Free will and determinism

[psionl0]

In which version of the gazillion worlds mentioned in the posts above did you choose to ascertain all the variables and forces so as to eliminate randomness of the lottery draw... and how did you assure that, that world came up instead of all the others???

What are you talking about? Why do we need anything more than Newtonian physics to analyze drawing balls from a barrel?

We don't use QM to analyze the workings of a motor car. We don't have to worry that our car will suddenly be in a different parking bay (something QM predicts could happen) because the probability is too small to entertain.

 

[steenkh]

Do you think all this stuff still implies a deterministic universe... whichever one of the gazillions that might pop up at the drop of a hat??

Actually, I am sure that QM as it stands is indeterministic, but I am not sure if probing deeper, like probing the insides of quarks might not reveal a deterministic world.

Anyway, all this talk about whether the world is deterministic or random, seems to me to have no relevance for free will. If the world is deterministic, there is only the illusion of free will. If the world is random, there is also no free will, because free will is the opposite of random.

Only if the world is indeterministic in another sense than random, will there be the possibility of free will, but I have seen nobody outside woo-woo circles arguing for this.

 

[Darat]

Actually, I am sure that QM as it stands is indeterministic, but I am not sure if probing deeper, like probing the insides of quarks might not reveal a deterministic world.
Anyway, all this talk about whether the world is deterministic or random, seems to me to have no relevance for free will. If the world is deterministic, there is only the illusion of free will. If the world is random, there is also no free will, because free will is the opposite of random.

Only if the world is indeterministic in another sense than random, will there be the possibility of free will, but I have seen nobody outside woo-woo circles arguing for this.

We have done this - started with Bell and then later work - there aren't hidden variables.

 

[Leumas]

Actually, I am sure that QM as it stands is indeterministic, but I am not sure if probing deeper, like probing the insides of quarks might not reveal a deterministic world.

Anyway, all this talk about whether the world is deterministic or random, seems to me to have no relevance for free will. If the world is deterministic, there is only the illusion of free will. If the world is random, there is also no free will, because free will is the opposite of random.

Only if the world is indeterministic in another sense than random, will there be the possibility of free will, but I have seen nobody outside woo-woo circles arguing for this.

Exactly!!!

We have done this - started with Bell and then later work - there aren't hidden variables.

Exactly!!

 

[steenkh]

We have done this - started with Bell and then later work - there aren't hidden variables.

I am not sure I understand the consequences: there are no hidden variables, so the world is random? Or there are more variables, but they are not hidden, and we can probe quarks to find out what is inside?

 

[Dr.Sid]

I am not sure I understand the consequences: there are no hidden variables, so the world is random? Or there are more variables, but they are not hidden, and we can probe quarks to find out what is inside?

Why quarks ? QE is mightily affecting photons. You can't get more elementary than that.

 

[steenkh]

Why quarks ? QE is mightily affecting photons. You can't get more elementary than that.

Quarks was just an example of where the existing particles might be split into even more basic particles. You know, turtles all the way down …

My idea was that there might be deterministic models on a deeper level than the current quantum randomness.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Quarks was just an example of where the existing particles might be split into even more basic particles. You know, turtles all the way down …

My idea was that there might be deterministic models on a deeper level than the current quantum randomness.

No, in photons it can't. There is no deeper level to photon, it's just a ripple in the EM field.
You could maybe argue that particles with mass could behave more Newtonian, if there were not bound by random forces, and with all those random photons flying around.

 

[steenkh]

Anyway, as I pointed out, free will does not exist, no matter if the world is deterministic or random.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Anyway, as I pointed out, free will does not exist, no matter if the world is deterministic or random.

I wouldn't say it doesn't exist, but it would depend on exact definition, and people can't agree even on that.

 

[steenkh]

I wouldn't say it doesn't exist, but it would depend on exact definition, and people can't agree even on that.

That is true.

I think that the term “free will” mainly has value for people who want a soul of some kind to make choices that are not bound by determinism, and that must fail, because a deterministic universe, like an omniscient god, removes any kind of choice. Of course, if one thinks it is “freedom” to take the single choice available, then the discussion is not very interesting. If random quantum events can influence the choice, then there is not much decision space for the soul.

But another meaning is that the free will is not bound by the will of other people. I believe this kind of free will is the only valid kind, but probably not what was intended for discussion in this thread.

No matter what, the absence of knowledge of all the factors that are involved in human decisions, make the assumption of a free will a good model that works to understand other people’s actions.

 

[Olmstead]

Could we build a sentient AI that makes decisions which are impossible, i.e. cannot be explained by its programming? I think the answer is No. In fact I can't even imagine how that would work.

