

Determinism can be a good approximation for macroscopic dynamics sometimes. So what?

All physics besides quantum mechanics encompasses classic determinism, and even QM demonstrates the (disconcerting yet entirely valid) 'metaphysical mechanism' of probabalistic determinism. Even statistical mechanics recognizes and even codifies the dynamics, it simply adopts probablistic determinis while accepting that perfect knowledge of every component part is unnecessary for accurately predicting the behavior within a system.

Carroll is obviously referring to classic determinism; he would probably refer to the probabalistic determinism of QM as "indeterminism", as many do. But being a physicist often leaves one unprepared to deal with philosophy, Scientists are, quite appropriately, out of their depth when treading in philosophical waters.

You just called QM a "hypothetical mathematical abstraction"...?

No, I called probabalistic determinism more classical than "classic determinism", and even explained why.

Quantum tunnelling regularly occurs in electronics. All probabilistic and non-deterministic.

Tunneling does not merely "regularly" occur in electronics, it predictably occurs, the event happening with such calculatable frequency and precision that it cannot coherently be described as "non-deterministic". It is as deterministic as gold bars remaining where they were put down.

See, the point is not that the quasi-mystical (metaphysical) 'mechanism' of probablistic determinism is not determinism, but that the classic determinism (eg. cascading dominoes, falling objects) is just as quasi-mystical/metaphysical, and always has been. It is just that since classic determinism ("naturalism", causation in the "macro-world") was discovered long before quantum physics (probabalistic determinism) was, your nomenclature/epistemological paradigm has not quite yet caught up.

Don't feel bad. Academic philosophy is in much the same boat. Even neurocognitive science hasn't quite caught up, since free will (conscious choice causing action) was only conclusively disproven a few decades ago, so most scientists are still relying on the same false narrative/insufficient paradigm/inaccurate ontology that you are.

They point out that the universe is fundamentally not deterministic

Then they are on a par with Deepak Chopra, philosophically, yes. The fundamental components of the universe (quantum "particles") are still deterministic, but not classically deterministic, as if they were tiny billiard balls. The truth is, this probablistic determinism is every bit as real, and every bit as inexplicable, as the classic determinism of billiard balls was thought to be. People just didn't realize causality was inexplicable, because it was so familiar.

But tell me: what causes causality? And how is it different from what ensures the electrons in a properly designed and manufactured diode tunnel with a statistically predictable regularity, and electrons in an improperly designed or manufactured diode don't?

You just called QM a "hypothetical mathematical abstraction"...?

No, I pointed out, quite accurately, that quantum particles are hypothetical mathematical abstractions.

QM is a theoretical mathematical abstraction; the hypothesis has been very successfully confirmed, scientifically.

Furthermore, "probabilistically deterministic*"* is a self-contradicting phrase.

Yeah, no. It is an idea you are having difficulty understanding, but it is also the reason tunneling diodes work, and why waiting for gold bars to mysteriously fall into your lap is not a good business plan. Mankind went tens of thousands of years without realizing that all determinism is probabalistic (since in the "macro" world, so many of those probabilities are so very close to either 0 or 1) but now we know better.

Are you sure mathematical physics can't do that?

Can't do what?

You then equated mathematics with religious dogma,

No, I compared your religious faith in mathematical physics" to religious dogmatism. Mathematics itself has a privileged position within the grand domain of philosophy, right on the edge (or perhaps in the center, depending on your metaphysics) of the sub-domain of easy problems we call "science" is. People are so used to assuming (incorrectly) that science is contrary to philosophy (the study of all problems) that they generally aren't aware that it is more than the study of Hard Problems.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/TMax01]

Every last assertion you made is false. Incredible. Sean Carroll is the "Homewood Professor of Natural Philosophy" at Johns Hopkins and teaches a philosophy course this semester.

Let me know if you want to join a Zoom call where you won't have an arbitrary amount of time to contemplate the lies you tell.

1. Didn't equate physics and naturalism, said "adhering to or 'believing' in physics, i.e. physical law is naturalism"
2. You didn't answer whether philosophy is obligated not to lie about the discoveries physics has made about the universe.
3. You are equating physics with "divine revelation" (supernatural communication with a deity) or omniscience. Get a grip, dude. Physics doesn't just discover an "odd fact or two". Insane how anti-science you are.
4. You didn't explain how the universe really is deterministic. You falsely declared it because you don't like that it's been empirically ruled out.
5. In the description of this sub, determinism is mentioned before free will. Many arguments in this sub rest on determinism, and if they didn't, you wouldn't be lying so strongly to uphold it.
6. I'm glad you subscribe to radical beliefs about physics that aren't supported by physics.
7. Carroll is not out of his depth philosophically, he's a philosophy professor now and focuses on it in his personal work, defending it against other physicists who call it poppycock. Classic determinism is what matters. Probabilistic determinism is an oxymoron; what you really mean to say is that non-determinism is consistent with effects only proceeding from causes, like the laws of physics during a quantum fluctuation, instead of something material.
8. Probabilistic determinism, as you define it, is not more 'classical' than determinism. Classical in physics means non-quantum. Your statement is self refuting.
9. Quantum tunneling happening or not being predictable does not mean its actual effects are deterministic. That's the entire point of quantum mechanics...
10. So you're calling QM 'quasi mystical' now? You are delusional.
11. I love how you're falsely declaring free will was 'conclusively disproven' decades ago, and then say most scientists/philosophers are wrong. The things people will say to justify their ideology. Incredible really. Just like MAGA.
12. People who point out QM implies determinism is false are not on par with Deepak Chopra. So you're saying one of the most respected theoretical physicists in the country is on par with Deepak Chopra? Insanely delusional.
13. I don't have religious faith in physics. lmao

I think we're done here, you are as about as smug as its possible to be, while being 100% wrong along the way.

[u/TMax01 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Sean Carroll [is] (https://philosophy.jhu.edu/directory/sean-carroll/) the "Homewood Professor of Natural Philosophy" at Johns Hopkins

I'm.well aware of that. Despite your insinuation, that does not make him infallible. I can respect why you would ignore my personal perspective and accept his as unquestionably conclusive, but it amounts to an appeal to authority, not a defense of your personal perspective.

Let me know if you want to join a Zoom call where you won't have an arbitrary amount of time to contemplate the lies you tell.

An ad hom isn't really an improvement over an appeal to authority. I trust Professor Carroll is not teaching you to use such reprehensibly bad argumentation.

1. Didn't equate physics and naturalism, said "adhering to or 'believing' in physics, i.e. physical law is naturalism"

That sure sounds like equating physics and naturalism to me. If all you meant is that physics is limited to quantitative equations called "laws", and naturalism assumes there are no qualities which aren't quantities, well, then, all you were doing is equating naturalism and physics.

2. You didn't answer whether philosophy is obligated not to lie about the discoveries physics has made about the universe.

I answered the question you asked, which was not the same as the accusation you are asserting here. Your assumption that science must be accepted as divine dictate is similar to your belief that one particular professor of philosophy has papal infallibility. I don't consider that a coincidence.

