How physicists handle the idea of Free Will?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reconciliation of free will with the determinism inherent in physics, particularly at the macroscopic level. Participants explore the implications of determinism on human choices, the nature of free will, and the potential for downward causation to influence this relationship.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that if determinism holds at the macroscopic level, then free will may not exist, as choices could be seen as predetermined by history, genetics, and environment.
  • Others question the definition of free will, suggesting it may vary among individuals and may not align with deterministic views.
  • A participant provides an example of Joan d'Arc's choice as a demonstration of free will, though this is challenged by others who suggest her actions were influenced by past experiences and beliefs.
  • Some participants propose that if all actions are determined by prior causes, then even responses in discussions could be predicted based on past experiences.
  • There is a suggestion that downward causation could be a framework for understanding free will, with some arguing that rejecting downward causation implies rejecting free will.
  • Others express skepticism about the concept of downward causation, questioning how it could preserve the notion of free will without evidence.
  • A participant asserts that if actions are solely a function of microstates, then free will cannot exist, while suggesting that if macroscopic states can exert downward causation, then free will may be possible.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence of free will or its compatibility with determinism. Multiple competing views are presented, with ongoing debate about definitions and implications.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying definitions of free will, assumptions about determinism, and the lack of empirical evidence for concepts like downward causation. The discussion also reflects differing perspectives on the influence of past experiences on decision-making.

  • #241
Pythagorean said:
Nobody is saying that we CAN understand p-conscoiusness though...

And we can't explain the physical basis of entropy! It is observed empirically, not predicted! We can only accept it as an axiom and move forward.

What? It follows from basic laws of probability applied to a physical system.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #242
Locked.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 379 ·
13
Replies
379
Views
53K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K