Ask HN: Is Free Will an Illusion?

5 points1penny42cents1y ago15 comments

Given deterministic causality, where every event has a prior cause, it would appear that free will is an illusion.

While it may seem like we’re choosing our actions, determinism implies that this is an illusion: if all our actions are determinable from prior causes, then we are just complex machines. There’s no space for free will.

But from another point of view, this claim seems absurd. Even if the logic makes sense, the conclusion suggests a mistake. We seem to make all kinds of decisions all the time, and embracing the belief that free will is an illusion would require many social concepts and contracts to be rewritten.

This tension can be represented by a spectrum of beliefs:

1. Cynics believe free will is a harmful illusion. Because free will is an illusion, we only fool ourselves by embracing it.

2. Illusionists believe free will is a useful illusion. Even if it is an illusion, it’s a dangerous one to dispense with. If people didn’t believe they were responsible for their actions, they’d be less likely to behave ethically.

3. Compatibilists believe in a limited form of free will. Besides free will, physical causality holds. They believe we have limited control over our decisions, which have limited influence over our lives.

4. Idealists believe our will is more than free: it's connected to supernatural forces (e.g. God). They believe we have more control over our decisions and our lives than physical causality can explain.

Which do you most identify with?

You can reply with a comment, or check a box on this anonymous form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfLsVzKlIjFEOP30DD__d8sUP9fSXw9PJsPlyjAMkVhM8w9wg/viewform

15 comments

xtrapol81y ago

I would like to drive a nail in the coffin of “deterministic causality” by at least two mechanisms.

- In every scope there is a super scope which may influence in incalculable ways (however well their rules maybe understood.) Even in a model of the whole Universe, the base potential of cosmic background radiation (non-zero vacuum of void) is a non deterministic influence.

- ultimately radiological decay may not be predicted (a feedback mechanism of unpredictable external scopes)

There is more to consider yet these alone are enough for all physicists to agree that universal determinism is not actually possible.

Decay and the exogenous scope.

Everything in the universe fails eventually, only we may not know which part or when. Everything has an outside influence that cannot be predicted, even if that is how external decay will be involved.

These are NOT the basis of free will, merely an example of how determinism is a dead horse.

Free will is the “determination of resolve in the moment of now.” A different kind of determination than determinism. It is not that will cannot be coerced or manipulated or even anticipated (we are creatures of habit.) it is that the feedback loop in the mind is made of constructive and destructive interference and that may self reflect in unbound scalar ways.

What we think of as determinism is a blessing not a curse. Who wants the Earth to spontaneously turn to jelly? Or marshmallows to suddenly fall from the sky? We cannot function without mostly predictable outcomes.

1penny42centsOP1y ago

Thanks for this!

I suppose for our purposes, both determinism and indeterminism create the same paradox of free will. Determinism gives every event a determined prior cause, and indeterminism opens the door for random or otherwise undetermined prior causes, but both are incompatible with the notion of free will.

Would you agree with that reframing, or am I missing something?

xtrapol81y ago

Well, these topics are useful mind fodder. Free will is the ability to be arbitrary as much as to be contrarian.

I am a proponent that consciousness allows a singular resolve from constructive and destructive interference. This may not sound like much, though it is better than “swerving atoms.” My constructive and destructive interference has been shaped by a life of tenacious willfulness and expansive trial and error.

I suppose I would claim preemptive error correction makes my will more free than that of my muddle minded reactionary peers.

Determination of resolve and determinism are two separate uses of the same word, confusing their interdependency.

readyplayernull1y ago

Perfect randomness in infinity will generate infinite deterministic sequences. By the anthrophomorphic principle our lifes are located in the span of a string that is experienced as mostly deterministic, and we understand it as our bounded free will.

beardyw1y ago

This is just a problem of self-reference. If you focus on determinism and act accordingly then you are stuck in a loop. You can sit on the ground and call whatever happens inevitable but that inevitability is a product of your behaviour.

gnz111y ago

So wasn’t inevitable that they got to the point of sitting on the ground in the first place? Meaning you still haven’t solved the contingency problem.

aristofun1y ago

There is no proven “deterministic causality”.

There is a free will that is easily proven.

I could give elaborate answer to your question, but I chose to give a short and primitive one.

You’ve made in the image of god and got a gift of free will. Live with it :)

yawpitch1y ago

> Given deterministic causality

Assumption of facts not in evidence, given open questions in quantum mechanics.

1penny42centsOP1y ago

It’s a reasonable challenge to determinism, but quantum decoherence seems to make that opening smaller, no? It seems you can explain much of reality using determinism, especially the portion humans operate in.

Also, in case it’s not clear: I am not assuming determinism or claiming that free will is an illusion, just explaining the challenge if one does assume determinism, which many do.

yawpitch1y ago

You can explain much of reality using Newtonian physics too, especially the portion humans operate in. Of course you run into enormous problems at high energies and velocities, so you need something more, and then you run into really interesting problems at extremely small scales, where suddenly you start to realize that it’s maybe not deterministic at all.

The problem starts in assuming “the portion humans operate in” is relevant or reasonable; if we assume determinism we have to assume that every interaction in quantum physics is also entirely deterministic. Anything else is just not assuming determinism.

1 more reply

brudgers1y ago

Whether or not we have free will is not among our choices. It's complicated.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

Ask HN: Is Free Will an Illusion?

5 points1penny42cents1y ago15 comments

Given deterministic causality, where every event has a prior cause, it would appear that free will is an illusion.

This tension can be represented by a spectrum of beliefs:

1. Cynics believe free will is a harmful illusion. Because free will is an illusion, we only fool ourselves by embracing it.

Which do you most identify with?

You can reply with a comment, or check a box on this anonymous form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfLsVzKlIjFEOP30DD__d8sUP9fSXw9PJsPlyjAMkVhM8w9wg/viewform

15 comments

xtrapol81y ago

I would like to drive a nail in the coffin of “deterministic causality” by at least two mechanisms.

- ultimately radiological decay may not be predicted (a feedback mechanism of unpredictable external scopes)

There is more to consider yet these alone are enough for all physicists to agree that universal determinism is not actually possible.

Decay and the exogenous scope.

These are NOT the basis of free will, merely an example of how determinism is a dead horse.

1penny42centsOP1y ago

Thanks for this!

Would you agree with that reframing, or am I missing something?

xtrapol81y ago

Well, these topics are useful mind fodder. Free will is the ability to be arbitrary as much as to be contrarian.

I suppose I would claim preemptive error correction makes my will more free than that of my muddle minded reactionary peers.

Determination of resolve and determinism are two separate uses of the same word, confusing their interdependency.

readyplayernull1y ago

beardyw1y ago

gnz111y ago

So wasn’t inevitable that they got to the point of sitting on the ground in the first place? Meaning you still haven’t solved the contingency problem.

aristofun1y ago

There is no proven “deterministic causality”.

There is a free will that is easily proven.

I could give elaborate answer to your question, but I chose to give a short and primitive one.

You’ve made in the image of god and got a gift of free will. Live with it :)

yawpitch1y ago

> Given deterministic causality

Assumption of facts not in evidence, given open questions in quantum mechanics.

1penny42centsOP1y ago

Also, in case it’s not clear: I am not assuming determinism or claiming that free will is an illusion, just explaining the challenge if one does assume determinism, which many do.

yawpitch1y ago

1 more reply

brudgers1y ago

Whether or not we have free will is not among our choices. It's complicated.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse