Free Will - Does it exist?

[warpus]

Perfect. Thank you

And the Now is only really a floating point of consciousness.

We also gotta remember that there really is no such thing as a Universal "Now". Each observer lives in his/her own frame of reference. Usually we are all travelling at the same speed through space-time, so our "Now"s are pretty much aligned, bet technically there is no such thing.

 

[warpus]

It's not only possible in a deterministic Universe, it may be happening in this one. If Bohm, or Everett, or some such physicist is right about determinism, it is.

How is this Universe deterministic? It's not!

Only God, if there were one, could manage the knowledge and calculation skill to predict the course of our (possibly, for all we know) deterministic but (definitely) chaotic universe. But even if someOne could make such calculations and predictions, it remains true that what the future holds depends on us. Different choices would bring different results - which proves that they really are choices.

The ability to predict the future is irrelevant. In a deterministic Universe such a thing would be theoretically possible.. but likely not possible in practice. Either way, it doesn't really affect the possibility of free will. Determinism itself renders it impossible.. and not the theoretical implications of a deterministic Universe (such as being able to predict the future).

 

[bardolph]

We also gotta remember that there really is no such thing as a Universal "Now". Each observer lives in his/her own frame of reference. Usually we are all travelling at the same speed through space-time, so our "Now"s are pretty much aligned, bet technically there is no such thing.

Absolutely. Additionally, each one of us has access to exactly one "Now," which is universally present within our frame of reference.

We can neither lend, borrow, nor trade our Now, so while it's possible to theorize multiple Nows, one will never observe two of them at the same time.

However, it may be possible to combine Nows into a single point of reference that is at once everywhere. This theoretical frame of reference would indeed be an "objective" frame of reference.

But see where I'm going? Since every frame of reference necessarily assumes that there must be an observer to observe it (it is Presence that defines frame of reference in the first place), and since our own frame of reference is subjective rather than objective, who or what could possibly be the universal observer that defines this objective frame of reference? I can only imagine Divinity fulfilling this role.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No, but just making something up, doesn't make it truth. Sure, you could get lucky, but that is unlikely.

Further inquests are required to determine whether it truly is the truth(tm). You have done no such thing, and I must thus assume that your hypothesis has no legs to stand on.

You forgot to answer my questions about the alternative that you present.

If what you are looking for is the "Truth", how will you know that you have found it?
Will it be labeled? What makes you think that you would even recognize it? Will I recognize it if I "meet it on the street" or read it in a book?
Will everyone recognize "Truth" when it appears?

Or are you only looking for "little truths" that can perhaps be "summed" into something larger and more meaningful? seeking Truth is not the problem, knowing it when it is in front of you is what is difficult. Some kind of "measuring stick" is necessary. What is yours?

What is your concept of "Truth"?

 

[Ayatollah So]

How is this Universe deterministic? It's not!

How do you know? Bohmian mechanics has it that the universe is deterministic. Orthodox QM says it's not. Bohm's theory and orthodox QM, as far as I have read, make all the same predictions in the cases in both make a prediction. Apparently, in various other areas of physics, one of them handles it well while the other still needs to be worked out, with orthodox QM having the advantage in some areas and Bohmian in others.

Which brings me to a point I've been hinting at. Which I'll now spell out.

We don't know whether the universe is deterministic.
We do know that we make choices.
If we knew that "if determinism is true, people can't make choices," then either we'd know that determinism is false or we wouldn't know that we make choices.
Therefore, we don't know that "if determinism is true, people can't make choices."

Determinism itself renders it impossible.

So you say. Repeatedly. Repetition is not an argument

 

[scy12]

What does "program" mean for a creature that is conscious, and is analog rather than digital?

If it means that evaluation of options is a deterministic physical process, good! The better to deal reliably with physical information, my dear. If the observable signs indicate that a berry is poisonous, I don't want my choice of whether to eat the berry to be random! I want it to be deterministically decided by the very weighty reasons against that course of action.

In a deterministic universe randomness doesn't play a factor but each Human differs from another. So even if the process is deterministic we can't determine which will be the results of some actions even if those result are the most logical ones. Because a deterministic process of chemicals constantly moving in a brain and creating a result do not tell us anything about how they move. Some humans are just illogical.
You could argue their machine has broken. So you could argue your choice to eat those poisonous berry would be "random " if all the events until that very second lead to your brain to correspond into that way . I believe if it did something is malfunctioning.

