Sabine
patreon
Has Physics Ruled out Free Will
🕑 Added 2023-06-03 12:00:03 +0000 UTC[This is a transcript with links to references.]
The future is determined by the past, except for random quantum jumps which no one can control. Causes have causes have causes, and they go back all the way to the big bang. Does that mean we have no free will? People often ask me that. I find the question stunningly uninteresting. Of course, we don’t have free will. Ok, then, how do we make decisions? Do we make decisions? Did the big bang make me do this video? That’s what we’ll talk about today.
I already made a video about free will a few years ago. But I’ve noticed recently that a lot of people think free will is relevant for addressing climate change. And because I don’t believe in free will I’ve suddenly become a problem. This is complete nonsense. But let’s start at the beginning.
And we begin of course with physics. Everything in the universe is made of 25 particles that, for all we currently know, are not themselves made of any smaller constituents. We collect them in what’s called the standard model of particle physics. That’s everything in the universe, except possibly dark matter, but that’s a different story.
Most of those particles are unstable and decay very quickly. How can it be that a particle which isn’t made of anything can decay? That’s a question I get so frequently, I made a video about that specifically.
For now, let’s stick with the particles that are stable. Those are the ones that we are made of, electrons, up and down quarks, and photons and gluons to hold them together. And good thing they’re stable because otherwise you’d be more radiant than a nuclear fuel rod. You’d also be dead very quickly.
Ok, so humans are one big collection of particles. What the particles do is described by the mathematics of the standard model. It’s a lot of maths, and you need that maths if you want to answer difficult questions like what’s going on in LHC collisions. For simple questions, like whether free will exists, we don’t need to know much about the maths. Relevant is just that, ultimately, what you and I do is also described by the standard model.
And yes, that means that we know the equations for human behaviour. We can write them down. In practice, that’s a completely useless statement, because we can’t solve the equations for all these 10 to the 30 or so particles that humans are made of. Not even the biggest supercomputer in the world could do that.
But we don’t need to solve the equations to draw conclusions from their properties. For the purposes of this video, the most relevant property of these equations is that they are deterministic, which means that if you know the properties and motions of the particles at one time, you can calculate what happens at any later time.
Ok, it isn’t quite as simple. Because this is quantum physics, so on top of this deterministic behaviour, there’s an occasional quantum jump which happens randomly whenever you make a measurement. Y’all know that I don’t believe this stuff with the quantum jumps. But today I’ll stick with the most generally accepted theory. So, we have particles that behave deterministically plus random jumps.
In quantum mechanics we use wave-functions to describe the particles, and this implies that there are some quantities, like position and momentum, whose values you can’t know precisely at the same time. But the wave-function still changes deterministically. If you want, you can include gravity, but that is just a deterministic theory. A non-quantum theory, or a “classical” theory as physicists say. So, gravity just adds some more determinism on top.
And that’s how the universe works, for all we currently know. It’s one big wave-function that contains all those particles. Its change in time is deterministic with the occasional random jump. The deterministic part is fixed by the past. The random jumps cannot be influenced by anything because that’s what it means for them to be random. And that’s it. Please don’t blame me for this. I swear it wasn’t my idea.
Physics is great, but it doesn’t tell you much about human anatomy, other than possibly that flapping your arms won’t make you fly. That’s because if you combine many particles, then things get very complicated very quickly. You get new, “emergent” behaviour as it’s often called.
You don’t even need to look at difficult things like human beings to see that. If you do as much as combine atoms to big chunks called metals you get new behaviour, like the ability to conduct electricity. Or being very shiny. Or being very painful if they fall on your foot.
Emergent properties don’t exist on the level of the constituents, they arise from the properties and interactions of the constitution. A single electron doesn’t have a conductivity. That just doesn’t make sense. Conductivity is a property that only makes sense for large collections of electrons.
It doesn’t make sense to talk about the conductivity of an electron for the same reason it doesn’t make sense to ask whether a single oxygen atom is a gas, or what’s the marital status of your small intestine. It’s what philosophers call a “category error”. It’d be trying to assign a property to a class to which it doesn’t belong. Emergent properties don’t make sense on the underlying levels. But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Chairs exist, alright, but they exist on the macroscopic level, and not on the level of elementary particles.
Curiously enough, our universe is organized so that the details of what happens at short distances become less important at large distances. This is why, if you want to understand planetary motion you don’t need to know the population of New York City. This is why, if you want to understand chemical reactions you don’t need to know the standard model of particle physics. And this is why, if you want to become a YouTuber, you don’t need to know anything.
