Want to get Smarter, Faster™? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster
@moses777exodus
2 жыл бұрын
Cause and Effect: Belief in a strictly materialistic Darwinian Evolution leads one to believe, albeit falsely, that there is no Free Will. And if there is no Free Will, then there is no Right and Wrong and no Moral Law. However, this belief is completely contrary to everything that is practiced and observed in nature, humanity, and the cosmos regarding cause and effect. This line of reasoning is what led to the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc and is the hidden underlying ideology / worldview justifying and directing many countries' Social Darwinian based foreign and domestic policies to the present. The Social Darwinian Materialistic Ideology / Worldview (Survival of the Fittest among nations, i.e. the continuous lawless struggle for resource wealth and world rule without regard to human moral / ethical standards or International / U.S. Laws) is the Root Cause of modern era World Wars and Perpetual Wars.
@maconcamp472
4 ай бұрын
The Nobel prize rings “no bells”🔔 🕰️ 📚🔭🧩⚛️🧪🐼 Mercury Rising!!! 🌡️💕💕💕💕🤒 It’s getting hot in here!! 👙Global warming is the planet warming up to each other!! 🐨🐨 The Big Bang Theory!! Gravity is memory!!🐘 🐾 🥁 We’re each a particle, photon or star; cosmic surfing!!!🏄♂️ 🏄♀️ When this wave collapses seems to depend on us. The physics!! 👩🔬 We’re all fizzicists!! 🥤 Mount Shasta is the root!! ⛰️ Root beer!! 🍺 🐻 Big bear!!! Big bear chase me!!! The Great Outdoors!!🐾 🌲 🐾🌲🐾🌲🐾🌲 The 7 goddesses of the Pleiades!! 💎💎💎💎💎💎💎 After I personally tie the knot with them, we’ll create the figure 8 and become infinite!! Astronauts and cosmonauts!! Naughty!! 🪢 🧑🚀🎱😂 My Russian nesting dolls!! 🪺 My fine China!!! 🍽️ Each thought represents a bang❗️Higher vibrational thoughts 🐝🐝🐝 will create bigger bangs‼️ Pebbles And Bam Bam!! 🧊 🦕 🧊 🦖 🧊 🦣 🧊 Each grain of sand or pebble, a building block for planets or dark matter!! 🪨 Dark energy aka consciousness, creates the bang!! Supernovae!! 💥 Super Moons!! Flowery moons!! 🌹 Saturn a flowery moon!! Representing the 6th dimension!! More energy!!🪐 🛸 We control it!! 🧞 We’re stars!!✨ Hi, Hey, Hello!!🦜 The more G’s, the better!! They’ll reflect our minds, technology and more!! G strings!! 👙 👙👙👙 Our brains look like gum!! 🧠 Juicier the better!!!🍏🍋🟩🫐🍍🍎🍌🍈🥥🍐🍉🍒🥝🍊🍇🍑🍋🍓🥭 Love everything until it loves you back!! Mosquitos too!!🦟 ❤ Love cancer!! The Crab Nebula!! 🎇 Don’t be crabby!!🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀 Nothing transcends space and time more than love!! 💗 Love is a spaceship!! Taking us higher!!✈️ 🚀 🛸 The greatest attraction in the universe!! 🎪 Each of us and each galaxy would represent a cell!! 🦠 We’re stars putting ourselves back together again!! Like Humpty Dumpty!! 🥚 🐓 The sky is blue because we’re meant to imagine it as a diamond!! The auroras then create the rest of the spectrum!! 🌈 💎 A purple sky would reflect the heart of the ocean!! An opened mind!! 🤯 The earth purring more!! Purrrrrple rain!!☔️ 🐈⬛ 🧶 Each thought to me is a solar flare, which shifts us into parallel worlds!! It’s hard here!!! I’m a peaceful dude, yet my life here has been super difficult!!🥹 Alpha Centauri represents a shift in consciousness!! Dog planet!! We’re riding the alpha waves!! Woof woof!!🐶 🐾 This is our world peace and enlightenment for the world and universe!! All is one!!😇🥳🥰🤩 We’re each a mini universe!!🌌 The 3 Body Problem represents our gut brain, 🍱 heart,❤️ and mind!! 🧠 Connecting mind, body, soul, and spirit!! The Holy Spirit becomes whole!! A glory hole!!! 🔆 The moon is a black hole!! 🕳️ A neutrino!! The planet is a colonized moon!!😇🌍👽 The sun is a shapeshifter!! 🌞 Are you and I sculpting together as a team or as individuals??? 🧑🎨 Using the moon as a tool!!! 🪨 The Sun is the eye!!👁️ I love the tool/word grinder!!!😮 We’d be Bumping and Grinding!!😂 The Earth is like a refrigerator and the atmospheric pressure is melting or defrosting the stars above, as if they’ve been in the freezer!! 🥶 It would also reflect us krystalyzing and becoming diamonds in the sky!! 💎 💎💎 Lucy becomes Maisie!! 🐒 👽 We could be stars from above aka heaven, melting everything from above, as well! Like a River Running Through It!!! 🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊 Gravitational waves or our thoughts raining down on us through higher dimensions!!! 🌧️ Pass the doobie to the left hand side!!🇯🇲🍍 Unlocking a Secret Garden within and outside of us!!🤫 An Oasis!!!🏝️ 🏝️🏝️🏝️🏝️ Flowing!!! It helps a lot to flow!!!🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊 Letting go, so we can concentrate more and work on our project!! Heaven On Earth!!🌍 👼 Flowers!! 🌺 🌸 💐 and Flow-Ers!!🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊 I know energy is still impurrtant!! 😻 And of course imagination!!! Love!!!💗 🐶 🎾 🧶 🐈⬛ To create heaven On Earth, the galaxies collide!! 🌌 Twin flames connect!! 🔥 🔥 We’re creating quantum entanglement!! Ghost particles merging, becoming more like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man!!👻👻👻👻👻👻👻👻 The universe is still the Earth!!⭐️🌍⭐️ We’re seeing it from the insides!! 🕵️ Like we’re inside a volcano 🌋 or wishing well!! The stars and galaxies are like coins!!🪙 The Goonies vibes!! 💀 We’re treasure!! Antarctica is treasure island!! 🐧🇦🇶 Unlocking antimatter!! 🐜 Booby and booty traps exposed!! Planet X!! Hubba Hubba!!🥰 Everything and everyone has been our teacher!!👩🏫 3D is like the murky bottom of a bong or volcano!!🌋 The fourth dimension, representing Mars is like the stem of the bong or the volcanos vent!! 👽 Experiencing higher dimensions is like the smoke or magma reaching our mouths 😋 and then circulating through our bodies!! We are the Earth!!🌍 👼 The road less traveled!!!🧳 🌹 Straight up!! 🎈 🎈🎈🎈🎈We’d be super condensed or extremely packed neutron stars!! Like Rigel!! Blueberries!! Antioxidants!! Betelgeuse has evolved into a neutron star!! 🍊🫐 Our long winding road, exploring different dimensions, finally straightening out!! I’m getting Pee Wee vibes!! Large Marge sent me!!🚴😂 We’re vaporized, as if we’ve been smoked or roasted!! 💨 The smoke representing again those compressed neutron stars climbing the higher dimensions of the universe like a chimney!! I’m Mary Poppins, y’all !! ☂️ 🧞♀️ It would also represent us as a comet traveling through a wormhole!! 💫 Who me, I’m just a worm!!🐛 🫖 Solving a labyrinth!! 🦉 Solving amaze!!! 🦋 Different energies tell a different story!! 📚 We’re storytellers!! Artists!!🧑🎨 We’re energy first!! 🐝 A 12 inch boner is like receiving a foot of snow!!⛄️ 😂 When powered by neutrons and a magnetar energy field, one is like the energizer bunny!!🐰 They’ll keep going and going and going!! 🐇 🐇🐇🐇🐇 If you’re destined to have more than one twin flame, you’re like Frogger, playing leap frog!! Lucy is a sucker for Lillies!! 🐸 🍀 🐸 🍀 🐸🍀🐸🍀🐸 G Force!!!🥳👙🥳👙🥳👙🥳👙🥳 Dorothy’s Ruby red slippers!! ❤❤ Something here in 3D land has to change, yes, mmmmm! Dark Crystal Series!!😍 🧚🏼 We need to get this show rolling!! 🎥 We need our second moon!! Two moons!!! Two Mercurys!! Two black holes!!🕳️ 🕳️ They’ll need some color!! 🌈 Two blood moons!! 🩸 🩸 Two Ruby red slippers!!🥿 🥿 We have to die and become reborn!! Dye!! Dye those slippers red!!😮❤❤😂 Makes complete sense!! 🤯 There’s no place like home!! Home is where the heart is!! Jupiter and the 5th dimension!! 🐸 🍀 Clover Field!!👽 🛸 Time speeds up real fast once we’re there because seeing is definitely believing!! We get excited, hearts start pumping!! 💕 Minds start to open up!! 💜 Oxytocin pumping through our blood!! A love signature!! ✍️ Removing our writers block!! We’re storytellers!! 📚 The two blood moons also like draculas fangs!! Or the fangs of a snake and spider!! A kundalini experience!!!🐍💜 An anti venom!! 🐜 A love bite!! I’m nibbling your ear!! Ringing your ears like church bells!! A liberty bell! 🔔 Heightening your spidey senses!!!🕷️😳🩸🩸 My story just gets juicier!! 🍇 Sticky icky!! 🎄When is it juicy enough for you, I guess, is the question!! Strawberry Hill!! Cherry Blossoms!!🍒🍓We even got hills named after chocolate!!🍫 Purrthquakes instead of Earthquakes!! 😻 A Never Ending Story!! 🐺 ☁️ 🐌 ☁️ 📖 “Still in love! Still in love with that dream!! 🏔️ 🏔️ 🦌 “ Super Earth!! ⭐️ Superheroes!! ⭐️ Super pets!! ⭐️ Super foods!!⭐️ A place where everything is awesome!!🤩 A place where everyone is adorable!!🥰 I’m a sighentist!!🙄 A souldier!!😇 A Glad I Ate Hers!!😋🥧 And most of all a Roarier for the universe!!🦁 The Great Lakes represent the heart of the ocean coming together!! 🫀🌊 A huge manifestation!! 🐰 ⏰ 🍄 A microcosm of our oceans, which will someday become fresh!! 🔬 We’re sky people!! The planet our backyard!! An aquarium!! 🐠 An octopuses garden!!🪴 🐙 Dinosaurs have played the role of our bacteria!! 🦠 They’re back!!! 🦕 🦟 Hold on to your butts!!! Everything is getting supersized!!🧑🏿🍳🍟🍔🥤 When the Earth gets it two blood moons 🩸 🩸, it will represent us!!! Mostly centered around twin flames!!🥰🥰 Like we’re children of the universe!! We’ll be cells too and it will be like we’re watching each other grow and evolve!!🦥🐾🦥🐾 Our stars bursting here and there!! 💥 🎇 🎆 Juicy!!! Biggie!!! Our stars are like in a blender!!!🍇 🍎 🍌 🥝🍉 Dopamine!!🙀 My cosmic perspective!! 🐼 🧪 ⚛️
@brianmerritt5410
7 жыл бұрын
This editor got too experimental with the close-ups.
@AndrewJoshua11
3 жыл бұрын
It’s waayy funnier reading this comment first, then watching 👌😂
@minetime6881
3 жыл бұрын
Wow your really right like at 1:17 lol
@fayiz_shaffaq
3 жыл бұрын
Lmaooo
@nathanforrest3483
3 жыл бұрын
Same editor who did two girls one cup I bet.
@scottcomer2495
3 жыл бұрын
H was testing a scientific hypothesis. The great question of physics. "Is Michio as sexy close up as he is from afar?"
@ThemanlyTor
6 жыл бұрын
Well.. I wouldn't call the randomness in quantum mechanics, our free will, since we do not determine the outcome of the random process.
@pamelahirsch3342
5 жыл бұрын
EXCELLENT!
@lifewithAysha
5 жыл бұрын
Good one
@ballsach8864
5 жыл бұрын
Does that change the definition of free will though?
@JackLee7223
5 жыл бұрын
I find it staggering that this man who's supposed to be so brilliant has missed so fundamental and obvious a thing.
@avoidbeing
5 жыл бұрын
or perhaps this randomness is governed by the meta-subject of Subject and 'will'
@KaffeGaming
8 жыл бұрын
Why are they zooming in onto his face lol
@thejackanapes5866
8 жыл бұрын
Were they doing it randomly or was there a secret cosmic plan lol
@asdasd-uk9oj
8 жыл бұрын
lol
@SkyreeXScalabar
8 жыл бұрын
It was either predetermined or they did it out of their own free will
@rumpsugg
8 жыл бұрын
+SkyreeXScalabar lol
@nothingissacred5157
8 жыл бұрын
Because of a series of events that led their subconscious to making that decision a split second before they consciously decided to do it.
@anandraosalunkhe3477
3 жыл бұрын
i think i missed the part where he explains how physics ends the free will debate
@mr.e7541
3 жыл бұрын
Common sense ends the debate. If people really believed it then they would know that there would be no reason to debate it. it'll be like arguing with your toaster on why it shouldn't toast bread
@janhradecky3141
3 жыл бұрын
@@mr.e7541 Lmao, fun analogy. It's not very accurate though, because even if free will didn't exist, people could still be influenced by other people's opinions, whereas toasters couldn't.
@mr.e7541
3 жыл бұрын
@@janhradecky3141 but if you don't have free will then you don't have an opinion if you don't have an opinion then you don't have the ability to choose. And if you don't have the ability to choose you can't be wrong cuz not your choice. That's why this belief is most ridiculous beliefs to have in all the universe. It's the only belief we know cannot possibly be right. Because if it were right that would mean it's not your belief, you would just be following your programming. And likewise I cannot be wrong by believing in free will. Because if we can choose to believe we have free will that means you have free will. And if I don't have free will, I'm still not wrong, because I'm just following my programming. Your whole idea that opinions can be swayed at all it's predicated on the idea( or at least it seems that way to me) that Free Will exist. It seems to me that you might as well just believe in free will. If you can choose to believe in Free Will that means that it is your choice and that proves it free will exist. And if it doesn't exist well then you're still not wrong because it wasn't your choice to make in the first place you are predetermined to think that way.