So regardless of the nature of each individual Human there is always the random factor of how a human will act because each human works differently.

Do i believe randomness exist ? No, everything happens for a reason but it is a good concept to describe the nature of something we may not know the result ,yet.

 

[bardolph]

How do you know? Bohmian mechanics has it that the universe is deterministic. Orthodox QM says it's not. Bohm's theory and orthodox QM, as far as I have read, make all the same predictions in the cases in both make a prediction. Apparently, in various other areas of physics, one of them handles it well while the other still needs to be worked out, with orthodox QM having the advantage in some areas and Bohmian in others.

Can you explain in layman's terms how Bohmian Mechanics is deterministic while orthodox QM is not?

Which brings me to a point I've been hinting at. Which I'll now spell out.

We don't know whether the universe is deterministic.
We do know that we make choices.
If we knew that "if determinism is true, people can't make choices," then either we'd know that determinism is false or we wouldn't know that we make choices.
Therefore, we don't know that "if determinism is true, people can't make choices."

Can you take this one step further? If determinism is true, what would that say about our ability to make choices? Are you implying that it is possible for free will and determinism to co-exist?

Personally, I wouldn't care much either way about determinism, if it could be demonstrated that its existence was independent of free will.

I do have a problem with people renouncing free will, because it usually involves renouncing personal responsibility. These people are very dangerous, and I try to avoid them as much as possible.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Can you explain in layman's terms how Bohmian Mechanics is deterministic while orthodox QM is not?

Not very well. A lot of it goes over my head, and I just trust what the physicists tell me provided that they seem to agree. But Bohm's theory includes an additional equation not found in orthodox QM. On Bohm's theory, the result of any given quantum experiment is determined by the particles and fields present at the start of the experiment, only it remains impossible in general to tell exactly what those particles and fields were. So its predictions remain statistical, and equivalent to orthodox QM - at least under certain conditions/assumptions. Don't ask me to explain those conditions/assumptions, that's one of those parts that goes over my head.

If determinism is true, what would that say about our ability to make choices?

Basically nothing. It's beside the point.

Are you implying that it is possible for free will and determinism to co-exist?

By George, I think he's got it!

 

[bardolph]

Not very well. A lot of it goes over my head, and I just trust what the physicists tell me provided that they seem to agree. But Bohm's theory includes an additional equation not found in orthodox QM. On Bohm's theory, the result of any given quantum experiment is determined by the particles and fields present at the start of the experiment, only it remains impossible in general to tell exactly what those particles and fields were. So its predictions remain statistical, and equivalent to orthodox QM - at least under certain conditions/assumptions. Don't ask me to explain those conditions/assumptions, that's one of those parts that goes over my head.

So, individual particles behave non-deterministically, but groups of particles behave deterministically, right?

Are you implying that it is possible for free will and determinism to co-exist?

By George, I think he's got it!

I guess we have nothing to argue about, then

 

[Ayatollah So]

In Bohm's theory, even individual particles behave deterministically. That doesn't mean that scientists can predict an individual particle's behavior, however, because to predict you would have to know the complete set of initial conditions.

In orthodox QM even groups of particles behave "in principle" non-deterministically, but if the group is large enough it can be "for all practical purposes" deterministic.

 

[Mise]

From what you've said Ayatollah, Bohm's interpretation sounds like a "hidden variable" interpretation. Most people have a problem with such interpretations. (Personally I don't see hidden variables as any less spooky than action at a distance; Bohm's theory features both.)

 

[Ayatollah So]

Bohm's theory is, if anything, THE hidden variable theory
Sure it's spooky, or as I prefer to say, deeply weird - but anything that can reasonably be called an interpretation of QM is going to be deeply weird, IMHO.

 

[brennan]

The Aspect experiments go some way towards demonstrating that hidden variables are just wishful thinking i'm afraid.

 

[Perfection]

Any philosophical system of free will/justice/etc. that depends on whether particles act partially randomly or in a completely predetermined manner is pretty off-base if you ask me.

