• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Twins and subatomic particles

subvicepresident

Student
S
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36
Thought experiment....
Imagine we have two twins or clones. They are genetically identical. Both have lived exactly the same lives up to a point A in time. By 'exactly the same' i mean to say that all external stimuli have been equal for both twins. I know this is not really possible but lets imagine that situation.

Then, in point A in time we observe both twins. What do we see?
1) Their reactions and thoughts will be identical.
2) Their reactions and thoughts will diverge.

Is there an inherent random factor that determines our thoughts and actions? Does this uncertainty arise from the statistical nature of behavior of subatomic particles. To put it another way: Is the quantum world responsible for free will?

Please discuss. Tnx.
 
The problem with some thought experiments is that assumptions are made that make any conclusion pointless.

The question of twins and environments is superfluous to the question, which is the run of the mill 'determinism' question.

We have no reason to believe that anything on the macro scale is truly non-deterministic. That is, although certain features of quantum mechanics are random, they amount to deterministic outcomes. Now, it might seem counterintuitive to our sense of absolute free decision making, however ultimately how would any random features of the universe translate into free will?

In the end, free will might just be an illusion. But given it's one that cannot be observed external to the situation, it really doesn't matter. Like most things in science, so long as it looks and behaves as per the description, the rest is is just navel gazing.

Athon
 
I agree with Molinaro. Please define free will. I don't see how randomness and (my personal definition of) free will are related, unless you're implying the randomness is somehow under your control.
 
athon said:
The problem with some thought experiments is that assumptions are made that make any conclusion pointless.

The question of twins and environments is superfluous to the question, which is the run of the mill 'determinism' question.

We have no reason to believe that anything on the macro scale is truly non-deterministic. That is, although certain features of quantum mechanics are random, they amount to deterministic outcomes. Now, it might seem counterintuitive to our sense of absolute free decision making, however ultimately how would any random features of the universe translate into free will?

In the end, free will might just be an illusion. But given it's one that cannot be observed external to the situation, it really doesn't matter. Like most things in science, so long as it looks and behaves as per the description, the rest is is just navel gazing.

Athon
Click to expand...

Re the part I bolded.

A comic ray, generated by a random quantum event, can affect the DNA causing a mutation.
 
subvicepresident said:
Then, in point A in time we observe both twins. What do we see?
1) Their reactions and thoughts will be identical.
2) Their reactions and thoughts will diverge.
Click to expand...

Certainly 2), even if they were identical down to the level of their wavefunction (i.e. perfectly identical). By how much is open to debate - Athon seems to think not by much, I would say by a lot after some time - but they certainly will diverge.

I'm not sure that has much to do with "free will", though - the same thing is true for an electron.
 
sol invictus said:
Certainly 2), even if they were identical down to the level of their wavefunction (i.e. perfectly identical). By how much is open to debate - Athon seems to think not by much, I would say by a lot after some time - but they certainly will diverge.

I'm not sure that has much to do with "free will", though - the same thing is true for an electron.
Click to expand...
If Panpsychism is true, maybe electrons do have free will.
 
Molinaro said:
Please provide an exact definition of free will.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Let's ignore the free will issue since i wouldn't like to get cought up in philosophical arguments.

athon said:
...
We have no reason to believe that anything on the macro scale is truly non-deterministic. That is, although certain features of quantum mechanics are random, they amount to deterministic outcomes.
...
Click to expand...

Do we really have no reason to believe so? It seems to me that sol and Gord_in_Toronto think otherwise.

Gord_in_Toronto said:
A cosmic ray, generated by a random quantum event, can affect the DNA causing a mutation.
...
Click to expand...

sol invictus said:
Certainly 2), even if they were identical down to the level of their wavefunction (i.e. perfectly identical). By how much is open to debate - Athon seems to think not by much, I would say by a lot after some time - but they certainly will diverge.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem to me that it is a matter of the measure in which the quantum world affects the macro world but rather it is a simple two-way option - quantum world either affects the macro world and we can measure this effect or it doesn't. Which is it? Or am I missing something?

Isn't it reasonable to assume that if the quantum randomness has any measurable effect on the macro world that therefore the macro world is not deterministic?
 
Molinaro said:
Please provide an exact definition of free will.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

If a system can respond to its environment non-deterministically, it has free will.

I'm actually not satisfied with the definition I just gave, but if one adopts it, then concluding that quantum mechanics and free will are intimately linked is not absurd. Of course, it's not clear that it means much either since individual electrons appear to have free will under this definition.
 
subvicepresident said:
Do we really have no reason to believe so? It seems to me that sol and Gord_in_Toronto think otherwise.
Click to expand...

They're free to. I might be wrong. I personally am not convinced that the randomness of quantum mechanics is something creates randomness on a macro scale, however to be honest a) it's not a concept I'm emotionally married to and b) not a concept I consider myself an expert in (beyond trying to being fundamentally informed in the area), so it wouldn't take much to convince me otherwise.

That said, you ignored the other part of my post (the important part for this conversation) - how does randomness translate into free will?