@janhradecky3141
3 жыл бұрын
@@mr.e7541 Okay, so first you say that if you don't have free will, you don't have an opinion. I don't believe that's correct. Opinions don't require free will. If you don't have free will, you don't have the ability to choose - that I agree with. Then you conclude that if you don't have the ability to choose you can't be wrong because whatever you chose was not your choice. I also agree with this. I don't think anyone can actually hold a right or wrong opinion, as all opinions are fundamentally subjective. I believe that opinions can be swayed but again, I don't think it requires free will. I don't have to freely choose to persuade someone and they don't have to freely choose to be persuaded, it just happens. Choosing to believe in free will doesn't prove the existence of it. A person with no free will might believe in free will just like a person with free will might believe in free will. Now, if you could prove that you freely chose to believe in free will, that would obviously work and it would prove that free will exists. But you can't prove that you chose to believe in free will freely. We have no idea how we even make decisions, so trying to prove that we make free decisions is impossible right now.
@mr.e7541
3 жыл бұрын
@@janhradecky3141 I don't understand your logic. Do you think you can choose what you think or not?
@jaggedplanet
4 жыл бұрын
“The man of science is a poor philosopher” -Albert Einstein
@SirLangsalot
4 жыл бұрын
Metaphysics over science. Very interesting insight. Philosophy majors are the smartest people in the world.
@ticktockbam
4 жыл бұрын
Who wants to be a philosopher when you have science and facts on your side 🤔
@Timehotosunlena
4 жыл бұрын
thats for the good. we dont need made up meaningless mumbo jumbo.
@Views-qz8we
4 жыл бұрын
Omg yes thank you
@Views-qz8we
4 жыл бұрын
TickTock Bam you don’t have a clue boy
@eyedea81
5 жыл бұрын
I really hope I'm predetermined to get laid sometime soon:-/
@TheEternalOuroboros
4 жыл бұрын
If that is your meaning of life then you gotta do some philosophy lessons my friend!
@stillawakening4721
4 жыл бұрын
All signs point to yes.... And Big Jim will be the greatest lover you ever had 😂 Merry day after Christmas 🎅
@tristanmaxwell8403
4 жыл бұрын
The Manhunter that is the meaning of life, wake up
@TheEternalOuroboros
4 жыл бұрын
@@tristanmaxwell8403 Biologically, yes, in every other instance - Absolutely not.
@mrborat2493
4 жыл бұрын
@@TheEternalOuroboros what's the meaning of life, life makes no sense
@78g476
5 жыл бұрын
Kaku's argument: Premise 1: We are made of electrons Premise 2: There is uncertainty as to the position of an electron. Conclusion: Therefore, free will exists. Uhhhh, what? That is way too oversimplified. The question of freewill comes down to the nature of consciousness which no one really understands.
@justinmojica7112
5 жыл бұрын
Well conciousness i believe is like unto a signel to a remote control car or a gamepad controller to a video game sprite and sense no one can explain where it's coming from it should then be clear that it is not our own will/// sum religions even clam an all powerfull dirivitive of GOD or the creator of all that is couldn't override his own will over his father's which basacally points out that we have no free will if the laws of physics havn't already the only area one can dream of breaking actual laws of physics is in animated realms. Though unfortunately in reality we are all in a fixed suspension of natural laws we cannot choose not to eat,blink breath ect in fact it isn't our own choice that our heart beats or the universes planets move in the life sustaining manner they do,or whether or not any of us are drafted into wars though we have choice which gives the illusion of a free will but we're still in a fixed world to say that we had free will is like a video game sprite not only taking on a life of its own but being able to step out of its own game world into whatever reality or realm it chose with whatever laws of it's life set into place n then therefore not being subject to a person pressing it's buttons but being it's own button presser we as humans cannot attain such a reality though we can dream or we can pick up the signel of the dreams weaved into us it's our choice what to believe between them... but we all know the real answer.
@justinmojica7112
5 жыл бұрын
IE2 missing in there choose where to put em 4 any of this to...click
@Hemingslay
5 жыл бұрын
wow did both of you take a college philosophy course? so knowledgable, so profound
@esar1499
5 жыл бұрын
Free will comes down to consciousness its pretty obvious
@78g476
5 жыл бұрын
@@Jack-fx4jd why do you have Sam Seder's picture?
@adamoleoni2272
8 жыл бұрын
I do not want to be arrogant, but the fact that we do not know were the electron is does not exclude the possibility that it does follow some rule that we still have to discover.
@BladeEffect
8 жыл бұрын
+Adamo Leoni That may be true, but whatever that rule is, it does not fit in within the realm of classical physics. Physicist Roger Penrose thinks that the seemingly random collapse of quantum wave-functions is determined by non-computational information processing occurring down in the Planck scale. He bases this idea on Godels incompleteness theorems. However this still does not support determinism, because this mechanism, even though it can be described by mathematics, is uncomputable by nature.
@adamoleoni2272
8 жыл бұрын
Let us put it in a different way. If there is a rule, than there is no randomness. So, in the end, there is no free will. That was my objection to kaku's talk.
@BladeEffect
8 жыл бұрын
Adamo Leoni But if the "rule" is not computable or if its mathematically unpredictable (which is possible due to Godels theorems and Russells paradox) then how does this deny the possibility of freedom?
@adamoleoni2272
8 жыл бұрын
+Tadas Jakubauskas I like how you ask questions. :) Freedom means that you may have a choice. I may not know a rule, wich in turn makes it impossible for me to predict what will happen if I follow the rule, but, I cannot bend the rule. Do you understand my point? Even if The BASIC rule of cosmo is totally random, it only means that you would have to obey The results of this randomness every time, therefore having no choice. So, determinism may be wrong, but that does not give you free will. (Somethings may be confused, english is not my main language and this a hard topic)
@BladeEffect
8 жыл бұрын
Adamo Leoni So a "random rule" is still a rule and thus still deterministic. Okay, but what if mind is not determined by outside factors? What if the mind is self-determining? The mind could be a self collapsing wave-function, which is controlled by it's own quantum states. This would be consistent with self-awareness of consciousness. This self measurement would cause the superposition collapse and mind would determine it's own conscious states. There are some controversial theories which support this. Wouldn't that make the mind an autonomous system and thus free?
@sevdeawesome7861
6 жыл бұрын
One of the many flaws with this argument is that we don’t know if electrons positions are truly random, we just don’t know how an electrons location at any given time is determined so we call it random.
@andrettax6052
10 ай бұрын
Yea, there is also superdeterminism on top of all possibly. And even if those effects exists it might be because of the smallest length in the universe or something that we can't even reach or study.
@andrettax6052
9 ай бұрын
@@rouvenkoller Why though? Could you elaborate? I mean, randomness would be too messy or something to free will have any reasoning?
@ProfShibe
4 ай бұрын
I agree to an extent but all that does it say whether or not we can predict with 100% accuracy in the future all molecules behaviors. It’s just a question of can we predict how we behave or not
@skaterzero07
2 ай бұрын
Yea , no shit. Like of course we don’t fucking know…he said god knows in the beginning anyway… 🤦♂️
@DeepSpaceNinja
6 жыл бұрын
If you flip a coin to decide what to do, that's not free will. Randomness can never make free will.
@jd2151
5 жыл бұрын
Random is just a word people insert when they have reached the limits of calculation. Physics can explain and predict heads or tails
@shanestrickland5006
5 жыл бұрын
That's about as simple as it's going to get. But you are right.
@Elintasokas
5 жыл бұрын
@@jd2151 The question is whether we're talking about epistemic or ontological indeterminism. Epistemic simply means we lack the means to predict the outcome accurately because we lack knowledge; ontological means actually random, as in acausal. No matter what way quantum mechanics is twisted, it can't grant free will. It's simply impossible, utterly illogical.
@RAF71chingachgook
5 жыл бұрын
Dude, you're wrong. Jeez read a little. You've not digested the implications of the dbl slit experiment. Reality doesn't exist without agency. You don't collapse the probability wave without making a choice. It's hard for you to accept but NOTHING is real without free will.
@calebcuffe9438
5 жыл бұрын
chance doesn’t exist - EVERYTHING, is as.
@libelldrian173
4 жыл бұрын
There is a big difference between an electron having an uncertain position and us not being able to determine where it is.
@piyushchamoli1066
3 жыл бұрын
You're are made up of billions of electrons
@brianlai22
3 жыл бұрын
Definition of determine “ascertain or establish exactly by calculation.” You can’t determine where it is, if the position is uncertain.
@catpip_
3 жыл бұрын
@@brianlai22 *WE* can't determine where it is, but it is determined nevertheless by every single interaction that came before it
@sexyned99
3 жыл бұрын
@@brianlai22 I think his point is that just because we can't “ascertain or establish exactly by calculation” the future position of an electron NOW doesn't mean it's impossible to accurately predict the future position of an electron.
@memati7199
3 жыл бұрын
Guys , it is how we are designed to have limited cognition and perception that we can bot determine its location … you just can’t fool your biology and how you are created .
@godsrevolver9737
4 жыл бұрын
Since when does uncertainty create free will? That makes absolutely no sense.
@seipjere
4 жыл бұрын
If nothing is precisely determined and we have the ability to reflect and decide (all of us: from mice to men) then ... *viola.* (!!)
@seipjere
4 жыл бұрын
{ 2 Cᴇɴsᴏʀᴇᴅ *ᴿᵉᵖᵒˢᵗˢ* } @Philosophizer - If the universe is 50/50 random (✔️) and we NAVIGATE our individual PATHS FORWARD ( 💫 ) - you can argue over the precise nature of those 50/50s and interpret or misconstrue the nature and utility of consciousness likewise, but - fyi - the smart money (iyam - in the words of William James ‡ ) will inevitably *_choose_* *to believe in free will.* ... ‡ On account of our conscious awareness of and or personal experience with INFINITE POSSIBILITY ( ± regret ) i.e. ... if you could / should have acted / chosen / navigated differently yesterday - you realize nothing is exactly set today - you *_should_* (hopefully) direct your attention (100%) to navigating, learning and acting better and better from here on out. (Despite / *because of said randomness:* awareness of mistakes / possibilities - *roads not taken: * byproducts of randomness and complexity, we OUGHT to, if we're lucky ± / smart, have the scales of irresponsibility / predestination pulled from our eyes.) --------------------- { second reply from a since deleted thread } -------------------------------------------- Again, randomness introduces r̸̵̸e̸̵̸g̸̵̸r̸̵̸e̸̵̸t̸̵̸ ̸̵̸a̸̵̸n̸̵̸d̸̵̸ **infinite** possibility (always: in the moment) And (r̸̵̸e̸̵̸g̸̵̸r̸̵̸e̸̵̸t̸̵̸ ̸̵+) infinite possibility IDEALLY inspires the will to choose / act / navigate better and smarter in said here and now. Once it's confirmed the nature of the universe is not just fixed and Newtonian (✔️: 50/50 random - with possibilities only crystalizing from one moment to the next), and, since all intelligent life is basically custom built for this real-time decision making (neurotransmitters navigating this complexity in real-time) - it becomes an impossibly tedious exercise in wilful blindness (± hubris) to deny that free will - at the very least some modicum of autonomous choice + responsibility - is the nature of our lot : from moment to moment. On a math physics level you have to push ALL (infinite) unknown complexity into a theoretical 'multiverse' - basically Newtonian nimbyism denial (“not happening here” : denial of infinite complexity) - refusing to accept reality (quantum complexity) AT ITS SIMPLEST ... And - on a day-to-day outlook level?? Maybe be so fortunate with one's own personal lot (e.g. your average academic YouTubian??) to coast through life believing your path was entirely set.(Not equally dependent on a compounding motley mix of luck, decision / will, and some combination of ir/responsibility.)
@stangoodman4021
4 жыл бұрын
@@seipjere ... 'so fortunate that' ... ENTIRELY a topic for a *TOTALLY* different video ... But just for earnest bystanders thinking these threads are nothing but echo chambers for entitled a-holes ?? 💡 Hence the transformative power of gratitude and - dare I use the word - faith* ... 'learned optimism', etc. (i.e. ... most dudes on soap boxes fortunate enough to have been born on an 'auto-pilot' category of existence are probably a slim minority. While the importance of choosing ever more wisely becomes significantly more pressing as you go down the ranks of generational/ societal luck.) i.e. avoiding 'learned helplessness' curses (self-perpetuating, generational traps) - *come hell or high water* - ad infinitum.
@seipjere
4 жыл бұрын
@@stangoodman4021 👍🏻 : # *Seligman* and # Pay it forward.
@stangoodman4021
4 жыл бұрын
@@seipjere - Iyam, a lot of people have trouble because all things quantum sound so paradoxical and contradictory that they can't help but try to pigeonhole with MUCH SIMPLER - though broadly inaccurate - constructs. And speaking of which 🕶️ / fyi the response to @Noah dean has now been completely censored from view. (Same old.) ( usual troll army of KREMLIN ALLIED haters / USEFUL IDIOT F___ WITS - REPORTING EVERY SENSIBLE THING YOU POST **anywhere, ever.** )
@andykay8949
8 жыл бұрын
"No one can determine" does not mean "there is free will". Michio is making some faulty logic here.
@neo.616
8 жыл бұрын
click newest comments (there are 2)
@Mysteryskatin
8 жыл бұрын
And by your logic, he's not at fault.
@TonyMishima92
7 жыл бұрын
No. By his logic, he is still at fault. He was just predetermined to posses that fault.
@8mad0manc8
4 жыл бұрын
If we had a mathematical model that functions as a simulation of the universe and you plugged into it data from the universe at a particular time the model would predict the future states of the universe. The principle of uncertainty means when you observe one complimentary property you are uncertain of the other. So the data you put into the model from measurement would be inprecise. There would be perturbations in the data from what it actually is at any time you take your measurements. This imperfect data inserted into the model would return events that do not happen. Doesn't the principle of uncertainty simply mean then that man can never determine the future from the present because of the limitations it imposes on measurement. So Michio is correct that " No one can determine" However. Our current description of the quantum realm is probabalistic but that does not mean that in the future we will not be able to describe the behaviour of it in a deterministic nature. One quantum state my determine the next state and so on. So the universe may have a deterministic nature in the quantum realm it's just at the moment we do not currently have the insight, and a mathematical description to that insight. So Michio may be incorrect that the universe on a whole is non deterministic and if the universe is deterministic then he is incorrect to assert "there is free will".
@95atnoon60
4 жыл бұрын
8Mad 0 Manc8 Well put, friend 👊🏻
@eldaytripper2
8 жыл бұрын
Electrons are unpredictable, therefore we have free will. Cheers for clearing that up Michio. Michio has white hair, therefore I am Japanese.
@giuffre714
8 жыл бұрын
+eldaytripper2 You win!
@yanisbouzouane4999
8 жыл бұрын
+eldaytripper2 exactly what passed through my head
@yanisbouzouane4999
8 жыл бұрын
+eldaytripper2 And the weird thing is that there are 6430 like and bunch of people who are debating without considering this.
@brianmacker1288
8 жыл бұрын
+eldaytripper2 I'm actually a compatibilist who believes that free will is compatible with deterministic systems. I had to laugh at your comment because it is essentially correct in its analysis of how shallowly Michio is thinking here.
@yanisbouzouane4999
8 жыл бұрын
And by the way, even Einstein thought about it in this way ?
@jasmeetsingh6121
2 жыл бұрын
From uncertainty principal to free will, that was a giant leap of faith
@johannesdecorte434
2 жыл бұрын
It's utter nonsense. Uncertainity doesn't give you autonomy from natural law.
@johannesdecorte434
2 жыл бұрын
@@KrypticSpiderMan so in other words: the whole idea of free will makes zero sense. Check Sam Harris or Jerry Coyne.
@johannesdecorte434
2 жыл бұрын
@@KrypticSpiderMan free will is the most evil delusion on the planet. It legitimises hate, egotism, greed, revenge, retributive punishment and all those stupid religions. Without it mankind would get rid of 50% of it's problems.
@Freshiefunnies
2 жыл бұрын
Spider man why. P=NP=PH
@agentchodybanks9120
2 жыл бұрын
@@KrypticSpiderMan that's compatibilism
@mrnevernice
11 жыл бұрын
"There's uncertainty" Yes, but not knowing the cause does not mean there is no cause. Things are seemingly random, but that does not mean they are random.
@777lucifero
7 жыл бұрын
infact randomness does not exist even in statistics. we emulate randomness through algorithms, but each and every generated value is in fact not random.. it is generated by the algorithm (and the same exact sequence of seemingly random numbers can be re-generated by running the algorithm from the same past point!). Things are random only from a perspective that is unable to control/view/determine the outcomes, but that does not mean that the outcomes are purely and inherently random. You have a random chance of rolling 4 or 5 on a dice, but that ''random'' is not purely random. it's ''random'' only from your perspective
@brain0nfire
6 жыл бұрын
Simo To be honest, I'd say that "randomness" only exists in statistics, exactly because it is an abstraction like the whole field of mathematics. I'm not questioning if mathematics is based on material entities or not, which it obviously is, but those figures are abstracted and then codified, just like the concept of "randomness" for practical reasons. In the material world there is good chance that everything works following a pattern, but even the conflicting patterns may ensue unexpected chaotic events from our perspective. It really matters what you take into account when you analyze if "randomness" actually governs anything. For example if the universe is like a pulsar that inflates and deflates and creates a new one with new rules, you may call those rules random or not, but if you take into account that the previous universe might have influenced the next one maybe it's not so random even if there is no specific pattern. But what if there is no pulsar and no existing pattern? Or what if no pulsar repeats itself ever, even if it's a follow up of the previous one? You may argue that that is the pattern in itself, but at the same time it is "random", since you can't say how it will play out without checking how it did. It's a pattern of "randomness". So randomness is better seen, in my opinion, as a qualifier depending if your describing the universe from an abstract sense alone or from a materialistic sense through abstractions (symbols, rules, syntax) but if you are meshing both then you might as well use it as a gradient. No doubt this question is only relevant because we are observing things and we don't always find the underlying pattern, but that is exactly the problem, if there is a lack of information to ascertain the nature of events then we might as well look at the thing as "random" until more conclusive data gives rise to a logical set of chain reactions. Because you always need to confirm the nature of any event to prove it's not random, saying it's not is a leap that is not reasonable and always requires constant engagement to prove it (even if you are correct). We also can't yet disregard the human perspective, at least until we figure out how much it would play a role on the universe if didn't exist (or beings didn't exist), because it might be as fundamental as anything else to how the universe plays out. We can't still be sure if there would be a universe without an observer to experience it.
@brain0nfire
6 жыл бұрын
Btw it's also funny to say "there is uncertainty" while claiming certainty of uncertainty. LOL Not saying it's not possible though, but it is funny.
@alekseyfoorkalo665
6 жыл бұрын
Sem Nome Your final CLASSIC question about the universe without the observer is actually very versatile. Best minds of human tried to answer that. I can only say it from my point of view, your free to think of it as you please. Universe IS the observer, the great seal, the observer IS NOT always the universe, when one observer dies, another one is born, one that observes IN ANOTHER WAY. The great observer, the Seal is the creator, he, who has no choice but to choose, just like us humans: we can only OBSERVE the choice or its absence (as we find stuff in the past to be- the rigid choices, not to be changed) Chances are, that upon death of this body, your observer is reborn and starts perceiving world closer to the Seal, "I-it", as we can name it, should work in this way. Do NOT confuse my last statements with the attempt to prove the choice and it's abscensce are the same.
@isodoubIet
6 жыл бұрын
"Yes, but not knowing the cause does not mean there is no cause." It does in quantum mechanics.
@DavidRandallCurtis
8 жыл бұрын
I was destined to make this comment.
@hewhoisknownastaco
8 жыл бұрын
+David Randall Curtis Have you seen the Cracked video about free will where Swaim makes that joke? I won't ruin it by trying to explain and repeat it, but it's pretty dang funny and if you haven't seen it, you will probably appreciate it. Or you won't. What ever you are destined to do... I tried
@shazalakazoo7957
8 жыл бұрын
+hewhoisknownastaco Are you certain of that?
@user-vw2jq3to5e
8 жыл бұрын
+David Randall Curtis I was destined to 'like' it.
@labbyshepherdpuppy5943
8 жыл бұрын
+David Randall Curtis because you decided to type it...
@jordanmocaer9161
8 жыл бұрын
+David Randall Curtis You're all right
@bencrispe2497
10 жыл бұрын
If Prof. Kaku is bringing quantum uncertainty as evidence for free will, then its not free will, it's uncertain, meaning that not even you know what you're going to do. However, I can see his (flawed) logic in his argument. When the idea that we have no free will was first proposed, it was determined that "If you can predict, with 100% accuracy, what someone else is going to do, then free will cannot exist." So then, Prof. Kaku comes along and says "You can never be 100% certain of what someone else is going to do, due to quantum uncertainty, therefore, free will must exist." I'm sure I don't need to point out the gaping hole in his logic to you all.
@leocarbaugh5074
2 жыл бұрын
So true. This made me laugh my ass off actually
@theshermantanker7043
Жыл бұрын
All that aside, the best models of human decision making are indeed probabilistic ones derived from Quantum Mechanics. While this isn't really free will just yet, one could argue that this uncertainty is genuine, and that prior events that influence this probability actually only makes the probability go up or down, but you can never determine what one's choice is in the true sense from prior events, only the probability, and not just because the brain is chaotic. That's probably what he means
@julian_ossuna
Жыл бұрын
Well, for us to really get to answer the "free will" problem, we would need to first crack what exactly is the "I" that gets "conscious" of things and "decides" upon them - a complete theory of consciousness. Additionally, we would need an absolute understanding of what "time" really is, since causal events only make sense under the domain of (are subjected to) the flow of time. As of right now, we have no idea of the answers to these two other problems.
@stipostipo2051
11 ай бұрын
You don't understand: This means that it is not possible to predict the consequences or determine the assumptions of all the phenomena around us and in us. And if you can't, it means that even determinism has its limits - not only our freedom and will, but our knowledge as such. However, the concept of freedom and the resulting free will has many practical advantages, not only in individual but also in social and political life. It is not a reality in itself but a vector in this reality. It would be a great pity for humanity if this concept and belief in it were taken away by "infallible scientists" like you..
@aaronsinspirationdaily4896
9 ай бұрын
@@julian_ossunayes, I am of a very similar opinion to you. I don’t think we can arrive at a consensus on the question as we haven’t clearly defined it and the aspects it is dependent upon. And, as you point out, we don’t have a clear definition of some of those possible aspects.
@Constantinesis
4 жыл бұрын
Some people actually interpret the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as a proof of determinism: Every possible decision and event from the past present and future is happening at once and something like Entropy or Time pushes us forward through one of them. We cannot really control it. We don`t actually create our thoughts, we just experience them. Every thought you have is based on previous experiences. Its algorithmic.
@mrjonjoe1895
Жыл бұрын
he ramifications of the uncertainty principle. For Determinism to be real, every single atom needs to be accounted for to be predictable and we know that's not possible because protons literally do not behave predictably and we proven this 80 years ago. In a origin story where atoms behave differently we have an entirely different universes every single time we run the clock back. The tiniest of variance means worlds of difference on a 5 billion clock, literally.
@ooggabooga9348
Жыл бұрын
Free will exists or not cannot be determined without understanding what consciousness is and how it works. Is consciousness a function of interaction of different particles which makes atoms molecules cells and neurons or is there some sort of wave function attached to it. From what I understand interaction of particles are deterministic but wave function like that of photon or electron are probabilistic
@gm2407
Жыл бұрын
@@ooggabooga9348Conciousnes is an abstract experience of a physical thing (cognative apparatus) via an electrical system. Once the circuit breaks down the pattern disipates as the power source leaches out elsewhere akin to a battery going flat. Residual signature does not indicate constant connection to source of the signature. So there is no reason to assume that a mind has apparatus seperate to that carried in the vessel. (Excluding artificial connections used in medicine to bridge connection between severed nerves).
@stanleyklein524
Жыл бұрын
Some (actually many) people are wrong. Opinions are a lot like assholes -- usually full of shit.
@benb6527
9 ай бұрын
How could it be any other way really? Brains are a function of mechanical processes. And anyway, even if quantum mechanics is non-deterministic, that does not mean are lives are not predominantly guided by determinism, with a dusting of "free will" here and there.
@theoc2978
8 жыл бұрын
randomness doesn't prove free will...
@giuffre714
8 жыл бұрын
+Theo C It would be impossible to prove randomness.
@theoc2978
8 жыл бұрын
+Joe Giuffre So what about the Uncertainty Principle? If A: this is indeed pure randomness, then it still doesn't prove free will or if B: this is actually some mechanic (=determinism) we don't understand yet, it actually disproves free will conclusion: quantum physics and randomness aren't that relevant in this discussion...
@giuffre714
8 жыл бұрын
Theo C Great point.
@michaelgorby
8 жыл бұрын
+Theo C Bravo!
@theoc2978
8 жыл бұрын
***** No, I'm afraid that's a fallacy... The fact that uncertainty principle is correct and determinism doesn't seem to work on a quantum level, does not mean that it therefore doesn't work on all other levels. In fact, determinism is still a valid thing on all other levels. Randomness doesn't really disprove determinism as a whole, but it certainly showed that determinism isn't always correct.
@soulpunk1040
6 жыл бұрын
Wow, another brilliant physicist proving his philosophical incompetence. Very unenlightening.
@GarthMurray1
6 жыл бұрын
That means I'm older than I look.
@billcipher2893
4 жыл бұрын
excellent!
@danilomartinsrochamartinsr8435
4 жыл бұрын
Underrated comment
@henry-sh1zj
4 жыл бұрын
💫
@kmoney7244
3 жыл бұрын
“so what does that mean for free will? it means in some sense we do have some kind of free will- no one can determine your future events givens your past history; theres always the wildcard, theres always the possibility of uncertainty in whatever we do” i looked for this quote for three years after i heard it in a song and regardless of if it was by will or preordained im glad i found it
@JesseTate
2 жыл бұрын
hahah nice what song?
@CalmPug-ez4zx
8 ай бұрын
Free will is a contradiction in terms just like united nations - j krishnamurti ( either there is will or u r free ) Best book in the world - upanishads(mother of non dualism) ( for motivation to read this , please look at what some famous people around the world said on upanishads)
@WeaselLevelDesign
10 жыл бұрын
Free will or not - whether I'm a passenger on this ride or the driver - all I care about is that I enjoy it :)
@coreyavanthay4040
10 жыл бұрын
Please do us the favor of staying off the roads... you seem like a hazard.
@WeaselLevelDesign
10 жыл бұрын
I don't drive at all really (public transport's good and cheaper than driving). And wait, what's wrong with enjoying the drive whether I'm driver or passenger? o_o
@coreyavanthay4040
10 жыл бұрын
I live in Winnipeg... its safer to play Russian roulette with 8 bullets.
@Immortalcheese
10 жыл бұрын
This is actually one of the best comments I've ever heard regarding Free Will
@EvilZeroSc
10 жыл бұрын
You enjoying it is also an illusion, everything is....the only thing that's real..is being...and that state of God/yourself never changes. Einstein was right....
@CRoyceTV
6 жыл бұрын
The uncertainty comes in because even if all previous relevant actors are known, you still would not be able to predict with 100% accuracy a person's decision.
