In the history of science, this was widely believed as it was accurate to the present level of understanding - however, this began to fall apart after the dawn of quantum mechanics.
Before the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it was scientifically correct to say that if the position and momentum of every particle in the universe was known, the past, present and future could be predicted with absolute (analytical) accuracy. This was known as determinism (the theory you champion here) This was proven to be false as there exists an intrinsic uncertainty with respect to position and momentum on a very small but non-zero order.
In practical terms, this is demonstrated by the many body problem. The energy levels of any atomic system with more than one electron cannot be analytically determined - it can only be approximated. The energy levels of the hydrogen atom, and the He+ ion, Li++ ion, etc. can be precisely determined but nothing with 2 or more electrons, this is because electrons interact with each other (repel) and the intrinsic uncertainty of the position and momentum of one has an impact on the energy level of the other.
This means the brain is not deterministic. It's random at best. But we also know that the hypothetical free will of a person is not random, which means scientifically that there must be an unaccounted-for transcendental property of the brain, commonly known as a soul.
Since people still answer based on my answer that its "just a theory" and the randomness of quantum mechanics arent proven, let me come back to this statement of yours (and mine) and lets try again discussing like civilized people if you dont mind.
I re-read how I phrased it and I agree that it doesnt really sound like what I wanted to say in the end.
So, the indeterminacy of quantum behavior is likely not just a result of technical limitations, its a core feature of the quantum mechanics theory, which is a very strong theory, comparable to the theory of relativity or evolution, I agree on that.
However, while this randomness is experimentally supported, the deeper interpretation of why and if it is REALLY random is still a matter of debate.
Undetected variables for examples are still not unrealistic at all.
But thats not why I said its "just a theory". I was not referring to the randomness of quantum movements in general, although I know it sounded like it, I was referring to the influence of random quantum movement in correlation with the human brain since that was your argument.
In my opinion, your view started pretty strong but then became metaphysical pretty quickly and in the end you concluded that the human mind has to be transcendental due to the limitations of physics.
You said quantum movement means the brain is not deterministic anymore.
This is not necessarily true. Quantum uncertainty is very likely real on the subatomic scale, but the brain operates on the macroscopic level, where classical physics dominate. There is no strong evidence that quantum effects directly influence cognitive processes like decisionmaking or thought. In fact most neuroscientists still treat the brain as deterministic or deterministically chaotic – not as random.
You then move on to say that because of that, the brain is "at best random"
This is a false dichotomy in my opinion. Between hard determinism and pure randomness, there are many possibilities: chaotic systems, emergent behavior, nonlinear feedback and so on. Randomness does obviously not equate free will. A system that behaves randomly is not free, just unpredictable, which you acknowledge yourself as well....but your conclusion then again:
"Because free will isn’t random, there must be a soul."
This is a logical leap I would say. The lack of a full scientific explanation for consciousness or decisionmaking does not automatically imply the existence of a soul or transcendental entity.
This is a classic example of a god of the gaps argument. We don't fully understand X, therefore metaphysics. There is no empirical evidence for a soul or any transcendental property of the brain.
That conclusion is philosophical or religious at best, but certainly not scientific.
So in the end a lot of what you said is actually pretty damn far away from being a theory - or even a hypothesis.
This post was edited by Saurod on Jul 15 2025 05:37am