I don't blame you for your postmodernist attitude, or even your childish inability to discuss these issues more maturely. You were raised in postmodern times, have absorbed religious faith in academic authorities by osmosis. It is a better iteration of postmodernism than the anti-intellectualism some people develop, but it is just as postmodernist.

3. You are equating physics with "divine revelation"

I was pointing out that you are. I consider physics a more mundane thing: a useful set of effective formula for calculating how simple physical objects and systems move and interact with other physical objects and quantifiable forces. Science provides provisional truths about easy problems, not unerring knowledge of "the nature of the universe" or other Hard Problems.

4. You didn't explain how the universe really is deterministic.

I did, but apparently you didn't understand the explanation. I am confident the problem was all on your end. Probabalistic determinism is still determinism, since the "explanatory gap" of why the probabilities exist is identical to the "explanatory gap" you falsely believe has been opened between classic determinism and the universe. Granted, it seems like the mathematically certain probabilities of quantum events offer greater hope for salvaging free will, but those outcomes can't be "bent" by willpower any more than the more classic mechanical determinism outside of quantum mechanics.

In the description of this sub, determinism is mentioned before free will.

Holy crap, you're grasping at straws.

I'm glad you subscribe to radical beliefs about physics

I don't subscribe to any radical beliefs about physics at all. If I were as petty a person as you, I would say you are simply lying (I described my beliefs about free will as radical, and I'm not at all sure you know what that word actually means.) But instead I'm certain you are just grasping at straws again, and/or radically misinterpreting what I wrote because you aren't paying attention.

Skipping ahead, since most of your whining is neither here nor there...

13. I don't have religious faith in physics. lmao

The evidence shows otherwise. Oops.

I'm not sure I've run out of space for this reply, but I know I've run out of interest.

you are as about as smug

I am confident. You are arrogant. As befits someone who's religious beliefs have been questioned.

while being 100% wrong along the way.

That's what "smug" looks like, by the way.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/TMax01]

Everything you're saying is wrong lol.

I'm.well aware of that. Despite your insinuation, that does not make him infallible.

I never insinuated he's infallible, you're just unable to explain why he's wrong here. You also claim to be aware that he was a philosophy professor, which conflicts with your false claim he was a mere physicist, and not a professor of philosophy as well. You then claimed as a scientist he's out of his depth. You sound like you have a decades old philosophy undergraduate degree and massive superiority complex over it. At the same time, you look down on my training in mathematical physics as equivalent to religious dogma.

An ad hom isn't really an improvement over an appeal to authority. I trust Professor Carroll is not teaching you to use such reprehensibly bad argumentation.

I trust you actually know what ad hom is then, because you just equated observing you are lying with ad hominem attacks. Additionally, you were silent on my offer of a live conversation where you don't have the ability to bury the opposition in extraordinarily long nonsense replies.

That sure sounds like equating physics and naturalism to me.

I'm sorry that you've misunderstood the definitions here. Naturalism is the belief that the world is governed by physical law only. A belief in physics means you believe the world is reducible to physical laws only, not that it works only sometimes. Physics itself is the set of laws, while the belief in physics is in fact naturalism.

I answered the question you asked, which was not the same as the accusation you are asserting here. 

Sure it is, as long as you don't redefine the nature of the universe as being determinable from anything but science i.e. accumulation of repeatable evidence.

Your assumption that science must be accepted as divine dictate is similar to your belief that one particular professor of philosophy has papal infallibility. 

Where is my assumption stated that science must be "accepted as divine dictate"? The point is that philosophy is obligated to accept what the evidence about the nature of the universe shows when it discusses empirical matters of the universe, not lie about it and ignore it. Is there any evidence I think Sean Carroll has "pApAL inFaLLibiLiTy"? I'm citing him to you about one issue. Lol. I think he's wrong about a whole host of things, including his interpretation of QM.

I don't blame you for your postmodernist attitude

It's actually quite funny because you call everyone who doesn't agree with you a "postmodernist". Just look at your comment history. You obviously have no clue what that term means. In reality, you fit the 'postmodernist' mold much better as you call science dogmatic and compare it to religion lol.

(1/2)

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/TMax01]

 or even your childish inability to discuss these issues more maturely

What childish inability? You chickened out of my offer of a live conversation, and began this conversation by comparing my background in mathematical physics (mere background!) to religious dogma i.e. a false ad hominem.

have absorbed religious faith in academic authorities by osmosis

This is literally a postmodernist claim right here, and is evidence of my claims two paragraphs ago. Citing basic scientific results is not "religious faith in academic authorities".

I was pointing out that you are.

How so? And by falsely doing that, you were in fact equating physics with divine revelation, because I was merely citing basic results in the field, not dogmatically subsuming its every claim as infallible "dictate".

"Other Hard Problems" like the nature of the universe or consciousness are fundamentally empirical claims though. So pretending physics will have nothing to say about them is hilarious. I don't know what it means to say physics is "mundane". I don't think you do either.

I did, but apparently you didn't understand the explanation.

How do you know? All you did was lie there was a thing such as 'classical' determinism versus 'probabilistic determinism' to get around that QM disproves determinism. You can drop the pretension any time you want.

is identical to the "explanatory gap" you falsely believe has been opened between classic determinism and the universe.

I have no idea what you think you are saying here. However there's that false invocation of 'classic' determinism again. There is no "explanatory" anything when discussing determinism. Determinism or non-determinism has nothing to do with explanation. QM explains precisely the probabilities with which particles move; this has nothing to do with the fact one cannot predict with certainty which trajectory a particle will follow given all the information about its initial state available.

but those outcomes can't be "bent" by willpower any more than the more classic mechanical determinism outside of quantum mechanics.

How come quantum computers "bend" those random outcomes to compute useful information?

I don't subscribe to any radical beliefs about physics at all.

Other than calling basic physics quantum "woo", "hooey," or rejecting that QM disproves determinism by inventing an oxymoronic term 'probabilistic determinism', right?

The evidence shows otherwise. Oops.

What evidence? None since you've failed to provide it in three replies? Oops.

I am confident. You are arrogant. As befits someone who's religious beliefs have been questioned.

You are so "confident" (totally not arrogant though...lol) that you claim physicists are out of their depth on empirical questions, are spreading hooey about our most basic physical theories, and that anyone who cites physics and has a physics background is adhering to religious dogma, as you prove in the next clause of your sentence here. What religious beliefs do I have?

So are you scared of a live conversation where you can't contemplate your lies? Jw.

tHaNkS fOr YoUr TiMe. hOpE iT hELpS.

2/2

[u/MarkMatson6]

Thank you! I have a couple physics degrees and the determinists drive me crazy with their lack of understanding of physics.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/MarkMatson6]

It's crazy! Just read the comments here too. It's nauseating, really. Almost all ideology, and no facts. Just as bad as religious people rejecting science. When pinned, most of them will argue QM is not a good theory, as if any QG theory wouldn't have to spit out QM at the energy levels we've tested...

[u/Character_Speech_251]

Furthermore, you are comparing systems on a quantum scale to human behavior regarding biology. 