@CalmPug-ez4zx
8 ай бұрын
Free will is a contradiction in terms just like united nations - j krishnamurti ( either there is will or u r free ) Best book in the world - upanishads(mother of non dualism) ( for motivation to read this , please look at what some famous people around the world said on upanishads)
@jlc012
9 жыл бұрын
Its scientists like Kaku that lend credence to some absurd beliefs, on the one hand he is a very smart accomplished scientist, and on the other he makes the bold claim that uncertainty means free will which is nonsense and the perfect recipe for absurd assumptions by stupid people who will gladly quote him to back up their bullshit.
@andsalomoni
6 жыл бұрын
Uncertainty in itself doesn't mean free will and doesn't "prove" free will, it only wipes out determinism (which is incompatible with free will), and allows the POSSIBILITY of free will.
@monstag616
3 жыл бұрын
I agree with you.
@joshchang8538
2 жыл бұрын
I agree. While proof of free will would indicate randomness, the same cannot be said in reverse, much like "a square is a rectangle."
@lawman3966
Жыл бұрын
I don't think that he made the point that the uncertainty principle (UP) defeats determinism. The UP may simply mean that, with information currently at our disposal, we can't calculate/determine what you'll have for dinner 10 years from now. However, not knowing that info doesn't mean that the future dinner menu is changeable at this point. The future menu could be fixed/unchangeable but still not be knowable in advance.
@jarmo_kiiski
6 жыл бұрын
Even if quantum mechanical effects are significant enough to affect how the electrochemistry of the brain works, that doesnt't equal free will.
@HelloWorld-dq5pn
4 жыл бұрын
quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, you can know probabilities, but never its exact position, velocity etc
@kayakMike1000
4 жыл бұрын
Its the determinism argument that could be an intrinsic part of reality. If we were to know the starting position and velocities of all particles in the universe, any future state could be determined by mechanical law. This makes free will a moot point because you are just a large collection of particles. Quantum mechanics suggests this is not how the universe actually works at least on tiny scales that are relevant to electrochemical reactions. You are correct though, I suspect that free will is not as common as we think. We can't really choose what we believe or what we are interested in consciously. I might say we have the possibility of extremely limited free will at best.
@StarryStarryNocturne
3 жыл бұрын
@@kayakMike1000 We most certainly can. World's full of ex-vegans, ex-meat-eaters, ex-christians/muslims/jews etc .and ex-athiests, ex-technocentrics and ex-naturists and the list goes on and on and on. Likewise, you also are free to not choose anything to believe in or choose any interest and let life pass you by. There are Universities and menial-labor slots filled equally with such people all the time, every generation. There are also people that let others do the choosing for them, like relatives, friends or colleagues because they are either so overwhelmed by the very available option of choice or because they're too afraid to take initiative over their own lives. People are so commonly lost, fickle and indecisive in what they want and what they need that it leads entire groups of people, whole societies from one extreme to the next. It's in the history books. If anything mankind is the best evidence of free-will. Free-will gone mad. Everything else around us is perfect. From Nature, to the Cosmos. Everything is perfectly designed with balance and purpose. There's reason in life's design, there's sound logic to it. And if mankind were a part of such a predetermined well-reasoned, logically balanced, perfect design, we'd be just as perfect. We are not. In fact, until we uncover or discover other intelligent life that's just as bad as us or worse, we have got to be the most imperfect, illogical, most allergic(if not impervious)-to-reason, heavily flawed aspect of ALL life. We can't even agree on if personal opinions are equal or greater to the objective, Scientific facts of life ffs and we're almost half a century into the 2000s. Is it any wonder we constantly destroy ourselves?
@kayakMike1000
3 жыл бұрын
@@StarryStarryNocturne you're one of those terds that thinks you're such a damn good person, aren't you? Basically, here's the deal. You're just as guilty of whatever invented mess you think we are in. Here's the truth: Humans were at the mercy if nature for all of history except for maybe the richest nations over the last 50 years or so. We nearly figured out how to really make this planet awesome and share that with everyone, but dooshbags like you gotta run around being all like humans suck and were doomed.
@StarryStarryNocturne
3 жыл бұрын
@@kayakMike1000 What does nature have to do with human regression? Nature is logical. Human regression is not. And no I'm not as guilty. I'm not politically inclined one way or another. I have no strong beliefs tied to any religion, or any philosophy that claims to have as much merit on all things to do with life as science. And I feel no particular "pride" over being spawned by a particular race of people. I'm perfectly fine just being. I'm also unfortunately (being sane in an insane world) endowed with the ability to distinguish the difference between liking something or even loving it and something being objectively good or bad, to where I can criticize, take criticism and see the negatives and accept them in even the things I like or love. It seems to be a strange concept to most people here. I also understand that just because I believe something, it doesn't mean everyone else should or really any one else should, because I'm a fallible insignificant individual like all individuals and thus all "beliefs"I conjure up with my mind as far as things that are not empirical and objectively true are equally fallible and insignificant and should then hold no sway or influence on anyone else's life. And no this is not nihilism, because I do apply personal meaning to things and do have personal beliefs, but I don't interpret them as things that are inherently there that others should see and believe. And guess what? I think that's great. I wonder what humanity could be like if we could all just be and let be without the incessant need to feel like we're more than we are, as if what we are isn't special enough, rather than constantly trying to hypocritically and egotistically control each others direction as a society from one extreme to the next. Fighting over such insignificant things that the rest of the universe couldn't give less than two shits about and that will be long gone as not even a faint memory as soon as we are.
@Br0kenMask
6 жыл бұрын
the free will debate is not about fortelling the future, its about desicion making. And the last argument has nothing to do with determenism, he said it to sidetrack and so that people agree with him.
@ivefa2872
4 жыл бұрын
Fellow Opeth fan!!!
@redpill0D
4 жыл бұрын
When you measure it's position, an electron's wave curve collapses and the electron takes ones definite position. What if all the individual positions the electron took and will take since the begining were all pre-determined? The point is, What is uncertain isn't necessarily non-determined.
@antoniobento2105
Жыл бұрын
In my opinion this proves that if you calculate the position of the Electron one time, even if you go back in time you will have no ability to predict it since the outcome could be different. That at least proves that you can't fully predict the outcome of the universe, since there there are several probable outcomes.
@S_--
Жыл бұрын
@@antoniobento2105Yes but several =/= billions Which is what the free will argument is trying to do. From one uncertainty that could be the result of our lack of knowledge it gives billions of people the freedom from all natural laws, which does not follow
@antoniobento2105
Жыл бұрын
@@S_-- Sorry. What are you trying to say?
@babybutchie
9 ай бұрын
Exactly.
@uneedtherapy42
5 жыл бұрын
when I am late for work I blame my electrons
@tudorandrei1998
3 жыл бұрын
And that s why i tend to say determinists are idiots
@ravenne8130
3 жыл бұрын
@@tudorandrei1998 ur free will doesn't allow to control covid butterfly effect ..Somebody some where eating bat or lab tested virus is causing our economy to shut. If free will is there .U can't agree to butterfly effect
@tudorandrei1998
3 жыл бұрын
@@ravenne8130 u can act accordingly to your preferences in this covid context..you may be limited by circumstances you may not be able to influence but intention is always different from putting into practice
@JDG-hq8gy
3 жыл бұрын
It came from the structure of your brain, you are your brain, but you couldn’t decide what the structure of your brain was so you have no free will. This is such an dumb argument
@tudorandrei1998
3 жыл бұрын
@@JDG-hq8gy you still have that concious part of it and instead of being smart and try to use it we prefer the lazy way and say that “oh yeah, it was already a booked decision”. So stupid
@kelbiekelbie909
8 жыл бұрын
So there the universe is partly determined and partly random. How does this get you free will?
@neo.616
8 жыл бұрын
click newest comments
@Zen_Math
8 жыл бұрын
That is a good point, I have the same idea, quantum mechanics doesn't support free will. But what it does is it disproves determinancy, and free will is not only the opposite of determinancey.
@AstralTraveler
7 жыл бұрын
Because the ACT of measurement determines the final outcome
@thrawn9115
6 жыл бұрын
Because it kinda breaks determinism.
@esentries
5 жыл бұрын
I'm two years late, but how does this get you determinism either? Schrodinger's Will (Not) lmao
@eruiluvatar945
10 жыл бұрын
Random quantum mechanics is not your _free will_; whatever it produces is not _your_ decision; it influences the decision. C'mon, Kaku, get yourself together!
@bencrispe2497
10 жыл бұрын
The illusion of free will is caused by our unique ability amongst animals to imagine alternate outcomes to a scenario. We can see how events might play out in several different ways, and therefore, we think that there is some kind of inner self that guides the flow of time towards one of those outcomes. This illusion is completely sealed by childhood conditioning of the parents and schoolteachers, who constantly tell their children to "make the right choices".
@177SCmaro
10 жыл бұрын
Free-will isn't an illusion. You _chose_ to write that comment, didn't you?
@bencrispe2497
10 жыл бұрын
177SCmaro No. I, as well as everyone else, was compelled to write what I did because of a deep rooted social instinct, which caused the urge to pass on knowledge in any form I can, since passing on knowledge from human to human greatly boosts survival chances.
@kendrickjahn1261
10 жыл бұрын
177SCmaro There is a regress if you pay attention. You said that "You chose to write that comment, didn't you?" Well, no, because what I am writing now is the product of a combination of my biology (brain chemistry), my upbringing, and a trail of a massive amount of experiences, many for which I cannot completely account. The subconscious is also a huge decider when the brain makes a decision. It's not some extra "self" or soul that pulls levers and hits buttons to make your brain active in a decision-making process. Or at least there is no evidence for that. Rather, what current technology shows in modern neuroscience is that the brain has already decided what one will do several seconds prior to one's awareness. The illusion comes in, justifiably so, because we must have a sense of "self" in order to survive. We cannot view ourselves as trapped in the laws of physics and biochemistry (like a machine). So if you want to argue that we do have free will, and go against the evidence of modern technology, you have a lot of work ahead of you. And to go against these people like Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, and many others, you would have to assume that you have knowledge of something in which they do not. That's a very bold way to go.
@robertwharvey
10 жыл бұрын
Kendrick Jahn The assertion that free will doesn't exist because the brain doesn't execute all of its operations simultaneously is just as large a stretch as Kaku's assertion that, because there are seemingly random events in the universe, free will must therefore exist.
@177SCmaro
10 жыл бұрын
Ben Crispe lol "deep rooted social instict" meaning what? "Nature" made you do it? Is that what you told your mother when she caught you with your hand in the cookie jar? "No mom, I had no choice but to steal a cookie, I was forced by instinct to because I saw dad do it, I'm just an non-conscious fleshbot. It's really his fault!"
@patrikjelinek8945
6 ай бұрын
So first of all, the reason we would put a murderer in jail is not to act out revenge, it's because we don't want people who have a high inclination towards antisocial behaviour to be around. That's it. So even if the murderer was in fact not "guilty", sending him to jail wouldn't be a problem. Then the major point Mr Kaku makes here is that there is a factor of randomness at play, therefore free will can exist. But I wouldn't say so. When something is random, you by definition can't control it, meaning randomness doesn't imply the existence of free will. There's no will in randomness. So both the deterministic argument and the randomness argument work against the existence of free will.
@calebjushua9252
5 ай бұрын
My argument: Premise 1: Electron's placement can't be determined because of its random behaviour. Premise 2: Random behaviour proves that uncertainty exists. Premise 3: Uncertainty proves that there are different possibilities and disproves the idea that all are predetermined into one possibility. Premise 4: A person's decision what to choose among different possibilities in life remains UNCERTAIN and not PREDETERMINED, unless he finally decides what it is. Premise 5: A person can freely choose among these different possibilities in life. THEREFORE, a person has free will and is not predetermined to a single possibility.
@paulbcote
6 жыл бұрын
There is one chain of events that brought me to this moment. The future forks in an infinite number of possible scenarios, which all (may as well) happen. My consciousness, for some reason, seems to be constrained to follow only one of these possibilities. Which scenario is followed by my consciousness can be determined by actions that I take or do not take. This is how I convince myself that planning and imagination matter.
@jayblackk2319
2 жыл бұрын
You've just explained how free will is Truth. By exercising your Will you can pick which reality happens in the future through the constant Now
@jayblackk2319
2 жыл бұрын
@Blia Yang Then why do you give YOURSELF a title or a name?
@jayblackk2319
2 жыл бұрын
@Blia Yang Ok, well we'll agree to disagree, because that's Your Truth
@-.._.-_...-_.._-..__..._.-.-.-
8 жыл бұрын
We don't know why some particles can APPEAR to be in several places at once. It's very possible that they aren't, that our observation of particles is faulty or we are missing a piece to the puzzle. The ancient Egyptians deducted that a new Sun was produced every day. (How else could it rise in the East again without first traveling West-to-East to reset?) Without a clue that the world is round, their logic makes perfect sense. The science of Quantum Physics is still young. The theories stating particles have more than one state is even younger. Let's not jump to conclusions on such a complex topic quite yet.
@suijurisel6669
5 жыл бұрын
Young ? Thats cute
@asharedo
5 жыл бұрын
Pharmacology is young, medicine is young, engineering is young, psychology is young, neuroscience is very young. Our understanding of these topics is not even 1% of what it will be in 1000 years from now. How long has medicine been around? How long has pharmacology been around? Yeah... a shitload longer than Quantum Physics and they're still basically hacking away with stone tools and mixing compounds together to create a pill with 50 side effects that helps a pathology reduce pain by 15% and calling it a success. So yeah.... the scientific method and our understanding of physics and the universe is VERY young.
@78shava
4 жыл бұрын
No man,that's what I thought too, but actually the unpredictability is an inherent part of the universe it seems.
@robertbones326
2 жыл бұрын
The first 40 seconds of this video is actually quite a good introduction to determinism. Some people don't even know what determinism is. Obviously Albert Einsrein isn't a complete authority on the truth, he's just an authority on physics and the theory of relativity; but to say Einstein beleived in hard determinism is definitively persuasive. He's considered to be the greatest genius of all time.
