Dec 30, 2025 07:19 PM
https://www.space.com/science/particle-p...esnt-exist
EXCERPT: One of the bedrock philosophical concepts under all of physics is something called causal determinism. It says that every effect has a cause, and that if you know the current state of a system, you can use the power of physics to predict how it behaves. If effects happened without causes, then there wouldn't be much need for physics. And if we couldn't predict how systems would behave, then we wouldn't be very good at our jobs.
[...] So, at first glance, it seems like our understanding of physics forbids free will. We don't really have a choice, because if we had perfect knowledge of all the molecules and electrical activity in our brains, then we must be able to determine our choices in advance. But there are three aspects of physics that add some wrinkles to this line of thinking... (MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Seems to revolve around the usual view that "free will" is dependent on randomness rather than the autonomy of an internally governed biological body. While a slight degree of randomness introduced into the human system would not undermine the overarching regulation of it, a massive amount would destroy the functional organization and existence of a natural entity that has the capacity to have preferences and then make choices based on those personal biases.
To abandon or undermine those "likes and dislikes" that are succeeding for you would be to behave as unpredictably as an insane individual -- a skewered yet perversely popular requirement for free will (radical unpredictability or unbridled random selection and behavior) that no one -- who can apprehend the disastrous consequences of that -- would actually want.
You also have the ability to reprogram yourself to new habits, if those old ones are part of a destructive lifestyle. The latter might be deemed the central element of "soft compatibilism" that stands out as free will, which accordingly requires belief in free will (you can't re-program yourself if you wallow in the fatalistic opposite belief of that).
EXCERPT: One of the bedrock philosophical concepts under all of physics is something called causal determinism. It says that every effect has a cause, and that if you know the current state of a system, you can use the power of physics to predict how it behaves. If effects happened without causes, then there wouldn't be much need for physics. And if we couldn't predict how systems would behave, then we wouldn't be very good at our jobs.
[...] So, at first glance, it seems like our understanding of physics forbids free will. We don't really have a choice, because if we had perfect knowledge of all the molecules and electrical activity in our brains, then we must be able to determine our choices in advance. But there are three aspects of physics that add some wrinkles to this line of thinking... (MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Seems to revolve around the usual view that "free will" is dependent on randomness rather than the autonomy of an internally governed biological body. While a slight degree of randomness introduced into the human system would not undermine the overarching regulation of it, a massive amount would destroy the functional organization and existence of a natural entity that has the capacity to have preferences and then make choices based on those personal biases.
To abandon or undermine those "likes and dislikes" that are succeeding for you would be to behave as unpredictably as an insane individual -- a skewered yet perversely popular requirement for free will (radical unpredictability or unbridled random selection and behavior) that no one -- who can apprehend the disastrous consequences of that -- would actually want.
You also have the ability to reprogram yourself to new habits, if those old ones are part of a destructive lifestyle. The latter might be deemed the central element of "soft compatibilism" that stands out as free will, which accordingly requires belief in free will (you can't re-program yourself if you wallow in the fatalistic opposite belief of that).