Read on Twitter
Hi @skdh, just saw your letter about free will in @PhysicsWorld. I’m puzzled. You say we should just stop talking about free will because no one knows what it means. But we make decisions, often consciously. This is a biological fact. [Article is below] 1/ https://physicsworld.com/a/why-free-will-is-beyond-physics/
So why can we not talk about that? My guess is you’ll say you’re fine with that, but don’t call it free will, because physics refutes that. If so, my article asked for some honesty: then you have to say “Fine, you guys go ahead… 2/
..but don’t kid yourselves there are really any decisions here – it’s all an illusion, because physics. Behavioural science, psychology, sociology: all are founded on a lie, albeit a useful one." 3/
Would you say that? If not, why not?
You seem to want it both ways: you want free will out of physics not because (as I think) it doesn’t belong there, but… 4/
You seem to want it both ways: you want free will out of physics not because (as I think) it doesn’t belong there, but… 4/
... because physics has already settled the matter. But the fact that the state of the present determines the future is simply not the issue. All free will requires is that the present state of my brain is the cause of my future action. 5/
If you want to banish causation, then sure, you’ve banished free will too – but by fiat, not by argument. If, OTOH, you’re not sure what I mean by it, then you could start with this:
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19790
6/
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19790
6/
I'll agree that causation is a very slippery matter. But it's not as if it's just a total mystery; there's a substantial literature on it. /8
My initial impression too is that this paper is putting some real meat on the bones of what I'm saying - but I'm checking with Markus & Marius to see if I've understood that correctly. 9/9
https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.12033
https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.12033
