Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

You really need a coherent model of physical reality in order to make much of a comment on the notion of freedom. Any such model will include laws as well as degrees of freedom. So with Sapolsky, we find a biologist who's never had a professional need to come face-to-face with the major issues within relativity theory or within quantum theory. And for those who are able to develop coherent models (e.g. string or M-theoretical), they are faced with a kind of mathematics of such infinite depth and subtlety that all you can do is surrender whatever childish Laplace-demonesque fantasies that you might once have had.

He just thinks: physics is hard and filled with technical stuff that must ultimately be "solvable." Maybe so, but if there are always an infinity of solutions, then there is obviously room for the concept of free will.

> Focusing on the causes of violent or antisocial behavior instead of fulfilling a desire for punishment, he said, "will allow us to adopt more humane and effective practices and policies."

I actually agree with this view, and I think this statement is relevant and true whether you believe in free will or whether you’re a hard determinist.

I am a hard determinist though so maybe it’s just easier for me to agree.

> This means accepting that a man who shoots into a crowd has no more control over his fate than the victims who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This tragic "scientist" literally wasted his life. But take heart, at least he will go to his grave convinced that it was not his fault, and he couldn't have done otherwise!

Oh, what a world-what a world!