Im gonna write some short series of articles on why i dont really believe free will exists (scientifically and philosophically), and im open to any counter-arguments

Part One: Free Will or Determinism in Disguise?

The idea that we possess free will (traditionally defined as a completely independent capacity to make choices) is deeply appealing, but it collapses under scrutiny. Every decision we make is influenced (if not determined), by prior causes like genetics, brain chemistry, upbringing, social conditioning, and environmental circumstances. Neuroscience makes this even clearer. Experiments by Benjamin Libet show that brain activity predicting a decision occurs before conscious awareness, meaning the “I” who feels in control is often just narrating a story of choices that were already set in motion. Psychological studies further reveal that unconscious biases and situational pressures strongly shape our behavior, often without us realizing it.

And even more ironically the common definition of free will... complete independence from prior causes is almost impossible to reconcile with reality. If the universe is deterministic, our choices are predetermined and if randomness plays a role, our actions are dictated by chance rather than control. In either case, free will as traditionally imagined cannot exist. It is, in practice, an empty phrase, a comforting illusion humans cling to in order to feel special or morally responsible, even though every choice is the predictable outcome of forces beyond our conscious control.

#Freewill #Determinism

I dont know how the debate persisted even after the development of neuroscience, psychology and physics tbh

It began with ancient philosophers like aristotle, and later religious traditions (judaism, islam, christianity and the likes) made free will the cornerstone of their theology because moral accountability, sin, and salvation all required humans to have the capacity to choose between right and wrong. Without free will, notions of divine judgment or reward would collapse. That's why religious thinkers very often defend it passionately.

A nice reddit thread regarding free will i found recently

Manchester United under Carrick has been fire so far🔥

Part Two: But What Is Determinism really?

So determinism says something provocative but simple: if you had all the variables (billions upon billions, down to particles and fields) and the correct laws, you could, in principle, simulate not just falling rocks but falling thoughts. What someone will say, choose, or regret would already be encoded in the state of the universe moments before. No magic line appears where physics ends and “decision” begins.

Of course, this is mostly a theoretical claim. In practice, the universe laughs at our attempts to measure everything. Chaos amplifies tiny errors, quantum mechanics injects uncertainty, and the computational power required is absurd beyond imagination. But determinism isn’t about practicality it’s about whether the future is fixed in principle, not whether we can actually calculate it.

And that’s the funny part: we accept prediction everywhere except the one place it makes us uncomfortable. The same universe that lets us simulate stars, storms, and stones might also be quietly simulating us whether we like the implication or not.

Very simply put, given all the variables and enough computation power (could very well be near infinity :)), we could with infinite precision predict everything in the universe from galaxies colliding to what someone will think or do, in a classical sense.

#Philosophy #Freewill #Determinism

Part Three: The Physics and Philosophy Behind the Illusion Of Free Will

Once we move beyond intuition and examine how the universe actually works, the idea of free will becomes even harder to defend. At the level relevant to human behavior, physics is governed by causal laws: physical states evolve from prior physical states according to fixed rules. The brain, despite its complexity, is a physical system. Neurons fire because of biochemical processes, which themselves depend on prior conditions. If our mental states arise from these processes, then our decisions are simply the next link in a causal chain, not independent acts of authorship.

Some attempt to escape this conclusion by appealing to indeterminism, usually via quantum mechanics. But randomness does not rescue free will. A decision influenced by probabilistic noise is not “free” in any meaningful sense; it is merely less predictable. Randomness undermines control just as much as determinism does. Whether an action is caused inevitably or occurs by chance, it is not something the agent freely originates. In both cases, the outcome is dictated by factors outside conscious control.

Philosophy only reinforces this problem. Classical libertarian free will requires that an agent be the ultimate origin of their choices uncaused by prior events. Yet this notion conflicts with both determinism and indeterminism, leaving it with no coherent place in a scientifically intelligible world. Compatibilist (heard this just yesterday from the comments section) accounts attempt to redefine free will as acting according to one’s desires or intentions, but this merely shifts the problem backward. Desires themselves are caused by biology, experience, culture, and circumstance, so redefining freedom in this way preserves moral language while abandoning genuine autonomy.

What remains is not free will as traditionally understood, but a psychological experience of agency layered on top of causal processes. The feeling of choosing is real, but it does not imply metaphysical freedom. From the standpoint of physics and philosophy alike, free will survives only by being rebranded into something weaker and less controversial (determinism in disguise), retained for comfort rather than coherence.

#Physics #Philosophy #freewill #determinism

Finally got this project to an MVP stage.

[penny]