@bigice4301
2 жыл бұрын
The intro was the worst part actually. He said what we gonna eat 10 years from now is already fixed which is complete bull. We don't even know if we'll be alive tomorrow.
@tonylee1667
2 жыл бұрын
@@bigice4301 Yes but you also don't know everything in the world, if you did, then you would know if you would die tomorrow accoding to newtonian determinism
@tonylee1667
2 жыл бұрын
Einstein is definitely not an authority of quantum mechanics, he denied the theory until the moment he died
@Magic_Donut
2 жыл бұрын
@@bigice4301 just because youre incapable of predicting tomorrow doesnt mean it is impossible. Just means you have limits as a human being
@theshermantanker7043
Жыл бұрын
Did he really believe in hard determinism? Sounds more like he didn't really bother with it to me
@supercia1
3 жыл бұрын
Just because we can’t predict where the electron is right now does not mean we could not predict it in the future and just because we can’t quantify yet does not mean it’s chaos.
@3theghost
10 жыл бұрын
If you conclude that there is no free will, then you also must conclude that you did not come to that conclusion using deductive reasoning, you were just reacting to stimuli.
@ottoschutz4269
10 жыл бұрын
>> If you conclude that there is no free will, then you also must conclude that you did not come to that conclusion using deductive reasoning, you were just reacting to stimuli. Yes, and the brain did the deductive reasoning. You got one thing right.
@3theghost
10 жыл бұрын
Otto Schütz So we don't use our brains, we just "react" to our brains? Ok, I'm gonna use that one when I go on a killing spree. "It wasn't me your honor, it was my brain!". Gtfoh.
@ottoschutz4269
10 жыл бұрын
3theghost >> So we don't use our brains, we just "react" to our brains? You got that right too. We don't "use" our brains. Where do you think your thoughts come from? >> It wasn't me your honor, it was my brain! It won't help you, because you are identified with your brain. Your thoughts originate in your brain and it is your brain that will recognise that it is not good for you to run around and shoot people. How on earth do you think the decision making process works?
@3theghost
10 жыл бұрын
Otto Schütz Consciousness is independent of the brain. The brain is simply our sensory organ that attaches our spiritual awareness (consciousness) to our physical experience. Hence the term, mind over matter. In fact, matter doesn't even exist until we *consciously* observe it. "Reality is an illusion." ~Einstein
@kenny4849
10 жыл бұрын
The term "mind over matter" didn't come from that. You like making up stuff. "Consciousness is independent of the brain." You can lose consciousness when you fall asleep or are put under with drugs. It's directly related to the brain.
@Jopie65
6 жыл бұрын
"We do have free will because noone can determine your future events." How does that follow? That future events are unknown also means your own events are unknown. So you don't choose them yourself either.
@tjnewberry8165
4 жыл бұрын
Johan 't Hart we can’t predict your future because your past is infinitely complex. The decision you make based on your past predict your future. You lack free will because every thought and belief isn’t by choice, it’s happening to you. At least that’s what I believe. I have this belief because at some point my logical brain determined it as truth, it wasn’t my choice to believe it
@areulsois8411
4 жыл бұрын
@@tjnewberry8165 the definition of freewill is not "abstract from laws of the universe". if you force the physics observation perspective on the concept of existing as a person then you cannot have "thoughts&beliefs" and "I" seperate. its not "its happening to you" because you are not seperate from what determines your thoughts and beliefs inside the mind.
@RichAllen12
4 жыл бұрын
Johan 't Hart because it means your destiny IS NOT predetermined meaning the choices you make aka your free will is what determines it
@Popperite
4 жыл бұрын
"That future events are unknown also means your own events are unknown. So you don't choose them yourself either." That doesn't really follow either.
@Viking102938
4 жыл бұрын
@@RichAllen12 , that's like saying if I roll a die and it comes up a 2, I *chose* to roll a 2 by virtue of rolling the die. No I didn't, I just yeeted a piece of plastic across the room as part of the game, rofl
@usuariousuariousuario
4 жыл бұрын
This is a tremedously serious philosophical oversimplication as many have stated in the comments section. I'd recommend looking up Marcelo Gleiser's work. He's also a well-known and trusted Phd physicist AND a professor of Philosophy of Science. In addition, an insightful critical of String Theory, of which Michio Kaku is co-founder, based on the argument that scientists have also fell prey to the "monotheist desire" of finding a "Unifying Theory of Everything", despite gigantic evidences that disprove the "symmetries" these scientists have been religiously looking for.
@Alkis05
4 жыл бұрын
@Bruno Pereira A theory is not something you create of thin are. It reflects something truth about the universe. If certain fenomenons objectivelly follow diferent laws we will never find a unifying theory and this would be a goose chase.
@Alkis05
4 жыл бұрын
@Bruno Pereira What I said was because the OP seemed to argue that we just need to keep looking and eventually we will find it. But a unifying theory might just be like the idea of ether. They created a theory of light that worked very well but predicted that it would have a medium, ether. And they searched for it for a long time. When should we stop looking for it? That is a question hard to answer. Maybe if one day we have a definity theory of quantum gravity that doesn't relate in anyway with the other forces. Maybe that would be the thing that would kill the search for a unifying theory. Or maybe it would be a unified theory that doesn't resemble anything close to string theory and could actually be proven. But the case of string theory is much worse. We don't even know if it is testable. That is why to me it flerts with pseudo-science.
@koinkorillas1692
3 жыл бұрын
@@Alkis05 A professor explained it to me like this. Studying physics is like peeling an onion which has infinite layers. The theory of everything is that final layer we'll peel and find nothing underneath. But since it's an onion with infinite layers when do we peel the last one? When do we stop looking for a more unifying theory? In a word, never.
@Alkis05
3 жыл бұрын
@@koinkorillas1692 This analogy doesn't really works. The theory of everything, which is a big misnomer, because it is just a theory of all forces by a common set of related equations, is not an ultimate answer of physics. For all we know, dark energy and matter could obey completely unknown physics. The problem here is not when should we stop looking for something. The problem is to know when to start looking in the first place. If don't start looking for a tea pot orbiting Jupiter, we won't fall into the trap of never stop looking for it. The whole String theory project rests in the arbitrary assumption, wishful thinking, that super-symmetry exists. Some of the fundamental fields, namely strong force, electroweak and gravity, could be a completely unrelated phenomenons. So to come back to the analogy, even if the onion is not infinite, the final layer might be just a disparate set of fundamental fields. Like those onions that don't have a single core.
@Socrates526
3 жыл бұрын
Proving that determinism is false does not prove that free will exists. If my actions are completely random, how does that make me any more free than if my actions were determined?
@yasa741
8 жыл бұрын
Uncertainty refers to a state of knowledge or lack thereof. This is an epistemological term. We have to distinguish between epistemology and ontology. That we may be uncertain about the position of an electron doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't have a position. The question of its ontological status is up for debate, even if its epistemological status is clear: we can't be certain.
@shamashmindful
4 жыл бұрын
I'm disappointed by his conclusion. If everything is uncertain, how can there be free will?! It's all uncertain...
@anass3373
4 жыл бұрын
It is an illogical conclusion
@shamashmindful
4 жыл бұрын
@@anass3373 I agree. I thought he was smarter than that... It's basic logic.
@shamashmindful
4 жыл бұрын
@Joseph Dratvichthanks. But my understanding is that if the electrons behave randomly, then neurons fire randomly and so it's not really free will, it's random choices. And if it's not random then it's cause and effect and again, therefore there's no space for free will as such. The only way I can see there can be free will is if we define free will as a feeling rather than an actual choice free of unknown influences. But maybe I misunderstood so do correct me if I'm wrong. ,🙏🏽
@shamashmindful
4 жыл бұрын
If I toss a coin and heads means you go left, and tails means you go right...is that free will? Doesn't seem very free to me.....
@shamashmindful
4 жыл бұрын
I do think it's helpful to pretend we have free will for day to day activities...and also nice to remember that others don't have free will, especially when they seem to be doing very stupid things!
@josephdragan7734
4 жыл бұрын
What an amazing obfuscation of the question at hand! Yes there is uncertainness as Heisenberg made clear. However that only makes the idea of free will all the more unlikely, since no one has control over this quantum uncertainty.
@williammcallisteriii6517
3 жыл бұрын
No, he is stating that determinism is likely not the answer meaning there is a chance for free will. How can determinism be correct when particles are shown to be indeterministic
@josephdragan7734
3 жыл бұрын
@@williammcallisteriii6517 Your point is regarding determinism is well taken - it is freely conceded. But at 1:14 Dr. Kaku goes a step further saying that by debunking determinism it means "...that in some sense we do have some kind of free will.". Evoking the possibility of uncertainty has nothing to do with proving the existence of "a kind of free will". It just goes to prove that the universe is simply uncertain but not the result of anyone's "free will". Simply stated disproving determinism does not prove free will. And that is the core question.
@JamesJoyce12
2 жыл бұрын
@@josephdragan7734 Sigh.. you did not even to try to understand his argument: P1: if there is hard determinism then there is definitely no free will. P2: There is no hard determinism. C1: We can rule out the possibility of Free Will
@bl8sk8
4 жыл бұрын
If everything is determined, you are just a programmed machine. If nothing is determined and theres randomness, you are just a machine throwing dices. Or something along that line. - sam harris
@MatteoBiagiotti
3 жыл бұрын
If we could reset every atom and smaller particles of the universe in the exact same position of 5 minutes ago would every particle do what it did in the 5 minutes before the reset? If yes, i think it would mean that particles just move and do what physics predicts and we don't chose a single thing in life.
@lets_see_777
3 жыл бұрын
@@MatteoBiagiotti precisely yes, its all inputs to our brain throughout our life that produce a certain output which we believe we had the free will to make.
@DaylightDigital
11 жыл бұрын
Indeterminism (or fundamental uncertainty) clealry does not solve to problem of free will. I thought that Dr. Kaku would provide a deeper treatment of the subject than merely "determinism is false." I have to say I am quite let down. :-(
@chase_447
11 жыл бұрын
As was I. I think it is pretty clear, that even if quantum indeterminacies throw a bit of randomness into our thought processes, that obviously doesn't lead to the conclusion that now we have control over them. If anything, the idea of free will is even worse off than it was before.
@milesedgeworth132
10 жыл бұрын
It's a 2 minute video. Get a his book or read some thesis papers.
@DaylightDigital
10 жыл бұрын
If Dr. Kaku's position is that the reality of some fundamental indeterminism in Nature magically grants us free will, it seems that no amount of further exposition will make that statement true. Neither determinism nor indeterminism appear to allow an individual to serve as both the meaningful and ultimate origin of their actions in the way libertarian conceptions of free will require. Dr. Kaku's statements in the video suggest that he is unaware of this problem, because he presents indeterminism as "the solution" when it manifestly isn't. This is almost like defending the position that the unit circle and the unit square have equal areas. Writing a monographic tome on the subject―no matter how scholarly or voluminous―won't make it true. I do not think it is unreasonable to say this.
@themrchimpie
8 жыл бұрын
Heisenberg says 'relax, nothing is pre-determined'
@winecheese2185
8 жыл бұрын
Remember whom do you working for
@Mutantcy1992
8 жыл бұрын
+pinco palla Say my name
@FocusMrbjarke
8 жыл бұрын
+Mutantcy1992 Hiesenberg
@anthonyallen2677
8 жыл бұрын
you're goddamn right!
@Mutantcy1992
8 жыл бұрын
***** Hey, we're trying to have a Breaking Bad circlejerk over here, can you skedaddle?
@gilgamesh3328
3 жыл бұрын
Questions of free will aside, I have always believed that Einstein was fundamentally right and that 'God' indeed does not play dice. Perhaps the coming century will reveal that within the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics, there is in fact a deeper structure.
@ben_alfred
2 жыл бұрын
Just to clarify, Einstein was not actually referring to “God” as in an omnipotent creator - just the unknown.
@ethan2090
2 жыл бұрын
@@ben_alfred thats why he put it in quotations
@ben_alfred
2 жыл бұрын
@@ethan2090 never said he was the one needing clarification🤷♂️
@donotreadmyusername490
2 жыл бұрын
but does randomness even exist?
@ben_alfred
2 жыл бұрын
@@donotreadmyusername490 yes, that’s why our quantum equations only calculate probability.
@martinwood744
6 ай бұрын
There may be uncertainty. But it's still not free will if there's randomness. Either something made you do something, or nothing made you do something. Neither is free will. If it's free it's not will. If it's will it's not free. The term "Free Will" is oxymoronic. But, of course, it can be used at a macro level, to describe the situation where there is no obvious pressure on you to behave in a particular way.
@cinemarat1834
5 жыл бұрын
This video makes me believe even more that physicist should also learn philosophy, we know, that disproving determinism doesn't necessarily prove libertarian free will. Kaku obviously doesn't quite understand this concept.
@user-uu1nw1bl9j
5 жыл бұрын
I agree this guy kind of seemed to support libertarianism but you cannot generally make a connection between being a physicist and believing in libertarian free will.
@usuariousuariousuario
4 жыл бұрын
You may find my comment useful. This is a tremedously serious philosophical oversimplication as many have stated in the comments section. I'd recommend looking up Marcelo Gleiser's work. He's also a well-known and trusted Phd physicist AND a professor of Philosophy of Science. In addition, an insightful critical of String Theory, of which Michio Kaku is co-founder, based on the argument that scientists have also fell prey to the "monotheist desire" of finding a "Unifying Theory of Everything", despite gigantic evidences that disprove the "symmetries" these scientists have been religiously looking for.
@SirLangsalot
4 жыл бұрын
I agree. Amazing insight. Science has been fetishized in our culture, and is very good in certain aspects, but it is limited. Metaphysics not science, imo
@lalalander8257
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@temuujinable
4 жыл бұрын
U are idiot
@BeeJaySounds
9 жыл бұрын
His conclusion is logically flawed
@SRC-lo2nc
3 жыл бұрын
How so
@anso9217
3 жыл бұрын
How so?