Physicists call it the “decoupling of scales”, the mysterious but empirically well-confirmed fact that the details of what goes on small scales can be disregarded if you’re only interested in what happens on large scales. And this is why we have so many disciplines of science. Because each discipline of science has its own language about emergent properties that are adequate to its subject.
But that we get new, emergent, properties from the interactions of the constituents, doesn’t mean the equations that determine the behaviour of the constituents no longer apply. Emergent behaviour is a consequence of combining large numbers of particles with complicated interactions. It *follows from the underlying laws, it doesn’t make them go away.
Some philosophers have speculated that large systems could have emergent behaviours which *don’t follow from the laws of the constituents. This is sometimes called “strong emergence”. But there is no evidence this happens in the real world.
Though there are some mathematical examples. If you have an infinite number of constituents or an infinite number of properties of the constituents, or anything else being actually infinite, there are cases where it becomes impossible to calculate one or the other quantity of the entire system. A few examples for this have been constructed in the literature. Usually, the proof works by a map to the halting problems or similar examples of computational complexity. However, those are mathematical constructions that have no real-world counterpart because in the real world nothing is ever truly infinite.
Ok, so emergent properties are an interesting consequence of the underlying laws, but we’re still governed by a mix of determinism and indeterminism. What does this mean for free will?
Free will is often described as the possibility that one could have done otherwise. But this description stopped being useful with quantum mechanics, because it’d mean that single particles also have free will.
If you take for example a photon, a single quantum of light, and you send it through a beam splitter, then there’s a 50 percent chance the photon goes left and 50 percent chance the photon goes right. If you measure the photon on the left you can say, well, it could have done otherwise. It could have gone right, right? Does that mean it has free will? Well, I’d say that’s not what normal people would call free will, though some physicists actually believe that photons are observers. One of the consequences of that is that they’ve concluded reality doesn’t exist. I talked about this in an earlier video.
This is also what happens in the “Free Will Theorem”. This theorem was mathematically proved by John Conway and Simon Kochen in 2006. It says that if humans have free will, then elementary particles also have free will. But the statement of the theorem is logically equivalent to the statement, “If particles do not have free will, then neither have humans.” I don’t know about you, but to me it seems reasonable to assume that particles do not have free will. And either way you put it, the free will theorem says nothing about the existence of free will in the first place.
So let’s return to the question of what we mean by free will. We have seen that the idea that you could have done otherwise or that your actions were not determined is not descriptive because of this random element from quantum mechanics. Contemporary philosophers have therefore tried to capture the essence of free will in the idea that human decisions are to a large extent independent from external factors, and instead dominantly driven by internal deliberation.
Different philosophers have put somewhat different spins on this story. But it always comes down to the idea that human decisions are difficult, if not impossible, to predict from external input and observations alone.
The philosopher Daniel Dennett for example captures the essence of free will in our “ability to see probable futures – futures that seem like they’re going to happen” and then the possibility to take steps that something else happens instead, like, for example an autonomous vehicle does. The philosopher Jennan Ismael has even written a book called “How Physics Makes Us Free”. She basically says that free will lies in the large degree of autonomy that our brain has from environmental factors as it operates.
Those are typical examples of what is called “compatibilism”, that’s the philosophy that free will is compatible with the laws of nature as they are, a mixture of determinism and indeterminism. Most contemporary philosophers are compatibilists. According to a 2020 survey, almost 60 percent. But it’s not like this is a new idea, well known philosophers like David Hume and John Stuart Mill were compatibilists.
The other big camp is that of libertarianism, whose supporters also believe in free will. Their philosophy comes in several variants. First, there are those who insist that the randomness of quantum mechanics makes place for free will. As I said, I don’t see how this makes sense. Then there are those who acknowledge that an element of indeterminism doesn’t entail free will, but who then throw out some established science to make place for miracles. Like for example the ability to change the past by your thoughts.
And then there are those who just insist that free will exists but it’s nonphysical. The latter is a well-trodden road. For example, Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant were both in that camp. I’d say the idea is not wrong, but I never understood what the point is. Because if free will is not physical it doesn’t explain anything in the physical world, so why bother inventing it?
