EXPLORING THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL 
 
 

George Ortega,
Producer

Nick Vale

Chandler Klebs

Nomi

Creating a world without blame and guilt

The world's first, and already successful*  initiative, including two TV shows, to popularize the refutation of free will 

*How it happened 

John Searle, the13th ranked post-1900 philosopher, says that our world overcoming the free will illusion "would be a bigger revolution in our thinking than Einstein, or Copernicus, or Newton, or Galileo, or Darwin -- it would alter our whole conception of our relation with the universe." 

The Washington Post, The New York Times, Psychology Today, Los Angeles Times, The Huffington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, USA Today, The Telegraph, Time Magazine, Scientific American, NPR Radio, The Economist, and Science Magazine  all affirm that free will is an illusion.


NEW FEATURE:
Complete online text and pdf download of EXPLORING THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL, SECOND EDITION by George Ortega

 

Exploring the Illusion of Free Will is two TV shows - WHITE PLAINS NY TV and NYC LIVE CALL-IN TV,  several books - Mine and  Enel's,  and Chandler's one meetup - NYC, this website, Internet video and audio -  YOU TUBE  iTUNES AUDIO PODCAST  PUBLIC DOMAIN VIDEOS & MP3s, and a blog - EXOGENOUS AGENCY

 
Quick Links to the YouTube Episodes: 01-10  11-20  21-30  31-40  41-50  51-60  61-70  71-80  81-90 91-100  101-110  111-120  121-130  131-140  141-150  151-160  161-170  171-180  181-190  191-200  201-210  211-216
 

Quick Links to the 2013 Exploring the Illusion of Free Will, 2nd Edition Chapters: ( by titleIntro. to 2011 edition  Intro. to 2013 digital edition 1  (2 omitted)  3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   Epilogue  Books Refuting Free Will...

 

Home    Contact

 iTunes Audio Podcast
 Public Domain Video at Internet Archive
RSS  Mp3 Audio at Internet Archive

Episodes on YouTube
Full YOU TUBE Collection

 
Site Features
 

Free Will Refutations in Major Publications

 

Free Will Refuted in the Blogs

 

Free Will Refuted on YouTube

 

Recent books for the public and academia refuting free will

 

Edited and Revised Transcripts of the First Eighteen Episodes

 

Quotes Disaffirming Free Will and Affirming Determinism by the Famous

 

Absurd Free Will Defenses by Major Institutions and Publications Who Should Know Better

 

Claiming credit for public awareness that free will is an illusion

 
 

More Featured Episodes

10. Why Change as the basic Universal Process Makes Free Will Impossible

13. Overcoming Blame, Guilt, Envy and Arrogance by Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will

16. Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will as an Evolutionary Leap in Human Consciousness

17. Revitalizing Religion through Transcending the Illusion of Free Will

26. Because Essential Elements of Every Decision are Stored in Our Unconscious, Free Will is Impossible.

38. The Messenger and I Have Evolved Human Consciousness

50. Freud Popularized the Unconscious.  Ortega is Popularizing Unconscious Will

60. Ten Ways to Refute Free Will

 
 

Landmark Coverage Refuting Free Will

 

USA Today - "Why you don't really have free will by Jerry Coyne January 1, 2012

"The debate about free will, long the purview of philosophers alone, has been given new life by scientists, especially neuroscientists studying how the brain works. And what they're finding supports the idea that free will is a complete illusion."


Time Magazine - "Think You're Operating on Free Will? Think Again" by Eben Harrell July 2, 2010

"In an intriguing review in the July 2 edition of the journal Science, published online Thursday, Ruud Custers and Henk Aarts of Utrecht University in the Netherlands lay out the mounting evidence of the power of what they term the 'unconscious will.'...John Bargh of Yale University, who 10 years ago predicted many of the findings discussed by Custers and Aarts in a paper entitled "The Unbearable Automaticity of Being," called the Science paper a "landmark — nothing like this has been in Science before."