@JDG-hq8gy
3 жыл бұрын
@@anso9217 Even if the universe itself doesn’t know where every electron is going to be placed in 100 hours, that doesn’t mean we have free will. We are born with brains that we had no choice in having, all our decisions come from the brain, the difference in minds comes from differences in the brain, we had no choice in the brain we were given, and since the brain we were given is what’s used to make all the decisions, free will can’t exist.
@talkgb
3 жыл бұрын
@@JDG-hq8gy the electron positioning in your brain itself can’t be pre-determined, which influences decision-making, so you can’t have a pre-determined decision, even if your brain itself is pre-determined.
@JDG-hq8gy
3 жыл бұрын
@@talkgb Why not? What is moving the electrons in your brain then, if not a pre-determined series of cause and effect?
@chase_447
11 жыл бұрын
Though I usually find myself agreeing with Michio Kaku, in this case he is sorely mistaken. Quantum Indeterminacy does not equate to free will. First of all, most quantum physicists agree that quantum indeterminacies don't have much of an effect at all on the macro level world--and even a neuron is extremely macro compared to electrons and the like. Second of all, even if it did, how is it that a bit of randomness in our thoughts caused by the uncertain location of electrons is supposed to give us free will? I really have a hard time seeing how throwing in a bit of randomness into our thought patterns means we have control over them now. If anything, this seems even worse for the idea for free will. Because now, not only are our thoughts mostly preordained by macro-level physics, but now they are also subject to random illogical quirks thanks to quantum indeterminacy. I too thought that maybe free will had some hope when I first heard about quantum indeterminacy, but once you actually flush out the idea, it actually just crushes the idea of free will even more.
@mega1chiken6dancr9
3 жыл бұрын
1) "don't have much of an effect" is not an argument. If it still has an effect, it still contributes in some way to the issue of free will 2) think about the millions of decisions made a day, billions of people, etc. there is a near 100% chance that atleast a few times these particles caused an individuall to actualize on a choice independent of any cause. if that happened, then free wlll exists.
@mega1chiken6dancr9
2 жыл бұрын
@@hamu_sando Eh, what i said was stupid but this isnt the best response. I contradicted myself by saying X is the cause of Y happening without a cause.
@user98344
5 ай бұрын
Particles moving randomly still doesn't prove free will. Random is still outside of what you want. You can't decide where an electron will go or what is going to do.
@kendrickjahn1261
10 жыл бұрын
I don't understand Michio's idea of free will. How does the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle affect or not affect free will? Even if there is uncertainty with regards to electron location, that still has nothing to do with current findings in neuroscience, which clearly shows that the brain is always seconds ahead of a person's awareness. For example, although a person thinks he is in control of his thoughts, and authors them into existence, fMRI scans show that the brain has actually already made a particular choice quite a few seconds before that person was even aware of the choice he made. It gives the illusion that he had a choice in choosing what he did, but an illusion it seems to remain. I just don't understand Michio's thoughts here. How can he apply the way electrons work to free will? They seem like two separate issues.
@terminator900000
10 жыл бұрын
Well even though I think Michio is wrong here; what he is trying to imply is that the universe is not deterministic. I think Michio is confusing nerve impulses with electron movement which is not the case. Truth be told, even if the choice was instant there would still be no freewill.
@kendrickjahn1261
10 жыл бұрын
saad musejee Yeah, I think he may be confusing "pre-determination" with determinism. There is a difference there.
@robertwharvey
10 жыл бұрын
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is merely a counter-example to the "universe as a clock" metaphor, and you only need one such counter-example. But I'll give you another: the Butterfly Effect (sensitive dependency on initial conditions, in which a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state) . It is the reason that we will never be able to predict weather events more than about 7 days in advance with any degree of accuracy.
@robertwharvey
10 жыл бұрын
Further, I don't think it follows that, just because brain scans show a decision being made before a person has conscious awareness of it, that this automatically invalidates the notion of free will. That sounds like a classic non-sequitur to me. The brain is a machine; like all machines, it takes time for it to perform its computations and come up with a final result which includes the person's full awareness of the result and the communication of that result to the outside world.
@kendrickjahn1261
10 жыл бұрын
Robert Harvey Okay, but first, have you read a lot of the evidence of current neuroscience and the concept of free will? What I briefly mentioned is just a piece of it, and it's much more complex than that. So my brief sentence on the matter doesn't automatically invalidate free will, but when you continue to read current evidence in the matter, there doesn't seem to be much room for free will, at least not the conception most people have, which is a libertarian free will. I'm convinced we don't have that sort of free will, if any. Daniel Dennet argues for compatibilism, which allows for some free will, but I think Sam Harris has a pretty decent rebuttal to that argument in his book, Free Will. I recommend it. It's an easy read, and he combines logical argument with science to back up his claims. He has a talk on youtube as well about it. It will definitely make you think. However, I will say that it's pretty striking that we are essentially behind in time regarding the decisions our brains are making. I don't know how anyone can cast that out as meaningless surrounding the concept of free will. I mean, if you don't know what your brain was going to do, or what it was going to think before the thought blossomed into existence, where is the free will? You cannot choose to think what you think.
@E-Man5805
2 жыл бұрын
Way I had it explained was the reason we can never be certain where an electron is is because we measure things by interacting with it, which moves it all over again. Like being completely blind and deaf and only being able to tell what things are by touching it. But once you touch it...you can't be certain it's existence wasn't altered BY you touching it since we literally have no other way to be aware of it. If I'm wrong or inaccurate, I'm always willing to learn more about it.
@sagnorm1863
2 жыл бұрын
Yes this is widely accepted. But you have to remember that this is according to science as we know it. And all scientist already know that our current theories are not "correct". They are approximations of a better theory.
@ktm125pete
6 жыл бұрын
Humans- “wow! Stop trying to prove I’m responsible for my own actions!”
@macrumpton
5 жыл бұрын
More like, please explain how free will is able to violate the laws of physics. Just because you feel something does not make it true.
@KamramBehzad
4 жыл бұрын
Don't worry mate. We know you are not responsible for your actions. So long as you extend the courtesy, meaning the universe is not responsible for consequences to your actions either.
@Desertphile
8 ай бұрын
Why the camera zoom up the nostrils? Meanwhile, it is the wave function that is probabilistic, not the quantum interactions: they are deterministic: Dr. Lawrence Krauss pointed this out only a few hundred times.
@that_artsy_boy675
4 жыл бұрын
Then Heisenberg came along and said: *n o n s e n s e*
@dislike__button
4 жыл бұрын
What he really said was *"Say my name"*
@haszmarcus9603
4 жыл бұрын
@@dislike__button what he really said was maga trump 2012. Never forget flying monkeys killed 9/11
@MrGeocidal
11 жыл бұрын
I still believe in determinism. We can't measure where that electron is, but it's definitely somewhere. We live in block time. Our world lines are fixed in place. No force can move them. We can't see our world lines because our senses are trapped in time. However, they are very easy to conceptualize. You just have to think four dimensionally. Then you realize our destiny is unchangeable.
@AoAunrealrob
11 жыл бұрын
The electron isn't actually anywhere. The particle-wave duality requires that it not be. A QM particle can pass through a classically insurmountable barrier, among other things. Determinism is false, but randomness does not allow free will anyway.
@MrGeocidal
11 жыл бұрын
AoAunrealrob Even if the electron isn't really anywhere, doesn't it's probability field have exacting parameters? Randomness doesn't allow free will? How does that work? Just because I'm a determinist that doesn't mean I don't believe in free will. We can make any choice we want. It's just that we were always going to make that choice.
@AoAunrealrob
11 жыл бұрын
No, the probability field extends to infinity. It's very localized in the sense that it's very likely to be found in a small area, but it's possible for it to interact with something extremely far away. (This doesn't violate causality because no information can be sent via random processes) Luke Beauchamp
@dr.strangelav4579
4 жыл бұрын
Dark 3 got released today and got this old vid in suggestion
@Apurbo_
4 жыл бұрын
Did you like season 3?
@ThatFlower12
4 жыл бұрын
this is why i am here
@felicien93
2 жыл бұрын
Neither determinism nor randomness, nor any combination of the two, justifies the feeling that most people have that goes by the name of ‘free will
@TheGoobsters
7 жыл бұрын
Lol I took an INTRO to philosophy course in which we read a succinct two page paper on why randomness grants absolutely no support to free will. In fact it drifts it further from possibility. How does randomness/uncertainty imply you have any control over the situation? It doesn't!
@mrjonjoe1895
Жыл бұрын
For Determinism to be real, every single atom needs to be accounted for to be predictable and we know that's not possible because protons literally do not behave predictably and we proven this 80 years ago. In a origin story where atoms behave differently we have an entirely different universes every single time we run the clock back. The tiniest of variance means worlds of difference on a 5 billion clock, literally. The psychist here is talking simply for a dumb audience to understand, so even kids understand but it seems he didn't predict how much hubris wanna be intellectuals have.
@mrjonjoe1895
Жыл бұрын
You're way in over your head, lmao yes you know more about the universe's data than a tenure world leading psychist. Holy cope lol
@thatlogicalguy
10 жыл бұрын
Whenever Michio Kaku talks about something that isn't physics, he's usually completely wrong and misunderstands the subject. He also gets physics wrong sometimes too.
@Unwovenn
10 жыл бұрын
That's exactly what you'd say if you can't understand /him/.
@EASYTIGER10
10 жыл бұрын
Determinism IS physics (I assume you're saying it's merely a branch of philosophy?) He's making the point that freewill is dependent on the uncertainty principle. If everything occurred within the bounds of Newtonian physics, we would indeed have no free will.
@SinceretheGhost
10 жыл бұрын
Delphanious I understood him perfectly, and still think he's wrong. I agree with ***** He is making an argument about free will in regards to predicting another person's behavior, when that isn't really what free will is about. It's about whether or not you are actually free to make a choice, based on your history. Just because there is uncertainty in regards to what actions we might take, it doesn't mean there is any freedom in how we decide which action to take.
@EASYTIGER10
10 жыл бұрын
Kyle Thomas I'm not sure I understand you. If a persons actions (or more precisely, the speed and position of particles which drive those actions) are entirely predictable, we have no free will. If our actions are predictable, then by definition, they have been determined before we carry them out, and we are merely slaves to those accurate predictions. If you take Newtonian physics to it's ultimate conclusion, if you know the speed, position and behaviour of every particle in the universe absolutely accurately, you can predict its future position and speed to the end of time. Of course we cannot, and will never be able to do this in any practical way, but the mere fact that it is THEORETICALLY possible, means that absolute predictability is theoretically possible, which precludes freewill. It's only because the uncertainty principle says we cannot define both the position and speed of a particle at the same time that we cannot predict anything with certainty. Which would allow (but not make certain) freewill. If however you believe the processes of the brain occur outside of the physical realm, then we're on to whole new territory!
@MrPride01
10 жыл бұрын
I think he is wrong in this way: if the world works like the newtonian laws, like a determinism, is a sufficient condition to reject free will but if the uncertainty principle its true is just a necessary condition for the free will, not a sufficient condition. Is like Kyle Thomas says, the free will is more than uncertainty.
@yosolo5797
3 жыл бұрын
I had to watch this after wondering about the chalk board scenario, whereby a decision you make alters your future trajectory, yet the fact that you are still following a line on the board which stretches out infront of you, albeit a new one at that, would still technically mean that your future has been determined even though you changed it
@kyle-yo5uj
3 жыл бұрын
Maybe you were predestined to do that decision and put you into that trajectory even if you think you "altered" the course of your future. Maybe that future is really your future.
@istan9682
Жыл бұрын
Where did you hear about the chalk board scenario? I tried to search it on KZitem and Google but couldn't find it. Is there another name for it?
@pranavbiraris3426
Жыл бұрын
The position and velocity of electron is not random it is unpredictable
@nothingissacred5157
8 жыл бұрын
Michio Kaku isn't supposed to be _wrong_ about stuff, damn it... I can't trust a fucking thing in this universe. :P
@AustinTexas6thStreet
8 жыл бұрын
I know!! But it's reassuring to know that even the most brilliant people are also sometimes Wrong just like the rest of us!!!
@Mysteryskatin
8 жыл бұрын
How is he wrong?
@collinsmugodo380
8 жыл бұрын
Mysteryskatin Because even if we assumed everything he says is correct...it doesn't prove the existence of free will...wether our actions are random or deterministic...none of this would leave room for freedom of will
@Mysteryskatin
8 жыл бұрын
collins mugodo I don't think he ever claimed that free will existed or that free will didn't exist, or that he would attempt to answer the question. That's just the title of the video, which he surely didn't pick.
@collinsmugodo380
8 жыл бұрын
Mysteryskatin I guess you could argue that he's more arguing against determinism than for free will. But he does say "in some sense we do have some kind of free Will". You could construe that as him hedging his stance on free will...but you could be forgiven for thinking that he believes we do actually have conscious... deliberate agency of our actions.
@redtube-ob3zi
2 жыл бұрын
I ate nothing this morning
@bl8sk8
4 жыл бұрын
"No one can determine your future events" , including yourself
@halestorm123
3 жыл бұрын
So is their no such thing as determinism?
@lucia_guedan
2 жыл бұрын
This is how I see it, pls send any feedback: If you can’t choose who you are (genes) and where are you (environment) the second you are born, and your present self choosing is based on the accumulation of your past self reacting to the environment; you are in a constant of no-choice since the beginning of life. You have choices, but when choosing you are determined by the past, which is based on a random body and place.
@kozzmik
10 жыл бұрын
Uncertainty is not enough to say free will exists, this only implies humans couldn't predict the outcome ahead of time (Which would be true even without uncertainty given the complexity of the universe). Even if we introduce the idea of randomness this doesn't help because whether your actions are random or determined, they are not your own. The only way to cling to our common idea of free will, is to resort to magical or irrational thinking. Get used to it.
@KO-fh4vn
10 жыл бұрын
What do you mean by whether your actions are random or determined, they are not your own? What do you mean by even without uncertainty, given the complexity of the universe, humans couldn't predict outcome?