I am in neither of those camps. The science writer John Horgan once called me a “free will denier”. I think that’s a misunderstanding. It’s not that I’m denying people feel like they have free will. But I’m with libertarians in that I think free will is incompatible with determinism. I also think it’s incompatible with indeterminism. And since the real world is governed by a mixture of determinism and indeterminism, I arrive at the conclusion that free will doesn’t exist. It’s sometimes called “hard incompatibilism”.
The good thing about hard incompatibilism is that you don’t need to explain what free will is in any detail. You just need to say: whatever it is, it isn’t compatible with what we know about the laws of nature.
That said, I don’t have a problem with compatibilism. If you want to define whatever as free will, please go ahead, it’s just a definition after all. If your definition leads you to the conclusion that photons also have free will I’d find that a tad bit ridiculous but maybe that’s just me.
I should add that when neurologist discuss the question of free will they talk about something else entirely. They are concerned with the question whether we make decisions consciously or unconsciously. Interesting question, but not what I’m talking about today
I recently gave an interview and the guy said to me if free will doesn’t exist, why don’t I kill myself tomorrow because what’s the point of anything. This isn’t a joke, it actually happened. It wasn’t even the first time people said something like this to me. And I’m afraid it won’t be the last time. Which is why I’m here talking about free will again.
I’m not a psychologist. I’m a physicist. I don’t know what to say to people who have existential angst other than, please see a psychologist. I’m not a philosopher either. For what I am concerned, if free will doesn’t exist, it’s never existed, so what difference could it possibly make for your life.
I believe the problem is that many of us have grown up thinking our brain works in a particular way. Then we learn that this isn’t compatible with science, and we have a hard time readjusting how we think about ourselves.
The free will story suggests that the brain works like this. You use your neural circuits to consider different options, for example, what you could eat for lunch. You draw on your memory, and the associations you have for each possible option, and try to imagine how much you would enjoy it. Then you take this thing called “free will” and use it to pick one. The challenge is now to integrate the knowledge that the thing you call free will is just another part of this algorithm that runs in your neural circuits.
A good way I’ve found to make sense of this goes back to Wittgenstein. We can’t know the result of a calculation that our brain performs before we have completed the calculation. If we did, we wouldn’t have to do the calculation. This is why we have the impression that the decision is “free” until we’ve arrived at the conclusion. But the result ultimately follows from deterministic brain functions, with the occasional random element.
If that sounds weird, all it means is that our decisions follow from what we want. And I think that’s a good thing. I’d find it creepy if there was something else, call it free will or whatever, that would affect the decisions in my brain.
So that you don’t have free will doesn’t mean you don’t make decisions. Of course, you make decisions. You decided to watch this video, didn’t you? Good choice by the way.
Did the big bang made me do this video? No. That’s because all those structures in the universe, including this planet and life on it, were created by quantum fluctuations in the plasma in the early universe. Their details were not determined at the big bang, if there was a big bang. It’s also extremely likely that one or the other quantum event played a role for the world becoming just exactly as it is today.
Why does it matter? It matters because to come to good decisions we need to understand how our own brain works, and how society works overall. And the idea of free will suggests an inaccurate description of reality. It makes people believe they have more control over what goes on in their head than is really the case.
Fact is that our brains will process input whether we want that or not. Once it’s in, we can’t get it out. This is why trauma is so hard to cope with. This is why misinformation is so hard to combat. This is why what the FIFA called “three victorious hands around a soccer ball” will forever look like a facepalm once someone told you it does. You can’t “unsee” something.
And this is also why I take issue with upbeat climate change activists, who attack realists as “doomers” because they believe we just need the “will” to take action. The idea that “will” is all we need has led to utopian plans for staggering amounts of carbon capture, home insulation and renovation, upgrades of the electric grid, energy storage, and a hydrogen economy, all of which is somehow magically supposed to pop out of nowhere if we just have the “will”. This belief in free will puts the blame on individuals when really the problem is the way that we’ve organized our societies.
I’d say it isn’t me who is a problem for action on climate change, it’s people who disregard the limits of human cognitive ability. I have a chapter about free will in my book “Existential Physics” where I also discuss the question of moral responsibility, so if you want to know more, go check this out.
Comments
You're welcome! Did the link above not work - that book should be in German, it might be easier. But maybe it didn't translate well?
thanks again, I´m looking forward, have ordered it on amazon
That´s surely compatible with Sabine, so she says in her book
I have to believe in free will.
Hi Thomas, here is a link to the epub translation of the book in German. I can also share a link to the PDF file if the epub doesn't turn out to be convenient to read. http://gofile.me/75xf6/uEFdtx5s1 . I used Google Translate, I hope the quality will be ok.