Athon
 
athon said:
They're free to. I might be wrong. I personally am not convinced that the randomness of quantum mechanics is something creates randomness on a macro scale, however to be honest a) it's not a concept I'm emotionally married to and b) not a concept I consider myself an expert in (beyond trying to being fundamentally informed in the area), so it wouldn't take much to convince me otherwise.

That said, you ignored the other part of my post (the important part for this conversation) - how does randomness translate into free will?

Athon
Click to expand...

A random particle decay could cause DNA damage to a single human cell leading to a cancer ending ones life 20 years earlier than otherwise. Is that not conceivable?
However, I agree that random macro results do not necessarily lead one to free will. Something more is needed, but I have no idea what that might be.
 
My siblings grew up with me in the same environment, and yet we are demonstrably different people in just about everything.
Different perceptions and reactions in many situations.
I'd be surprised if it were possible to have a long-term situation with two people that had them both respond identically to every stimulus.
 
subvicepresident said:
Do we really have no reason to believe so? It seems to me that sol and Gord_in_Toronto think otherwise.
Click to expand...
I think they are interpreting the question in different ways due to how it was worded. I'm not sure what you mean by the question.

Are you asking:

1) at the instant you see them, will they be identical or different already at that instant

2) at the point you see them you now allow them to have different experiences, will they diverge or not.

I assume you meant 1, but the wording was "will diverge", implying a future event, implying version 2.
 
Perpetual Student said:
A random particle decay could cause DNA damage to a single human cell leading to a cancer ending ones life 20 years earlier than otherwise. Is that not conceivable?
Click to expand...

Yup. Totally.

I apologise for not engaging further in this line of 'true randomness vs. determinism' - it's not that I'm stubbornly holding onto any belief one way or another, but rather that I don't wish to derail this thread further with what I see as a side-note. Happy to learn more in another thread, but here, I don't see what the concept of 'randomness' adds to the notion of free will.

Athon
 
shuttlt said:
I agree with Molinaro. Please define free will. I don't see how randomness and (my personal definition of) free will are related, unless you're implying the randomness is somehow under your control.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think the concept of free will does require that the randomness of the particular decisions a person makes iis, to some extent, under their control. I also think this is likely to be true. I think of free will as 'loading the dice' so to speak. Randomness still applies, but the distribution of the probabilities of various outcomes to a decision can be set by the individual based on their preferences.
 
Beth said:
Actually, I think the concept of free will does require that the randomness of the particular decisions a person makes iis, to some extent, under their control. I also think this is likely to be true. I think of free will as 'loading the dice' so to speak. Randomness still applies, but the distribution of the probabilities of various outcomes to a decision can be set by the individual based on their preferences.
Click to expand...
In principle, if not in practice, this sounds like a testable claim. You're predicting that the quantum behavior of parts of the brain will not follow the probability distribution that theory would dictate?

The first objection that comes to mind is, if our will can do this, why couldn't it influence a deterministic system? The effect would be detectable in either case.

I'm then struck by the difficulty of our consciousness knowing that if it influences such and such quantum event then that will, through a sea of other random events, trigger a neuron to fire, which will in turn cause a willed decision to be made. If our consciousness is able to do this, it's damn clever. It would be much easier for our consciousnesses to fake it after the fact and pretend whatever we deterministically (with some background unwilled randomness) end up doing is the result of free will.
 
shuttlt said:
In principle, if not in practice, this sounds like a testable claim. You're predicting that the quantum behavior of parts of the brain will not follow the probability distribution that theory would dictate?
Click to expand...
Er, no, at least I don't think so. At any rate, given that what, if any, quantum behavior parts of the brain might have is unknown, we can't actually test this. Possible someday, but I don't think we can at this point.
The first objection that comes to mind is, if our will can do this, why couldn't it influence a deterministic system? The effect would be detectable in either case.
Click to expand...
I think all systems have randomness inherent to them. It's just that we choose to call deterministic those systems that have probabilities greater than, oh say, .99999999999999.
I'm then struck by the difficulty of our consciousness knowing that if it influences such and such quantum event then that will, through a sea of other random events, trigger a neuron to fire, which will in turn cause a willed decision to be made. If our consciousness is able to do this, it's damn clever. It would be much easier for our consciousnesses to fake it after the fact and pretend whatever we deterministically (with some background unwilled randomness) end up doing is the result of free will.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't think it works like that. It's more like, I decide to type these words. So I do. But I don't decide to flip each and every bit that needs flipping inside the computer/network system that that decision requires to be implemented. I am completely and blissfully unaware of the details of that process. I don't need to be aware of the quantum influences of (on?) my nervous system anymore than the computer needs to be aware of the quantum influences on it's network when in order to process my instructions. But I don't think the exact words that appear now on your computer screen were deterministically set before I actually thought about what I wanted to say and chose them.

However, just because I decide to do something doesn't automatically imply that the action will occur. There are other outside events that influence success. In the above example, the power might go out just as I hit the submit button and my words never actually make it to the forum. But the decision itself isn't deterministic as near as I can tell. It's probabilistic. Further, I think the choices we make at any point in time will alter the probability distribution of later choices. That's what I see as free will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom