News Feeds

On his February 22, 2026 blog the estimable evolutionary biologist, outspoken atheist, and (relevant here) staunch defender of determinism, Jerry Coyne, takes me to task for presenting “a muddled argument” in my case for compatiblism (in an excerpt in Quillette), which was based on a longer chapter in my book Truth: What it is, How to Find it, and Why it Still Matters.

First, let me acknowledge that this chapter in my book is in Part III, or “Known Unknownables.” Following Donald Rumsfeld’s famous epistemological trilemma, that includes “Known Knowns” (things we know that we know), “Known Unknowns” (things we know that we do not know), and “Known Unknowables” (things that are not ultimately knowable).

In this section of the book I include consciousness (the easy problem is understanding the neural wiring; the hard problem that I claim to be unknowable is what it’s like to be the wiring), God (I know of no scientific experiments or rational arguments that can prove its existence one way or the other), and why there is something rather than nothing (what do you mean by nothing, anyway?). So, in a sense, Jerry’s determinist position is, in my understanding of the problem, no more or less likely to be true, depending on how one defines the problem itself. I have defined it in a way that compatibilism works, whereas Jerry has defined it so that determinism works.

Second, this is why I reference the survey by David Chalmers, the philosopher who made famous the “hard problem of consciousness,” along with his colleague David Bourget. They asked 3,226 philosophy professors and graduate students to weigh in on 30 different subjects. Here is what they found regarding the free will issue:

Accept or lean toward:

Compatibilism

59.1%

Libertarianism

13.7%

No free will

12.2%

Other

14.9%

Now, on one level, it is irrelevant how many people believe something, along the lines of what Philip K. Dick meant when he defined reality “as that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” Yet, as I argue, there is something revealing about these figures. Namely, if the most qualified people to assess a problem are not in agreement on an answer—and the free-will/determinism problem has been around for thousands of years—it may be that it is an insoluble one, a known unknowable.

Third, therefore, it is entirely possible that a highly qualified, educated, and intelligent thinker like Jerry Coyne can make a compelling case for determinism, while at the same time a highly qualified, educated, and intelligent thinker like the late Daniel Dennett can make an equally compelling case for compatibilism (and Coyne and Dennett have locked horns on this very matter).

I agree with Jerry and Dan that we live in a determined universe governed by laws of nature. But I disagree with Jerry that this eliminates free will, or if you prefer “volition” or “choice” (again, this entire field is, to use Jerry’s term, “muddled” with confusion of terminology). My compatibilist work-around is “self-determinism,” in which while we live under the causal net of a determined universe, we are part of that causal net ourselves, helping to determine the future as it unfolds before us, and of which we are a part. My compatibilist position is based on the best understanding of physics today. Let me explain.

Physicists tell us that the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy, means that time flows forward, and therefore no future scenario can ever perfectly match one from the past. As Heraclitus’ idiom informs us, “you cannot step into the same river twice,” because you are different and the river is different. What you did in the past influences what you choose to do next in future circumstances, which are always different from the past. So, while the world is determined, we are active agents in determining our decisions going forward in a self-determined way, in the context of what already happened and what might happen. Thus, our universe is not pre-determined in a block-universe way (in which past, present, and future exist simultaneously) but rather post-determined (after the fact we can look back to determine the causal connections), and we are part of the causal net of the myriad determining factors to create that post-determined world.

(Jerry inquires why I didn’t discuss quantum uncertainty in my analysis. The reason is that Dennett debunked this decades ago in Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting, when he pointed out that any such quantum effects that alter other deterministic physical laws would not grant any type of free will or volition, for it would just mean that some percentage of your “decisions” are just random noise in the machine.)

Given the muddleness of terminology here, let me bring in the philosopher Christian List and his three requirements of volition from his book Why Free Will is Real:

1. Intentional agency—the capacity to form an intention to pursue different possibilities;
2. Alternative possibilities—the capacity to consider several possibilities for action (this is the “could have done otherwise” element);
3. Causal control—the capacity to take action to move toward one of those possibilities.

As List explains in more detail:

Specifically, we need to know whether what the person did was freely performed, as characterized by the three bullet points above. Was it an intentional action? Could the person have done otherwise? Was the person in control? Or, if what the person did was not freely performed, we need to know whether the person’s free will was at least implicated in the run-up to it: Was there a free decision to get drunk in the first place, for instance? Of course, moral responsibility might well require more than that…but I do take the presence of free will somewhere along the relevant chain of events to be a necessary condition for a salient form of moral responsibility.

