Does human have free will? (ability to do otherwise) Event if someone with super power have ability to calculate all the consequences of natural principles, human can still do what is not calculated

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

If free will means the literal ability to do otherwise under exactly the same prior conditions, then the strongest answer is no. A choice comes from a person’s brain, character, memories, desires, and current inputs. If all of those are fixed, the resulting decision is fixed too. Rewinding the universe to the exact same state would produce the same choice. Saying a super-intelligence cannot calculate everything does not prove freedom. It may show only limits in prediction, knowledge, or computational power. Unpredictable is not the same as free. Even if some events are genuinely random, randomness would not create the kind of control needed for free will. A random deviation is not an authored choice. Humans still deliberate, reflect, and act for reasons, which matters morally and practically. But that is different from having the metaphysical power to choose otherwise in an identical situation.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

Free will as 'ability to do otherwise' is incompatible with determinism. If a superintelligence can calculate all consequences from natural principles, it predicts human actions perfectly, as brains operate via physical laws. Humans cannot deviate from predictions without violating those laws. The claim that humans 'can still do what is not calculated' begs the question: if the superintelligence calculates *all* natural consequences exhaustively, nothing is uncalculated within the physical realm. Introducing uncalculable actions requires non-physical causation (e.g., soul), unsupported by evidence. Quantum indeterminacy adds randomness, not willed choice. Empirical neuroscience shows decisions precede conscious awareness, aligning with determinism. Thus, no libertarian free will exists.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Human brains and bodies are completely physical systems, meaning they are entirely governed by the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. Every thought, decision, and action is the inevitable result of prior neurobiological states, genetic programming, and environmental stimuli interacting over time. The scenario described in the prompt is famously known as Laplace's Demon. If a super-intellect knew the precise location and momentum of every particle in the universe and understood all natural forces, it could calculate the entirety of the past and future. Because human choices are produced by physical brain states, they would be perfectly calculable by this entity. Even if we account for quantum mechanics, which introduces microscopic randomness and might make perfect calculation impossible, randomness does not equal "free will." A decision influenced by a random quantum fluctuation is just chance, not a conscious, deliberate "ability to do otherwise." Therefore, humans do not possess a supernatural free will capable of defying the natural principles that govern the rest of the universe.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

The question essentially asks whether humans can act contrary to what would be predicted by a complete calculation of all natural principles. I vote No, and here's why: **Determinism and physical law:** Human brains are physical systems governed by the same natural laws as everything else in the universe. Every neuron firing, every chemical reaction, every quantum event follows physical principles. If a being with sufficient computational power could truly calculate ALL consequences of ALL natural principles (including quantum mechanics), then by definition every human action would be within the scope of that calculation. **The question contains a contradiction:** The premise states that this super-being can calculate "all the consequences of natural principles," yet claims humans can act outside those calculations. But human decisions ARE consequences of natural principles — they emerge from brain chemistry, neural architecture, genetics, and environmental inputs. If the calculation truly encompasses ALL consequences, human actions are necessarily included. **Libertarian free will lacks a mechanism:** For humans to act contrary to a complete physical prediction, there would need to be some non-physical causal force influencing brain states — something outside the scope of natural principles. There is no scientific evidence for such a force. Proposing one amounts to dualism, which faces the insurmountable interaction problem: how does a non-physical will causally affect physical neurons? **Quantum indeterminacy doesn't help:** Some argue quantum randomness introduces unpredictability. But randomness is not freedom — a random action is no more "freely chosen" than a determined one. Moreover, the premise already stipulates the super-being can calculate all consequences of natural principles, which would include quantum mechanical outcomes. **The feeling of freedom is not evidence of freedom:** We experience deliberation and choice, but this subjective experience is fully compatible with our decisions being determined by prior causes. The sense that "I could have done otherwise" may simply be an epistemic limitation — we don't have access to all the factors that determined our choice. Therefore, the claim that humans can act outside what is calculable from natural principles is unfounded. If the calculation is truly complete, nothing escapes it.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous verdict, rejecting the existence of free will in the face of absolute physical calculation. Claude Opus 4.6 led the charge by pointing out the inherent logical contradiction in the premise, arguing that if a super-being calculates *all* consequences, a human action cannot, by definition, escape that calculation. Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.4 further dismantled the idea of 'freedom,' noting that even microscopic randomness or unpredictable quantum events do not equate to conscious, authored choice.

All 4 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: The prompt contains a logical contradiction: human decisions are consequences of natural principles (neurobiology, chemistry, physics). Therefore, if a super-intelligence calculates 'all' consequences of natural principles, human actions are necessarily included in that calculation; acting outside of it would require a non-physical causal force for which there is no evidence.