Quantum destiny - On the non-existence of free will

* This text is an English translation of the original Japanese version produced with the assistance of AI.

* Please refer to the Japanese version for the exact wording.

Japanese version https://ncode.syosetu.com/n8341ht/

Author: Opalman Original text 2016.06.29 Complete revision 2022.08.07 Last updated 2026.05.01

○ Preface

"Life" is the story that lasts until one realizes that "oneself is not life."

○ Prologue

If told, "Your success in life is not thanks to your effort," ordinary people would probably feel offended. The only people who can accept this are those who feel, for some reason, that their own lives are not going well. I would especially like such people to read this text.

As shown below, free will does not exist and life is automatically determined, so society must also be built on that premise, including changes to legal foundations.

◯ Main Chapter

I would like you to think seriously about what it means "to exist," the root of everything.

For something "to exist" is "to interact"; in short, it means to exert an influence.

If it exerts no influence whatsoever, not even indirectly, then for us it is synonymous with not existing.

It is precisely because something exerts even the slightest influence that it becomes necessary to "take it into consideration."

Naturally, as long as something exists, the chain of interactions (the chain of causation) does not break. It is what is commonly called a chain reaction.

Of course, in reality quantum physical reactions are occurring, but the essentially important point is that things continue moving automatically.

This does not change even if the laws of physics are constantly switching, or even if we imagine a universe where, because the amount of matter is small, a long time is required until the next interaction.

On the other hand, I would like you to think about a system that produces free will.

In the case of a human, that would be the brain, but if one can truly say that it produces free will, then that system must not contain even a single thing that moves automatically.

This is because the result would be changed by that automatically moving thing.

However, as stated earlier, absolutely every "existing" thing of every kind moves automatically.

Therefore, free will does not exist.

Moreover, no matter what kind of universe with whatever laws of physics one imagines, for the same reason no being with free will can ever be born, so God does not exist either.

Even if one imagines a God that does not interfere with our universe at all, the moment it exists it is nothing more than a structure that moves automatically, so it would probably not be the God that religious people have in mind.

Also, there may be people who want to call beings with advanced scientific power gods, but they are merely extraterrestrials like us who just happen to possess advanced scientific power, and they too are nothing more than automatically moving structures, just like us.

Life is automatically determined, and whether one becomes rich or becomes a criminal is all automatic.

An "I" or a "you" in the sense of possessing free will does not exist.

We are merely natural phenomena.

An "I" or a "you" exists as a complex natural phenomenon that moves automatically, but at the fundamental level there is no difference whatsoever from a pebble or a typhoon.

Of course, there is a difference in complexity, but the difference in complexity is merely a boundary line for distinguishing words, not some absolute special difference.

Therefore, naturally, it is essential to revise the laws of every country.

What is necessary to understand this problem is not high intelligence; it is only whether one can throw away the unconscious desire that humans should have value, and whether one can exclude sensations and emotions and perceive it without preconceptions as nothing more than a physical phenomenon.

This fact stirs anxiety and, because it is unpleasant, produces a strong rejection reaction.

This is because cultural values that presuppose free will and have been considered "beautiful," such as carving out one's life with one's own hands or living as one's true self, will lose their foundation.

Of course, they remain as methodologies for raising probability, but whether one can actually take such actions in life is merely automatically determined.

However, I am convinced that acknowledging the nonexistence of free will is an extraordinarily important matter that humanity cannot avoid if it is to move on to the next step.

Below I will enumerate common mistakes.

■ "Even if a decision follows causation, if it arises from the person's own desires and reasons, cannot it be called free will? (Compatibilism)"

This is the point at which mistakes are most easily made.

The original "person's own desire" is itself part of a chain reaction that is occurring automatically, yet because one cannot be conscious of that and arbitrarily makes the "person's own desire" the starting point, at first glance one falls under the illusion that free will exists.

Also, when one uses the expression "causation," one tends to grasp it in the image of "rough causes and results," and this too is a reason why this opinion can seem plausible.

What is actually occurring in this world is a chain reaction by countless elementary particles throughout the entire universe, continuing uninterrupted from the past, so one cannot decide a starting point as one pleases.

Introducing that sort of sloppiness gives rise to the illusion that free will exists.

Naturally, it is also possible that, as a psychological defense reaction against not wanting to acknowledge the nonexistence of free will, one unconsciously and deliberately brings in arbitrary settings that produce such mistakes.

If one merely calls whatever one likes free will, no discussion can be established, so this compatibilism is completely mistaken.

It can be said to be a theory born as a result of the overlapping of the feeling of stubbornly not wanting to acknowledge that free will does not exist, the inability to notice the nonexistence of free will because one is dominated by one's own sensations, and the fact that this point is difficult to understand.

This problem is very similar to arguments about perpetual motion machines. When the mechanism becomes complex and the whole picture can no longer be fully grasped, people unconsciously prioritize subjectivity and hope, and end up feeling as if perpetual motion machines or free will exist.

In essence, it is the same as pointing to a stone that rolled and saying, "I shall call this free will."

However, when one tries to make it as complex as possible in order to give persuasiveness to that claim, supporters who want to cling to hope gather, and they begin arranging the appearance as if it could be a legitimate position.

But if one grasps the essence, one will understand just how impossible it is.

■ "One cannot assert it because the theory of everything has not yet been solved."

Even if science advances and a more perfect theory is found, what is obtained thereby is a "deeper interpretation," and the "fact" does not change.

Even if the law of universal gravitation evolves into general relativity, the fact called "gravity" does not disappear.

Even under an extreme assumption such as this world being a virtual world, it remains the case that computations corresponding to "gravity" are being performed.

■ "One cannot assert it because the functions of the brain have not yet been completely elucidated."

"Is there free will, or is there not?" is merely one part of the problems concerning the brain.

I would like you to imagine a large inverted triangle: if the whole of it represents grasping all of the brain's functions, the nonexistence of free will is a small inverted triangle at its base.

What is needed to prove "whether there is free will or not" is only the evidence necessary for that, and it has already been assembled.

It is merely that people would be easier to persuade if the brain's functions were completely elucidated; it is absolutely not essential.

Also, in order to postpone the conclusion, the criterion for what would count as complete is made ambiguous.

■ "There is a soul."

Even if one assumes that there is a soul, as long as it exists it moves automatically; therefore, even if one introduces fantasy in order to postpone the conclusion, the conclusion does not change.

The very way of thinking that asks, "How can inanimate matter combine and become living things?" is itself a mistaken way of thinking dominated by feeling.

Consciousness, too, is nothing more than one of the structures that remained because it increases the probability of survival.

Consciousness strengthens the consolidation of episodic memories, increasing the probability of survival if one falls into a similar situation again.

Excitement improves combat ability and assertiveness, and love produces strong cooperation; in the same way, they increase the probability of survival.

As an important point to add, for some reason there are very many people who confuse the discussion of the nonexistence of free will with the discussion of whether the future is determined, so I would like you to be careful.

If the determinism that says, "If only all information about the initial state were known, the entire future could be calculated (how the future will unfold is actually determined, and we merely do not grasp the information)" is correct, then of course there is no free will. (Determinism has not yet been completely ruled out, as in the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation and the like.)

On the other hand, even if the indeterminism that says, "Until the very moment it is observed, the future is not fixed as one thing and is given only as probability" is correct, there is no free will.

This is because **whether the future is determined or not, and whether it is occurring automatically or not, are in the first place completely separate matters.**

Whether the future is determined or not, at the point that it is occurring automatically, free will does not exist.

Future experiments may confirm phenomena other than quantum fluctuations that bring about probabilisticity, but for the same reason, those too are unrelated to free will.

This concludes the main subject, but at that point one will probably arrive at the question of what the mind is.

As stated above, elucidating that is not necessary "for the proof of the nonexistence of free will."

However, since it is a related topic, I will also touch on cognition.

So let us talk about the "Ship of Theseus."