 

[Myriad]

Free will only exists in the world of narrative. Nothing in nature makes a decision; there's just cause and effect (and maybe pure quantum randomness). When we say a hurricane "decided" to turn eastward we're speaking metaphorically. Decisions are a fictional aspect of the narratives by which we explain our experiences, which themselves are a form of narrative, with a mix of physically real and fictional elements.

The thing is, that world of narrative is the world we know. There are many other things we regard as important that are as fictional as "making decisions." For instance, pain. In what way does a dynamic system of interacting particles feel pain? When a neural network in training delivers a wrong output and its synaptic weighting gets adjusted to reduce its tendency to make that mistake in the future, is that a "punishment" that causes the neural network pain?

Saying free will is an illusion makes you a proper atheistic rational skeptic. Saying that pain is an illusion makes you a wacko (or perhaps, an Asian mystic or an over-enthusiastic exercise coach). But the two concepts, whether you want to call them illusions or not, exist on (and only on) about the same experiential/narrative/cognitive level.

 

[Leumas]

<snip>

Do you agree that there is no randomness??

Do you think that the Uncertainty Principle is just a limitation of our measuring rulers?

Do you think all the Everett woo woo stuff is evidence for a deterministic or an indeterministic universe??

And which universe... out of the gazillions that split off from the gazillions of universes that split off from the gazillion universes etc. etc. .... every time a particle interacts with another every single time every single moment???


And... are you going to admit that you are most assuredly wrong about me being wrong or not... you cannot just state wrong things and when proven wrong just carry on moving the goal posts... admit it!!!

You are quite simply and directly wrong about this. All interpretations of QM are consistent with all known predictions of QM, all known experimental results of QM, and all technologies that make use of QM.

The uncertainty principle simply says that there is a limit to the accuracy of what we can measure. It is not some magical concept that brings in mysterious forces.

Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?

Of course. It is just assumed in the absence of other information.

 

[Lithrael]

For an event that splits universes, how about that one Mario speedrun where the guy won because a randomly decaying radioactive particle hit the Nintendo, flipped a bit, and allowed him to glitch the game to complete it faster?

As far as the thread, generally agreed with Steenkh.

 

[Leumas]

Could we build a sentient AI.....

The rest of the questions are not answerable until we answer the first question first.


But... assuming that we can... (I doubt it)...

that makes decisions which are impossible,

If it is sentient... or not... and has the algorithms to enable it to do so... then it can make decisions that are impossible... it can decide to jump 1000 feet in the air although it has not the ability to do so... sentient does not entail logical or even clever.

i.e. cannot be explained by its programming?

It depends on the amount of randomness and fuzziness you put in its algorithms. I have certainly programmed robots that performed stuff that surprised me sometimes.

But... it depends what you mean by "cannot be explained"... of course it all can be explained since you programmed it... but due to the randomness and fuzziness in the decision making algorithms the programmer cannot predict the trajectory of the actions it will take since by definition it is random... even the robot itself cannot predict its decisions either since it is bound by the randomness algorithm... of course within the constraints.... but even this randomness is explainable since it is part of the program.

I found that algorithms with a certain amount of randomness are more capable of solving some problems than fully determined algorithms.

Of course if a neutrino hits the microprocessor at exactly the right spot at exactly the right time and it alters certain memory banks just the right amount so as to alter the program just the right way without causing a crash then you might indeed get something new and unexplainable... but I think we might have to wait for millions of years for this to actually happen.... but you never know.

 

[Roboramma]

Sean Carroll argues in The Arrow of Time that the MWI is misunderstood: only one of the worlds actually exists, the others are merely possibilities, and when we make a measurement, we find out which one is the real one.

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood him there. Could you pull up the quote?

 

[Roboramma]

Actually, I am sure that QM as it stands is indeterministic, but I am not sure if probing deeper, like probing the insides of quarks might not reveal a deterministic world.

Once again, the Schrodinger equation is deterministic. If you take it and don't add something like a collapse postulate, QM is deterministic. If you do add a collapse postulate, then yes, you get indeterminism, and I'm not going to argue that you shouldn't do that, but QM isn't necessarily indeterministic.

You might try looking up unitarity in QM.

It's probably worth noting that even under Everett measurement outcomes will still be probabilistic along any particular branch of the wave function.

 

[Roboramma]

Bohmian </nitpick>

Haha thanks.

 

[Roboramma]

We have done this - started with Bell and then later work - there aren't hidden variables.

Once again: there are no local hidden variables. The distinction is important.