At first I found Schopenhauer depressing, too. But I believe that when we believe something that is untrue, we expose ourselves to a greater risk of suffering. When we find something that fits reality better, there is less conflict, and I find relief there.
Andrew, I responded to Sabine, about BCs. Please see my response
Merci pour votre attention, living near Aachen not far from France, my french should be better, but, poorly, it's even worse than my english. Most scientific literature is english, Sabine too, wrote her books in english, german versions are translations. I'll get an english version of your book on amazon, and improve my language knowledge by the way. Send you a feedback, though Schopenhauer is somewhat depressing for me. À bientôt
Hi Thomas, unfortunately not. I've made a French version, being French myself. (I originally wrote it in English). For the French version, I used Google translate and made a few corrections here and there, that was the most efficient. I will do the same in German and send it to you (minus the few corrections as my German is very poor). I'll do that next week, I should have some time then. Also, FYI, the English I used is as simple as possible, this is be design, but it is difficult to explain why in a few words.
Hello Nicolas, just looked your book on amazon, interesting, but my english is a bit patchy. Is a german translation available?
Hi Sabine, "no one knows what role quantum effects play in the human brain" - but isn't there something like a 'scale separation' (learned that term from your book) between quantum effects and neurological processes?
I was not aware of Norton's Dome until your comment, but I don't think that is what I meant, though maybe it is an example (contrived, I agree). I can't remember any references for where I got the idea that "there are issues with boundary conditions". Maybe I willed it freely out of thin air ;-). Or maybe it's a mishmash of different ideas, like the idea that one way emergence happens is through certain irreducible constraints (e.g. boundary conditions), and the idea that action optimization equations (Euler Lagrange for classical particles and fields, geodesic for classical particles in GR without non-gravitational forces--which is also an EL equation optimizing the particle's action \integral{mc^2 d[proper time]} over all possible paths-- and also EL for quantum particle wave functions) usually assume some simple boundary conditions, like the field and its derivatives are zero, or some property of a particle (such as position or momentum) is known precisely at the start and end of the path (the latter is not really a problem as one can convolve over all starting properties if they are given by probabilities, or mysterious amplitudes). What if the boundary conditions are not able to be decoupled from the motion of the particle or field, and we need to solve for them in tandem with the EL equations? This also brings up a pet peeve of mine: the fundamental reason for action optimization comes from the Feynman path integral picture. In summary, the quantum picture legitimizes the optimization of the action for particles (because of cancellation of complex number amplitudes more than a few hs from the optimum path. There is a similar rationale for fields). But now this action optimization happens for Dirac or Schrodinger wave functions. It can't be the same rationale because these fields are not classical. Giving this absurdity a name (second quantization) does not solve the problem.
That's right :o)
Can't quite decide whether to be flattered or insulted ;)
Yes that's right. But all this would do is give you a mixture of determinism and indeterminism again, so doesn't really change much about the free will discussion.
Iuval, do you mean Norton's Dome? I've always found that example extremely contrived.
The question exactly what part of your decisions is determined by what is very difficult to answer because no one knows what role quantum effects play in the human brain.
Hi Andrew, as Iuval says, the randomness comes from the supposed collapse of the wavefunction. Now, it's not much of a secret that I don't think it's a real physical process, but then again that's somewhat speculative. If you take quantum mechanics as it is, then it's not deterministic.
I agree, it sound like an oxymoron in the first place.
Torte = a layer cake whereas Tort = an action that causes another injury or other harm 🙂
Well, actually they do affect it: The sum of all those little ripples is the flow...
Here is my take on why I believe that the current belief in free will is harmful globally - https://www.amazon.com/Building-Peace-engineers-journey-into/dp/1686174543 . I can send the pdf/epub to those who are interested, I'm not doing this for the money :)
Here is a discussion about free will with Denis Noble: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCLRKP9NW8I. A nice coincidence in timing and it's worth a viewing.
"And since the real world is governed by a mixture of determinism and indeterminism, I arrive at the conclusion that free will doesn’t exist." I agree with all what you say. But I think that you can condense the arguments of your statement above: determinism and indeterminism are complementary facts, they cover all what is logically possible.
Our neurons don't enact quantum events, so our choices are not "quantum jumps", nor do they lead to many-world splits. Actually, there are huge numbers of quantum events in the chemistry of neural action, but they don't affect the outcomes, any more than all the little ripples in a river affect its overall flow.