@KO-fh4vn
10 жыл бұрын
That gets into something deeper and more philosophical I think. Do you mean our actions are not made logically but instead with the influence of impulse, emotion and habitual pattern?
@177SCmaro
10 жыл бұрын
settazteca That's just about the most absurd thing I've read in awhile. "Unconsciousness", by definition, is not able to make a decision. You might as well say a rock can make a decision.
@KO-fh4vn
10 жыл бұрын
177SCmaro That is why I requested they expound on that statement; in their last statement, they use more coherent terminology.
@kozzmik
10 жыл бұрын
177SCmaro Unless consciousness is simply the brain making us aware of the decision it has already made. But the idea that it is consciousness that is in the driver's seat is looking more untenable all the time. Either way it is just the brain making a decision, so whether consciousness drives it or not makes little difference.
@lukasa6374
Ай бұрын
The existance of chance doesnt necessarily justify free will though? If your actions were due to pure chaotic chance than you didnt have more agency of what you did compared to a preordained choice no?
@OriLariTFT
Ай бұрын
Chance is something you can't control or know. Same with randomness. And because we can't determine future events in our microscopic brains compared to the universe oh hey we have free will 😅
@drewsplove5339
Жыл бұрын
"In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of God hovering above? At least , it is true that man has no control, even over his own will." -Kentaro Miura
@radthadd
Жыл бұрын
Good quote
@jackkrauser1763
6 ай бұрын
You still cant have free will from randomness nor from determinism
@BozzleyOfficial
2 жыл бұрын
I fucking love Michio Kaku. He gets it man. This argument is such a deep crucial thing to understand given the axiom of logic.
@Maxrodon
Жыл бұрын
I believe everything is pre-determined and even things that may seem random or unpredictable like electron motion, seems random because we do not yet understand or know of other variables that enables us to predict it .
@Fit_AF_123
Жыл бұрын
Agreed.
@S_--
Жыл бұрын
Or maybe the equipment we are using is incapable of MEASURING quantum particles in certain situations, they can still be deterministic whilst us also having the burden of not being able to see their determinisim ever.
@Maxrodon
Жыл бұрын
@@S_-- very ture and as we build things to measure what we understand and what we are deliberately trying to understand. So our lack of understnaindg might limit the design and type of equiptment we "should" be using. An example is how we were never even aware of the concept of radiation a few 100 years ago and how not knowing about radiation would limit our understanding of other things.
@Primitarian
3 жыл бұрын
Yes, Michio Kaku has the courage to assert what many imbued with a naive understanding of science may think ridiculous: that science, though it in some ways discounts common-sense notions as freedom and agency, also supports such notions in a way that is profound. This is why I find more spiritual inspiration in science than in religion. The latter preaches free will, but as you study it in detail, you come to notice (in the most common forms of religion anyway, like traditional Christianity and Islam) that it actually holds the opposite, that all has been predetermined by God. Science started with such a view, replacing God with matter, but then you discover, particularly if you follow science up to the 1920, that physical reality provides ultimately only an account of what shall probably happen, not absolutely. That is quite a discovery, and many would rather it not be true, but it is, and I thank scientists for following the truth wherever it leads.
@sedevacantist1
2 жыл бұрын
You have faith in science? You can't even know the the location and vector of an electron, or what an electron is, or what space is, or what energy is, or what time is, or how stars form, or how galaxies form, or how life can come from chemicals, and yet you have faith in physics? Mr. Kaku is a clever fool.
@Primitarian
2 жыл бұрын
@@sedevacantist1 Do I? When did I say that?
@sedevacantist1
2 жыл бұрын
@@Primitarian "This is why I find more spiritual inspiration in science than in religion. "
@Primitarian
2 жыл бұрын
@@sedevacantist1 Yes, I stand by that. Finding spiritual inspiration in something is not the same thing as having faith in something.
@sedevacantist1
2 жыл бұрын
@@Primitarian You are not making yourself clear, “I find more spiritual inspiration in science than in religion” Science (physics) today rejects a spiritual reality completely, which includes consciousness, the mind, and free will because they are not physical. So your spirit is more inspired by a science which rejects the spirit. You will have to explain that for me.
@perttiheinikko3780
6 ай бұрын
No one knows how quantum mechanics relates to human psychology. Physicists are good at equations but in many ways many of them are plain silly, very self assuredly thinking they know everything there is to know.
@nonononononono8532
6 ай бұрын
And even if it did, this would be random will rather than freely chosen will.
@XiagraBalls
10 жыл бұрын
This does not prove FW is a valid concept or a FACT. As others have suggested it either suggests we are less likely to have control over our actions, that it's irrelevant to the way in which we think (micro vs macro) or Heisenberg was wrong.
@lupo1thewolf
3 жыл бұрын
As someone ignorant, i wanna ask, can it be possible that we lack the instruments to know where the electron is as we would need more precision? Genuine question.
@rCrypto_Frog4148
2 жыл бұрын
that's what they don't want you to think. They want you to think we live in a happy happy world of free choice when really we are just a big mathematical equation resolving. Not that it's really a bad thing.
@caelmcdiarmid1874
8 жыл бұрын
What does the existence of randomness have to do with free will? Randomness is just randomness. Not identical to free will.
@nyet8652
8 жыл бұрын
Cleary didn't listen to the video because your mind can't comprehend that free will is an illusion. Randomness means determinism is wrong. Which means we DO have free will, if we don't free will then determinism is right and our whole legal and societal system needs remodelling.
@caelmcdiarmid1874
8 жыл бұрын
Mitch Hamilton If true randomness exists, it would make determinism incorrect, this is true. But because determinism is incorrect, does not mean fee will is therefore correct, this is just a disjunctive fallacy. "Will", as pertaining to the mind, rational choice, agency, responsibility and so on, is not the same thing as subatomic randomness I'm sorry. If randomness within an electron field exists, who is to say that everything from the subatomic up isn't still determined by physical realities? I don't see the connection. What i see is a common fallacy of composition, that assumes what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. And just to introduce you to the term determinism, it means everything is irrevocably pre ordained. Saying our legal systems need remodelling doesn't make any sense because it assumes you can have an effect on the outcome which is a blatant contradiction to determinism. if determinism is correct determinism is correct, nothing you can do will change the course of time because it was written by god, and the ink is dry.
@doggo4918
8 жыл бұрын
+Mitch Hamilton Can you please explain how the lack of determinism proves free will? As I understand it, free will does not require determinism at all. I'd even go so far as to say that free will as a concept is paradoxical and so can't exist at all, and I'd gladly explain if you're curious. Although I have a feeling you're not interesting in changing your mind, only changing others.
@caelmcdiarmid1874
8 жыл бұрын
Mikkel Youreallydontwanttoknow Not sure about this guy but go ahead I'm curious. What do you mean with your paradox problem?
@nyet8652
8 жыл бұрын
Mikkel Youreallydontwanttoknow I am not trying to change anyone's just stating my view. IF determinism if false then what other "thing" is there other then free will? I'm a compatibilist or soft determinst (which says that we as a species need free will in a form to exist even if it is a illusion) btw
@marcodiaz6124
5 жыл бұрын
The randomness of quantum mechanics _at best_ merely disproves the doctrine of fatalism but it certainly does not disprove determinism, nor does it necessarily prove the existence of free will.
@jeremylynes5508
10 жыл бұрын
You have free will; whether you like it or not.
@itsnobody
10 жыл бұрын
Wrong, there is no free-will, whether you like it or not. Humans merely feel as if they're in control and have free-will, when in reality they always uncontrollably act.
@piffdiddyash
10 жыл бұрын
itsnobody Wrong. Explain quantum mechanics then. Explain nonlocality and quantum tunneling without invoking extra dimensions plz
@itsnobody
10 жыл бұрын
piffdiddyash More rantings from the free-will believing/anti-science/atheist crowd? I can explain the QM stuff, but even if I couldn't not being able to explain something isn't equivalent to evidence to that free-will really exists. QM doesn't support the tiniest degree of free-will as I ALREADY explained. Like I said before, criticizing the evidence that free-will is non-existent isn't equivalent to providing evidence that free-will does exist, so it doesn't show anything. Here's the 2 problems with using QM as evidence that free-will exists. - Neurons aren't quantum particles, so the QM behavior wouldn't work or apply to a neuron! It would be like applying QM to a classical computer or other electrical devices that function by assuming classical physics. - Non-determinism isn't free-will, it's unpredictable will, using non-determinism as evidence that free-will exists would be equivalent to saying "someone who always has an uncontrollable spontaneous brain disorder has free-will"....do you think that someone who always has an uncontrollable spontaneous (unpredictable) brain disorder has free-will? Unpredictable will isn't free-will. Here's the issues with using the infamous QM double-slit experiment as evidence that free-will exists: - Non-conscious measuring devices have the same effect as conscious observers, meaning anything you say about conscious observers would also apply to non-conscious measuring devices - Many interpretations of the QM double-slit experiment give the observer no causal role or support determinism - Modern science is still uncertain as to which interpretation is correct - Even if we assumed that an interpretation where the observer does play a causal role is true it wouldn't indicate that observers can control how they influence electrons or photons, which doesn't support free-will - Because of Libet's experiment we would still conclude that how human observers influence things is uncontrollable, which doesn't support free-will - Because non-conscious measuring devices have the same effect as conscious observers in the double-slit experiment this also indicates that how observers influence things is uncontrollable - So the way human observers affect electrons, photons, or anything else in the QM double-slit experiment is something uncontrollable, which doesn't support free-will So in short the QM double-slit experiment doesn't constitute as evidence that free-will exists, especially since we're still uncertain as to which interpretation is correct (and even if we assumed that a far-out interpretation where the observer has a causal role is true it wouldn't indicate that observers can control how they influence anything, meaning the way human observers affect photons and electrons would be uncontrollable). So the QM double-slit experiment doesn't indicate that free-will exists anymore than showing a measuring device affecting anything else does. I don't know how anyone can believe in something as ridiculous as the Copenhagen interpretation. I'm confident that an interpretation involving multiple timelines (that physically exist, not merely as a concept) is true, but it still wouldn't favor free-will because you can't control which timeline you exist in. The type of scientific evidence indicating that free-will is non-existent is very objective and concrete beyond many other hypotheses and theories in science, so how can you believe in free-will? The reason why people act the way they do is because that's how their neurons reacted, not because they "chose" to. I remember when I was little and first drank soda my taste buds didn't like Coke, so from then on I always drank Sprite when given the choice between the two. But did I choose the way my taste buds reacted? No. Later on in life I liked drinking Mountain Dew because I liked the caffeine high feeling from it, but did I choose to like the feeling? No. Sometimes when there was no other soda available but Coke I drank it, but this is because I thought Coke would be better to drink than just plain tasteless water, but did I choose to feel that way? No. If we had just some of the variables involved in human behavior using neuroscience and psychology we could predict human behavior with near 100% accuracy. The main variables involved in human behavior: - How your individual brain and body reacts to situations, which you can't control - How your external environment affects your individual brain, which you can't control - How your brain and body reacted to early childhood experiences, which you can't control - How your brain and body reacted to the events and situations since early childhood (from age 6 and onwards) which reconditioned you, which you can't control If you have any REAL evidence that free-will exists then go ahead and provide it.
@jeremylynes5508
10 жыл бұрын
itsnobody "If you have any REAL evidence that free-will exists then go ahead and provide it" I have REAL evidence that free-will exists........because I don't want to provide it...... That's a joke, too. Seriously, I don't think this argument has a solution on way or the other. However, you mention QM is not in neurons, but Roger Penrose and others claim that consciousness is rooted in things call microtubules. Not that I agree with him - maybe......in a way. Just saying.
@itsnobody
10 жыл бұрын
Jeremy Lynes But that doesn't matter as I already explained... If we assumed that neurons or consciousness were quantum then it would be equivalent to saying that "someone who always has an uncontrollable spontaneous brain disorder has free-will"...which is just nonsense.. Do you think that someone who always has an uncontrollable spontaneous unpredictable brain disorder has free-will? If not then QM doesn't support free-will.. Also Penrose's consciousness theories don't support any degree of free-will... Of course applying QM to the physical brain wouldn't work just like how applying QM to classical computers wouldn't work. What would happen if you applied QM to classical computers and assumed that classical computers were Quantum? The answer is it would give highly inaccurate results and just wouldn't work at all. My view on consciousness is that perception is composed of something less dense, electron-like, wave-like, a kind of energy even smaller than electrons, I have experiments to directly support this assertion, but it doesn't support free-will either...of course I don't want to discuss all the details. Based on my observations, there is no matter, just energy and variations of this same energy, by understanding how this energy behaves everything else fits into place. My view on QM vs. GR is that the issues with QM can be resolved easily by invoking multiple timelines, so there is no Quantum World vs. GR world, just one (deterministic) world. The reason why things appear to "collapse" when a measuring device is present is because measuring devices can only measure what's in their timeline. No "collapse" is occurring, what's actually happening is that the measuring device is displaying what's in their timeline. In other words, when you observe or measure you're seeing the electron in your timeline, when you don't observe you see the effects of electrons in other timelines, it's only possible to observe or measure what's in your timeline. This explains away all the issues with QM perfectly. Of course this only part of the story, by invoking what I call Timeline-Energy (TE) I can explain everything...and it would work for everything perfectly without having a Quantum world vs. Macro-world...but I'm still working on the details and having issues performing experiments since I don't have enough power (watts) to perform even mini-experiments...but that hasn't discouraged me because using just 2 KW and simple electrical equipment that manipulates electromagnetic waves I've gained excellent undeniable results! The concept of location as we know it (x,y,z) is all wrong, there are only timeline portal units. Based on what I've discovered, it should be pretty easy to experimentally prove an afterlife, the existence of a soul-mind, multiple timelines, spirits, instantaneous travel, and other things...but none of this supports free-will... None of this supports free-will when I thought about it, even having superhuman powers wouldn't equate to free-will...because your will remains uncontrollable... Of course I'm sure that others figured out similar things in the past, it must have gotten suppressed, as usual...