The New York Times - "Your Move: The Maze of Free Will" by Galen Strawson July 22, 2010

"Some people think that quantum mechanics shows that determinism is false, and so holds out a hope that we can be ultimately responsible for what we do. But even if quantum mechanics had shown that determinism is false (it hasn’t), the question would remain: how can indeterminism, objective randomness, help in any way whatever to make you responsible for your actions? The answer to this question is easy. It can’t."

The Atlantic - "The Brain on Trial" by David Eagleman July/August 2011

"In modern science, it is difficult to find the gap into which to slip free will—the uncaused causer—because there seems to be no part of the machinery that does not follow in a causal relationship from the other parts."

The Telegraph - "Neuroscience, free will and determinism: 'I'm just a machine'" by Tom Chivers October 12, 2010

"The philosophical definition of free will uses the phrase 'could have done otherwise'... "As a neuroscientist, you've got to be a determinist. There are physical laws, which the electrical and chemical events in the brain obey. Under identical circumstances, you couldn't have done otherwise; there's no 'I' which can say 'I want to do otherwise'."


The Guardian - "Guilty but not responsible?" by Rosiland English May 29, 2012

"The discovery that humans possess a determined will has profound implications for moral responsibility. Indeed, Harris is even critical of the idea that free will is "intuitive": he says careful introspection can cast doubt on free will. In an earlier book on morality, Harris argues 'Thoughts simply arise in the brain. What else could they do? The truth about us is even stranger than we may suppose: The illusion of free will is itself an illusion'"


Psychology Today - "Free Will Is an Illusion, So What?" by

If you think carefully about any decision you have made in the past, you will recognize that all of them were ultimately based on similar—genetic or social—inputs to which you had been exposed. And you will also discover that you had no control over these inputs, which means that you had no free will in taking the decisions you did.

Complete List

 
 


A brief history of determined vs. free will ideas

Cause and Effect – At about the 5th century BC, in his work On the Mind, the Greek Philosopher Leucippus penned the earliest known universal statement describing what we today understand as determinism, or the law of cause and effect

“Nothing happens at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity.”

Human Will – The concepts of will and free will are actually Christian in orgin. It was Saint Paul in his Letter to the Romans, which is dated at about 58 A.D., who first discovered this thing we call human will. He came to it by recognizing that he could not often do as much right as he wanted. Saint Paul wrote in Romans 7:15 that:

“I don’t understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I can’t.” I do what I don’t want to – what I hate.” (Translation – The Living Bible)

Free Will -- Nothing new was said on the matter for the next few hundred years until St. Augustine grappled with the concepts of evil and justice. Saint Augustine wrote in his book De Libero Arbitrio, 386-395 A.D., (translated as “On Free Will”)

“Evil deeds are punished by the justice of God. They would not be punished justly if they had not been performed voluntarily.”

The problem he saw was that if human beings do not have a free will, it would be unfair for God to arbitrarily reward or punish us. St. Augustine concluded that God could not be unfair, and so he created the concept of a human free will, whereby we earn our reward or punishment by what we freely do.

Scientific concepts relating to the determined will vs. free will question

Classical Mechanics -- In 1687 Sir Isaac Newton publishes his “Laws of Motions” that mathematically describes the physical universe as acting in a mechanistic manner according to the principle of cause and effect.

Classical Mechanics is a completely deterministic theory

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- In 1925 Warner Heisenberg describes mathematically that…

We can measure the position of a particle or the momentum of a particle (momentum meaning its direction and velocity), but we cannot simultaneously measure the position and momentum of a particle.

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics -- Niels Bohr and others make the following assertions;

1) Particles do not have a simultaneous position and momentum.

2) Elementary particles behave indeterministically, and are not subject to the principle of cause and effect.

Believers in free will saw the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as providing a possibility for free will to exist. They asserted that if elementary particles behave indeterministically, they are not subject to the principle of cause and effect that prohibits free will.

But, as noted above, it eventually became apparent that indeterminism also prohibits free will.

