Do we all really have free will?

[Mark T]

That no futurelings exist is strong evidence that time travel won't ever happen. Assuming it were to become possible in the future to travel back in time, then it would be safe to assume that there must already be people among us that have come from the future. It would also not be beyond the realm of imagination to suggest that someone who had come from the future would be able to prove it somehow, or atleast should be required to prove it before any of their "information" could be regarded with any veracity. But this hasn't happened anywhere as far as we know. So if time travel ever becomes possible, where are all the futurelings?

Maybe they have travelled back in time but we just don't know. If time travel were possible I expect the time traveller would have to be very careful of what they do to affect the future, so I doubt that they would let anyone from the past know about there time travelling capabilities. The time travellers could also be visiting periods in the future that we have not seen yet.

Back to free will, even if there was a time traveller they may have the ability to affect our free will but it would only apply to a small percentage of people. After all, what would a time traveller gain from changing what you have for breakfast? They could however affect the future by manipulating certain decisions made by those in power. I expect those people who make big decisions that affect the future could potentially have there free will dented by the presence of a time traveller.

If God does control everything we do, then I guess He is to blame for all the bad things that people do and is systematically placing them in heaven and hell.

 

[Blitz187]

This is by far one of the most interesting discussions Ive seen on GTP... Keep it going... The responses in here are very well thought out and of an intelligent nature which does not occur often in other parts of GTP... 👍

 

[Danoff]

Wow, you guys really went off on the whole time travel thing. The original idea behind the time traveler was that the existence of a God who can see forward and backward in time does not preclude the notion of free will. Knowing what you're going to do is not the same as forcing you to do it.

That being said, if there were a God, he would most certainly be in control of our actions. Not only would he be capable of influencing our actions, but he would be incapable of creating a human being without, in his infinite knowledge, knowing every last choice that human being would make.

I think if you were able to know the position of every atom in the universe and its trajectory, you could predict the firing of neurons in each mind, the actions that would follow, and every decision that every creature on the planet would make. With perfect knowledge of the universe, you could have a perfect prediction of the actions and events that follow. Once again, this does not preclude free will - it only represents a perfect prediction. Perturb the system and the choices of the actors within it will alter - which can also be predicted given perfect knowledge of the universe.

I'll give a simpler illustration.

Tomorrow morning I will have a chocolate donut for breakfast. I had one this morning, and one yesterday morning. They're only going to stay good for so long, and it will be wasted if I don't have it tomorrow morning. If you know that nothing will perturb me from my current trajectory, in otherwords, if you know there's not going to be an earthquake tonight, that I'm not going to get into a car accident, that I'm not going to slip and fall in the shower and end up in the emergency room - that tomorrow morning will be very similar to this morning for me - then I will guarantee that I'll have a chocolate donut for breakfast.

Now, I'm free, of course, to have toast, or cereal, or any of a number of other things for breakfast. But I'm telling you with better than 99% certainty what my future actions will be. If God, or a time traveler, knows that I'm going to have a donut tomorrow - this does not rob me of my free will. It simply represents a good prediction of my future behavior. My choices can be predicted, even known, but they are still my choices.

 

[WVUscion]

The issue I see with looking at free will in this manner is: if it feels like ice cream, if it looks like ice cream and if it tastes like ice cream... why not call it ice cream?

Whatever process or mixture of processes creates consciousness, it feels real to us, and that's the only thing that matters. Whether we're programs running on a quantum computer, biological mechanisms with an intricately complex biofeedback system that simulates consciousness or otherworldly spirits inhabiting corporeal bodies, we can still feel emotions, we can think, we can rationalize, we can do purposeful action and we can create new things and appreciate things thus created.

Those of us without brain damage, that is...

Given that we think we have consciousness and exhibit all the signs of having it... who's to say it's not there? We pass the Turing test, don't we? (at least I do.)

The idea that we have consciousness and realize right now that we have consciousness is a good reason to believe that we do in fact have these qualities in reality. This idea is summed up in a very famous quote "I think, therefore I am".

Unfortunately the quote, and your example about the ice cream ONLY guarantees your existence for this exact moment... this moment... this moment. Sorry, I love doing that lol. The thought that has just crossed your mind is the only thing that you can know for certain. All of your memories and experiences from the past could have been artificially implanted inside your head and you would have not been the wiser.

I completely understand that it sounds very silly, because in essence it IS very silly. However there is no way to completely rule out such a scenario. That doesn't make the scenario true, it just means that it has to be considered as a possibility when discussing the concept of overall truth. If there is some confusion about this concept I would be happy to lay out the logical framework for it at length.

When discussing topics such as these, it is important to remember that feelings, thoughts, emotions, et al human properties are highly dependent on the idea that the mind itself is the absolute truth. For instance, how can I say that my jeans are blue unless I submit myself to my own mind? To some, this is a very scary proposition because there are many examples of the mind being patently flawed. It gives us illogical thoughts, it shows us things that aren't really there, etc. So when trying to sit back and decide for yourself the basis of things such as free will, morality, religion, and other topics such as those, you have to first decide how much of your perception you are willing to trust.

 

[Stevisiov]

A good example of this question is presented in the first Matrix moive.

Neo goes to see the oracle (whom can allegedly predict the future).


from about 25 seconds in.

In this fictional scenario, Neo demonstrates that he doesn't have free will. Interestingly, the oracle in a position of power may have intentionally induced the braking of the vase, in which case, does the oracle demonstrate free will?

 

[niky]

Unfortunately the quote, and your example about the ice cream ONLY guarantees your existence for this exact moment... this moment... this moment. Sorry, I love doing that lol. The thought that has just crossed your mind is the only thing that you can know for certain. All of your memories and experiences from the past could have been artificially implanted inside your head and you would have not been the wiser.

Actually... I already consider this to be a possibility.

On self-analysis... I know that I'm not exactly the same person that I was last year. I may have similar behaviors, similar beliefs and I may share the same set of memories, but I'm not exactly the same.

Those beliefs have different strengths. My physical condition has changed, and with that, my emotional and psychological make-up. I have experienced new things that change the way I think.

Looking further back... to College... High School... Grade School... Pre-School... I can remember doing things and saying things and believing things that I would not do or say now. Not only because I'm smarter now, but because my belief systems and attitudes are also different.

When I was going through all of that, as a kid, I would wake up each morning with the same thought: "Who am I?" because I never knew if I was the same person who went to sleep the night before.

Such an existential crisis seems silly now, and I don't lose much sleep over it.

There are some that are of the opinion that: whatever your memories, you are still you. One movie that's interesting to watch in this regard is "Dark City". You can be implanted with the memories of a serial killer, but you still wouldn't think or feel like him... since the mode of thought is structural and emotion is chemical.

But what if the matrix of your perception is implanted elsewhere? Then memories, emotions and pre-defined thinking pathways all go out the window. What then is left but the eternal here-and-now of consciousness (or the illusion of it?)

Again, it all boils down to accepting the fact that your consciousness may be a construct and that your senses may be false... but since, in my case as a non-psychopathic , non-autistic human with a full set of working sensoria, the illusion is consistent and persistent, I accept that what I see, feel and think is.

Now, I'm free, of course, to have toast, or cereal, or any of a number of other things for breakfast. But I'm telling you with better than 99% certainty what my future actions will be. If God, or a time traveler, knows that I'm going to have a donut tomorrow - this does not rob me of my free will. It simply represents a good prediction of my future behavior. My choices can be predicted, even known, but they are still my choices.

I agree with this.

Take a computer program. You know its entire structure. You know the RAND tables it looks up when it needs to make a random choice (no conscious choice can ever be truly random). So you boot it up, and you have a monitor that tells you everything it's doing. You ask it to make a choice. For example... first move in chess.