@Master_Twango
11 жыл бұрын
Uncertainty is a limit of human ability to understand, or predict. It's not a quality of the universe.
@lopnezk1320
11 жыл бұрын
"Uncertainty is a limit of human ability to understand, or predict. It's not a quality of the universe." Nope. *facepalm* It's pretty obvious that neither of you have NO idea what you're talking about. Uncertainty rises due to matter wave nature of all quantum objects. It's not somekind of obsevation effect, it exists because quantum object's behave like waves --> it is indeed nature's physical attribute --> it exists because nature is what it is. Uncertainty in particles behaviour does not come because we can not observe it correctly, it has nothing to do with an instrumental issue: it is in all wave-like systems. Please, try to understand that. "Uncertainty is just a working hypothesis" A theory which has been proven mathematically and over a billion times emprirically is NOT a hypothesis.
@Anglagard1
11 жыл бұрын
Lop Nezk When we get beyond the limit of human ability to understand, aren't we getting into "God territory" at this point? Aren't we saying that physics is some type of entity that exists outside ourselves rather than a tool or paradigm that we have created to understand the world around us? How can uncertainty not exist when there is nobody around to be certain? Who or what is doing the determining?
@lopnezk1320
11 жыл бұрын
James Rozoff "Aren't we saying that physics is some type of entity that exists outside ourselves rather than a tool or paradigm that we have created to understand the world around us?" Depends from a view point, because yes there is a little room for some interpretations. Some scientist take things more literally for example how wave function exists as a real physical object and where universe is just a mathematical construction, "a giant quantum computer". I prefer an option where mathematics is just a tool to describe physics and not every physically described object is necessary real (for me only the measurement makes the random wave function exist --> the value becomes reality). "How can uncertainty not exist when there is nobody around to be certain?" When I look at these comments here in this page, I can see that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is poorly understood theory. Big question for many seems to be that is this quantum uncertainty just epistemic (meaning is there just a limit which we can know) or is it really ontological (meaning electron has no position which is better defined than position's uncertainty and no momentum which is better deifined than momentum's uncertainty). Ontological uncertainty means that electron has never in REALITY well specified position and well specified momentum at the same time. Electron is not in a certain place and it does not move with a certain velocity. In a way electron has different possibilities of momentum and different possibilities of positions at the same time. One simple explanation for uncertainty is that when observing an electron a light is targeted into it. But when light is targeted into an electron then a photon causes a "kick" and electron's momentum changes. Even if this kick is calculated the original momentum is impossible to know because photons move with purely stochastic directions and depending of this direction an electron's momentum changes uncontrollably. If the photon's wavelength is small then electron's momentum changes more but position is more accurate to observe. If the wavelenght is large then momentum does not change so much (observation effect occurs always still) but position is more uncertain. Quantum uncertainty in reality is ontological. There always exists an uncertainty which is always greater or equal to ħ/2. To really understand why there is an uncertainty, you need to understand the matter's wave nature. Every particle which moves with a certain velocity is associated with a wave, which wavelength matches with parcticle's velocity. Greater velocity means shorter wavelenght. The wave that forms the electron is calculated by adding different parts of waves together. These different waves represents particle's momentum and the probability where the particle could be found. By adding these different waves together we get a wave packet. --> the localiced wave packet is calculated by adding in a specific way different waves together in a certain area. This means that wide spread individual waves repeal each others, but not in a small area, where a small wave packet illustrates a particle. Wave packet's only job is to give a probability for finding a particle from some point if its position is wanted to be mesured. Tho particle is possible to find ANYWHERE inside the wave packet and an accurate position of a particle inside the wave packet is completely probabilistic. THE POINT (if you did not care to read it all): When waves with different lenghts is added together, then wave packet becomes shorter. However, the size of wave packet represents only the unawareness of particle's position, because it can be anywhere inside wave packet. ------> So, the shorter the wave packet is, then the more defined the particle's position is! Though every wavelenght means one specific momentum or velocity. Then the momentum and so the velocity is less specific, because shorter wave lenght is done with DIFFERENT lenghts of waves! You can always associate a wave packet to a particle, like electron. Electron does not have a certain momentum and it is not localized to well defined place. Wave packet means that electron does not have a well defined position or well defined momentum. IF the position is measured then electron is somewhere inside the wave packet --> the electron's uncertainty of position thus changed to much smaller --> it's then localized. Before the measurement it was just a wave packet which only tells that where electron probably is. Also wave packet consists of countless of different waves which each of them represents a certain velocity. If the particle's velocity is measured then the result is one velocity, so only one certain wavelenght. Tho electron did not have a certain velocity before measurement. SO please note that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle describes the NATURE of things, not only what we can know from a world. The uncertainty in momentum is very small in big object's because they have a bigger mass than an electron, which has a very, very small mass and thus a greater uncertainty. "Who or what is doing the determining?" There is no need for anything to determine this action since its an attribute of wavelenght.
@neuronoc.7343
3 жыл бұрын
That legitimately freed me up. Thank you, fellow westernized Japanese man.
@Solbashio
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah but if there's a god then it doesn't matter how random things look to us. Every single thing in a God's point of view will be completely orderly and predictable so god already knew what Hitler would do before Hitler was born.
@skjameelakhtar
3 жыл бұрын
@@Solbashio why would he do that? Knowing innocent will suffer, why'd God do that?
@leahcimmmm
3 жыл бұрын
@@skjameelakhtar I’m a Christian. I would have to say that God works in mysterious ways, in ways unknown to us. This also means that I simply just don’t know. I don’t know all of the reasons as to why God allowed Hitler to be born. I of course believe that God has good reasons but it is just that it seems that God has not made it clear to us what his reasons are. Perhaps because WW2 happened people will do whatever it takes to prevent another world war that is more catastrophic. Perhaps Hitler was born so that he could help an old man find purpose in some good thing. These are all merely speculations however. I do not know the mind of God and I do not know what His reasons are. I’ve also come to accept that I’ll prolly never know what His reasons are in this life. I’m sorry if this answer disappoints you. But I really mean it. I’m not sure if we’ll ever know what the reasons are, but I trust that there are good reasons indeed.
@skjameelakhtar
3 жыл бұрын
@@leahcimmmm the answer ain't disappointing at all. It's a fact that no-one in the world as of now can comprehend the mind of God, we aren't even sure if there is a God. We don't know if we're one of God's experiments which he forgot about. But, maybe, if the human race survives, someday, we MIGHT have a idea of what actually is GOD. Whether it's a conscious supreme being or randomness selecting whatever is stable. And we may also get the answer to the old question: "If God is all powerful, is God all merciful and vice-versa" I guess till then it's better to be in harmony and try and advance ourselves and at the same time take leaps towards the Big Questions.
@skjameelakhtar
2 жыл бұрын
@@akylbekorozaliev that is the reason why my statement contains a word: "maybe"
@chord95
5 жыл бұрын
we cannot observe the movement of tiny particles so we have to use probability. Although it's extremely accurate, it still isn't the true nature of particle motion
@kokomanation
6 жыл бұрын
People have free will up to a point there are things they can do and things they can’t .They have the freedom of choice about the things that are possible for them .I believe that consciousness and the universe are both random and deterministic at the same time but the percentage fluctuates
@playlistofsongs
Жыл бұрын
The self does not exist. It's stupid to believe in free will when the self does not even exist. There is no distinct 'you.' Evolution resulted in the *illusion* of self because it is needed to survive and spread genes or whatever, but a truly distinct self does not exist. Free will could not exist if there is no self to be an agent. This should be obvious to the modern human.
@itsjacob7239
3 жыл бұрын
0:00 - 0:38 is actually a really good explanation of determinsm, and even persuasive. I mean, if determinism is widely accepted by physicists, including Albert Einstein, then isn't it worth considering the determinist argument? As for Michio's argument, I don't think it's logical.
@salmansheikh4377
2 ай бұрын
Heisenberg uncertainty is irrelevant when determining the time evolution of a quantum state
@scottk1525
8 жыл бұрын
Oh great. So the world isn't clockwork. It's unpredictable chaos. Thanks for clearing that up.
@chrisw7347
5 жыл бұрын
Don't forget, you really are the **author** of every thought and action your body and mind happen to engage in! Cuz you know... randomness. NOT determinism.
@catpip_
3 жыл бұрын
@@chrisw7347 Determinism is still true. There is nothing that is truly random.
@chrisw7347
3 жыл бұрын
@@catpip_ It was sarcasm. The point is it doesn't actually *matter* which it is, randomness or determinism or anything else-- free will is impossible in all of these scenarios. Whether your neurons fire due to chaos theory or QM or deterministic particles has zero bearing on the fantasy idea that we somehow "Step in" at some point, and "Are in control". In so far as there is causality, there is no freedom.
@Raghav_Sachdeva
2 жыл бұрын
I am not a quantum physicist so can someone tell me why I'm wrong to think that this does not prove free will because I believe the concept of true randomness is beyond human comprehension and there could also be more factors/variables that determine the movement of electrons.
@kato_dsrdr
3 жыл бұрын
Yes. I also believed that. If our mind is indeed purely made of matter, energy, and waves then our decisions are really limited by the laws of physics.. However, if the mind is really not a physical object, then we'll have free will.
@bubblegodanimation4915
2 жыл бұрын
It would still be influenced by an outside force. You still don't choose your wants fundamentally. In that case it does not exist either.
@TheRainHarvester
2 жыл бұрын
A corollary(?): If science does not allow for free will, something OUTSIDE of science gives free will.
@bubblegodanimation4915
2 жыл бұрын
@@TheRainHarvester Any proof of that?
@TheRainHarvester
2 жыл бұрын
@@bubblegodanimation4915 no. And that is the point! 😊
@bubblegodanimation4915
2 жыл бұрын
@@TheRainHarvester Then it is a pretty bad point. To lie to ourselves for the sake of feeling good about ourselves and worsening things for others?
@Dermsurg1
7 ай бұрын
I dont see how that brings in free will, only indeterminacy
@nunya1738
10 жыл бұрын
I love Einstein, have a great book of his from my Grandfather, all essays, "Out of My Later Years", discusses many topics. But I always felt he was wrong about the dice thing. Still, like Forest Gump says, "I think..maybe its both". The free will thing. Somehow. Maybe, like a multiple choice test.
@nunya1738
10 жыл бұрын
Forgot to add: Unless we are all just Brains in a Vat, that postulation. Similar to the whole supposed code/computer like in String Theory, Holographic Universe, living in a software program, working out ALL the possible outcomes. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily...
@garylarson4415
3 жыл бұрын
It is both. There are INFLUENCES, but we can still choose between one or the other.
@rCrypto_Frog4148
2 жыл бұрын
@@garylarson4415 but why did they choose A over B or C???
@CarinaPrimaBallerina
2 жыл бұрын
The actuality of free will scares the living hell out of us. We're specs of dust without a clue what really goes on behind the veil!
@kinetic7609
2 жыл бұрын
No, we are not just specs of dust, we are the product of design, this is clearly evident by the genetic code.
@CarinaPrimaBallerina
2 жыл бұрын
@@kinetic7609 Are you replying to the intended thread? This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said??
@kinetic7609
2 жыл бұрын
@@CarinaPrimaBallerina Im replying to you. You said we are just specs of dust, which to me implies we have no purpose. I'm just saying based on the evidence we can only conclude that we are designed, thus implying purpose.
@CarinaPrimaBallerina
2 жыл бұрын
@@kinetic7609 I never said being a spec of dust doesn't involve having a purpose! What evidence are you referring to?
@kinetic7609
2 жыл бұрын
@@CarinaPrimaBallerina The genetic code
@manwithtwowives
10 жыл бұрын
the electron still has to stay within a limited range... meaning it can be anywhere but only in a limited location. even though i maybe at more than one place at one time, it's still limited in it actions. this would imply that we have limited will, not free will. we are free to do what we wish within the confines of our limitations. limited will. uncertainty doesnt mean that your choices are infinite. your choices are finite.
@minkim547
10 жыл бұрын
That range may equate to the range of that which is possible. Simplistically stated, you can make a decision to jump, but not fly.
@manwithtwowives
10 жыл бұрын
Min Kim that would be the simpler version of what i tried to say, yes. limited will... not exactly 'free'. as i stated "uncertainty doesnt mean that your choices are infinite. your choices are finite." which would mean you can choose to jump but not to fly. :-)
@terminator900000
10 жыл бұрын
Making decisions has nothing to with electron movement. It's actually nerve impulses which is the movement of sodium and potassium ions which create an action potential.
@mr.goldfarmer4883
Ай бұрын
Uncertainty principle seems unbefitting to describe the notions of free-will...
@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy
9 жыл бұрын
"However you tune the variables of determinism and randomness, free will doesn't put in an appearance. There's no mix of randomness and determinism that gets you free will." - Sam Harris - The Illusion of Free Will. Sydney Opera House: The Festival of Dangerous Ideas, 2012-09-28
@santiagoabliterature
6 жыл бұрын
Krwiomocz.Bogurodzicy Ⓥ this is gold man
@santiagoabliterature
6 жыл бұрын
Krwiomocz.Bogurodzicy Ⓥ from recently, my guru has been sam harris
@wes4477
6 жыл бұрын
It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself--as though that were so necessary-- that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar. And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object--that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated--chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point! I believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key! It may be at the cost of his skin, it may be by cannibalism! And this being so, can one help being tempted to rejoice that it has not yet come off, and that desire still depends on something we don't know?
@isodoubIet
6 жыл бұрын
Well, you quoted a guy who's almost never been right in his life, so I guess the debate is over.
@wes4477
6 жыл бұрын
There's a funny cognitive dissonance among intelluctuals who believe in determinism. If you have no free will then you arent responsible, but if you are responsible for your actions you can infer from there. plus people tend to get very angry if you act like they don't. say someone has achieved something but then you mimimuze their involvement and hand wave it away as predetermined. they will get fairly angry with you. it's not as simple as just everything is determined
Пікірлер: 10 М.