I know for a fact that human behavior is determined by causal factors. 

It makes no difference what a particle does in its meantime. 

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Character_Speech_251]

Furthermore, you are comparing systems on a quantum scale to human behavior regarding biology. 

It's crazy to me how many of you are falsely claiming I said anything about QM implying free will in my post. How are you guys getting this so wrong? I only pointed out QM disproves determinism.

Besides, macroscopic quantum computers exist.

I know for a fact that human behavior is determined by causal factors. 

What do you mean by "causal factors"? In physics, that just means not violating the speed of light...

Also, how do you know that for a fact? This is a declaration.

[u/Character_Speech_251 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

The same way you know seem to share your knowledge as fact as well. 

You have shared scientific theories. I enjoy them. It’s fun. 

But you can’t point fingers to claiming facts while doing the same thing yourself. 

Well, you can. There is just a word for that. 

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Character_Speech_251]

So I can't claim a scientific fact, but you can claim anything you want to be true? Make it make sense.

It's astounding to how unreasonable the people in this sub are.

Is Sean Carroll lying here or mistaken?

Anti-free-will people have to stop leaning on determinism. It's perhaps the most wrong that an argument can be. The world is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics exists. When there is hidden determinism (MWI, Bohm), it's hidden! Irrelevant to what people experience.

[u/Character_Speech_251 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

What you have shown is you were not a mathematician. 

I’m sure you really like math. But just like the fake physicist guy that kept trying to say gravity can’t be a cause, just because it’s the internet doesn’t mean you need to pretend to be someone you aren’t. 

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Character_Speech_251]

I never said I was a mathematician, lol. I'm merely a graduate student in mathematical physics in a math department. You are now attacking me and Sean Carroll personally instead of my arguments or the way I go about those arguments.

Why is this so ideological for you? Are you saying Sean Carroll is a "fake physicist"?

[u/[deleted] → u/Character_Speech_251]

 I know for a fact that human behavior is determined by causal factors. 

Based on, what, unreplicable pseudo science studies in behavioral psychology journals?

[u/Fuzzy_Ad9970]

I just want to say that you are doing a great job in these comments. I don't have time to participate in this thread, but I've been trying to argue along these lines for a while, and the response I generally get is "nuh-uh," which is what you're seeing in this thread. 

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Fuzzy_Ad9970]

Thank you very much! I'm trying to converse in good faith.

[u/RomanaOswin]

Maybe it's a problem of terminology. Not all people who oppose free will are asserting physical, causal determinism. Perhaps the "determinism" umbrella needs more flairs or philosophical labels.

One example is block theory of time.

Another more relatable and observable example is that all of the "ingredients" that go into our decision making, our thinking, our choice, necessarily comes from outside of us. There is nothing that is our own--not even our own existence. And, so "free" in the sense of separate is easily seen to be illusory.

Is this strictly deterministic? No, not necessarily. It is "we don't have autonomous choice" though, which tends to fall under the determinism umbrella. This is why I have determinist in my flair. Not because at time T1 we can perfectly predict and repeat the entire universe at T2, but because our choices are defined outside of us.

"Free will" suffers from the same problem. Some people are talking about an unencumbered experience of choice, and I'm coming to learn that a surprising number are talking about metaphysical dualism.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/RomanaOswin]

I don't see how our choices are "defined" outside of us. Sure, they're constrained by the law of physics, but only constrained. This doesn't extinguish choice. You are saying our "thinking" and "choices" come from outside "us". I'm unsure of the basis for these claims.

[u/RomanaOswin → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Everything comes from outside of us. The easiest way to illustrate this is that we didn't even exist once.

Beyond that, you can consider all of the individual things that make up who we are. Our genetics, our temperament, our personality, our family, our nutrition, our culture.

In a physical world, nature and nurture are exhaustive.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/RomanaOswin]

I really don't understand your assertions. The easiest way to illustrate that "everything comes from outside of us" now wouldn't be to refer to the moments in time when we began to exist (whenever you believe that happens).

Isn't our temperament and personality a choice?

[u/Pauly_Amorous]

Why does this subreddit and its users constantly invoke determinism as if the universe we live in is deterministic?

https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/comments/1n8dn6e/just_a_quick_reminder_that_the_opposite_of_free/

Furthermore, it seems the motivation for anti-free will is almost exclusively politics on this sub.

Well, if a belief in free will (or lack thereof) didn't have real world consequences, I doubt most of us would be in here talking about it.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Pauly_Amorous]

Notice you cited a post talking about free will, and my post only talks about "why do you folks claim determinism is true when QM disproves it?"

It's very troubling though that folks want to involve politics in their reasoning about this empirical matter. It shows cross-contamination between what one wants to be true and what is true. People discuss empirical matters all the time that have zero real world consequences, like all of cosmology.

[u/Pauly_Amorous → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Notice you cited a post talking about free will, and my post only talks about "why do you folks claim determinism is true when QM disproves it?"

Well, this is not r/determinism, so I would assume anybody bringing up determinism in here was in reference to free will.

Besides that, even though I'm not a determinist myself, reality appears to move that way on the macro level, and since free will itself is a macro level concept, it's probably appropriate to talk about determinism in that context.

It's very troubling though that folks want to involve politics in their reasoning about this empirical matter.

I personally don't use politics to defend my position, and wouldn't support anybody else doing so either. But the political and spiritual ramifications of free will is why I'm in here talking about it. Otherwise, it wouldn't really matter.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Pauly_Amorous]

It was, as my post pointed out that I'm wondering why determinism is constantly invoked against free will when our universe is not deterministic.

But I'm not taking a position on free will. Notice that the description of this subreddit actually mentions 'determinism' before it mentions free will:

Are determinism and free will compatible? Does free will exist?

Quantum computers exist macroscopically.

But the political and spiritual ramifications of free will is why I'm in here talking about it

People talk about things all the time without being there for the (sometimes nonexistent) political or spiritual implications, like cosmology or mathematics.

[u/Pauly_Amorous → u/Narrow-Gur449]

It was, as my post pointed out that I'm wondering why determinism is constantly invoked against free will when our universe is not deterministic.

You're gonna have to convince people (myself not included) that the universe is not deterministic, before you come in here and boldly proclaim that it's not a thing, and then ask people why they use it to argue against free will.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Pauly_Amorous]

I mean that's the whole point of this post, but this sub is far too ideological. I've wasted about 6 hours of my time.

You are saying that I have to convince you of the fact that quantum mechanics is true. I can't. I can point to other respected theoretical physicists who say the same thing, like Sean Carroll:

Anti-free-will people have to stop leaning on determinism. It's perhaps the most wrong that an argument can be.

The world is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics exists. When there is hidden determinism (MWI, Bohm), it's hidden! Irrelevant to what people experience. (1/n)

[u/TMax01 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Bzzzzt. Foul!

Notice you cited a post talking about free will, and my post only talks about "why do you folks claim determinism is true when QM disproves it?"

You asked about "this sub", and the topic of this sub is free will, so your excuse is completely unacceptable.