 

Exploring the Illusion of Free Will, 2nd Edition Chapters

Intro. to the 2011 1st. edition 

Intro. to the 2013 2nd. edition (digital version)

1 How I came to see my causal will

2 Proving causal will in real time (omitted)

3 Morality within a causal will perspective

4 What it all means

5 We Do Not "Experience" Free Will

6 How the Hedonic Imperative Makes Free Will Impossible

7 How the Unsolicited Participation of the Unconscious Makes Free Will Impossible

8 Asking When a Child Gains it Illuminates the Incoherence of the Concept "Free Will"

9 Overcoming our Reluctance to Overcome the Illusion of Free Will

10 Why Change as the Basic Universal Process Makes Free Will Impossible

11 The Absurdity of Varying Degrees of Free Will

12 Why the Concept of Free Will is Incoherent

13 Overcoming Blame, Guilt, Envy and Arrogance by Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will

14 Why Both Causality and Randomness Make Free Will Impossible

15 Why Frankfurt's “Second Order Desires” Do Not Allow for a Free Will

16 Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will as an Evolutionary Leap in Human Consciousness

17 Revitalizing Religion through Transcending the Illusion of Free Will

18 Why Humans Cannot Circumvent Natural Law to Gain a Free Wil
l

Epilogue: How Refuting Free Will Went From  Academia to the Public Spotlight – with hyperlinked  articles in major publications – 2004-2012

Books Refuting Free Will and  Fundamental Moral Responsibility
 

 

YouTube Collection



Site Map

 

Chapters of the 2013 Exploring the Illusion of Free Will, Second Edition

 

Chapter 10.  Why Change as the Basic Universal Process Makes Free Will Impossible

Our civilization, and mindset, and personal lives are all founded on this notion that we human beings can freely choose whatever we want – that we have a free will. The problem is that we don’t, and apart from our seeing reality completely contrary to the way it is, our belief in free will causes problems both in our personal lives and societally. Hopefully by our understanding that our wills are causal, and not free, we can create a more compassionate world. Before I get into our topic, I just want to go a bit more into what we mean when we say we have a free will. Basically we mean that our thoughts are completely up to us – there is nothing compelling us to decide what we do. We mean that what we do, what we eat, what we say, and what kind of work we do – everything – is completely up to us. Naturally, we have an unconscious that is always active, and makes free will impossible. But, the more basic reason why we don’t have a free will is the process of cause and effect. This chapter is about the fact that everything that happens in the world, including our decisions, has a cause. If everything has a cause, then whatever causes us to make a decision will have a cause. And there will be a cause of that cause, and a cause of that cause, etc. Note that a cause will always precede its effect. A cause can never come after its effect. When we consider this chain of cause and effect that leads back further and further into the past, we can see how the causes that ultimately led up to any kind of decision we might make were made long before we were born, and long before the planet was created.

Consider that the first fact of existence – and this is undeniable, a priori, and axiomatic – is that the universe exists. Everything exists; we are here. The second a priori fact is that the basic process of the universe is change. Think about that. If the universe didn’t change, everything would be completely frozen. I wouldn’t have written, and you wouldn’t be reading, this book. Planets like our Earth would not be rotating around their axis, and revolving around stars like our Sun. If there were no change, nothing would move. There would not be a world, as we know it. We have a priori knowledge that the universe exists, and a priori knowledge that the fundamental process of the universe is change. What is change? Change is something moving from one state to another. Change is a particle being at one point at one moment, and then at another point the next moment. That is what change is. It is matter moving through space in time. At one moment, you’ll have a particle or something at a certain point, and then at the next moment, because of change, it will be at a different point. That’s change. Two axiomatic facts - reality exists, and reality changes. What pulls this all together, and what makes free will impossible, is the idea that in order for change to take place, there has to be causality. In fact, causality is the process that allows for change. No change could ever happen without causality. There is a statement to the effect that “nothing can be causa sui,” meaning that nothing can be the cause of itself (unless we want to perhaps consider that God, as the first cause, is the cause of Her/Himself). But after that, every other cause has to have a prior cause. It’s not necessary to know the first cause, if it exists, to understand the process of causality that operates thereafter.