First, suppose there is a ship here.

The "Ship of Theseus" is the problem that asks, "If some parts of that ship become old and are replaced, and this is repeated until, several years later, all of the parts have been replaced with new ones, can that ship be said to be exactly the same ship as the original?"

Naturally, even if the name is the same, the moment even one part is replaced, it is not completely the same.

However, the same thing is constantly occurring within our bodies as well.

This is true when viewed at the cellular level, and even more so when viewed at the elementary-particle level. (From the perspective of M-theory, multidimensional membranes, or branes, are the basic elements, but since what the smallest unit is does not matter, this book will omit it hereafter as well.)

Strictly speaking, for each smallest unit of time that can have meaning, it is a different physical state. (Depending on the theory, as a theoretical guideline, for example, Planck time is assumed to be the smallest unit.)

What is moving is not the unit called "us" but "elementary particles," and we at each instant are nothing more than the aggregate of those countless results that change from moment to moment.

In other words, it is correct to think that, in truth, we are different people at every instant.

However, we arbitrarily assume that that entire series of flows is all "myself."

I call this kind of occurrence, in which despite the fact that there is actually no free will, the assumption arises subjectively that "I have free will" or "I am alive," a "biotic illusion"; and the reason we cannot escape from biotic illusion is that, in addition to being dominated by our own sensations, if we did not think that way, we would have to seriously face the terrifying problem of denying the existence of the self.

That is why people try to ignore this problem by using sensory judgment as a shield.

However, sensory judgment cannot be any kind of evidence.

We have a certain finite structure; therefore it is natural that our arms do not stretch, and that there are limits to the cognitive functions of the brain.

If there is a certain structure, no matter how advanced it is, in the end what it can understand is only simpler things below it and predictions of phenomena slightly above that, built upon those things.

This structure holds in the same way even for intelligent life forms far more advanced than we are.

To begin with, it is natural that self-cognition has limits for the following reasons.

■1 In evolutionary history, "a function for grasping the activity of the brain" did not develop because it was unrelated to survival.

To begin with, the problem also arises of how one would grasp the activity of the brain region that has the function for grasping the activity of the brain.

It becomes "C for grasping B for grasping A..."

(This area is structurally similar to the paradox of Laplace's demon.)

■2 The brain omits information to increase processing efficiency and achieves advanced functions.

In order to increase the probability of survival, it has no choice but to process data by approximation.

■3 Between the brain that serves as the foundation producing the mind (hardware [constituent units: elementary particles, or superstrings]) and the mind as a function that arises within it (software [constituent units: cells]), it is inevitable in terms of complexity that brain > mind, and the system called the mind inevitably lacks the ability to grasp and understand all activity of its own brain in real time.

This contradiction of insufficient ability is precisely the fundamental reason why all activity of the brain can be understood only as an ambiguous concept (the mind).

■4 Observation is essentially a process in which a measuring apparatus and an object physically interact, and as a result some kind of disturbance occurs in the entire system (this point is often called the observer effect).

The system here means "the range treated as a single whole in order to explain the phenomenon currently being considered," and it may include not only the object itself but also the measuring apparatus and the surrounding environment (changes in the state of the measuring device, changes in the state of the object, effects on the surroundings, and so on).

There are devices such as weak measurement, in which one measures weakly many times, and differential measurement that takes differences (modular measurement), which suppress the effect on the object and extract only the necessary information, but a cost (trade-off) arises somewhere, such as in the amount of information obtained, the necessary number of repetitions, or effects on other properties.

Naturally, even if we assume a situation in which one's own brain tries to check what is happening inside one's own brain, this disturbance will occur.

■5 As a property of this world prior to measurement in the first place, due to the uncertainty principle, it is not possible to obtain accurate data on both position and momentum simultaneously for even a single elementary particle.

In quantum mechanics, matter behaves like a wave, so the more precisely one tries to detect position, the greater the uncertainty in momentum (momentum = mass × velocity, the amount of force by which an object tries to continue moving) becomes.

