Science has never proven that there is free will.
The idea of a free will has historically developed out of the unreal spirit ideology, i.e. from the idea that human beings can determine and dominate the world by virtue of their so-called “spirit”.
With the idea of the three-division of man into mind, intellect and body, at the latest the misconception in it began, the so-calledSpirit would be independent of worldly conditions and references, i.e. free of physics, natural laws and logic.
Later, this misconception was transferred to the so-called intellect with which man would be superior to the world, and animals, etc.therefore would not have a spirit, and therefore no intellect, which was simply denied for reasons of intellectual ideology.
Actually, you know for sure at least.100 years in Eu., and earlier, that there is neither spirit nor any special human intellect (see also Shintoism, Buddhism, etc.), but that instead the ability to systematize, use and represent observations a the general capability of all so-called living beings (storage capacity of atoms, quantums, etc.) is, only in more or less pronounced form.
From these superstitious assertions of spirit, human intellect, etc., then the further misconception arose, the spiritual human abilities, that is supposedly lifted from reality, would also lead to the consequence that, regardless of the world, thoughts that were created in the spirit would then lead to an act of will that is equally independent of the world, which is absolutely absurd, since everyone knows that one is thinking and the other is reality.
If one also considers how thoughts, etc., and subsequent action come about, then the insane ly-ideological idea is a so-called .”Free Will” is just an object for the garbage can of history.
The Libet experiments alone should make every human being doubt about the free will for decades, as this is at least since then intellectually out of date, see also the previous experiments in the 60’s in D., which were only ignored before:
See e.g. popular science without depth:
See also a more detailed description of Free Will:
In addition to the link in the thread heading:
It goes without saying that actions can be changed arbitrarily if it causes little or no energy.
But as soon as an action costs the individual something, the amount of the energy consumption/loss determines the direction of action and the mode of action.
Influencing the computer does not cost the protester much, except a little respect if he chooses wrong.
In the reality of life, however, it is always about more than just a game or honour, which is why real actions with consequences for one’s own energetic (over)life are chosen in a completely different way, according to logical-energetic principles (shortest way, greatest profit, lower hotter food, less work, etc., etc.).
The argument that one can simply choose irrational actions also counts for a short time at best, since no one can afford to provide the free will proof, can and will constantly act against energetic survival.
Consequently, as a basic principle has arisen in living beings, among other things, always to weigh up what brings the best survival success, and accordingly:
Deviation from this reduces survival success, which is why this principle is one of the deepest anchored.
And even this half/little or no conscious form of action is in reality no hint of a free will.
In fact, EVERY action generated by the brain is only the result of the respective logical position of its individual neural agents, down to the logical-energetic, i.e. binary, position of its neurons and molecules.
We know nothing about this before and during a decision, and it only becomes aware afterwards what we are doing after we can observe the action presented or/and shown by ourselves.
Even subsequent apparent reasons for what we have done and how have something been done are really only justification strategies against the social collectives around us, to have done the most energetically advantageous.
Such justification strategies are always chosen only, as the most obvious justification for action, which is chosen more or less randomly in the end, since we know nothing really about the actual reasons, in the neural, molecular and atomic reasons, and therefore can only justify it from the obvious possibility, but thus cannot describe reality.