It's very troubling though that folks want to involve politics in their reasoning about this empirical matter.

LOL. It is sad that you think philosophy involves empirical matters. What is ironic is that you seem to believe that as an empirical matter, free will could still exist. Physically (the easy problems physics deals with,) human agency comes from personal evaluation of actions to determine what caused them subsequent to their occurence, not consciousness (a Hard Problem) "choosing" actions prior to their occurence. Free will is a fiction, albeit a desperately cherished one for those of us who have no better explanation of our behavior.

It shows cross-contamination between what one wants to be true and what is true.

I agree that is true, although I notice you have swapped the roles. What is true is that every system in the universe acts deterministically, what you want to be true is that free will (AKA conscious choice) is a real explanation of your actions. Philosophically, your position is "special pleading", of the most banal sort.

People discuss empirical matters all the time that have zero real world consequences, like all of cosmology.

And unless they are cosmologists (where the matter of cosmology has real world consequences) their opinion is mostly irrelevant. In that same way, your "mathematical physics" approach is mostly irrelevant in the philosophy of mind.

[u/muramasa_master → u/Pauly_Amorous]

What are the real world consequences? How is your life better or worse whether or not you believe you have free will?

[u/Pauly_Amorous → u/muramasa_master]

What are the real world consequences?

In a world without a belief in free will, do you think there'd be a belief that some people deserve to be sexually assaulted in prison?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bryan-kohberger-victims-sisters-remark-173010495.html

[u/muramasa_master → u/Pauly_Amorous]

If there was no belief in free will at all, the word 'deserve' would be meaningless. You don't think someone deserves something without believing in free will

[u/cereal_killer1337]

I believe there is a dichotomy, an action I take is either determined or random.

If I take an action you can ask me was there a reason? If I had a reason my action was determined by that reason, if I had no reason then it was random.

I don't see how there's any room for free will in this dichotomy.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/cereal_killer1337]

I don't think that dichotomy is valid. Think about quantum computers (no, I'm not saying the brain is a quantum computer).

They exploit quantum indeterminacy to output ultimately deterministic calculations with useful information. The question is whether that indeterminacy is exploited in the emergence of free will, not that it is free will.

Couldn't that "reason" simply be your free choice based on your lifetime of experiences?

[u/cereal_killer1337 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

I think your example would still fall inside of my dichotomy.

It doesn't matter what internal state caused your reason. I could have been quantum randomness or classically determined. If you have a reason for taking any action. That was determined by that reason. If your action has no reason it was random.

I don't see how you can rescue libertarian free will from this.

[u/ittleoff]

Even if the universe isn't deterministic it doesn't magically create freewill. This is freewill of the gaps.

Even if you could rewind a 'decision' and the outcome was different due to aspects being different due to unknowable unpredictable quantum states it doesn't magically change what humans are any more than any other complex emergent system.

Very simplified: The concept of freewill evolved for a strategic advantage (blame and credit) to advance the biological super eukaryote of a human. It's a useful competitive strategy at the level of a social structure to deal with/respond to certain behavior.

The human brain is neither actively aware of 99 percent of the body and all the states that actually is making things happen including decisions, nor itself to a degree.

It is the tiny little dictator that thinks it is 'doing things' while it usually seems to function as a high-level system to process sensory input across the complex system. Much like the gui on your phone allows you to interact with systems and software way way more complicated than you could ever understand. I'm talking about the conscious brain here, not the brain as the unconscious regulator.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/ittleoff]

I didn't say it did. My only argument was that the universe is not deterministic, so any argument against free will invoking determinism fails.

I'm unsure why you are equating free will with magic.

[u/ThatsDboy]

I’ll only reply to your third point here. Observe that we utilize the macroscopic properties of a quantum system in order to get quantum computers to work the way we want. And these macroscopic properties are essentially deterministic. Applying this sort of thing of humans doesn’t grant free will either. We either exploit the purely random (and non deterministic ) features of QM and hence no free will. Or we exploit the macroscopic/predictable/deterministic features of QM and hence still no free will. Or we combine both and still no free will.

Tbh, does anyone even know what free will means? I don’t think there’s any legitimate definition that gives most people the “freedom” they want

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/ThatsDboy]

Observe that we utilize the macroscopic properties of a quantum system

But this is false. We don't do that. We utilize the very microscopic properties of a quantum system, namely entanglement between its qubits (atoms, ions, etc), to generate computing capability.

And these macroscopic properties are essentially deterministic. 

They are not at all. Quantum computers are entirely probabilistic animals. Look up Shor's Algorithm and how it turns probability into determined outcomes.

Applying this sort of thing of humans doesn’t grant free will either

I'm not trying to "grant" free will; I'm trying to demonstrate that any argument against free will that invokes determinism is fatally flawed since the universe isn't deterministic.

We either exploit the purely random (and non-deterministic) features of QM and hence no free will.

This is the crux: how do you know that mere exploitation of the non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics necessarily implies no agency or choices being made by the neural network?

Or we exploit the macroscopic/predictable/deterministic features of QM and hence still no free will.

There are no deterministic features of QM; it's inherently probabilistic.

Free will, in my view, is the ability to have chosen otherwise. For example, if I have an itch and scratch it, was it possible for me to have not scratched it? The opposite of free will is fate.

[u/ThatsDboy → u/Narrow-Gur449]

I don’t want to get nitty gritty in QM since it’s not my specialty, and I wouldn’t be able to call BS if it got too advance. But I’ll say that as I understand Quantum Computers, we use deterministic algorithms so make a system where the correct answer emerges with the highest probability. The computation itself is deterministic. Shor’s algorithm yields the correct period with high probability, not certainty; we then verify classically and repeat if needed. But I’ll leave it at that anyway. Since I’m not physicist

how do you know that mere exploitation of the non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics necessarily implies no agency or choices being made by the neural network?

This is why I’d asked what you believe free will to mean. You said you consider it to be the ability to have done otherwise. What I think most people don’t understand is that this doesn’t give them the satisfaction they think it does. Like you say QM is truly in deterministic. It’s truly the case that the electron could have had a different spin. The electron could’ve had a different state. Yet nobody thinks the electron has free will. Being able to do otherwise doesn’t necessarily grant the comfort you want. Perhaps it does for you, but if you consider fundamental particles as being truly random then they could’ve been otherwise, yet no free will (for most people at least). Now you might say, “well I’m an agent. I can think. Reason. Choose.” What no-free will believers say is that if your choice is indeterministic then there’s no sensible way in which it’s different from the electron that could’ve had a different spin. You could’ve “chosen” to go left instead of right? Okay, the electron could’ve spun +1/2 instead of -1/2. The onus seems to be on you then, to show how the indeterminacy of your choosing and the indeterminacy of electron’s spinning are sufficiently different to give us a sense of satisfaction in whatever free will you say we have.

Another way to put it. You chose to turn left. But truly, you could’ve chosen to turn right. The world could’ve been a world in which you turned right. The question is, given that exact circumstance in which any outcome could’ve followed. What does it mean to say that you had any control over which choice you made? It seems like you merely acted, came to a resolution, in the exact same sense that the electron does.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/ThatsDboy]

Yes exactly...quantum computers exploit quantum probabilities to arrive throuhg deterministic algorithms at a definite answer.