If you have causality – cause and effect – as the process that is required for any change to take place in the universe, you can understand how causality is as axiomatic as the fact that there is a universe, and the fact that the universe changes. I say this to clarify a confusion that has arisen in physics since 1927 when Werner Heisenberg published his Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Basically it’s a mathematical equation that demonstrates that you can’t at the same time measure the position and the momentum of a quantum particle with the precision required for successful prediction using classical mechanics. If you measure the particle’s position, then its momentum becomes less clear. If you measure the particle’s momentum, then its position becomes less clear. That’s the basic Uncertainty Principle, and it applies to other conjugate variables like particle spin, particle charge and particle phase. For some reason that doesn’t really make sense, this discovery led some physicists, most notably Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, to formulate what came to be known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and conclude that since we can’t measure simultaneously position and momentum, or two of other conjugate variables, somehow these processes are uncaused.

It is important to see that if the universe exists as an axiomatic fact, and change is axiomatic, causality must also be axiomatic. Again, otherwise everything would be frozen. If causality is necessary, and describes change, obviously causality is as fundamental a fact of nature. In other words, this explanation of causality is at a much more fundamental level than interpreting the results of the Heisenberg and stronger, more recent, uncertainty relations. There is more to it. It has never been shown in any way that something could be uncaused. Think about it. Change requires causality. This can be demonstrated through certain laws of physics. For example, there is a Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. This law has never been violated. When one particle interacts with another particle, there is an exchange of mass-energy. One particle will gain mass-energy, and the other will lose mass-energy. Again, that conservation law has never been violated. If one particle gains mass-energy, then the cause of that gain has to be the interaction with the other particle.

A problem with that conservation law may arise when you consider matter in terms of either mass or energy. Mass-Energy is what Einstein explained the universe as in his theory of Special Relativity. It’s the idea that mass and energy are actually one. E=mc² where “E” means energy, “m” means mass and “c²” means the speed of light squared. That gets a little confusing because apparently there have been some seeming violations of conservation of mass, and some seeming violations of conservation of energy that make this law appear less ironclad. But, there is another conservation law in physics, which came out of Newton’s Laws of Motion. This is the Law of Conservation of Momentum. When a particle is moving through space, it has momentum. Momentum means velocity and direction. So, when a particle is at one point, its momentum at that point will determine its position at the second point. You can never lose momentum. If one particle interacts with another, momentum is always conserved. That we have this law of conservation of momentum that requires causality is another proof at the most fundamental level of physics that causality is the process for change – is the basic process by which events happen. Another law of physics that I think is obvious to us all is that matter moves through space in time. Time is what allows for change. If there was no time, there could be no change. So, you have a particle at one point at a certain moment in time, and since everything is moving, it will be at another point the next moment in time. This movement applies to every particle on Earth. The universe is expanding. So, our whole solar system and Milky Way galaxy are expanding outward. The Galaxy is expanding toward a region of the universe called the Great Attractor Anomaly. And, our solar system is moving in time as it revolves around the Milky Way Galaxy. There are various kinds of motions that are always happening that include every particle and every part of the Earth. This motion all requires time. Time is what allows change. It’s what allows causality to happen.

Another axiom in physics is that there is an arrow of time, in the sense that time will always go from past to present to future. It will never go from future to present to past. The reason I say that’s axiomatic is because there has never been a known violation, and because it is so obvious. In physics, there are certain kinds of theories and equations that are deemed symmetrical, in the sense that they allow, mathematically, for time to travel backward. But, when you think of these kinds of equations and theories, you have to remember that mathematics is a measuring tool. It is not a descriptor of the nature of reality. It helps physicists come up with measurements of reality to then reach their conclusions. With mathematics, you can subtract two from one and get a negative one, but that doesn’t mean that you can subtract two apples from one apple and get as a physical entity a “negative apple.” Negative apples do not exist in reality. That is why I say that although there are equations that allow for time to go backwards, it’s just the math. It has never been demonstrated, and is clearly impossible.