“Captain Pike has an illusion, and you have reality. May you find your way as pleasant.”.
The view you’ve outlined here and what one reads about many-worlds theories seem to present two extremes of the balance between choice and determinism. Is this a matter of emphasis or a significant real difference? At least rhetorically, the many-worlds view is explained as saying that every choice or decision we make splits off new universes / selects a universe. If quantum jumps are just occasional, then the rest of the time we make choices or decisions that are determined. Would many-worlds theories say that those determined decisions don’t result in a splitting off or selecting a world from the multiverse, just the special quantum measurements?
I see... But quantum fluctuations are results of some physical process that is governed by, Dirac equation, which is a deterministic equation. So if we accept that the quantum fluctuations are physical and they are governed by some deterministic equation then what would prevent us to go back up to the Big Bang?
Hi Andrew, that was my question too, but now, as I understood, they were determined a bit later, after the quantum fluctuations did not dominate the universe anymore, not sure when, perhaps ten minutes after? But that doesn't solve my problem with the credibility of determinism in such a maximum predictable way, although I know, it's physically correct.
Well, there are some cultures, faiths, that deny 'free will' but being partly dominating, think of fate-belief or predestination. Is your book about Schopenhauer available?
I agree. But I think the belief in free will causes more harm than it helps today. It causes feelings of guilt, people judge, they feel bad when they fail, as if they could have willed themselves to be geniuses... and there are no grounds for judging anything, we aren't gods. I understand it seems to have been necessary for cultures to develop, but I am not sure it still is necessary. I am not sure that a majority can be convinced it doesn't exist, either.
Einstein mentioned Schopenhauer's quote to sum it up and I never need more: "men do what they will, but they can't will what they will". I've spent a lot of time trying to explain this to others, I've even written a book about it, but I can never convince anyone. It is a cultural belief. I believe that believing in free will causes more pain than not believing in it, simply because it doesn't exist. I have been trying to figure out the cognitive reasons why the cultures that believed in free will became dominant (if there ever were other cultures that didn't believe in free will, which I doubt).. but nothing related to the brain and cognition is easy. I haven't given up yet. In the meantime, go Sabine!
I don't accept that quantum mechanics has anything to say about consciousness. I also don't think that determinism has anything to say about free will. I also don't place any weight on any philosophical system. I posit that consciousness is simply an evolved arbiter over the sensory subsystems. They accept environmental input and generate a response, such as a photon striking a photoreceptor on a cell membrane that triggers the expression of proteins that drive cilia until no photons are received. This simple, chemical system works well in single-celled organisms, which also have evolved algorithms that can change default behaviors, learning as AI does, but not complex enough for multi-celled animals. In multi-cellular living things there has evolved a cellular network, the brain, to deal with each subsystem and to varying degrees, consciousness to arbitrate those responses, such as stopping to evaluate a situation to adjust the response. Free will is that assessment and choice of action.
Then, what was it that determined your decision?
Haha, is torte an english term?
Sabine convinced me with to strong arguments, first, there're of course no alternative futures in front of our way, between which we can choose, second, clearly a decision, ruled by total randomness isn't a decision. But anyway, I have the impression, that there's a fundamental difference between the way, humans make a decision, and animals (even the most intelligent ones) do. Being emergent to the deterministic laws, that work in the brains, the difference might be the reason, why we feel 'Free Will'.
I initially read the manuscript before seeing the video so had to watch it later to see what was up with the FIFA ball thing. Think it is a stretch to say that looks like hand to face. Still mainly looks to me like 3 hands on the ball. When this old guy grew up, the word math was NEVER plural (i.e. maths) Even spell check here doesn't like it! This whole free will topic/issue seems to be an issue of concern for me lately. Perhaps the way to best look at it is to say we are a conscious unit of the unfolding universe and not having free will as Sabine implies it.
"Free Will" turns out to be a terrible term. "Will" isn't free at the first place? For me it works fine, to see freedom as a good feeling, like hope or love. What does it matter, if there is no "strong emergence" behind it? It happily feels real anyway.
Hi Tracey, totally agree, your first point is a razor-sharp analysis of all the many people, who want to own total freedom under a prison-guardian's shelter. We both discuss your last question in an alternative future, me as a mail carrier and you as a dog walker.
So the decision, that I drank my morning coffee from the blue, instead of the red cup was not determined in the first three minutes after the BigBang? I'm happy about that.
My incoherent thoughts.... 1. Not being religious, I was never indoctrinated into any dubious moral arguments and I have never thought deeply about the concept of "free will". I am always amused when "believers" assert that things are a part of (insert favorite deity)'s plan and then also assert "free will" -- make up your mind! I'm also amused when a deity saves someone from a tornado that the deity sent, presumably because of "the gays", or something like that. 2. Without a formal, agreed-upon definition of "free will", it seems that so many people are arguing past each other. 3. The physics side of my brain agrees completely with Sabine's analysis despite my strong internal sense of having "free will" (under any definition thereof). I guess this means that I am for hard incompatibilism with a good dose of strong cognitive dissonance. 4. The post office required several of us to install mailboxes on the street rather than having the mail carrier get out of his little truck to walk the mail up to the boxes on our houses. I just noticed that all the dog walkers now have to stop repeatedly at every house along the street. Wait...this has nothing to do with "free will"... or does it....
The statistician George Box wrote that "all models are wrong but some models are useful." Perhaps we should consider free will as a a sort of scientific model which should be judged by its usefulness rather than its strict adherence to the truth. For those of us who are neither physicists nor philosophers, belief in free will may be a useful model that points the best way toward a happy and productive life. Similarly a belief in God may be a useful model in our effort to achieve a more happy and productive life; whether that model is correct is less important.
Have you seen The Matrix? There are a lot people thinking like Neo. They feel disgusting not being in control of their own life. But there are more like Cipher: ignorance is bliss.
Sabine says that she assumes randomness exists, because it does not alter the outcome of the reasoning she does, but I doubt she believes randomness is real, let's say, ontological. What Einstein said? God is not randomness? Everything is super determined since the Big Bang, isn't it? That does not mean you can cross the street without looking first! But relax and watch nice things, not horror movies you can't unsee. You have few control of what happens to you, but even if an illusion, choose wisely what it seems you can choose. Maybe this illusion is an example of "strong emergence"...
I find it similar to the OSI model of communications. You do not need the physical layer to define the network layer, e.g. the IP protocol, routing, DNS... but you need a physical layer reality to communicate, always. A colleague, a radio frequency engineer, used to say that above radio waves, you are at the psychological level of communication systems.
Sabine, I disagree completely… you are a philosopher at heart and a pretty good one at that :)
Good argumentative structure in this, but some slippery assumptions in the interstices. Maybe even leaps in logic there. The fact that quantum fluctuations are random thus far in our measurements does not mean that there is never anything that influences some of them - say, fluctuations inside our brain that are hardly possible at this stage for us to be measuring.
Hi Iuval, thanks for the reaction. I'm not concerned with the collapse since if you subscribe to superdeterminism, as I do, it becomes a modelling related question: the universe doesn't care what an observer measures, it all happens as part of the dynamics. On the other hand I would like to know more about the issues related to the boundary/initial conditions. Could you please point me towards some related material? Thanks!
There might be other paths to randomness besides deterministic chaos and "built-in" quantum mysteriousness. For example, it could turn out that the differential equations of the universe have non-linear time derivatives. Or that singularities in GR are real and deterministic equations break down around them, or that because the singularities are dressed, we can't in principle know what is inside the horizons so in practice we can describe it with probabilities. But that is not the issue with free will. The issue is that people who are not on the spectrum usually do better feeling like they have some agency (there is psychological data to support this, see examples in Jonathan Haidt's The Happiness Hypothesis). And also, our whole legal system and morality is built on the assumption that people have agency and could have chosen something different.
the randomness comes from collapse of wavefunctions. We can only give probabilities to how that happens, there is no deterministic equations for it. The deterministic equations are for the wavefunctions themselves. But there are also issues with boundary conditions that Sabine hasn't mentioned.
CHAOSTORTE UNIVERSUM
As Sabine mentioned, so many properties are emergent. It's as if Reality is a giant Schichttorte with alternating layers of order and disorder as you zoom up or down through the different scales. I'd love to see a video on this aspect of science. Does it even have a name - or is it the just the 'space between all of the disciplines'? ;O)
Hi Sabine, Great video, as always. I was with you up to the Big Bang and was again with you after that. Quantum fluctuation? Wouldn't that be governed by physical laws, too? Why don't we start with an initial condition (Big Bang or whatever we had there) and then let the dynamics be taken care of by the deterministic physical laws? What would be the source of randomness that would give rise to quantum fluctuation?
I fully agree. The only thing what I do not understand is why there is still so much debate about this.
