free will

[Single Shot]

"-snip-

TLDR Randomness at the level of electrons does strongly indicate a presence of free will (some things are more probable to happen but you can decide literally anyway).

Source: I am physicist (well I am studying to be one).

Except the context it was initially used in that quote is Einstein's rebuttal to that very concept. he was postulating that all actions and reactions follow a set of causal links, including those we don't understand yet. It suggests that electron movement is ordered, but follow a system so complex we see it as disorder. This is basic level Chaos Theory where all systems follow set rules but appear random because a tiny change in the input creates vast disparities in outputs.

Well Einstein very famously hated the very concept of Quantum Mechanics and he spent the latter part of his life trying to disprove it (might I add that unsucessfully). You are right that there still is a possibility that there is a set of rules that eliminates the randomness but to see the rules you would have to looking at it all from the outside. For example if you are trying to determine the position of particle then how do you do it? You could possibly fire a photon at it and see if it is there. The shorter wavelength of the photon the more you know about the position of the particle but you bump it with a photon and give it momentum (you give it more momentum as it has a shorter wavelength). So to conclude this thread you can't possibly tell at the present moment if there is a free will or not. Statistically speaking there isn't but with every individual person there is could be a certain amount of free will.

Except we're not talking about the position as we can measure it, just it's real location and the reasons for it being there. Quantum theory is, at it's core, the science of explaining what cannot be directly observed due to scale. But just because we cannot observe the specific movement of a single electron around it's p-orbitals does not mean there isn't some set of natural rules to govern it. Any science that suggests using randomness as anything but a stop-gap until it technology advances to the point they can explain the behaviour is lazy. We have proven hundreds of times that what is considered random is usually just unexplained, look at the stripes on a zebra as a very simple example. At one time we called them random, then we learned that they acted as identification for each individual member of a community. Now we understand their shape and size depends on a complex system of genetic factors, combined with developmental factors such as nutrient availability, physical stresses, and mother-secreted hormones during the pregnancy.

Also, check your facts. Einstein never really tried to disprove Quantum Physics, he just thought of the subject in terms of local realism and as such that there could be no instantaneous long-distance interactions in his viewpoint. That was finally proven wrong by Bell's theorem in the 60's where quantum entanglement of photons was shown. But while it was proven that interactions could indeed be instantaneous over distances, no proof (that I am aware of) has ever proven randomness exists as anything other than a poorly understood/currently undetectable system.

"Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice."

 

[Yopaz]

I don't get the problem. Biology would define sound as the effect going on in the recipients brain. Physics by the vibration in the air. They are both science, and they both have their uses. So how is accepting that their are multiple possible definitions for sound unscientific?. The tree falls in the forest question is just supposed to make you look at the fact that you can look at if from different angles.

Biology isn't a separate entity than physics, the physical definition is also used to explain what we actually sense. My definition of sound is taken straight from the book called human physiology. There is no biological definition of sound, there's a biological explanation of why we hear sound which explains how the energy is transformed into a stimuli which varies based on where the wave stops and where it peaks inside our inner ear.

So I repeat this biology and physics aren't separate, they work within the same boundaries, something that is physically impossible isn't biologically possible. It's all based on the same science.

Now the process would be slow and gradual and generations upon generations of recombination, selection, mutation, random coupling, genetic drift and some other factors making the chicken, but all of these steps would happen in the egg phase thus the chicken is first.

Well you thought about this completely different than me. I would have said the egg came first, because something that was not quite a chicken laid an egg from which a chicken emerged. A gross simplification granted, for at what point is an organism a chicken?
[/quote]

Yeah, that's a good way of explaining it.

 

[PromethianSpark]

TLDR Randomness at the level of electrons does strongly indicate a presence of free will (some things are more probable to happen but you have the possibility of deciding anyway you want to).

Source: I am physicist (well I am studying to be one).

I still can't believe physicists and physicists in training still believe this crap. I am no physicist, but as someone with an MA in sociology, but more importantly good training in philosophy as well, I take a keen interest in any knowledge that may have philosophical implications, and I can tell you honestly that in all the areas that physicists have recently tried to add to the free will debate, their claims have all stemmed from the widest of logical leaps and philosophical ignorance.

For a start, I would merely ask how an inability to accurately measure an electron holds any bearing on this subject matter? In a later post you admitted yourself that this may (most likely) has more to do with our means of detecting electrons than it does for any intrinsic property of the electron. But even if it where so, that the quantum level is completely indeterminate (which is yet to be proven), this would suggest that probability is not in fact a product of lack of knowledge, but rather like time, is a very real thing in our universe. This of course means randomness, which is no better a foundation for free will than a deterministic universe.