Of course, Jerry and other determinists like Robert Sapolsky and Sam Harris could just redefine the problem by saying that even the capacity to form an intention was pre-determined by atoms, molecules, and neurons, as is the capacity to consider several possibilities for action and the capacity to take such action. This is why I quoted Dan Dennett from my podcast conversation with him on this very challenge:

Determinism doesn’t tie your hands, nor does it prevent you from making and then reconsidering decisions, turning over a new leaf, learning from your mistakes. Determinism is not a puppeteer controlling you. If you’re a normal adult, you have enough self-control to maintain your autonomy, and hence responsibility, in a world full of seductions and distractions.

Since determinists often reference people suffering from extreme drug addiction or alcoholism, or those with a brain tumor that led to their bad behavior, like Charles Whitman in the Texas school tower shooting incident, I asked Dan about Sam Harris’s quote that “it’s tumors all the way down,” and Robert Sapolsky’s descriptor that “it’s turtles all the way down.” Here Dennett identifies the error in this line of reasoning:

Well, I like the way you put it very much, Michael, because I think you put your finger on the mistake that Sapolsky is making there. And Sam Harris makes it too. No, it’s not tumors all the way down. It’s machinery all the way down. But there’s good machinery and there’s bad machinery. And if we have bad machinery, then yes, we’re disabled to some degree. But what about people who have good machinery? They’re not disabled. Why can’t we hold them responsible? Now, some people are, alas, through no fault of their own, not responsible for what they do. And that might well include people with terrible, terrible youths, who didn’t get a good upbringing, or who had a horrific upbringing. And so we have to decide, as society, given that this is a dangerous person, what’s the humane, good thing to do? I don’t think there’s an algorithm or a bright line for distinguishing somebody whose brain is good enough from somebody whose brain is a little too disabled. We just have to make the decision.

Dennett then brings home real world examples:

We do it all the time. You’ve got to be 16 to get a driver’s license. Some 15-year-olds would be perfectly safe as drivers. Some 21-year-olds would not. But the law has to have a bright line and so it chooses one. We might argue whether we want to raise it or lower it, the way the drinking age has been raised or lowered, or the way the driving age has been raised or lowered. We have to have a policy and we have to stick to it and we can change it as we learn more and more. But what we don’t do is just say, “Oh, it’s disability all the way down.” No, you’re not disabled, I’m not disabled. I want to be held responsible. I think you want to be held responsible too.

Coyne is unhappy with my invoking of “emergence” and says I’m being rude to him and Sapolsky and Harris in accusing them of “physics envy,” but that’s what it is! Here, for example, is Sapolsky defending his belief that free will does not exist because single neurons don’t have it: “Individual neurons don’t become causeless causes that defy gravity and help generate free will just because they’re interacting with lots of other neurons.”

In fact, billions of interacting neurons is exactly where self-determinism (or volition or free will) arises. This is why I like to ask determinists: Where is inflation in the laws and principles of physics, biology, or neuroscience? It’s not, because inflation is an emergent property arising from millions of individuals in economic exchange, a subject properly described by economists, not physicists, biologists, or neuroscientists.

Rather than quoting myself again, I will invoke the geneticist and neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell from his book Free Agents, in which he shows that the determinist’s reductionistic approach to understanding human thought and behavior is not just wrong, but wrong-headed! How?

Basic laws of physics that deal only with energy and matter and fundamental forces cannot explain what life is or its defining property: living organisms do things, for reasons, as causal agents in their own right. They are driven not by energy but by information. And the meaning of that information is embodied in the structure of the system itself, based on its history. In short, there are fundamentally distinct types of causation at play in living organisms by virtue of their organization. That extension through time generates a new kind of causation that is not seen in most physical process, one based on a record of history in which information about past events continues to play a causal role in the present.

Thus, I conclude that the free will/determinism issue is an insoluble problem because we may be ultimately talking past one another at different levels of causality: the reductionist’s atoms, molecules, and neurons versus the emergentist’s brains, people, and societies.

Choose a side. The choice is yours!

Panspermia is the idea that life was spread from world to world somehow. New research shows that one type of Earthly extremophile can survive the extremely high pressure from asteroid impacts on Mars, be blasted into space, and maybe even survive the journey to Earth.

Choosing the right method for multimodal AI—systems that combine text, images, and more—has long been trial and error. Emory physicists created a unifying mathematical framework that shows many AI techniques rely on the same core idea: compress data while preserving what’s most predictive. Their “control knob” approach helps researchers design better algorithms, use less data, and avoid wasted computing power. The team believes it could pave the way for more accurate, efficient, and environmentally friendly AI.