One of the claims for free will is that our mind is not physical, and so our thoughts are not physical. Some say that if our thoughts are not physical, then that means that maybe they are not caused, and maybe they are the result of a free will. The problem with that assertion is the existence of time. Let’s say we make a decision, and we call it “spiritual.” We say it doesn’t have a physical presence, however that decision would have to take place within a moment in time. It has a precise position in this timeline that goes from past, to present, to future. Naturally, if it has a precise moment in our timeline, it is completely subject to the causality that governs everything else in the universe. Let’s say we make a decision. We define it as spiritual, but it happens in the present moment. We should realize that the present moment – anything that happens in the present moment – is the complete result of the state of the universe at the previous moment. Naturally, if we have a spiritual decision taking place at a certain point in time, and thus being caused by the state of the universe at the prior moment, and that state being caused by the state immediately before that, we now have a causal regression that leads back presumably to the Big Bang, and who knows what happened before. Defining decisions as not being physical does not allow for a free will because any decision we make, and any thought we have, occupies a specific point in time, and time is causal.

I want to now consider randomness, or indeterminism, defined as acausality. It’s greatly perplexing how otherwise brilliant people have proposed this hypothesis. My guess is that physicists like Bohr and Heisenberg were more than “shut up and calculate” researchers; they were also interested in the fundamental nature of reality. It’s likely they had an interest in the question of whether our human will is free or not. My guess is that it was this philosophical interest, which to some physicists meant finding a way to preserve the notion of a free will, which led them to reach incoherent, internally inconsistent, conclusions, like the idea of acausality, that basically make no sense.  Sometimes we understand randomness in the sense of having a deck of cards, and picking one “at random.” This is more accurately described as “apparent randomness.” What some physicists mean, however – and what’s actually taught in many college level physics courses – is the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics that considers elementary particle behavior as random in the strong sense of not having been caused. Think about the concept of randomness in that sense of something happening that is not caused. It doesn’t make sense. There is a cause to everything. Things do not just happen for no reason, and without cause.

Let’s say something was to “just happen.” Let’s say a particle could just come into existence out of nowhere. A particle is somewhere, when a moment earlier it was nowhere. That too would be a causal process, and you cannot rationally consider the coming into existence of the particle as random. Sometimes physicists will say to themselves, “I know everything that is happening in this system.” For example, with radioactive decay, for isotopes that have a half-life, meaning they will decay at a certain rate and within a specific window of time – physicists cannot predict exactly when a single isotope will undergo this decay. So, for many years some have claimed that since we can’t predict its behavior, it can’t have a cause, and that it must be random in the strong sense meaning acausal. I trust you understand the illogic of that conclusion. There is no true randomness, in the sense of events happening without a cause. Everything has to be caused. Another reason some physicists, philosophers, and psychologists became confused regarding this matter involves a statement by Pierre-Simon Laplace, who was a famous French mathematician and physicist. He penned what came to be understood as the classic statement describing determinism, or causality. He essentially said that if we knew the position of every particle in the universe, and every force acting upon every particle, and if we could compute that data, we could know both the past and the future. Nothing would be hidden from us. In his own words:

 

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

 

What confused some is that because we can’t simultaneously measure the position and momentum of a particle, and therefore can’t know the position and force acting upon every particle, (and more generally, because we can’t know everything in the universe) we can’t make such predictions using either classical or quantum mechanics. Somehow, that realization led some physicists to conclude that there is such a reality as indeterminism, defined as randomness, or acausality. Whichever term you want to use, these physicists are claiming that some things are simply uncaused. Sometimes physicists will define randomness as unpredictability, but that is a slight-of-hand assertion because when they are asked what they mean by unpredictable, they ultimately equate it with acausality. Bringing all of this back to the question of human will, if the universe exists axiomatically, and if change is the fundamental process of the universe, without which nothing can happen, and if causality is necessary to all change, then causality is the fundamental process in nature. If everything has a cause, that means that every one of our decisions has a cause, and that cause has a cause, and that cause has a cause. That is a very powerful way to understand why free will is impossible.

Next chapter

 

 List of Chapters

 
Intro. to 2011 edition  Intro. to 2013 digital edition 1  (2 omitted)  3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   Epilogue  Books Refuting Free Will...


Top