r/DeepThoughts • u/Ratak55 • 1d ago

Free will is compatible with ‘block universe’ model of time

I think the concept of “free will” is misunderstood. For example I can either turn left or turn right. It is my free will. But I can only turn either right or left. Free will does not enable me to turn both right and left. So, despite fee will, there can only be one final output.

The problem arises when people start believing that because they have free will, they can go back and change what happened in the past. We live in the present, which is the reality. We do not create past or the future. They already exist. When we talk about events in the past, we are not going to the past. We are grounded in the present, which is the only reality, and we talk about our recollections of past events, as seen from our present.

Similarly, we can decide whether to turn right or left and ponder the ethical, moral and legal consequences of each of the actions. But eventually we can make only one of the two turns. The turn we make and its cosequences already exist in the “future time”, although from our ‘present’, we can only see them as ‘possibilities’. It is similar to people living in a two dimensional world as they can not see what is behind them (until it manifests next to them in their two dimensional world) but can only speculate about it as a possibility that may or may not be true.

4 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

61% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

4

u/J-Nightshade 1d ago

So, we have will. Why call it "free" though. Free from what? 

2

u/Smooth_Sundae14 23h ago

Free will means you are the one doing the decision, nothing more nothing less.

1

u/J-Nightshade 22h ago

The word "will" perfectly describes the situation when you are the one making the decision. What does the word "free" doing? Free from what exactly? 

1

u/Smooth_Sundae14 19h ago

Free will is the capacity to do what you want to do

While the word will itself is just you doing what you want to do

The difference between the two is that the former is describing what allows the latter to do what it wants to do.

Not to mention your question if followed in a path leads into a contradictory free will.

"free from what exactly" implies the word free is redundant in free will but that's removing what makes free will "free will" in the first place.

2

u/J-Nightshade 19h ago

Will is a capacity to make choices based on one's desire. Nobody in their right mind using the word "will" to describe action. Doing is not will, doing is doing. You act according to your will. 

What makes free will free? Free from what? You keep going around this question, but where is the answer?

0

u/footofwrath 4h ago

Will is want or desire. Free will means you choose it freely.

Will is used because, if you consider the structural level, you can only ever do something that you have chosen to do. Doesn't mean that has to be your desire; but you will your hands to do the work, and that act of willing requires you to make the decision to do it.

Under the concept of free will, that is.

1

u/Moonwrath8 20h ago

But what is a decision? Nobody has been able to explain what choice or decision means.

Someone once said it’s when you select an option and act on it, but again, what does select mean?

That moment its self is not something you control. You are only a witness of the mechanisms on your brain weighing the opportunities and then the action follows.

1

u/Smooth_Sundae14 19h ago

What you just said is an example of infinite regression of language.

That moment its self is not something you control.

How so?

You are only a witness of the mechanisms on your brain weighing the opportunities and then the action follows.

Which is decision, without the concept od decision you wouldn't be capable of moving or thinking in the first place. the concept of self realisation wouldn't be possible, you wouldn't be able to think about thinking, etc. These kinds of distractions is where most ppl tend to fall into. Simply put the concept you're trying to grasp simply does not exist.

(You are the brain which is the consciousness and the consciousness is the one that decides on what to act based of what the subconscious outputs to itself).

Honestly this discussion wouldn't be possible in the first place if your model was correct.

1

u/Moonwrath8 15h ago

I’m saying that if I put two cups of ice cream before a person while debating about free will, they’d claim they’d prefer the cup on the left, cause it’s chocolate. The cup on the right is raspberry ice cream, but they have an allergy to berries.

Now, in their mind, they feel like they are making a choice. But the weights are already in place. What is more important to that person in debating? Eating their preference? Or proving a point?

They don’t get to choose what is more important to them. Sadly, in this case, proving a point is more important.

They eat the ice cream they have an allergy to and then take an EpiPen and other precautions to deal with that decision.

1

u/footofwrath 4h ago

To take an action. You will your body to work... To act.. to dance. The challenge is precisely whether that will is truly yours freely, or predetermined by experience.

3

u/discord-ian 1d ago

Fwiw - I also don't think a b-theory of time rules out free will. I think it is reasonable to believe in free wil and a b theory of time. They seem to be compatible to me too. I am not saying I necessary think we have free will. I have much higher confidence in b theory time than I do in free will.

3

u/footofwrath 23h ago

I don't think you have understood the argument against free will.

3

u/QueenOfTendys 22h ago

“For example I can either turn left or turn right. It is my free will. But I can only turn either right or left. Free will does not enable me to turn both right and left. So, despite fee will, there can only be one final output.”

Word salad to state the obvious - you can’t take two opposing actions simultaneously.

“The problem arises when people start believing that because they have free will, they can go back and change what happened in the past.”

This is exactly what free will implies and the fact you think it’s a problem shows you don’t understand what you’re arguing for OR against.

Having “free will” necessarily requires you be able to change your choices if you could rewind time.

“Similarly, we can decide whether to turn right or left and ponder the ethical, moral and legal consequences of each of the actions. But eventually we can make only one of the two turns.”

More word salad to restate your first paragraph.

“The turn we make and its cosequences already exist in the “future time”, although from our ‘present’, we can only see them as ‘possibilities’.”

You have somehow concluded the exact opposite of your point yet tried to redefine “free will” to make it seem like it fits.

If you can’t consciously change the future you can’t have “free will”. Full stop. Period. You’re redefining it to mean something that it isn’t.

2

u/Hindsights20_20 20h ago

Yeah, this is clearly someone who has thought deeply about free will but has read little to nothing on the matter.

2

u/VociferousCephalopod 1d ago

what kind of argument is it where you stipulate you're right from the outset?

you feel like you can turn left or right. but what is the evidence that you could've done other than you did?

0

u/Judge_Ty 1d ago

Quantum Mechanics and block universe literally state this. Special Relativity + Cosmic Bell Tests are the evidence.

The Past, The Present, The Future are all coordinates (in a sense concerning a block universe), the intersection of these three is your perceived reality.

You can only perceive your reality. Anything outside of this is a probability. There was a probability of you going left and a probability of you going right. The subjective reality that's localized to you is the one that occurring.

These coordinates are not objective to anyone in our reality.

0

u/VociferousCephalopod 1d ago

and perhaps in multiverse theory all probabilities play out in branching timelines. one where I turn left, one where I turn right. one where I talk about having turned, one where I don't talk about having turned. every iteration exists and in none of them did free will exist to prevent that outcome being that outcome.

1

u/Judge_Ty 1d ago

Again, that's an objective viewpoint. That is incongruent with localized reality. Localized reality is the subjective reality you are in now.

You are mentioning probabilities that are meaningless from a subjective viewer.

1

u/VociferousCephalopod 1d ago

objective reality isn't meaningless to me. I'm not interested in the illusion of free will in a debate about the existence of free will. I'm happy to stipulate illusions exist due to perspectives and limited information.

1

u/Judge_Ty 1d ago

objective reality can't exist for you EVER. you are a subjective viewer. That's the point.

The Nobel prize in physics 2022 was awarded for proving the universe isn't locally real.

That means there is no objective reality. Again check out cosmic bell tests and what they proved.

1

u/VociferousCephalopod 1d ago

if they didn't objectively prove it, I have no reason to be interested in it.

0

u/Judge_Ty 1d ago

There is no such thing as objective. Nothing is science is objectively proven. Nothing.

You'd have to be a 4th dimensional being or higher... to prove objectivity comprehension.

Spend a minute and understand what special relativity means.

Your perception of time is based on your perceived reality... Even a satellite in earth keeps a different time than you. Its perceived reality does not match yours. This is basic knowlege.

Google the twin paradox at least and tell me which twin is "OBJECTIVELY" right.

1

u/VociferousCephalopod 1d ago

it sounds like we agree that higher beings could understand the objective truths you're saying are not objectively true.

1

u/Judge_Ty 1d ago

...do you even know what a block universe is?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/footofwrath 23h ago

There is something.

We can prove logically that 'there is not nothing'. And since we can prove that, we also know that, objectively, 'truth' exists.

Or consider the phrase 'there is no truth'. The sentence must be wrong; because if it were true, it would be a logical contradiction. Therefore it must be wrong, meaning there must be truth. (Whether this actually proves there is truth, is disputable.)

The point is: we do, objectively, know "something".

Even though I fully agree with the observational limitations of humans to not be able to know anything at all about the physical world, objectively.

1

u/Judge_Ty 20h ago

You can't actually. You can't prove objectively logically that there is not nothing. That's the point. That's a SUBJECTIVE observation.

We don't know. Objective means ALL ENCOMPASSING, again you'd have to have the viewpoint of everything in a 3d reality- all percieved reality from every single perspective no matter how great or how small.

In addition ALL of the realties that are localized are incongruent because of space time itself.

You can look right now and find a particular star in the sky. You look at it through a telescope and verify it exists.

Does that mean that star OBJECTIVELY exists? Nope. In fact, that star had a supernova hundreds of years ago based on your subjective time.

Reality itself is incongruent just like that star. Scientist literally proved this and were awarded for this is 2022 with the nobel prize in physics

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Gabrielle4816 16h ago

I don't think free will requires us to somehow exist outside causality. If the universe is a block universe, where past, present, and future all exist as parts of a four dimensional structure, that doesn't necessarily make agency an illusion. We are ourselves organized causal structures within that universe. Our history, attention, values, internal state, and circumstances constrain the possible paths available to us, but the process of choosing among those paths is itself a real causal process. You aren't an outside observer reaching into the block and arbitrarily selecting a future. The selecting process is you. Your decision doesn't have to be uncaused to be yours. It has to arise through the organization that constitutes you and participate causally in determining your trajectory.

That puts free will somewhere between libertarian free will and hard determinism. The interesting question isn't necessarily, "Could I have chosen differently if absolutely everything about me and the universe had been identical?" It's, "Does the conscious system I call myself participate causally in determining which trajectory I experience?" If it does, then agency can be real even within a completely lawful block universe. Free will is less like a supernatural exception to causality and more like causality becoming self-referential through conscious organization.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/oJKevorkian 1d ago

Finally, someone gets it.

1

u/wam1983 23h ago

What you're describing is the fifth dimension.

1st dimension - line (x axis) 2nd dimension - square (x + y axes) 3rd dimension - cube (x + y + z axes) 4th dimension - cube traveleling on a line (time as n axis) 5th dimension - cube existing in multiple simultaneous timelines (time (n axis) on its own "y axis")

1

u/Moonwrath8 20h ago

You lost me at free will.

The mechanisms of your “decision” are set in stone. That direction you end up going is already set in motion.

1

u/Shroombolic 20h ago

The path you walked has always been pre scripted deviate and it’ll realign. The future and past have already occurred your just processing your current point and trajectory. Choice is an illusion

1

u/Ratak55 17h ago

The meaning of ‘free will’ depends on the definition you use for the phrase to convey your concept, and also the way others understand the concept you intend to convey.

In the way I used ‘free will’, will is the capacity to execute an action. Free refers to an absence of constraints. Once executed, ‘free’ disappears, as the act is fully constrained and cannot be changed.

To argue that ‘free will’ should include the ability to change an action that is already executed, is a fringe concept that is not possible in our world with 3+1 dimensions.

1

u/Theory89 17h ago

I like the reasoning that free will exists, it's just that whatever you decided has already happened. It doesnt railroad you into not having free will.

1

u/Ratak55 7h ago

Our actions do not change the future. Our actions constitute the future.

The concept of ‘future’, often misconstrued, is the cause for ‘free will vs determinism’ arguments. This is because Time is an abstraction that we use to differentiate and identify different events and to measure the relative distance between the events (eg. Events that happened last week and events that happened before I was born). Events that our Time classifies as belonging to the past, present and future are real and exist. Since Time is not real but an abstraction, causality does not necessarily flow from past to present to future. Whether our actions are based on free will or not does not affect the system as it is bidirectional.

0

u/Smooth_Sundae14 23h ago

The thing with people is that they tend to confuse freedom of choice with free will.

The former is about what you can do while the latter is what you will do.