Scientists at the University of Tokyo have captured something never seen before: a frame-by-frame view of how electron spins flip inside an antiferromagnet, a material once thought to be magnetically “invisible.” By firing ultrafast electrical pulses into a thin layer of manganese–tin and tracking the response with precisely timed flashes of light, the team uncovered two distinct switching mechanisms. One relies on heat generated by strong currents, while the other flips spins directly with minimal heating — a far more efficient process.

Scientists at the University of Tokyo have captured something never seen before: a frame-by-frame view of how electron spins flip inside an antiferromagnet, a material once thought to be magnetically “invisible.” By firing ultrafast electrical pulses into a thin layer of manganese–tin and tracking the response with precisely timed flashes of light, the team uncovered two distinct switching mechanisms. One relies on heat generated by strong currents, while the other flips spins directly with minimal heating — a far more efficient process.

With a simple motion, a jack-in-the-box-like spring designed at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory showed the potential of additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, to cut costs and complexity for futuristic space antennas. Called JPL Additive Compliant Canister (JACC), the spring deployed on the small commercial spacecraft Proteus Space's Mercury One on Feb. 3, 2026. An onboard camera captured a video of the spring popping out of its container as the spacecraft passed over the Pacific Ocean in low-Earth orbit.

A method for making quantum computers less error-prone could let them run complex programs such as simulations of materials more efficiently, thus making them more useful

Analysing the births of a Utah family over seven generations has revealed that their disproportionate number of boys could be caused by a selfish Y chromosome

A family in Utah with a disproportionate number of boys has been traced back over hundreds of years, revealing that its lack of female members is probably due to a selfish Y chromosome

Planetary systems such as our solar system take hundreds of millions of years to evolve. But we see most exoplanet systems either very early in their development, or long after the systems have settled down. There's an information gap about what happens in the middle, and a rarely observed "adolescent" system is a valuable opportunity to learn more and to test models of planetary evolution.

I find it wearisome to have to say, each time I criticize the Democratic Party, that yes, I am a Democrat and have never in my life voted for a Republican. I also find it wearisome to repeat that I detest Trump and think he’s a terrible President. But what I cannot say is that everything Trump’s done, without exception, is bad, and that he’s incapable of doing anything good.

I cannot judge all of Trump’s motivations, and cannot agree with some readers who argue that even if he does something that has good results, his motivations were bad, evil, or self-serving.  I will judge an action by its results, not by its motivations.  As I’ve said before, I align with those Democrats who used to lean more Left, but since the entire party, dragged by the donkeys of progressivism, has shifted to the Left, I now find myself in the center—but still a Democrat.

The video below by pro-Israel activist Lizzie Savetsky, expresses some of this sentiment. I can’t find her party affiliation, but again I don’t care much, as what she says should not be judged by whether she’s a Republican or a Democrat.

Which brings us to our attack on Iran. Savetsky calls out the Democrats for now supporting Iran and criticizing Trump for his attack on the country. Given how the attacks have played out, generally support them, hoping for a toppling of the terroristic and murderous regime, for the Iranian people to be free of that regime, and for its nuclear program to be abandoned forever. Will that happen? I don’t know. Like many actions, this attack cannot be judged until it’s been over for quite a while, and I have no crystal ball.

Have a listen to the five-minute video.  I agree with much of it, though Savetsky is too hard on the Democrats as a whole. I don’t, for example, think that the entire party is riddled with fraudulent positions (many of us, for example, have not been silent about the oppressive Iranian theocracy).  And Savetsky’s argument that the Party is driven by an “oppressor vs, oppressed” postmodern ideology is incomplete. Those Democrats crying “Hands off Iran,” also see Muslims as oppressed because they are people of color, and the U.S. (and Israel) as odious because we are seen as “colonizers”.

I think Savetsky is right in saying that the Democrats’ position has devolved largely into demonizing one man: Trump. We are not allowed to say he’s taken any action that has good results, for that would be an admission that we agree with some actions taken by Republicans. If something does have a good result, then we must say that it was driven by bad motivations.  That’s what happened when, not long ago—in an attempt to mend some of the American rifts—I asked people to name something good that Trump has done. I still get flak on that one.

But if I put up only posts that don’t get me criticized, this website would become an anodyne mouthpiece for progressivism and wokeism, as some other sites have. And I would be a coward.

I hope that some day the Democrats will become less driven by progressivism and its monomaniacal concentration on Trump, so that I can feel comfortable in the Party.