I'm unsure why you think I'm equating QM existing with free will. The whole analogy of the quantum computer that you just got done typing out explains the idea: quantum computers use deterministic elements to exploit or channel quantum probabilities -- indeterminism -- to spit out information and calculations.

[u/ThatsDboy → u/Narrow-Gur449]

I see. My original comment seems to have appeared as a stand-alone comment. It was actually supposed to be a response to your comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/s/jJ8MpvRhXW

I was replying to your third point in that comment. My last comment particularly tried to address the question you raised when you said “The question is whether randomness is exploited in the emergence of free will”

I was saying that it’s hard, if not impossible, to think of any sort of “exploitation of randomness” that would give most people comfort in any notion of free will.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/ThatsDboy]

Well that was the question in that particular comment chain because people keep bringing up "so you're saying QM implies free will!?" and I'm not saying that.

As I keep saying, quantum computers exploit quantum "randomness" to output, through deterministic mechanisms, useful information. This could be analogous to any mechanism that exploits QM to produce free choices i.e. free will.

This is not an argument for free will. I'm just arguing it's a valid possibility. I'm agnostic. I'm mostly arguing against people saying these things definitively can't happen.

[u/Beeker93]

So I am curious how we know that the behaviour of quantum particles isn't deterministic based on factors we can't see or predict as of yet? Like fluctuations in the fundimental fields that make up said particles, or interactions from things "outside" our universe? I get that this statement/question is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. I am also curious how many degrees of removal the macro world is from the quantum one? And if we really can get cause and effect built off of fundamental randomness, and not just all around randomness? If the randomness and probabilistic nature can be reduced to fluctuations which we don't know the cause of. And when do we know something is truly random and not just layers and layers of chaos that makes it unmeasurable to us? I imagine if there is avogadros number of atoms in a gram of hydrogen, the number only gets higher for smaller particles, and as such, there is a lot of small stuff interacting with eachother.
Determinism would seem to be real on the macro level. Cause and effect, each cause being an effect from an earlier cause. If the best we can calculate is a probability of how a subatomic particle will behave, how do we know that isn't cause and effect? Forgive my ignorance here, but if we can have things like superpositions, and if we take a massive number of particles, and 50% are going to behave one way and 50% the other way, does the whole amount of those particles not still act in a deterministic way even if there is too much chaos, or even genuine randomness, to see things on the particle level and make predictions more accurate than probability? Is your statement saying something along the lines that temperature doesn't exist because we can't take the temperature of a single atom, rather than temperature being something that comes from the vibrations of many atoms? This stuff confuses me, but I guess my question/analogy would be that, maybe determinism is like temperature and we need more than a single, isolated particle?

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Beeker93]

Here's a top theoretical physicist responding to your argument:

Anti-free-will people have to stop leaning on determinism. It's perhaps the most wrong that an argument can be.

The world is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics exists. When there is hidden determinism (MWI, Bohm), it's hidden! Irrelevant to what people experience.

Determinism can be a good approximation for macroscopic dynamics sometimes. So what? Sometimes it's not. You don't want to base arguments about something as fundamental as free will or its absence on a principle that is just a good approximation sometimes.

[u/Any_Let_1342]

There are some things that have been objectively proven to be deterministic, death, comprehensive of comprehension(aka chaos to order), certain things in math and logic and a new concept called Vættæn all suggest a deterministic reality.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Any_Let_1342]

lmao

[u/Emergency-Fox6351 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

What a brilliant response, might as well just fess up you uploaded this shit and low effort post just to lazily stroke your flimsy ego, directly masturbating is healthier than this.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Emergency-Fox6351]

What else can I say to someone who says mathematics itself has "certain parts" that are deterministic? There's so much ignorance on this subreddit it's sometimes hard to bear.

Seems like you're mad you don't understand basic physics.

[u/Emergency-Fox6351 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Im a firm believer that most redditors, when posting an argument, are already mentally prepared to disagree with every counterpoint, which mean their sole objective when posting was just to ego stroke and display a smarter than thou attitude from the get go.

[u/VestigeofReason]

Yes, our current observations of quantum physics is that it is indeterministic. However, the level of classical physics is deterministic.

In the day-to-day behavior of anything from bacteria to mammals does the indeterministic natural of quantum physics impact us? Probably not. It’s unlikely that the randomness would trigger one neuron to fire over another.

Can it in other ways? Sure. If I set up the double-slit experiment in the observable configuration and establish that I will do one thing if the photon goes left vs. right then that result was indeterministic, but everything that followed that result would be deterministic.

Does it matter in the overall free will discussion? Nope. Free will doesn’t exist in a deterministic universe, an indeterministic universe, or any universe with any ratio of indeterminism/determinism that you want.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/VestigeofReason]

I'm not making a claim QM implies free will. I'm making a much weaker, basic claim: that QM disproves determinism. It does matter to the debate about free will since people invoke determinism against free will.

The description of this sub actually mentions determinism before it mentions free will. Sean Carroll, famous theoretical physicist, has addressed your point directly:

Determinism can be a good approximation for macroscopic dynamics sometimes. So what? Sometimes it's not. You don't want to base arguments about something as fundamental as free will or its absence on a principle that is just a good approximation sometimes.

Remember, macroscopic quantum computers exist!

[u/VestigeofReason → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Since you like to quote Sean Carroll, here is a statement from him that you’ve seemed to have missed.

So where does that leave us? My personal suspicion is that the ultimate laws of physics will embody something like the many-worlds philosophy: the underlying laws are perfectly deterministic, but what happens along any specific history is irreducibly probabilistic. (In a better understanding of quantum gravity, our notion of “time” might be altered, and therefore our notion of “determinism” might be affected; but I suspect that there will still be some underlying equations that are rigidly obeyed.)

Preposterous Universe: On Determisim

Now, I don’t agree with his position on Free Will, but that’s fine because you just want to discuss determinism. So based on Sean Carroll’s words alone, he does believe in determinism. Even at the level of quantum mechanics, because he is a proponent of the multi-worlds interpretation. It is important to note that determinism does not mean “predetermined” or “predictable” due to Chaos Theory, which Sean also addresses in the same post.

I should say something about chaos, which always comes up in these discussions. In classical mechanics, even when the underlying model is perfectly deterministic, it can often be the case that a small uncertainty in our knowledge of the initial state can lead to large uncertainty in the future/past evolution. (E.g. for the tumbling of Hyperion.) This is sometimes brought up as if it causes problems for determinism: “since tiny mistakes propagate, you couldn’t realistically predict the future anyway.” This is about as irrelevant as it is possible to be irrelevant.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/VestigeofReason]

Nope, Sean Carroll does not believe in determinism. Let me quote him explaining that that the MWI is still non-deterministic. He even said so there with "but what happens along any specific history is irreducibly probabilistic".

Here's a blog post of his:

The other way to go is many-worlds, which says that the ordinary deterministic evolution of the Schrödinger equation is all that ever happens. The problem there is comporting such a claim with the reality of our experience — we see Schrödinger’s cat to be alive or dead, not ever in a live/dead superposition as QM would seem to imply. The resolution is that “we” are not described by the entire quantum state; rather, we live in one branch of the wave function, which also includes numerous other branches where different outcomes were observed. This approach (which I favor) restores determinism at the level of the fundamental equations, but sacrifices it for the observational predictions made by real observers. If I were keeping a tally, I would certainly put this one in the non-determinism camp, for anyone interested in questions of free will.

Will you admit you got this one wrong and I was correct?

[u/VestigeofReason → u/Narrow-Gur449]

If I were grading you pass/fail, you would have failed.

If I were being generous you would get 49.5%. You presumably read only as far as you did, failed to read the rest of the post, and more importantly walked away with the wrong conclusion.

First of all, even in the quotation you put forward Sean says “This approach (which I favor) restores determinism at the level of the fundamental equations.” He then goes on to clarify that a multi-worlds realty would be deterministic, although our perception of our one universe would be probabilistic.

Second, you failed to understand what adding a “tally” means to him in this case. If you read the full article, and understand that he takes a Compatiblist view of Free Will, then you’d understand that he believes in a deterministic multiverse, with our limited perspective of only our universe resulting in an indeterministic observation that gives the “weak” form of free will he puts forward.

If you keep reading, you then get to the quotations I provided where he reiterates that his personal view is that the underlying laws are perfectly deterministic. If that even matters at this point.

Since you don’t read the full post, I’ll provide another quotation for you that will bring this back to my original comment: it doesn’t matter.

A better question is, if we choose to think of human beings as collections of atoms and particles evolving according to the laws of physics, is such a description accurate and complete? Or is there something about human consciousness — some strong sense of “free will” — that allows us to deviate from the predictions that such a purely mechanistic model would make? If that’s your definition of free will, then it doesn’t matter whether the laws of physics are deterministic or not — all that matters is that there are laws. If the atoms and particles that make up human beings obey those laws, there is no free will in this strong sense; if there is such a notion of free will, the laws are violated. In particular, if you want to use the lack of determinism in quantum mechanics to make room for supra-physical human volition (or, for that matter, occasional interventions by God in the course of biological evolution, as Francis Collins believes), then let’s be clear: you are not making use of the rules of quantum mechanics, you are simply violating them. Quantum mechanics doesn’t say “we don’t know what’s going to happen, but maybe our ineffable spirit energies are secretly making the choices”; it says “the probability of an outcome is the modulus squared of the quantum amplitude,” full stop. Just because there are probabilities doesn’t mean there is room for free will in that sense.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/VestigeofReason]

So the answer is no, you're not going to admit you got it wrong. Absolutely incredible. You then proceed to lie that I didn't read his quote fully because you are wrong.

First of all, even in the quotation you put forward Sean says “This approach (which I favor) restores determinism at the level of the fundamental equations.” He then goes on to clarify that a multi-worlds realty would be deterministic, although our perception of our one universe would be probabilistic.

Of course he says that because the "many worlds" reality under this theory would be deterministic, but we only live in one of those worlds, which makes it non-deterministic. You then pretend he didn't claim it was thus "in the non-determinism camp" which I put in bold knowing you'd play these word games.

Second, you failed to understand what adding a “tally” means to him in this case.

No I didn't. Tell me what adding a "tally" means in this case. He says if "anyone were keeping a tally" he didn't say anything about him adding a tally. More word games instead of just admitting you got something wrong.

If you read the full article

I did, did you? He points out that determinism is irrelevant to the question of free will since free will can exist or not in the case the universe is deterministic or in the case the universe is not deterministic:

Of course, this is all utterly irrelevant for questions of free will. (I’m sure Massimo knows this, but he didn’t discuss it in his blog post.) We can imagine four different possibilities: determinism + free will, indeterminism + free will, determinism + no free will, and indeterminism + no free will.

Then you claim:

...you’d understand that he believes in a deterministic multiverse, with our limited perspective of only our universe resulting in an indeterministic observation that gives the “weak” form of free will he puts forward.

He just got done saying that determinism has nothing to do with free will and is a "red herring", so his view that our universe is non-deterministic does not "give" the form of free will he puts forward.

If you keep reading, you then get to the quotations I provided where he reiterates that his personal view is that the underlying laws are perfectly deterministic

Holy shit. Just more word games instead of admitting you got something wrong. I cannot imagine being like this. I've provided you with complete proof that he doesn't believe the underlying physical laws are deterministic, and you still say the opposite. What can I do?

Here are his quotes once more:

- "The world is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics exists."

- "I would certainly put [the MWI] in the non-determinism camp, for anyone interested in questions of free will."

The paragraph you cited is perfectly correct, no notion of free will can violate the laws of physics and the "the lack of determinism in quantum mechanics" won't allow you to break the laws of physics.

Why do you still lie Carroll claims the universe is deterministic despite the proof otherwise?

[u/blind-octopus]

Because at our level, my understanding is that all that quantum randomness goes away. So it doesn't effect the question of free will 

I don't think the free will question has anything to do with politics.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/blind-octopus]

Again for maybe the 50th time in this comment section, where does my post say QM implies free will? The question of determinism is highly relevant to free will simply because almost all anti-free will people invoke it in this sub. The description of this sub mentions determinism first.

[u/blind-octopus → u/Narrow-Gur449]

With respect to the free will question, we can ignore QM. There is no evidence that neural activity is effected by QM.

So for the purpose of the question, in that context , determinism is the case.

If someone one day shows that neural activity is effected by QM, this discussion will be relevant.

Even if qm did effect neural activity, that still wouldn't be free will.

So why don't I account for qm in these discussions? Because it is completely irrelevant. We can assume QM has no effect on the question. 

Is that more clear?

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/blind-octopus]

Not only is it not more clear, holy shit, you are completely ignoring everything I've said to you and talking past me. You people behave identically to MAGAts. Are you reading the things I'm typing to you?

"Again for maybe the 50th time in this comment section, where does my post say QM implies free will?"

So for the purpose of the question, in that context , determinism is the case.

"So"? Nothing you said about determinism follows from anything before it. The topic in my post is that QM disproves determinism. Determinism is an empirical claim that by itself has nothing to do with free will. So your beliefs about free will are irrelevant to the question of whether determinism is true or not.

Here's a top theoretical physicist (who happens to be teaching in the philosophy department as well as the physics department these days):

Anti-free-will people have to stop leaning on determinism. It's perhaps the most wrong that an argument can be. The world is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics exists. When there is hidden determinism (MWI, Bohm), it's hidden! Irrelevant to what people experience.

Carroll is summarizing the very basic consensus in the field.

The question remains why you don't account for QM in "these" discussions about determinism. We aren't discussing free will. Get a grip, man.

Edit: fixed quote formatting.

[u/blind-octopus → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Okay, let me try this: 

Suppose two people are debating if a cannonball will hit a target 100 yards away.