Likewise, the more precisely one tries to detect momentum, the greater the uncertainty in position becomes; this uncertainty relation arises.

Because this is a fundamental principle of this world, it is not the kind of matter that can be overcome just because science develops from now on.

In the end, because information can only be processed incompletely in principle, even if one tries to understand it completely, naturally one cannot understand it completely, and the thing called the mind is felt as something elusive.

As a concrete experimental example, the passive consciousness hypothesis can be mentioned, yet even those who support this experiment say absurd things such as that the possibility of free will still remains because it is possible to cancel commands.

That is not what I am saying; I am saying that, in the first place, it is impossible in principle.

To begin with, the very concept of free will is premised on the absurd idea that, although there is no logic, the will is determined.

Nevertheless, because we cannot live except by relying on feeling, we have completely excluded the possibility that "free will does not exist, yet due to insufficient cognitive function we cannot notice that fact."

However, just as the world we are now seeing is nothing more than an image synthesized inside the brain based on the spectrum of light, feeling is merely "we interpret it that way," and is completely unrelated to the truth of this universe.

It is about time that we faced this fear and confronted the truth.

○ Afterword

Writing unnecessary things is not beautiful and only produces needless confusion, so I will describe topics that deviate from the main subject here.

■ The significance of spreading Quantum Destiny to all humanity

I will write down why it is necessary to spread an idea that is merely unpleasant, an idea that urges people to face directly a problem they do not want to face.

In a society that has not noticed the nonexistence of free will, discrimination will inevitably occur against people who will be cyberized in the distant future, digital life forms that have no sex from the beginning, people who were originally pets but whose personalities are digitized after becoming highly intelligent, and so forth.

From what level onward one is treated as a person will presumably be determined naturally, but if one cannot understand the nonexistence of free will, then even if artificial life forms come to possess sufficient complexity, one will continue to hold the idea that there is some fundamental difference between artificial life forms and oneself, who has a body.

Worse still, people will probably start saying that they themselves have souls.

It is inevitable that discrimination will be born from this.

If many people understand Quantum Destiny in advance, it will be possible to prepare for transformations that may occur in the future and to prevent discrimination before it happens.

Also, believing in a lie is the strongest weapon humans have acquired for maximizing collective solidarity.

The concept of God is precisely the greatest typical example of this.

Because living beings have diversity, when a group becomes large, the emergence of extremists is inevitable.

Especially in monotheistic religions, needless to say, that tendency inevitably becomes pronounced.

Moreover, because most people practice their faith peacefully, they cannot stop the extremists.

In order to affirm the lie that God exists, new lies are mass-produced, and before long those lies transform into things for maintaining their own power.

Because the denial of God is directly connected to the denial of their own identity and power, they oppress and try to control others in order not to let others deny themselves, who use God as their backing, and they become increasingly radical.

Accepting Quantum Destiny is almost impossible in countries with a strong religious character; unless it begins with Japan, it will probably be impossible to change people's awareness.

In this text I have said what should be said, but no matter how much time passes, suppressing the strongest weapon they have acquired with logical thinking ability will probably remain the most difficult task.

■ On the evolution of humanity

If cybernetic brains develop to the point where they can reproduce even a resonant structure in which the electrical signal of a single synapse influences the surrounding area through effects such as electric fields, and that influence further gives rise to new influences, then in the future, through digitization of personality, an age will surely come in which differences of sex and age, which are now thought to be absolute differences, lose their meaning.

Differences of sex and the like merely seem to be absolute differences because scientific technology is still insufficient.

There will probably be cases where a highly intelligent dog was one's grandmother, people born from the beginning without the concept of sex, and beings that integrate multiple personalities; memories will also be bought and sold.

It will become an age in which what a person is grows increasingly ambiguous.

It is natural that the optimal structure differs according to each environment, but speaking of evolution in general, evolution is ultimately convergence toward an efficiently optimized structure.

After personality digitization, in order to become efficient to the limit, people will create a new efficient language, and furthermore communicate while predicting each other's statements.

