Physicists Defend Free Will

The issue of free will is mostly a philosophical one, with the main arguments being understood by the ancient Greeks.

In the last century, most intellectuals have turned against free will. They all accept some variation of the following argument.

(1) The fundamental laws of physics are deterministic. The whole concept of a rational outlook towards the world requires determinism. Maybe there is some randomness coming from quantum mechanics, but then the laws are determinism-plus-randomness such that the randomness does not matter for free will.

(2) Free will is just an illusion. All our actions are determined. It may be helpful to imagine that you are making choices, and such imagining might be good for society and your peace of mind, but free will is how you rationalize being a pre-programmed robot.

For a recent example, see this video discussion:

Robert Sapolsky, Paul Bloom, and Lucy Allais debate whether free will exists and the deterministic nature of our lives.

Can we escape our destiny?

An individual "is responsible for everything he does," claimed Sartre. And from criminal justice to creative expression, free will and responsibility are central to our culture and our personal lives. Yet neuroscientists and materialist thinkers commonly maintain that freedom is an illusion. And it remains unknown how the core principles of freedom and responsibility can be reconciled with this outlook. Many attempts have been made to argue that the two seemingly contradictory frameworks can be made compatible. But critics say these "compatibilist" arguments are unconvincing and are driven merely by the attempt to make scientific materialism acceptable. Furthermore, whilst surveys suggest most materialist philosophers believe we can reconcile the two, the majority of us reject the idea that an action can be both determined and free. ...

Joining us from California is Robert Sapolsky. Sapolsky is a distinguished neuroscientist, primatologist, and author, best known for his research on stress and its impact on behaviour and health. He is also a professor at Stanford University.

Sapolsky confidently tells us that science proved an essential determinism, and that it is nonsense to say that we make any choices. He says a lot of other things that are completely false.

I have argued against this view many times, and now I find a new paper explaining it well:

Reframing the Free Will Debate: The Universe is Not Deterministic

Henry D. Potter, George F.R. Ellis, Kevin J. Mitchell

Free will discourse is primarily centred around the thesis of determinism. Much of the literature takes determinism as its starting premise, assuming it true for the sake of discussion, and then proceeds to present arguments for why, if determinism is true, free will would be either possible or impossible. This is reflected in the theoretical terrain of the debate, with the primary distinction currently being between compatibilists and incompatibilists and not, as one might expect, between free will realists and skeptics. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we argue that there is no reason to accept such a framing. We show that, on the basis of modern physics, there is no good evidence that physical determinism of any variety provides an accurate description of our universe and lots of evidence against such a view. Moreover, we show that this analysis extends equally to the sort of indeterministic worldviews endorsed by many libertarian philosophers and their skeptics, a worldview which we refer to as determinism plus randomness. The papers secondary aim is therefore to present an alternative conception of indeterminism, which is more in line with the empirical evidence from physics. It is this indeterministic worldview, we suggest, that ought to be the central focus of a reframed philosophy of free will.

I wonder if I am being duped by AI slop. Maybe some AI put together these podcasts based on Susskind's lectures and writings. Here is Roger Penrose on Quantum Mechanics Is NOT Random. It is a very good summary of Penrose's view on the subject, and rendered in his own voice. In the end, he argues that humans have free will, based ib quantum gravity collapse, and that AI will never be conscious.