 

[Perfection]

Because neither the future nor the past can be interacted with, or even demonstrated, at any moment in time. They can be referenced, or described, but never can they be experienced directly. Experience happens only in the Now.

What is "experience directly"? And why does the lack of "direct experience" indicate inexistence?

 

[Cullyn]

So, does free will exist?

You tell me

 

[Ayatollah So]

The Aspect experiments go some way towards demonstrating that hidden variables are just wishful thinking i'm afraid.

According to my sources (see link in post #146), the Aspect experiment results fall into the overlap area that Bohm's theory and orthodox QM agree on. They both predict those results.

 

[brennan]

According to my sources (see link in post #146), the Aspect experiment results fall into the overlap area that Bohm's theory and orthodox QM agree on. They both predict those results.

Ah, the '<hidden variables> of gaps' is it?

 

[lovett]

Non sequitur.

A newborn contracts a muscle and for the first time, its foot zooms by its face where the newborn can see it. Having learned the association, the second foot-zooming can be voluntary, despite the lack of choice prior to that point. Little by little, the infant/child/teen adds more and more control to its repertoire. Unlike mass or energy, control is not a conserved quantity.

I disagree. Let us posit that control is equal to (some degree of) self determination. I fail to see at what point the baby in this scenario achieves the ability to directly determine it's own actions. Ie, act as a first cause for them. I can see how it's lack of control becomes more complex, but not how it disappears.

When the baby 'learns' this is a (given determinism) inevitable result of (superficially) 500 million years of evolution, genetics and enviroment. When the baby moves its foot again, this is naturally the result of some stimuli, it is not spontaneous. If it moves its foot thanks to stimuli, I fail to see where 'choice' comes in.

If we are going to talk about free will, we really ought to focus on things that have a will. Such as people.

A person has leeway, in the relevant sense, if what they do depends on their will. For example if you are standing at a cliff edge and someone stronger than you throws you off, you are forced to fall: that result is independent of your will. But in the normal circumstance, you are free to walk away, jump off, or continue standing there (among other things).

What is the fundemental difference between people and a ball? Ultimately arn't both made up of the same things, working under the same physical laws?
If so, then change the 'ball' in my analogy to a particle. Add a million 'balls' (particles) interacting and you still have an inevitable result. Scale that up, you have enough particles to form a person.

What fundamental differnce is there, on an order to change the individual inevitability of particle motion and interaction, between the particles making up a ball and those making up a person?

Thus to your example. Let us say the person walks away from the cliff face. He then claims he could have jumped. This sounds like a truly (to borrow the phrase) 'incredible ability' to have. He is claiming that he could have gone back in time and changed the factors that led him to walk away, rather then jump. I don't buy it.

It's not only possible in a deterministic Universe, it may be happening in this one. If Bohm, or Everett, or some such physicist is right about determinism, it is.

Only God, if there were one, could manage the knowledge and calculation skill to predict the course of our (possibly, for all we know) deterministic but (definitely) chaotic universe. But even if someOne could make such calculations and predictions, it remains true that what the future holds depends on us. Different choices would bring different results - which proves that they really are choices.

A prior reasoning.

You assume that such a thing as 'choice' exists, which naturally assumes free will. If an intellect were able to predict the progression of the universe, surely 'choice' would be impossible. If everything is fated then any choice would rely on aforementioned 'incredible abilities'. That is, someones ability to tweak the universe as they see fit, whithout being affected by the universe causally.

I will give that the future does 'depends on us', however that doesn't imply that we can change the future, just that we are a necessary cog in creating the future.

Any philosophical system of free will/justice/etc. that depends on whether particles act partially randomly or in a completely predetermined manner is pretty off-base if you ask me.

Who mentioned justice (etc)?

And assuming free will is related to the question of whether the universe is Deterministic/Indeterministic, which is best explained by actual (shock*horror ) physics, surely this is going to be pretty intergral to whether free will exists or not?

Ah, the '<hidden variables> of gaps' is it?

But the <orthodox QM> of gaps' is equally valid, some would argue.

In fact, theres an interesting article on just this subject in the New Scientist this week. Isn't that convienient.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What is "experience directly"? And why does the lack of "direct experience" indicate inexistence?

Shouldn't now should it. Just because you cannot "see, feel, touch, experience" something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.