Andrew Briggs - 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?

- 7 DAYS LEFT. Limited time only. Taking orders from Nov 15 - Dec 5 2021.



Andrew Briggs is Professor of Nanomaterials at the University of Oxford.


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.

[Pdotta]

So many people he talks to seem like dispassionate scientists but quickly veer into what they’d “like” was truth.

[SRAVALM]

I just experienced and finished the Bhagavad Gita today for the first time -- thoroughly loved it and love Krishna.
If you're Spiritual, you are blessed. Continue seeking, focus within, properly utilize Intellect and apply Reason in all you do, think, speak.
Never allow men not going in the same direction as you, to sway you, influence you, making you vacilate. Continue on, like the guru's, mystics, sages, high preists, adepts, philosophers, theologians had in past times.
Going within in the Heart is greater that going out.
Sxience is great for physicality and out physical benefits; metaphysics and philosophy is for our Spiritual selves or ethereal forms -- cherish thy self always.

[JohnCamaradominion]

"A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
— Arthur Schopenhauer

[StallionFernando]

Wether we have free will or not we most certainly feel like we do, we live like we do and certainly treat each other as if we did.

[GP-qbhi]

Just make a random choice, boom you have free will!

[wayneasiam]

When the first atoms were "created" by virtue of certain conditions, under those same conditions could there have been any other result? What forced this initial result? ( and aren't these videos great? I feel bound to say Yes!).

[kallianpublico]

You cannot change the text. The structure is determined. Only the context remains free, the function can change. The drum 🥁 can make different sounds, follow a different beat. It remains a drum 🥁.

[MendTheWorld]

3:47 That was funny! 😆 Quantum randomness doesn’t get us off the hook for having responsibility for our choices. Otherwise it could replace “temporary insanity” as a legal defense for any heinous act. 👺

[MendTheWorld]

5:59 Hmmm. I don’t have a satisfactory account THAT God responds when he prays, but he seems to think so.
And as far as _both_ prayer AND quantum theory being “robust”, I’d be curious how he defines “robust”. 🤔

[JohnCamaradominion]

"Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them."
— Sam Harris

[realjackpile]

Responsibility? Bah humbug. This guy needs to learn to party 🎉

[jamesruscheinski]

How does determinism move through time? Could there be determinism without time, and if so, why the feeling of time?

[brianmorin]

Now that I've watched EVERY episode, I'm obliged to Robert to make my first comment. While thinking deeply about these issues almost seems tortuous and circular, I'd say Robert has done yeoman's work to sharpen the debate down to two competing ideas -> (1) an anthropic idea that suggests life was purposed by a self existing god or substance or (2) an infinite possibilities Copernican idea that says we are here because we are inevitable, not because life is special.

The first relaxes my shoulders and makes sense of consciousness, the fermi paradox, the lottery wins for each great filter, love, and the flight of a bird. The second forces me to reckon existence as an emergent property of endless possibilities. While I still feel this position is haunted by a meta law on causality, I accept it is a rational explanation for being

Before I share my conclusion, I should admit my bias. I want to believe in a creator and believe existence was purposed. While plagued by the awareness of my own bias, if I were to place my bet, I would bet it on our existence as proof of a self-existing entity - whether fine tuned or the clockwork of infinite possibilities to produce something deterministically emergent.

But once I adopt what feels like the more rational idea of a creator and causality and purpose, I have to come to grips with difficult ramifications of such a conclusion. How rational is a flawed world and existence in this view? How rational is the idea of a supreme intelligence that is unknowable unless we are a lab rat or the gum under the shoe for a different subject? How rational is it to go to the trouble of creating a Petri dish for life that only exists for a flash then gone for eternity to a random comet or eventual big freeze? If I'm forced to believe natural selection was purposed, what does that say about its creator? It is the most sadistic mechanism conceivable that requires endless death and suffering as a worthy exchange for progress.

Once I face the ramifications of my bet, I shift my weight back to a more Copernican stance, put my money back in my pocket and explore other ideas where I know one at least one is true. But I am still not any closer to truth.

[alanw]

You are free to make choices within a limited field of options.

[perfectionbox]

I think there is a metaphysics, and its rules provide for free will, but being metaphysical they are inherently beyond analysis. And that is likely necessary: if we could figure out how free will works, then it wouldn't be that. No physical description can work.

[evaadam]

Both Free Will and Awareness exist as ONE ENTITY . One can not exist without the other. If you have no Awareness, then your WILL to choose can not exist because you are not even aware what choices to pick... and if your WILL does not exist, then the will to focus and be aware can not also exist.  This is OBSERVABLE REALITY through your own personal experience.

Many misguided science people think that "Awareness with Free Will" is an illusion simply because it can not be identified by any means - a common error that science makes being bound  by Infalsifiability PrincipleI that rhey imposed on themselves. Just because "Awareness with Free Will" is invisible as a non-physical  Supernatural Entity, not part of this natural world, does not mean it does not exist.

...and the proof that Awareness is not natural but supernatural, not part of the physical world, is because it is free to make choices on its own,   even free to believe in the Holy Spirit that has nothing to do with Physics.

As science understands, in the Physical World governed by natural laws, FREEDOM can not exists which means physical matter are not free to make choices on its own because it is the physical laws that controls.... but our Awareness is free and can make choices on its own, proving that it is not part of this physical world. I believe that our Awareness is our immortal soul that did not come from this Universe but originated from the Supernatural Aware SOURCE or God.

I will repeat to be clear, both Awareness and the WILL exist together as ONE ENTITY that I believe is our free immortal aware soul. It is free because it is not part of physical matter that, unfortunately, many godless ones define their whole being to be because they  were corrupted by wannabe geniuses with this Infalsifiability Principle that limits science to material inquiry... When knowledge is being limited, ugly things can happen that may cause one to fall over the cliff. So, be very careful of what you swallow coming from these wannabe science geniuses....

[guywhoisnotbob]

If I relate my personhood to the broader system in which my POV exists rather than the POV itself then free will seems possible.

[jamesruscheinski]

Might choice in brain emerge from free will in neurons?

[jonnanderson]

I'm still searching for a consistent definition for "Free".

[DrZedDrZedDrZed]

There are freedoms within constraints.