 

[Guffe]

Even if my actions are "pre-made" by, let's call it, "bagundah".
But I wouldn't know this, I think my actions are free will.
If no one ever knows bagundah dictates our lives then it's free will??

-.-
damn, I started thinking too much about that and now I'm dizzy...

 

[Whatwhat]

Also, check your facts. Einstein never really tried to disprove Quantum Physics, he just thought of the subject in terms of local realism and as such that there could be no instantaneous long-distance interactions in his viewpoint. That was finally proven wrong by Bell's theorem in the 60's where quantum entanglement of photons was shown. But while it was proven that interactions could indeed be instantaneous over distances, no proof (that I am aware of) has ever proven randomness exists as anything other than a poorly understood/currently undetectable system.

"Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice."

I may have extrapolated a bit but if I created a theory but something in me would have kept on gnawing me and telling me that it is not quite right (when making assumptions to solve phyysics problems this happens waaay to often) and that I am just being lazy I would do two things. A) I would hate my own creation for making me feel these feelings and B)I would have tried to get rid of the thing that bothers me in my theory (The fact that he didn't publish anything just says that he was a tad unsucessful.) If I were him I would have probably spent all my time at the Institute for Advanced Study trying to get rid of the bloody dice.

Except we're not talking about the position as we can measure it, just it's real location and the reasons for it being there. Quantum theory is, at it's core, the science of explaining what cannot be directly observed due to scale. But just because we cannot observe the specific movement of a single electron around it's p-orbitals does not mean there isn't some set of natural rules to govern it. Any science that suggests using randomness as anything but a stop-gap until it technology advances to the point they can explain the behaviour is lazy. We have proven hundreds of times that what is considered random is usually just unexplained, look at the stripes on a zebra as a very simple example. At one time we called them random, then we learned that they acted as identification for each individual member of a community. Now we understand their shape and size depends on a complex system of genetic factors, combined with developmental factors such as nutrient availability, physical stresses, and mother-secreted hormones during the pregnancy.

The moment you get rid of the randomness in QM I think that you would have the global community of physicists proclaim you their new favourite person (Take that Feynman ) because neither I nor any of my classmates or (and this is only a suspicion) my tutors are really comfortable with this. It is all so counter-intuitive but it is the way the world behaves. The thing about the electron was just an example ( and not a well chosen one perhaps). A better one would be an electron trapped in potential well with a lower kinetic energy than the potential well but he would still have a small probability to tunnel out even though from a deterministic/classical point of view he shouldn't be able to do so. The way I see it this electron could be part of your thought process and could influence it and so maybe on some level this is "free will" but as I am saying this is a) just guessing and b) maybe proven wrong in a couple of years (but quantum tunnelling does exist in the real world and we see it's effects (alpha particles and what-not))

 

[TheIceQueen]

I ascribe to William James' pragmatism. "At any rate, I will assume for the present. . . that it is no illusion. My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will." Meaning, free will exists because one chooses to. Even if free will is an illusion, choosing to believe in it makes it useful (hence the philosophical position's name of pragmatism).

 

[Syzygy23]

Free will is supposed to not be predetermined by the law of cause and effect, but not random either. Thing is, those are really the only two options, so this "free will" thing doesn't seem that likely.

THere's as many options as you choose to make. Lets say you're driving your car down a road and see a fork in the road coming up. One has a sign saying "GRIZZLY BEARS" and the other has a sign saying "FALLING BOULDERS". Which path do you take?

Your only options are the boulder path and the grizzly path, right? WRONG. If it's me in that car, I say "Fuck this! I'm taking a THIRD OPTION!". Then I'd do a U-Turn and drive back the way I came. Or I could stop the car and walk through the terrain between the fork on foot.

See? Free will. As long as you keep your mind open to possibilities, you will always have as many choices as you want.

 

[Single Shot]

Also, check your facts. Einstein never really tried to disprove Quantum Physics, he just thought of the subject in terms of local realism and as such that there could be no instantaneous long-distance interactions in his viewpoint. That was finally proven wrong by Bell's theorem in the 60's where quantum entanglement of photons was shown. But while it was proven that interactions could indeed be instantaneous over distances, no proof (that I am aware of) has ever proven randomness exists as anything other than a poorly understood/currently undetectable system.

"Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice."