It doesn't matter if you know what that choice will be, the program still has to make that choice. In that sense, it does have free will, albeit, of a limited kind, due to its simplicity.

 

[Danoff]

Tomorrow morning I will have a chocolate donut for breakfast.

Ommm Nommm Nommm

 

[Mrs. Famine]

Dan, I feel I have to question your choice of breakfast!!!

(Wouldn't some orange juice and cereal be healthier )

 

[Joey D]

I think this probably falls into this topic of discussion.

For the past week or so I've been reading some Old English literature and the concept of wyrd keeps coming up. In the poem The Wanderer it states, "Wyrd bið ful aræd", (Fate remains wholly inexorable) and in Beowulf it states "Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel" (Fate goes ever as she shall!). So this has sort of got me thinking if fate actually exists.

With the recent break-up everyone keeps telling me everything happens for a reason and I'm not sure what to think about that. "Wyrd bið ful aræd" is one of my favourite sayings and I guess to a degree I can agree with it because I think everyone does have a fate and they can't really change it. If you come for a poor background there is a pretty good chance that you'll end up poor, however there are people that prove this wrong.

I'm struggling with this concept and what to make of it. Perhaps this is the spiritual side of me attempting to get out.

 

[Gil]

This conversation started in the "do you believe in God" thread, and I think it needs to be carried over to it's own thread. I personally believe we do have free will, but if Time Travel is invented, or there is a God (please, don't debate whether there is or not), we do not.


Let's say tomorrow, I go to school, and I get chocolate milk from the cafeteria. Assuming there is a God, he already knew I would get one. Is my will my own? If God already knows my choice, do I really have the free will to choose a coke, or white milk?

The fundamental issue in this line of thought is that while God does have a plan for your life (though that is a discussion for yet ANOTHER thread), and if you choose to follow that plan, then God knows what the final outcome will be.
YOU however do not, so in that simplified strata, you have free will.

While that is still not the free will that we should be discussing it is something.
The free will in question is the decision to believe in/on him, to not believe in/on him. and to follow/not follow his commandments.

If you read the Bible, you will note in the book of Matthew that Jesus states that "even the demons, believe and tremble." They do not, however follow the commandments.

That may or may not help. It may WIDEN the issue to the point of some folks having brain explosions. But it is my $.02.

 

[sicbeing]

I don't actually think we have free will. I will try and explain how the best of my ability, so forgive me if I get wordy or don't make sense.

I think that with our skills to look at a situation, and try to act on the decision we think is best for that situation.

For example: If I see that I'm hungry in the morning, my best decision is to get out of bed and pour myself a bowl of cereal, and then eat it. It's just how I think, even though I have the free will to go out and kill people instead of eating cereal, the way my mind is built I think cereal is a better option, for now.

Now, say someone goes into the future, and comes back and watches you eat cereal. He only saw what you WOULD have done anyway, what you are programmed to think and do.

Following me? Kind of?

I think that we evolves due to what surrounds us, so if someone went into the future and saw what we evolved into, he couldn't really come back and tell us what we evolved into to make us change what we evolve into, unless he could alter our natural surroundings enough to make us evolve into something else.

So in other words, the decisions and actions we make every day, we are "evolving" into our situations. I eat cereal when I get out of bed, not because I have the free will to do so, it's because of my surroundings and the way I grew up that made me think to do so.

So lets say, as I was growing up, I watched my dad read the paper every morning. This is an example of my "surroundings", so there is a chance I grow up thinking that reading the paper every morning is what I want to do when I grow up, so then I grow up and read the paper every morning. So my -surroundings- -evolved- me into a mourning paper reader.

I'm trying to explain it the best way I can. Anyone following me?

So yea, if someone came back from the future and said "Hey, you are going to eat cereal this morning", this alters your surroundings enough to stir up the decision you're going to make, so instead maybe you think you should eat toast, so you do.