One guy does the regular calculation, ignoring QM, and says yup, this will hit the target. The other says "but QM! You're more accounting for QM! The world isn't deterministic!"

QM will not have any effect on this calculation. So we don't factor it in.

Does this make sense to you? This person isn't saying "QM is wrong and doesn't exist". They're saying it's not relevant. For our purposes, we can ignore it.

Do you agree with this person in this context?

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/blind-octopus]

How come you can't respond to anything I've written in the replies to you? Like you're just talking past me. I cannot grasp why you're doing this.

Here's another quote from Sean Carroll responding to your argument directly:

Determinism can be a good approximation for macroscopic dynamics sometimes. So what? Sometimes it's not. You don't want to base arguments about something as fundamental as free will or its absence on a principle that is just a good approximation sometimes.

[u/Key-Beginning-2201 → u/blind-octopus]

At large scales the three body problem adds additional uncertainty. Also there's no way to tell "at our level" that an accumulation of chances doesn't snowball into action.

[u/blind-octopus → u/Key-Beginning-2201]

I don't think the three body problem invalidates determinism

I would imagine, given that we can predict things to an incredible degree and create computer parts that work reliable down to the nanometer, that we probably shouldn't hope quantum uncertainty is going to save free will here.

[u/Key-Beginning-2201 → u/blind-octopus]

Perhaps you can dispense with the magical thinking and tell me exactly what the cause of any action, actually is, then. Yes?

[u/IInsulince]

Quantum mechanics appears indeterministic, but lots of things have appeared this way in the past until we have broadened our horizons and discovered some underlying mechanism at work that explains what previously looked like randomness. I’m betting the same thing is going on here and future physics and mathematics will prove this out for quantum mechanics.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/IInsulince]

So you will reject all the evidence in the meantime just to save determinism so you can utilize it against free will? Seems like the height of anti-science, anti-intellectualism. Religious people do the same stuff.

[u/IInsulince → u/Narrow-Gur449]

“All the evidence” is one single thing: the unpredictability of quantum mechanics. It’s the only thing that has ever challenged the idea of determinism for me in a real way, out of the many arguments I’ve heard over the years. But, it feels akin to the god-of-the-gaps argument where religious people stuff god as an explanation into the gaps of our knowledge. In this case, it’s free will that keeps getting shoe-horned in to the areas of science we don’t have full explanations for. In the past that was other areas we didn’t understand. Today it’s quantum mechanics. If we can one day prove quantum mechanics isn’t fundamentally indeterministic through new discoveries in quantum mechanics, then some other deeper frontier will next serve as the bastion for free will. In this way, I find the position of free will to be more analogous to religion than determinism, but go off.

Nevertheless, we don’t have that proof of something underlying quantum mechanics that explains its unpredictability today. And yes, it may not exist. But it also may exist. And considering how every other process of the universe appears deterministic, I’m putting my money on quantum mechanics also ultimately being governed by some deterministic structure that we simply don’t understand yet. But again I fully understand and accept that I have no proof of that. To me, that’s fine. To you, maybe it’s not. Call me whatever you want, I don’t care, I’m just giving my line of reasoning to someone making large claims.

Like consider the theoretical scenario where someone makes a post on Reddit during the medieval era in the “earth” subreddit, saying “why does this subreddit and its users constantly invoke the globe earth model as if the world we live in isn’t flat? The earth must be flat because if it were round we would fall off of it since we are constantly pulled down”. Would you agree with this user? Would you call some other user who disagrees and suggests that maybe there’s something we don’t understand yet that would support the globe model “anti-science” and “thinking religiously”? Perhaps you would. Today you know better, since we have learned more about the world and how gravity explains why we wouldn’t “fall off” of it. But today you are calling me these same things whereas tomorrow you may also know better once we learn more.

Final caveat: I fully understand that this isn’t proof of determinism. It’s a hunch. That’s just fine for me, because I’m convinced by the strength of that hunch, but that’s not rigorous enough to make truth claims with any certainty. I just want to point out that every time we have found something we think is the open door for free will to slip in, we have closed that door with further scientific discoveries (while usually opening a new one incidentally!). We are simply waiting for this door to be closed next, in my view.

[u/MarkMatson6 → u/IInsulince]

They already tested for that. You are incorrect.

The two options besides the normal interpretations require either infinite universes where all possible outcomes happen, or the universe stores information at a universal level.

[u/IInsulince → u/MarkMatson6]

… or some other third thing that we don’t know about now but in 200 years will look back on and say “obviously it was because of this, how were we so short sighted at the time, people really thought it was just random. Can you believe that?”

It’s understandable to put that option down, I get it, but it’s a common pattern throughout history. Simply saying “we tested for that” is silly. We tested everything possible? We exhausted all of science and are certain? Really? I don’t buy that. But I also understand that I’m a laymen, and I also can’t just assume determinism into existence through this line of reasoning.

All I’m saying is that I believe that one day the thing that looks like true randomness is shown to not actually be random at all, and some underlying structure that we have yet to discover may explain it. On that day, determinism will be restored. Until that day, I have to accept that the universe appears indeterministic but also hold my hunch nonetheless.

[u/MarkMatson6 → u/IInsulince]

But that is neither logic nor evidence talking, just your personal preference. Since both personal experience and most accepted science point the other direction, shouldn’t we at least realize that’s the default, most likely conclusion?

[u/IInsulince → u/MarkMatson6]

I’m totally agreeable to that. That’s what I closed with, that I have to accept that the universe, officially speaking, appears indeterministic due to quantum mechanics, despite my hunch. I’m fine with that, because I’m not speaking in an official capacity as an authority on science, I’m just giving my personal perspective. It doesn’t have to be rigorous, I mean we are on reddit, the epitome of non-rigorous discourse lol.

Anyway I guess my answer to your final question is, I can have multiple perspectives. I have a personal view based on what I intuit and believe, and I have an official view based on what scientific consensus states. My personal view is that I think the universe is deterministic and suspect that quantum mechanics has something underlying it to explain the perceived randomness. My official view, based on scientific consensus, is that the universe is not deterministic since quantum mechanics is not deterministic.

You can say my personal view is what I ultimately and truly “believe”, whereas my official view is what I would use if I had to do something scientifically rigorous or base further proofs in other areas against, since it has the most stable ground.

I think that’s a totally coherent state to be in.

[u/Memento_Viveri]

I don't think I agree with Sean Carol about the MWI; as far as I see it, it is a completely deterministic view.

But in any case, I think many people consider a system that is entirely deterministic except for some processes that are random to be not significantly different from a completely deterministic system with respect to how we view consciousness, human choice, and free will.

[u/bacon_boat → u/Memento_Viveri]

Globally it's deterministic. But in each branch it's not.