I may have extrapolated a bit but if I created a theory but something in me would have kept on gnawing me and telling me that it is not quite right (when making assumptions to solve phyysics problems this happens waaay to often) and that I am just being lazy I would do two things. A) I would hate my own creation for making me feel these feelings and B)I would have tried to get rid of the thing that bothers me in my theory (The fact that he didn't publish anything just says that he was a tad unsucessful.) If I were him I would have probably spent all my time at the Institute for Advanced Study trying to get rid of the bloody dice.

Except we're not talking about the position as we can measure it, just it's real location and the reasons for it being there. Quantum theory is, at it's core, the science of explaining what cannot be directly observed due to scale. But just because we cannot observe the specific movement of a single electron around it's p-orbitals does not mean there isn't some set of natural rules to govern it. Any science that suggests using randomness as anything but a stop-gap until it technology advances to the point they can explain the behaviour is lazy. We have proven hundreds of times that what is considered random is usually just unexplained, look at the stripes on a zebra as a very simple example. At one time we called them random, then we learned that they acted as identification for each individual member of a community. Now we understand their shape and size depends on a complex system of genetic factors, combined with developmental factors such as nutrient availability, physical stresses, and mother-secreted hormones during the pregnancy.

The moment you get rid of the randomness in QM I think that you would have the global community of physicists proclaim you their new favourite person (Take that Feynman ) because neither I nor any of my classmates or (and this is only a suspicion) my tutors are really comfortable with this. It is all so counter-intuitive but it is the way the world behaves. The thing about the electron was just an example ( and not a well chosen one perhaps). A better one would be an electron trapped in potential well with a lower kinetic energy than the potential well but he would still have a small probability to tunnel out even though from a deterministic/classical point of view he shouldn't be able to do so. The way I see it this electron could be part of your thought process and could influence it and so maybe on some level this is "free will" but as I am saying this is a) just guessing and b) maybe proven wrong in a couple of years (but quantum tunnelling does exist in the real world and we see it's effects (alpha particles and what-not))

Yeah, you extrapolated a persons disagreement with the direction science took towards what couldn't, at the time, be proven and used it to say he wanted to destroy that branch of science... I'll let this go. Moving on.

You seem to be confusing determinism, the idea that there is a fundamental set of laws of the universe that determine all actions and reactions at all scales, with Local Realism, the idea that everything directly effects everything around it and nothing can effect anything it is not directly in close proximity to. Determinism in the sense is talk about it is the former, and it does not exclude those long distance entanglements or any other long distance effects. It just says that there must be a natural law that determines when they take place, and that law is a constant universally.

Einstein fought for Local Realism when it was legitimately he most realistic theory in existence, but it was disproven. Determinism however is totally impossible to prove one way or the other because it's core aspect suggests that free will can emulate determinism, and determinism can emulate free will, unless you can view multiple identical universe that are identical on every scale from the shape and size of the universe as a whole, right down to the spin and excitement on the last Tau Neutrino's and Charm Quark's.

 

[2HF]

I'm of the "fuck it, what does it matter" school of thinking. Either we have free will and yay, free will or we don't and shit goes down anyway and those who believe in free will were predetermined to do so. That being the case, why are we wasting time discussing it? Let's bone.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

While I believe that it is my choice to respond to this thread (which could demonstrate free will) it could just be that I am only posting here to point out that The Government directly controls people daily using nothing but colored lines on asphalt. Sharing that knowledge has likely released endorphins into my brain so as to reward me for being a smart ass online. Not so much free will as, me complying to a chemical desire on some subconscious level.

...

A MAN CHOOSES
A SLAVE OBEYS
A MAN CHOOSES
A SLAVE OBEYS

Oh that sweet, all-natural chemical rush...

 

[Old Father Eternity]

"We are shaped by fate just as we shape it"

Or ... or we are but one version of an incalculable number of possibilities, every single particle somehow taking every single possible route ... something to do with quantum mechanics I believe, could be wrong though.

 

[Therumancer]

Was hoping someone could give me a real example of free will, or point me in the direction of a good study that disagrees with me.

I've come to believe we do not have free will. Genes, surroundings and experience dictate every action we make. This has not made me enjoy life less, I find it liberating.

However I love being surprised and am always looking to improve my rational. I challenge you to disprove me!

Well, in the context of reality if we do not have free will the illusion of it is good enough for most of us that it does not matter. Sort of like "Star Wars" where the lack of free will is pointed out through prophecy and is arguably the entire point of the first six movies (Vader's big turn around being him "bringing balance" to the force... having taken out both the good guys and bad guys, but that's a whole different discussion).

That said, humans are not as complicated as we might want to believe, which is something psychologists and sociologists have pointed out for many years now. Not to mention using things like hypnosis and deprogramming techniques you can literally turn a person into anything given enough time and knowledge. A point which causes a lot of people to rage as it flies in the face of the unique specialness that they want to believe in.

At the end of the day though this becomes a matter of faith however as much as one of science. Despite what I've said above, I *DO* believe in free will, which I believes comes from the soul, which sets us apart from most other animals. It's noteworthy also that once in a while you see things fly in the face of the most in depth sociological predictions and psychological models. While right 99% of the time, to the point of being crazy reliable, once in a while something happens like oh say... The United States, which continues on despite the odds. While it might very well be coming (and probably will be) by rights we should have collapsed into a civil war again before now, any other nation with our level of internal pressures has. Maybe not the most re-assuring point to non-Americans, but it's something to consider. Especially in Europe experts had been predicting our collapse for decades now, saying we could never balance the USSR in The Cold War and would collapse because we lacked their will and unity, then we were supposed to collapse during the 1990s without the threat of the USSR to keep us unified. We are closer to it than ever before, but honestly we weren't supposed to make it by the odds past 2010. That said I wouldn't be surprised if we do see a civil war by 2025... which is neither here nor there.

 

[Olas]

I could give you the traditional quantum mechanics Heisenberg uncertainty principle mumbo jumbo, but I think the real problem is that we're taking the concept of free will way too scientifically.

As originally coined it just means general autonomy, as opposed to having your every action dictated by someone else. It doesn't mean breaking determinism.

 

[generals3]

Was hoping someone could give me a real example of free will, or point me in the direction of a good study that disagrees with me.

I've come to believe we do not have free will. Genes, surroundings and experience dictate every action we make. This has not made me enjoy life less, I find it liberating.

However I love being surprised and am always looking to improve my rational. I challenge you to disprove me!

Unfortunately we believe the same so you probably won't find disagreement from me. This said quantum mechanics tends to disagree with our deterministic view as it dictates that one simply cannot predict the movement of a particle and that its position can only be known for sure once observed.

 

[PromethianSpark]

The moment you get rid of the randomness in QM I think that you would have the global community of physicists proclaim you their new favourite person (Take that Feynman ) because neither I nor any of my classmates or (and this is only a suspicion) my tutors are really comfortable with this. It is all so counter-intuitive but it is the way the world behaves. The thing about the electron was just an example ( and not a well chosen one perhaps). A better one would be an electron trapped in potential well with a lower kinetic energy than the potential well but he would still have a small probability to tunnel out even though from a deterministic/classical point of view he shouldn't be able to do so. The way I see it this electron could be part of your thought process and could influence it and so maybe on some level this is "free will" but as I am saying this is a) just guessing and b) maybe proven wrong in a couple of years (but quantum tunnelling does exist in the real world and we see it's effects (alpha particles and what-not))

Again with this idea of an electron behaving randomly within a set of probabilities somehow equating to free will. Random is random. Indeterminism poses an equal problem for free will as determinism, for even if an electron behaved randomly in my mind that effected my cognitive process, how does this in any way make me have free will rather than being subject to random forces?

 

[PromethianSpark]

Was hoping someone could give me a real example of free will, or point me in the direction of a good study that disagrees with me.

I've come to believe we do not have free will. Genes, surroundings and experience dictate every action we make. This has not made me enjoy life less, I find it liberating.

However I love being surprised and am always looking to improve my rational. I challenge you to disprove me!

Unfortunately we believe the same so you probably won't find disagreement from me. This said quantum mechanics tends to disagree with our deterministic view as it dictates that one simply cannot predict the movement of a particle and that its position can only be known for sure once observed.

I am actually getting sick of quantum mechanics being held up as evidence for free will, because some physicists over stepped their realm of expertise and decided to get involved in a subject matter they where not qualified to do so. There is actually nothing in quantum physics that has any bearing on the discussion. In fact, its threat to determinism leads to a bigger problem for those who believe in free will.

 

[Flutterguy]

I am curious why you find it liberating. Is it because you feel you aren't responsible for your actions? Or something else?

I find it liberating as I can make what I feel are more informed decisions. Allowed me to reform my ideals. Make decisions based on my benefit, not the benefit of my ego.

Determinism does not free someone of responsibility. Criminals will still face trial. Obviously having murderers and rapists suffering no penalty is detrimental to society.

However if everyone was to embrace determinism it only seems logical for rapists and murderers to become less common.

 

[PromethianSpark]

However if everyone was to embrace determinism it only seems logical for rapists and murderers to become less common.

Explain?