Have you every head that if you traveled to the past, and killed one butterfly, that it could DRASTICALLY change the present/future? It's because it alters someone's surroundings and then alters the way they think or act. Like lets say you goto the past and prevent a 5-car pile up by removing a motionless cow from a foggy highway, that means that no one will get into that 5 car pile up and therefore evolve differently.

By the way, I heard time traveling has been proven to work, but only in one certain way (where I think if you were to travel really fast, you age slower).

EDIT:

The way that we evolved from bacteria into the life forms we are today, I believe the same can be said on how we go from birth to death, it all depends on your surroundings on what the outcome will be.

You can always say "well I am the way I am because I grew up in a nice area'", well remember that nice area wasn't always a nice area, it became, or evolved into a nice area based on a decision that someone else made, and that decision was based on how that person evolved, and so on and so forth back all the way to the beginning of time.

 

[nk4e]

A good example of this question is presented in the first Matrix moive.

Neo goes to see the oracle (whom can allegedly predict the future).


from about 25 seconds in.

In this fictional scenario, Neo demonstrates that he doesn't have free will. Interestingly, the oracle in a position of power may have intentionally induced the braking of the vase, in which case, does the oracle demonstrate free will?

Would it work well when a radical program questions everything?
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-nPQQWIf3c)
If we do have free will, we do not listen to it. From what I believed that everything is backed by something. Nature vs Nurture as someone has suggested. Though everything is a matter of choice; if someone went to a future and came back to us and gave us information on whats possibly going to happen then but isn't a slight chance that it isn't going to happen now? ( I wonder if anyone is confused). Like a different time plane.

 

[Alan_G]

Quantum Mechanics! For anybody interested, do some reading on it. Some crazy stuff goes on at the subatomic level, which has implications for predictability, or lack of predictability to be precise.

 

[Joel]

Nature vs Nurture? I believe in a combination of the two. Not everyone is cut out to be a mathematician, or a molecular biologist, but someone who COULD have been either of those, could end up being a burger flipper, or a floor sweeper if their parents didn't bring them up properly.

 

[WVUscion]

Nature vs Nurture? I believe in a combination of the two. Not everyone is cut out to be a mathematician, or a molecular biologist, but someone who COULD have been either of those, could end up being a burger flipper, or a floow sweeper if their parents didn't bring them up properly.

Using that logic then everyone could possibly be anything. The floor sweeper could have made it into college and become a leading mathematician if he decided to study instead of do drugs, but he didn't. Man X could have been an extremely talented microbiologist, but because of his fathers affinity for Formula 1 and constant pressure, he decided to take up a racing career. While there are some very primal predisposed characteristics, I would tend to agree more with the nurture over the nature.

 

[Keef]

With the recent break-up everyone keeps telling me everything happens for a reason and I'm not sure what to think about that.

I can tell you will certainty that the reason they're saying that is because that's just a nice thing people say when they're afraid to tell you the truth or can't come up with anything sincere. But I'll also say that it did happen for a reason. She turned into a party girl. Nothing spiritual about that, sorry to burst your bubble.

If you come for a poor background there is a pretty good chance that you'll end up poor, however there are people that prove this wrong.

Fate is different than destiny. Fate happens, and it isn't spiritual. Destiny isn't real. It's just something people make up to give themselves a purpose in life.

I'm struggling with this concept and what to make of it. Perhaps this is the spiritual side of me attempting to get out.

Just don't think about it while you're smuggling gold, you could crash and end up in a heap of trouble.

 

[Joel]

Using that logic then everyone could possibly be anything. The floor sweeper could have made it into college and become a leading mathematician if he decided to study instead of do drugs, but he didn't. Man X could have been an extremely talented microbiologist, but because of his fathers affinity for Formula 1 and constant pressure, he decided to take up a racing career. While there are some very primal predisposed characteristics, I would tend to agree more with the nurture over the nature.