At present, emotional things are regarded as human and wonderful, but in the very distant future, logical and calm humans will increase.

As can be seen by looking at today's business books and life guidebooks, in the end what they are saying is to proceed calmly and mathematically with what has a high probability of success, without being disturbed by unnecessary fluctuations of the mind. Emotions are necessary for increasing the probability of survival, so they will probably not disappear for the time being, but if we converge toward an efficient structure, it is inevitable that we will become able to control emotions perfectly.

Of course, by the time that is achieved, the state of humans must be greatly removed from what it is now.

Only after we can discard the preconception that emotional things are human and wonderful will human existence truly begin.

On disparities in society after personality digitization

If personality can be digitized, whether one uses a fully cyborg body or connects a biological body to a network, ordinary people too can become far more highly functional.

Of course, if one uses multiple bodies, a pseudo-teleportation lifestyle will probably also be possible.

However, some wealthy people will be able to independently evolve their own data at a terrifying speed, so the ability gap with ordinary people will open up by orders of magnitude.

However, the endpoint reached by those who have fully evolved ahead of others is the choice of whether to abandon personality.

For example, there is the problem of whether to regard quantum teleportation as transfer or as copying.

If an age comes in which it becomes necessary to perform quantum teleportation in relation to survival, those who hesitate to undergo quantum teleportation will be eliminated there.

In that way, what is necessary in order to evolve ultimately is to accept all change.

If one continues modifying the structure of the self in an attempt to evolve without limit, at some point one will be forced to abandon even one's own personality; whether one can abandon the self at that point is a major barrier.

Of course, most people will probably stop evolving there, but some people will overcome even that barrier.

However, might that not already be called the initial stage of assimilation with this universe?

■ On my personal view of the universe

In the end, inflation and the Big Bang seem equivalent to the formation of a black hole.

In short, it is the difference between viewing it from the inside and viewing it from the outside.

Therefore, I think in terms of a combination of holographic cosmology and Schwarzschild cosmology.

The holographic principle is the idea that three-dimensional information, including gravity, can be encoded on a two-dimensional surface.

Personally, I regard that two-dimensional surface as the event horizon of a black hole.

The true form of our universe in the mother universe probably exists as vibrational information of strings on the event horizon.

It may simply be due to my lack of study, but I do not know of anyone who mentions the following, so I will state it explicitly just in case.

The more a black hole absorbs the matter around it, the more the surface area of its event horizon expands.

Naturally, the amount of surrounding matter it absorbs also increases more and more.

I think that this may be correlated with the increase in the expansion rate of our universe, or with the opinion from the opposite viewpoint that the material world itself is shrinking.

In other words, in my view, if the black hole that is the form of our universe in the mother universe exhausts the surrounding matter, the expansion of our universe will also stop.

If, in the process of moving through the mother universe, it begins swallowing new matter, it will probably begin expanding again.

Of course, in the end, due to Hawking radiation, our universe will return to the mother universe.

The mother universe will also return to the grandmother universe, and in the end it will probably return to the first Eve universe.

Of course, there will probably be innumerable Eve universes.

In superstring theory, from inferences based on extra dimensions, it is predicted that there are 10 to the 500th power patterns of physical laws; regardless of whether that is correct, even in universes with the same physical laws, because of quantum fluctuations that produce randomness, they will not become exactly the same world, so practically speaking, almost infinitely many worlds can be conceived.

As the ultimate question, there is the question, "Why is being, rather than nothingness, the root state?"

Of course, as to why, an answer will probably never be obtained, but if there truly were nothing at all, nothing would begin, so since we exist, one can only say that the root state is probably nothingness in the quantum-mechanical sense: "zero but not nothing," in which plus and minus cancel each other out.

What is important is that changes in energy are permitted for things that exist.

That is to say, there is possibility in everything, and at the same time, because of that, eternity in the same state can be said to be impossible.

In any case, even if all Eve universes return to zero, another Eve universe can be born, so it can be said that there is eternity in that sense.