Will grant him however one victory: he does succeed totally and without any doubt proving that Free Will is not God Almighty!
His definition of FW is so off the charts and ludicrous that it is very easy to conclude that FW is illusory and can be sent do the dump. If my definition of free will were the belief that I have the ability to flap my arms and fly like a bird, then only half a page would suffice to make the case that this FW is an illusion. Flapping my arms won't make me fly. However I can do things with my arms most certainly, but it ain't flying. That's all. Still he needs hundred pages to prove something that is similarly obvious from the get go. Indeed: Free Will is not God Almighty. Not even a little god awmighty in my head.
He further goes off the slippery slope in the way he uses determinism in his argument. He adds indeterminism and probability of quantum mechanics (that some argue create the space for will to free itself from the hammer from determinism) and argues coherently how the latter won't help either. The problem however is that he uses the determinism of classical (Newtonian) physics and the indeterminism + probability as used in quantum mechanics in a very off-hand amateurish way, pretending/suggesting that these concepts are now engraved in gold and fully understood by all and they are all we need.
Real scientists are much more humble and acknowledge that classical physics turned out to be an approximation within a limited domain of validity when Einstein discovered relativity, followed by quantum mechanics raising questions like why things get so weird at the quantum level where reality appears to present itself as nearly, entirely, probabilistic in nature. And how these different domains can be stitched up into a new theory that is still coherent and whole.
To use concepts like determinism in a way that suggests we know exactly what determinism means and precisely what it represents, and even worse imply that determinism "simply is a fact" is a form of cheating. I can't imagine that somebody like SH is not aware of the provisional, incomplete and sometimes even seriously problematic of these concepts, so it could be that his thinking is controlled by more unconscious or other events outside the realms of his conscious experience, let alone free will. Given his ridiculous demands of free will to be like God Almighty, maybe not the God of the entire universe but then at least the One that is the self-conscious Sam Harris that resides in his own brain... it appears there is a good candidate.
The fun thing about determinism is that it is very easy to show why it is only true in a limited domain. Steven Molineux in his free will series used the example of a rock that is pushed off a hill. Once it starts to roll and tumble down there is nothing that can stop it until another object stops it or comes to rest in the valley. A nice example of determinism? Yes. But of you take a closer look of the event, you would see that while the rock falls down it changes (while it was in a resting position of course it also changes, but less dramatically and harder to notice). It gets scratched, some pieces might chip off due to the forces on impact it encounters etc. In others words, the rock that rolls down is all the time changing into something else until so much has changed that won't perceive of it as rock anymore. And while it rests there in the valley and you wait long enough, after some millions of years the rock has totally changed, probably disintegrated entirely into other things dispersed into anywhere. Not to mention, if during the entire event of a rock rolling down a hill you would be able to monitor events at the molecular level and zoom in ever deeper into the quantum domain, you'd see a very fast rate of change where photons are absorbed and emitted and all kinds of other things happen at high speed.
So what seems to be a fair enough conclusion: the rock is changing at all levels all the time and no exact state of the rock can be predicted for even an infinitesimal next moment. Momentum and position of a particle can not be both measured exactly hence uncertainty. Also (it seems to me) the probability distribution of a macro quantum system (like rock rolls of a slope) is itself changing in fundamentally unpredictable ways.
Some say that if we could just monitor/measure-without-interfering all the variables at play where we would be as "accurate" as the universe itself we (you'd need a simulation that contains all information operating in the universe) would be able to predict with 100 accuracy. As a thought-experiment meant to save determinism from indeterminism but it is doing the opposite it seems to me: if to be 100% accurate in your predictions on all levels you would need a full replica of the universe, it actually proves that determinism is not fundamental. Determinism is only "true" when enough information is removed from the equations (is hidden from view) setting the goal posts far enough from each other so that determinism scores a goal.
So you have a rock that will definitely roll of the slope, it won't suddenly fly like a bird . But there is "a freedom that allows it to change" on its way down. What and where it will be the next moment can not be predicted exactly. The "if we only knew all the variables" is red herring.
What we are left with is that every moment/state/event is different from previous ones on all scales and that how it will be different from previous ones cannot be predicted exactly. I don't think this goes against 101 quantum mechanics since quantum mechanics does not operate with precise
singular causes and inescapable effects but rather with probability distributions; that at least leaves room for fundamental uncertainty and approximation that is lacking in determinism.
A more sensible approach is to consider particle-wave systems as having degrees of freedom. In a multi-particle configuration like a rock, the degrees of freedom that a rock has that tumbles down from a slope, means that it cannot fly like a bird, change into a melon on its way down, nor can it decide to stop rolling and climb back up hill. But due to uncertainty, and the freedom that exists for the creation of events that are unique and never to be repeated exactly, I will argue that the rock and its direct environment are making millions of "little free choices" in as far as, and to the extent that the aggregate probability distribution (the wave function of the macro system) allow for them. But what is "allowed" by probability distributions is itself changing all the time and ultimately as unpredictable as any state of affairs where change is the only constant.
Now where SH slides down the slippery slope without the possibility of recovery, is where he starts to talk about consciousness as "a witness".
- to be continued
Indeed. Not sure how this rather widely held view that fw is an illusion by spozedly rational and scientifically trained people will gain traction while it sneaks in through the backdoor. Kind of a bombshell under the project of individual responsibility, freedom of choice, freedom of speech... Can't see how Sam Harris would subscribe to free speech when all thought en speech is outside any personal control. To be a mere witness of his own thoughts, speech and decisions must feel kinda schizophrenic.