I don't agree that everyone could be anything. I think a perfect example of this would be sports. Let's take Football for example. No matter how hard you train, there's virtually no chance of becoming a Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning, unless you have natural talent.

I believe in a combination of the two, of course, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning could have ended up being a CFL quarterback, or a backup in the NFL, if they didn't properly train. It really depends on what it is. If brought up a certain way, everyone can do MOST things, but some people's brains just aren't cut out for being a mathematician, or a microbiologist.

(I agree with you that nurture is bigger than nature, but nature IMO plays a small role, but it's there)

 

[nk4e]

I believe that Time has something on this, I was reading about it on why our DNA isn't our destiny.

 

[niky]

Identical twins are the greatest proof of why DNA isn't destiny. That they have individual personalities and that their likes/dislikes can differ wildly even when they live in the same household shows that genetics doesn't account for everything. (Unless you're born with a debilitating mental condition.)

 

[Danoff]

My thinking in this area is evolving. I rewatched this amazing youtube video about quantum mechanics last night (which I have now posted too many times on gtplanet).



In it, the universe is described as a wave function of probabilities. You don't perceive all of these probabilities because you are entangled with some of them, so to you it looks like a "collapsed" wave function. In reality the wave function has not collapsed, but your particular entanglement with it makes it appear to have done so.

It occurred to me this morning that choice may behave in this manner (may have to behave in this manner) as well. We get a little caught up in wondering whether choice is deterministic, and if it's not, what is the level of freedom in choice? It may be that choice (like everything in the universe) is a wave function of probabilities. And you get entangled with one of them when you perceive a choice.

Mind blown, again.

 

[Imari]

It occurred to me this morning that choice may behave in this manner (may have to behave in this manner) as well. We get a little caught up in wondering whether choice is deterministic, and if it's not, what is the level of freedom in choice? It may be that choice (like everything in the universe) is a wave function of probabilities. And you get entangled with one of them when you perceive a choice.

Is it really a choice if you actually did every choice?

The idea that on some level you take every possible action (or inaction) at every single moment seems to suggest that there's no actual free will in that. It feels like choosing what to eat at the buffet by eating the entire buffet. You didn't choose, you just ate everything. An entirely deterministic automaton could have done the exact same.

 

[Danoff]

Is it really a choice if you actually did every choice?

The idea that on some level you take every possible action (or inaction) at every single moment seems to suggest that there's no actual free will in that. It feels like choosing what to eat at the buffet by eating the entire buffet. You didn't choose, you just ate everything. An entirely deterministic automaton could have done the exact same.

Yup, that's part of the "mind blown" in there. I mean we could try to redefine choice as your entanglement with reality...

 

[Danoff]

So with this explanation, it looks like we're really getting closer to a unifying theory of physics which links the macro world with the micro world. And it appears that the answer to all of this is headed in the only direction it seems like it can, to the result that the universe is a manifestation of all possibilities (including nothing), and that the beginning, end, or movement through that universe is something of an illusion.

From a certain perspective, it would seem that the universe must be quantum, it started as a point. All outcomes of the universe would follow quantum mechanics, with your particular entanglement following the particular quantum branch you followed since the big bang. This means that the laws of physics are also unified under the quantum entanglement. Your perception of the universe is entangled with the statistical outcome of the big bang which included your particular laws of physics. The universe is a wave, and you're riding on your tiny slice of perception of it.

The upshot of all of this is that the future really does look pre-set, but your path of perception is not something you can know, because your path of perception of it branches through the possibilities endlessly (and if you knew it ahead of time, it wouldn't, you'd be entangled). Essentially the person you consider to be yourself goes through all quantum outcomes.

It occurred to me that personal choice might also end up being a quantum wave. Meaning that each choice of each person can branch according to the quantum probabilities of all choices, and you end up riding the particular "one" "you're" entangled with.