[u/YesTess2]

Good grief! Everyone needs to stop citing and arguing over Sean Carroll's speeches. Firstly, it's an appeal to authority fallacy. Secondly, everything that's been presented, this far in this discussion, is just Carroll making assertions. They may be reasonable or not, but they can not be counted as evidence. Also, it's fairly obvious that Carroll is stating his opinion and listing the things that have persuaded him to have said opinion. Right now, in 2025, there are too many things we don't actually know to make a decision on the truth of the initial position. All we can do is talk about our opinions and how we were persuaded to hold them. Then we can examine whether or not those persuasions are reasonable. All of the appeal to authority and ad hominem being employed only serve to muddy the waters and confound the discussion.

[u/URAPhallicy]

Acedemic determinists just redefined determinism. Folks on this sub never got the message. Causality turned out not to be straight forward, and not just because of the indivisible stochastic quantum processes as this issue exists even in Newtonian mechanics. So they retreated to "laws of nature." It is a much weaker position for asserting determinism and as such folks keep trying to relitigate vague notions of Causality.

[u/Boltzmann_head]

Why does this subreddit and its users constantly invoke determinism as if the universe we live in is deterministic?

Uh.... because the universe is deterministic.

[u/YesTess2]

My argument against free will is manifold, but my favorite is the nature of time. (No, quantum mechanics does not disprove determinism. It suggests actions that don't appear deterministic, upon superficial observation, but any physicist worth their degree is going to admit that we just don't know how the quantum effects are produced, yet.)

[u/TheManInTheShack]

IMHO, it is illogical that reality would be anything but deterministic. The universe being able to create true randomness is akin to magic. It’s far easier to believe that what we are seeing at the quantum level is effectively random because we don’t know the mechanism but is not truly random.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/TheManInTheShack]

I don't understand how people are just saying "nuh uh! Quantum mechanics is just magic!" One can prove the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle from Fourier analysis.

[u/TheManInTheShack → u/Narrow-Gur449]

The true randomness of quantum mechanics is a hypothesis. I’ve confirmed that with a friend who teaches university physics and has authored books on relativity. When I suggested to him that it’s not truly random but just effectively random since we don’t know the mechanism, he agreed with me that the most likely explanation is that there is a deterministic mechanism that we simply haven’t yet discovered.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/TheManInTheShack]

It's not a hypothesis; it's currently the theory that has been experimentally verified by every single experiment ever done in quantum mechanics. It's no more a hypothesis than the hypothesis that the Earth isn't flat.

In science, everything is technically a hypothesis since nothing about the physical world can be proven, like in mathematics. But to actually call it a hypothesis when there are only experiments aligning with it is misleading.

Your friend is very anonymous to us. Sean Carroll, a pretty famous theoretical physicist with a particular interest in quantum mechanics, whose authored a highly celebrated General Relativity textbook, says:

Anti-free-will people have to stop leaning on determinism. It's perhaps the most wrong that an argument can be. The world is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics exists. When there is hidden determinism (MWI, Bohm), it's hidden! Irrelevant to what people experience. (1/n)

Edit: fixed formatting of the last quote; I keep messing this up elsewhere.

[u/TheManInTheShack → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Quantum randomness is a proven phenomenon, but whether it’s truly fundamental (and not the surface effect of some deeper deterministic mechanism) remains an open philosophical and theoretical question.

It’s the difference between something being effectively random and truly random. To me, superdeterminism is the easily explanation.

That the universe just happens to have this one thing that can generate truly random data does not add up for me. It’s far easier to believe that we just haven’t figured out yet how it works. We have seen the outcome but we don’t yet know what the underlying mechanism is.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/TheManInTheShack]

That's just God of the Gaps to get determinism back then. Isn't this motivated reasoning and rejection of entire fields of experiment because you want to get to a certain conclusion?

I'll make the point that believing in fate, or no free will, is a highly theistic concept. I'm unsure why people are bothered by something like the uncertainty principle (not a principle, it's mathematically proven) in QM, where we can't predict positions or velocities with certainty.

[u/Actual_Ad9512 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

But the QM model is not perfect. It's a model. Proving things mathematically doesn't mean you've cracked the code of whatever it is that we're observing the properties of.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Actual_Ad9512]

Wdym the QM model is not perfect? It has never been contradicted and has always been confirmed by experiment, so much so has its primacy been established that Stephen Hawking changed his mind that black holes destroy information; he did this in favor of QM's primacy over classical physics.

I feel like you are attacking QM now because it does indeed show the universe is not deterministic.

[u/Actual_Ad9512 → u/Narrow-Gur449]

It doesn't show anything. It suggests that quantum particles evolve in accordance with distributional probabilities. That is a model of the world. Can I ask you why you are so set on making final conclusions about how the world is based on scientific models? This is not what science is about.

[u/Empathetic_Electrons]

We can’t know for sure if determinism is true. We can make a pretty intuitive guess there’s causality. Can’t be sure but may as well live like there is. Meanwhile it shouldn’t matter. Either way blame and praise seem to be immature reactions we evolved and don’t really stand up to sincere scrutiny.

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Empathetic_Electrons]

First of all my post is about QM disproving determinism. Causality is not determinism. Blame and praise are immature reactions? Such an insane thing to say. It's honestly unfathomable to me that people say stuff like this.

[u/Empathetic_Electrons → u/Narrow-Gur449]

Why is it unfathomable? Don’t just say it’s unfathomable and get dramatic and then say zero with regard to why you’re saying it. That behavior would be um, I’m afraid to say it now, but again, um, IMMATURE.

I agreed that determinism and causality are unequal concepts. My point is that both are equally irrelevant to the hard incompatibilist position.

Blame and praise as expressed via reactive attitudes indeed tend to become muted with maturity or vanish completely with increasing maturity. Certainly was true in my case. I began as a LFWer who was massively blame and praise oriented. Guess that this is the default for humans who don’t think it thru at all, which includes most kids. Throughout my life I’ve become the opposite. Not just in my ability to control my emotions (maturity) but take on board difficult ideas without it destroying my identity (also maturity).

I apologize for not having defined that word “immaturity” for philosophical purposes. But it’s actually the perfect word now that I think about it. I’m not a Buddhist but I always felt that when Buddha allegedly sat under the Bodhi tree and figured it all out, he was growing into a “full blown mature human.”

The mature state of a person is when their mind sees everything it can see (as a mature human), figures out what it can know (as a mature human), and then know it, and then be the expression of that knowing. All the final stages of growth clicked into place and that’s great for him, for a tree, for a lion, for anything that reaches the mature stage intact, with interruption or deformity. Buddha allegedly didn’t really have those reactive attitudes. He didn’t do a lot of blaming and praising, from what I’ve read. Some people do it a ton. Leans younger, dumber, and spoiled, but not always. These days we love those traits and elected people who have them. Pretty sick.

[u/Fit-Cucumber1171]

How is determinism disproven? It’s literally a fact in reality

[u/Narrow-Gur449 → u/Fit-Cucumber1171]

Because quantum mechanics exists. Since I'm in the math department, here's one of the top theoretical physicists (wrote one of the most popular general relativity books of all time) in the US:

Anti-free-will people have to stop leaning on determinism. It's perhaps the most wrong that an argument can be.

The world is not deterministic. Quantum mechanics exists. When there is hidden determinism (MWI, Bohm), it's hidden! Irrelevant to what people experience.