Seth Lloyd - Physics of Free Will

Free will has traditionally been a problem in philosophy. Recently, the battleground of free will has shifted to neuroscience. Now some claim that to solve the problem of free will, we must go far deeper, to the fundamentals of physics, down to subatomic forces and particles. But don't free will and physics operate at vastly different levels or size scales?



Seth Lloyd is a professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He refers to himself as a "quantum mechanic".


Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[YoungGandalf]

I didn't want to watch this video or leave this comment, but the universe is deterministic and I had no choice.

[MichaelSchuerig]

Curiously, the principal example from the interview at 3:35, Will I get a proper coffee or a decaf?, appears to move the goal-post from free will to the ability to predict and understand ones own choices. These are completely different things. When you're flabbergasted by every choice you make, it does not imply free will.

The invocation of Gödel's incompleteness theorem is really just obfuscation. That theorem is not about self-referential questions, it's about incompleteness and it involves self-reference in its proof. Also, the theorem is about the general case, i.e., there exist questions that can't be answered in specific formal systems, but that doesn't preclude at all that there are lots and lots of questions that can be answered, including self-referential ones.

The attempt to base free will on incompleteness or undecidability of a formal system seems to me to go astray in the same way as older attempts to use randomness. If you start with a folksy notion of free will, like "I did it, because I intended to and I could have done otherwise", then this randomness (physical or formal) is hardly enough.

[quantumkath]

Seth Lloyd reaches the pinnacle with the nature of thought. The nature of computation: yet another fascinating subject for my "self" to reference!!!

[mintakan]

Reminds me of Wolfram's "computational irreducibility". Also, learned something new today. The relationship between Godel's incompleteness theorem, and "self referencing" information system. (Still don't understand Godel's theorem. But it's a link to another association to consider.)

[mattsigl]

Problem is, even if a program can’t predict in advance what it will do in the future, it’s still necessarily the case that, once done, the program can understand it’s past operations entirely deterministically whereas true free will implies that even my past actions have no ultimate deterministic explanation.

[markking]

And there is Heisenberg‘s uncertainty principle. If we accept that it is not possible to know both the spin and position of an electron, then the world (at least from our perspective) is not deterministic.

[francesco]

computation is an imitation of work as much as a paint is an imitation of someone face. Is not the same thing.

[gascid]

Caffeinated at 4pm? This guy is off the chain!!

[bobtarmac]

HAPPY 500K!!! It was determined to happen.

[mrgadget]

Referencing Gödel's incompleteness theorem in this context is ridiculous! Your choice about the type of coffee has nothing to do with it, and neither has any other similar question. As a theoretical physicist, I can't stand these kinds of explanations because they don't explain the question in hand any better, than Newton's mechanics explains quantum phenomena.

[commandvideo]

This didn't answer the question of what is free will and whether we have it or not !

[williamburts]

The atoms or molecules don't determine the character flaws of your personality if they did we could rehabilitate every criminal just by changing his or her chemical disposition but the truth is we can only improve ourselves when we desire to want to improve ourselves and that requires use of our will, and since that is something voluntarily done we have free will.

[chrispercival]

I wonder is it possible to create new information in a deterministic universe?

[stephenlawrence]

We don't experience free will. We experience just what Seth Lloyd says. But we all know free will is about how we can select the options we don't select. How could we do otherwise. How could Seth have chosen the decaf in his example?
If the guest soeaker doesn't talk about that then he or she is not talking about free will. Usually they aren't and are just saying we go through a process we call making a decision.

[mothercrazy]

So, basically, if I understand: it is always easier to do things than predict them.

Why is prediction so hard, and how does the brain do it? Well normally brains process reactions and function as a center of learning how to adapt. So it is normally receptive mode-> commits results to memory for more success next time.

Humans, by being able to trigger memories and play out their results visually is a relatively minor but extraordinary tweak to that formula.

[Jaggerbush]

This conversation stresses me out. I guess I have no choice but to be stressed out by it.

[vfcs]

It is clear that based on determinism, the destiny of energy and information always gravitates to a state of increased entropy. So why is it that humans and all biological systems work to reduce the level of local entropy, both physical and informational? It would seem that something yet beyond our current understanding is driving this otherwise essential task. Is not free will based on the decisions we make in order to survive and procreate?

[robinwallace]

When you ask the computer about 5 minutes down the line, it's smart enough to know that it can't possibly predict what it's going to be doing, because a million things could happen to prevent that path, such as a power outage. But a person is dumb because they're only thinking about what they'd LIKE to do in 5 minutes. Sure the chances are they'll probably have coffee or whatever, but what if a friend stops by? Or maybe we don't get that coffee until 5 minutes and 3 seconds. A computer must be accurate and so it cannot answer. Try asking it what it MIGHT be doing 5 minutes from now ... Betcha' it says computing ... Only LaPlace's demon commuter could answer what it WILL be doing

[strauss]

Deterministic doesn't mean predictable. There's sufficient complexity in the brain for spontaneous action.

[InternalStatic]

He literally explained why free will, had to be deterministic..