So the future is determined, but not really. Choice is an illusion, but not really.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

So with this explanation, it looks like we're really getting closer to a unifying theory of physics which links the macro world with the micro world. And it appears that the answer to all of this is headed in the only direction it seems like it can, to the result that the universe is a manifestation of all possibilities (including nothing), and that the beginning, end, or movement through that universe is something of an illusion.

From a certain perspective, it would seem that the universe must be quantum, it started as a point. All outcomes of the universe would follow quantum mechanics, with your particular entanglement following the particular quantum branch you followed since the big bang. This means that the laws of physics are also unified under the quantum entanglement. Your perception of the universe is entangled with the statistical outcome of the big bang which included your particular laws of physics. The universe is a wave, and you're riding on your tiny slice of perception of it.

The upshot of all of this is that the future really does look pre-set, but your path of perception is not something you can know, because your path of perception of it branches through the possibilities endlessly (and if you knew it ahead of time, it wouldn't, you'd be entangled). Essentially the person you consider to be yourself goes through all quantum outcomes.

It occurred to me that personal choice might also end up being a quantum wave. Meaning that each choice of each person can branch according to the quantum probabilities of all choices, and you end up riding the particular "one" "you're" entangled with.

So the future is determined, but not really. Choice is an illusion, but not really.

This is the most rational explanation I can find. Our consciousness is surfing the divergent quantum branches.

 

[Danoff]

Consider this possibility (I'm just making up everything that follows based on my limited understanding of brain functioning and quantum mechanics):

Each choice you make comes down ultimately to some quantum effects for the neurons firing in your brain. Every choice you make has a probabilistic waveform, and so you have some probability of making a choice one way or another. The fact that you're entangled with one of those choices does not mean that the other choice was not also made and has another entangled "you" associated with it. That means that if you had a 99% chance of making a particular choice, that most of the evolutions of yourself through time correlate with that choice, but 1% goes the other way.

But what does that do to your brain?

Your brain has a feedback mechanism where it learns and develops cognitive pathways based on the choices you make and the feedback you get. This means that the 1% of you who made a choice one way will have a different brain than the 99%. As the brain ages, your cognitive pathways get deeper. So your potential for making certain choices decreases with age. Early in your life, there may be more divergent expressions of yourself entangled with difference choices, but as you age the number of possibilities will dwindle.

 

[m76]

The phrase "I changed my mind" is inaccurate on multiple levels. Firstly it implies some sort of duality within the self. Like there is you and another entity called "mind" that you changed. You can't change your mind, you are your mind. What you can change is your views / opinions.

But that's not entirely accurate either. In order for you to change your views you need to learn new facts which initiates the change. So in reality new information changed your mind. If you just sat in an isolated room where no information can reach you you'd never change your mind about anything.


I don't think the multiverse is real either. It would mean an infinite amount of parallel universes, which I don't think there is enough compelling evidence for. Just because the cat is both alive and dead until you open the box and check on it, doesn't mean there are two universes one where the cat is alive and one where it isn't. Your observation solidifies one outcome as reality, and all other possibilities are null and void after that point, if the cat is toast it doesn't get to live on in an alternate timeline.

So to answer the topic, you don't have free will, all your actions are governed by chemical and electrical processes, that you have zero control over. Everything you do is a reaction to your environment, and your physical and chemical composition only makes one reaction possible at any given moment. That doesn't mean your fate is set in stone though, since simple chance can alter the course of your life at any moment.

 

[UKMikey]

The phrase "I changed my mind" is inaccurate on multiple levels. Firstly it implies some sort of duality within the self. Like there is you and another entity called "mind" that you changed. You can't change your mind, you are your mind. What you can change is your views / opinions.

But that's not entirely accurate either. In order for you to change your views you need to learn new facts which initiates the change. So in reality new information changed your mind. If you just sat in an isolated room where no information can reach you you'd never change your mind about anything.


I don't think the multiverse is real either. It would mean an infinite amount of parallel universes, which I don't think there is enough compelling evidence for. Just because the cat is both alive and dead until you open the box and check on it, doesn't mean there are two universes one where the cat is alive and one where it isn't. Your observation solidifies one outcome as reality, and all other possibilities are null and void after that point, if the cat is toast it doesn't get to live on in an alternate timeline.

So to answer the topic, you don't have free will, all your actions are governed by chemical and electrical processes, that you have zero control over. Everything you do is a reaction to your environment, and your physical and chemical composition only makes one reaction possible at any given moment. That doesn't mean your fate is set in stone though, since simple chance can alter the course of your life at any moment.

Did you make a conscious decision to write all this?

 

[Danoff]

The phrase "I changed my mind" is inaccurate on multiple levels. Firstly it implies some sort of duality within the self. Like there is you and another entity called "mind" that you changed. You can't change your mind, you are your mind. What you can change is your views / opinions.

You think your brain can't change your brain? It definitely can.

But that's not entirely accurate either. In order for you to change your views you need to learn new facts which initiates the change.

New information can come from inside your mind.

I don't think the multiverse is real either. It would mean an infinite amount of parallel universes, which I don't think there is enough compelling evidence for.

The many world interpretation of the quantum waveform is just the most compelling explanation we have right now. It doesn't require seemingly arbitrary specialness the way other interpretations do.

Just because the cat is both alive and dead until you open the box and check on it, doesn't mean there are two universes one where the cat is alive and one where it isn't. Your observation solidifies one outcome as reality, and all other possibilities are null and void after that point, if the cat is toast it doesn't get to live on in an alternate timeline.

It very well might if someone opens the box before the decay.

So to answer the topic, you don't have free will, all your actions are governed by chemical and electrical processes, that you have zero control over.

The evidence for this is lacking.

Everything you do is a reaction to your environment, and your physical and chemical composition only makes one reaction possible at any given moment. That doesn't mean your fate is set in stone though, since simple chance can alter the course of your life at any moment.

There is no room for chance in this interpretation.

 

[sirjim73]

I pay for mine monthly and it's not cheap!

Sorry, I thought the thread title was "do we all really have free wifi"

 

[m76]

You think your brain can't change your brain? It definitely can.

Not in a way that could be considered free will.

New information can come from inside your mind.

That's not new information, is re-combining existing information, which is what the brain does best. We can't really invent anything new, but we can combine past experiences to create a hybrid from them.

The many world interpretation of the quantum waveform is just the most compelling explanation we have right now. It doesn't require seemingly arbitrary specialness the way other interpretations do.

My interpretation doesn't require anything extra compared to the multiverse, it also doesn't require an infinite amount of parallel universes, each of which exists with the same amount of matter in it. When a new branch is created it also requires all matter in the universe to sprout an identical copy. I think that is as far fetched as it goes. We just assume natural laws do not apply, but I've seen no compelling explanation why.

It very well might if someone opens the box before the decay.

The observation is what causes the decay, if nobody checks on it, it could exist in limbo indefinitely.

The evidence for this is lacking.

The burden of proof is not on the one making an assertion. The assertion here is the existence of free will. I'm saying the brain is biological computer that functions based on the input it gets.

There is no room for chance in this interpretation.

The outside influence your brain encounters is the chance part. Well, strictly speaking it might not be chance per see, but it is still as random as a random number generator in a computer.

The specific results of an RNG is not at all random, as if you repeat the same RNG in the exact same moment in the exact same situation it will always give the exact same result. The brain works exactly the same way. Seemingly it can produce different results that can be interpreted as free will, but I think it is impossible for your brain to come to a different decision in a repeat scenario of the exact same situation. Thus no free will. Of course in practice you cannot do a repeat of a situation ever, even the best controlled experiments are not that precise. I'm talking about literally rewinding time, and testing again. But for this the observer would need to exist outside of linear time. So we are not going to have laboratory tests for free will any time soon, possibly ever.