That is interesting. Re: multiverse theory, why doesn’t free will exist if each universe plays out a choice, there’s no real reason it does or doesn’t.

I think actually it alludes to a thinking mode, i.e. when we look at multiple sets and calculate on them it appears that things are calculable, probabilities get worked out we can reliably predict things. But we often use those predictions to estimate the course of a single event. To give an example, doctors often dole out survival rates when one is diagnosed with a serious ailment. If the doctor says only 5% survives, many patients will believe that they have a 5% chance of survival. But that figure is based on a large set of data, a doctor never knows the real likelihood of survival for an individual person. Five percent for example seems small, but say this is a common condition and a million people have had it, it would mean that 50000 survive. The question is, for those 50000, was their survival rate really 5% or were among them people who had anywhere up to a 100% chance of survival?

I think what makes our reality/world so incredibly amazing is the fact that consciousness makes us individually speaking – as experiencers of consciousness – a single unit, in the sense that it gives us an entirely unique point of view that we can’t copy or convey in its base form. For us to reliably predict, or arrive at a deterministic reality, we need multiple sets of data, that we then recalculate back to make a prediction about a single unit or a single course of events. But that single unit in nature can potentially go anywhere. Quantum mechanics seems to support the view that on the level of a single unit, there is no limitation in potential. In debates about free will in psychology circles the question is raised whether ‘ free’ is really free, or really a limited degree of freedom (choices are restrained to a limited set of possibilities because of various constraints (i.e. I can’t choose that my car becomes red while driving)). Quantum mechanics seems to convey that there really is no such thing a limited degree of freedom in that argument, there are just an infinite amount outcomes that are incredibly unlikely.

The problem with theory making, predicting etc, is that we naturally make the trip from the unpredictable single unit, to clumping up data from multiple units to derive at various degrees of probability on the outcomes and then feel falsely confident that we know what a single unit is going to do. I think that is what some scientists who argue there is no free will are doing. But I think predictions only gives us the ability to predict the outcomes of groups of ‘ units’ not a single unit – you can’t consistently predict the outlier in a group of data. Similarly, free will seems to grant that potential that allows for choices that are unpredictable – each of us can become an outlier.

Until we find something close to a scientific understanding of consciousness – an area which quantum mechanics helped shake up – the debate about free will from a physics or science point of view will be lacking depth in my opinion. And there are some that are quite happy sticking to materialistic explanations of consciousness but that is as much of a cop out as the ‘shut up and calculate’ mindset present with some quantum physicists. Isn’t regarding the brain as a collection of atoms a rather arbitrary level on which to view the brain.
At the moment we simply don’t know the extent to which consciousness affects our reality, evolutionary processes, etc. Topics like the measurement problem open up many unanswered questions about the role of consciousness. What we do know is that most of the traditional ways of thinking about evolution completely disregards consciousness (darwinian explanations require small incremental changes to derive at complex physiology, such as the eye and until we can – through computer models perhaps – show that we can evolve complex organs such as the eye through these incremental steps through this incredibly slow process, it’s unconvincing to me).

Seeing as free will and consciousness are inseparable concepts (hard to exert free will if consciousness isn’t present), any stance on free will with a footing in evolution theory as understood today seems to me to be incomplete at best. And that is intellectually rather unsatisfying if not hard to tolerate as a scientist.

This article raises some important points. When we look at deterministic “flip-side-to-chaos” theory as stated above, patterns emerge: biological diversity, regulated gene expression, patterns in mountains, lakes etc, etc. Take also for example studies on Brownian motion and fractals. Could it not be said then, that there exist patterns of free will based on deterministic patterns in neuronal interactions?

For example, surely groups of people with larger amygdala regions in the brain would be more probable to take more aggressive choices when given the same stimuli as those with different brain structures? In a pub fracas I know who I’m going to avoid.

Does this not lead to a parametric model of choice and free will? This means that will or action depends on ones’ inherent Darwinian programming. There have been many studies using self organising maps and other classifiers on voting patterns, purchase patterns and such, all applying statistical models on free will and hence future selection.

Furthermore we still don’t *know* what causes wave-function collapse or if it collapses at all. This would have an implication for free will. And how does free will play out in terms of the delayed choice experiment?

“But the point is our actions still determine which of the infinite number of possible futures is the one that gets played out”- what about the multiverse/Everetterian view? If *all* possible futures play out, free will is an illusion- defunct.

Say you chose- using free will- to look into Schrödinger’s cat box. In one branch of the multiverse the cat is alive, in another cat is dead. Free will has no consequence to the future, chaotic or not .

Furthermore, in one branch of the multiverse you opened the box and in another you did not. There was no “choice” (or rather just an illusion of choice) in the first place for you to “impose” your will upon. All this however is based on the notion the multiverse exists (or not) of course

Personally I think free will may us to break from our selfish Darwinian or deterministic programming. Altruism, compassion, love and generosity – these are probably actions of “true” free will.

I think this could help figuring out all the random results , instead of running in circles.

my best
” amazing article “