Sean Carroll

So that's something that in detail – at the detail level, we have to keep in mind. But even in classical mechanics, if classical physics were true at the base level, you would still have a world – I think you could imagine a world that looks pretty similar to the one we live in where we're made of atoms and the atoms are jiggling around and doing different things.

So that's something that in detail – at the detail level, we have to keep in mind. But even in classical mechanics, if classical physics were true at the base level, you would still have a world – I think you could imagine a world that looks pretty similar to the one we live in where we're made of atoms and the atoms are jiggling around and doing different things.

And the point is, in that world, when you have emergence at a level of, you know, there's a higher level where you've coarse-grained over a lot of individual details, and at the lower level there's deterministic microscopic dynamics, it will often be the case that the higher-level dynamics are stochastic, and the best possible thing you can do is make a prediction about probabilities, even though the lower-level dynamics are completely deterministic.

And the point is, in that world, when you have emergence at a level of, you know, there's a higher level where you've coarse-grained over a lot of individual details, and at the lower level there's deterministic microscopic dynamics, it will often be the case that the higher-level dynamics are stochastic, and the best possible thing you can do is make a prediction about probabilities, even though the lower-level dynamics are completely deterministic.

if I have a theory of, you know, when a volcano is going to erupt, the details will depend on a lot of microscopic facts that I don't know the answer to, right? But the point is that what that means is there are two, actually many more, but let's say particularly two microstates that are in the same macrostate that lead to very different behavior at the macro level.

if I have a theory of, you know, when a volcano is going to erupt, the details will depend on a lot of microscopic facts that I don't know the answer to, right? But the point is that what that means is there are two, actually many more, but let's say particularly two microstates that are in the same macrostate that lead to very different behavior at the macro level.

So there's a microstate of the volcano. I look at the volcano. I do all the tests I can, but I cannot measure every single atom in it. So there's details about the pressure and the temperature that I don't exactly know. Certain microstates of the volcano are going to explode any minute now. other microstates of the volcano are going to last years without exploding, okay?

So there's a microstate of the volcano. I look at the volcano. I do all the tests I can, but I cannot measure every single atom in it. So there's details about the pressure and the temperature that I don't exactly know. Certain microstates of the volcano are going to explode any minute now. other microstates of the volcano are going to last years without exploding, okay?

So that's okay at the- at the emergent level. That's not a failure of emergence. It just means that the emergent theory tells you the probability that the volcano is going to erupt. And I think the same thing is true with people and with free will.

So that's okay at the- at the emergent level. That's not a failure of emergence. It just means that the emergent theory tells you the probability that the volcano is going to erupt. And I think the same thing is true with people and with free will.

My macrostate description of a person obviously doesn't include an enormous amount of information about the details of what's going on in their brains, right? So it may very well be the case that the microphysics of what's going on in their brains completely determines what they're going to do next. But that information is not available to me. I don't have that information.

My macrostate description of a person obviously doesn't include an enormous amount of information about the details of what's going on in their brains, right? So it may very well be the case that the microphysics of what's going on in their brains completely determines what they're going to do next. But that information is not available to me. I don't have that information.

I don't even have that information about myself, much less about other people. So what happens is in the macro state that I use to describe a person, there are various different possibilities about what will happen in the future. And 100% compatible with everything I know, there are different possible future choices. We call these decisions or –

I don't even have that information about myself, much less about other people. So what happens is in the macro state that I use to describe a person, there are various different possibilities about what will happen in the future. And 100% compatible with everything I know, there are different possible future choices. We call these decisions or –

Yeah, choices, decisions, things that your free will is doing. And free will is just a label we put on them. And I know that some people don't want to put that label. That's fine. I don't care. Don't put it on. I'm just trying to correctly describe what goes on in the world.

Yeah, choices, decisions, things that your free will is doing. And free will is just a label we put on them. And I know that some people don't want to put that label. That's fine. I don't care. Don't put it on. I'm just trying to correctly describe what goes on in the world.

Henry Jacob says that so many people support Luigi Mangione, which blew my mind, suggests that a lot of people are consequentialists. Do you agree with this inference? So Luigi Mangione is the one who killed the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, which did indeed – Start a lot of conversation there on the old internet and elsewhere.

Henry Jacob says that so many people support Luigi Mangione, which blew my mind, suggests that a lot of people are consequentialists. Do you agree with this inference? So Luigi Mangione is the one who killed the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, which did indeed – Start a lot of conversation there on the old internet and elsewhere.

I think that here in the United States, for those of you who don't live here right now, we have problems with our healthcare system. And a lot of the problems in the United States in general are simply the result of the fact that very important –

I think that here in the United States, for those of you who don't live here right now, we have problems with our healthcare system. And a lot of the problems in the United States in general are simply the result of the fact that very important –