And I stand with the brave people of Iran, and hope that at the end of the battle they get freedom, and that the government stops its singleminded drive to export terror and build nuclear weapons.

Watch Savetsky below, and weigh in in the comments, remembering Da Roolz.

From the cost of childcare to the housing crisis, there’s no shortage of explanations for the dramatic global fall in the number of babies being born. These analyses, though, are all missing something, says cognitive and evolutionary anthropologist Paula Sheppard

The microbes that live in our mouth and gut may influence whether an allergic reaction to peanuts is mild or life-threatening, and could be harnessed to ward off a severe attack

Today we have some singletons, doubletons, and tripletons from readers: that is, miscellaneous photos. The IDs and captions are indented, and you can click on the photos to enlarge them.

From reader Jay, a photo from St. Augustine beach, Florida:

This photo shows two terns (possibly Royal Terns, Thalasseus maximus), in front of four Black Skimmers (Rynchops niger).

From Keira McKenzie:

These photos were taken on a warm afternoon in Hyde Park [Sydney, Australia], sitting beneath the plane trees at the eastern end of the park.

Here you have Australian White Ibis (Threskiornis molucca,  commonly referred to as bin chickens here—which is a bit rude. In the second picture it’s with an Australian wood duck (Threskiornis molucca; there is quite the family here in all their regimental delight), both birds roosting on the island in the eastern pond in the park. While most of the undergrowth was cleared, these birds still manage to find somewhere to roost. The ibis lost their favourite tree in the clearing process, but they have found others. The wood ducks seem happy as well and I love watching the family being marshalled for the march up to the lawns to either graze or look for beetles or whatever. When they come back to the ponds, they fly in a ragged formation careless of persons what might be sitting there chatting and drinking coffee!

And the egret: it’s a Great Egret, either Ardea alba (the western Australian one) or the equally common Ardea modesta: the Eastern Great Egret (subspecies modesta) . The reason I can’t decide is their are supposed to have black legs, but my photos all have them having yellowish legs which doesn’t come up in any descriptions.

I’ve added a pic of the little Baba Yaga in her outside tiger pen just to make you smile (she is currently yelling at me to come to bed!)

And Daniel Baleckaitis, who works for both our department and Organismal Biology and Anatomy, sent three mallard pictures (Anas platyrhynchos)—taken in Botany Pond! I don’t know the ducks but the pictures are great (and clearly taken a few years back when the pond was full of vegetation):

Ducks in action:

Ever since physicist Freeman Dyson first proposed the concept in 1960, the “Dyson sphere” has been the holy grail of techno-signature hunters. A highly advanced civilization could build a “sphere” (or, in our more modern understanding, a “swarm” of smaller components) around their host star to harvest its entire energy output. We know, in theory at least, that such a swarm could exist - but what would it actually look like if we were able to observe one? A new paper available in pre-print on arXiv, and soon to be published in Universe from Amirnezam Amiri of the University of Arkansas digs into that question - and in the process discloses the types of stars that are the most likely to find them around.

A famously resilient bacterium may be tough enough to survive one of the most violent events imaginable on Mars. In laboratory experiments designed to mimic the crushing shock of a massive asteroid impact, researchers squeezed Deinococcus radiodurans between steel plates and blasted it with pressures reaching 3 GPa (30,000 times atmospheric pressure). Even under these extreme conditions, a significant portion of the microbes survived.

Astronomers using the James Webb Space Telescope have spotted the most distant “jellyfish galaxy” ever seen — a cosmic oddity streaming long, tentacle-like trails of gas and newborn stars as it speeds through a dense galaxy cluster. The galaxy appears as it was 8.5 billion years ago, revealing that the early universe may have been far more violent than scientists expected.

Researchers at the University of Basel and the ETH in Zurich have succeeded in changing the polarity of a special ferromagnet using a laser beam. In the future, this method could be used to create adaptable electronic circuits with light.

Researchers at the University of Basel and the ETH in Zurich have succeeded in changing the polarity of a special ferromagnet using a laser beam. In the future, this method could be used to create adaptable electronic circuits with light.

Fusion energy may be one of the most promising clean power sources of the future—but only if scientists can precisely measure the extreme, fast-moving plasmas that make it possible. A new U.S. Department of Energy–sponsored report urges major investment in advanced diagnostic tools—the high-tech “sensors” that track plasma temperature, density, and behavior inside fusion systems. Bringing together 70 experts from universities, national labs, and private industry, the workshop identified seven priority areas ranging from burning plasma to full-scale pilot plants.