Are free will and determinism compatible?

[chriswl]

I think you are making the classical error of applying QM to events above both the subatomic and atomic levels. If we couldn't make such predictions then there wouldn't be any point to science.

I suspect that's mostly right most of the time. Just because something is fundamentally made of QM stuff doesn't mean it can't act deterministically - computers are clearly very deterministic things, for example. Almost always the randomness averages out on a large scale.

But we can exploit quantum randomness to make truly random macroscopic events. You can make random number generators based on radioactive decay of elements. I believe the UK Premium bonds use such a system to generate winning numbers. Making some random person rich is a pretty large scale event that would violate the determinism of the world.

 

[RandFan]

But we can exploit quantum randomness to make truly random macroscopic events. You can make random number generators based on radioactive decay of elements. I believe the UK Premium bonds use such a system to generate winning numbers. Making some random person rich is a pretty large scale event that would violate the determinism of the world.

I'm simply not qualified to make a rebuttal. I can only say that there is some controversy as to whether QM variables are truly completly random (uninfluenced by any prior cause).

 

[Art Vandelay]

Really? I would define a deterministic world as one that we can in principle predict. Doesn't QM flatly contradict this? The uncertainty principle isn't merely an "interpretation" of QM, is it?

What does "in principle" mean? Does it mean "it's theoretically possible to determine the exact state of the universe, and from that predict the future"? Or does it mean "if we were given the exact state of the universe, we could use that to predict the future"? Because the uncertainty principle just rules out the former.

 

[chriswl]

What does "in principle" mean? Does it mean "it's theoretically possible to determine the exact state of the universe, and from that predict the future"? Or does it mean "if we were given the exact state of the universe, we could use that to predict the future"? Because the uncertainty principle just rules out the former.

I think that's a misunderstanding of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is not a practical problem with measurement (though it is often illustrated as if it was) but a fundamental limit on what we can know about the physical world.

This is more than just a philosophical position. The alternative view, that there is something definite underneath the apparent quantum randomness (Einstein's "hidden variables") was experimentally demonstrated to be false, I think. It's scientific orthodoxy that God does play dice. Unless there's some more up-to-date developments I've missed.

 

[hammegk]

Bell-Aspect-DCQE-etc say the dice are loaded ...

 

[President Bush]

Bell-Aspect-DCQE-etc say the dice are loaded ...

A composite of your posts shows an interference pattern emerging, hammegk. Not thought about they revert to behaving like waves.

 

[69dodge]

Either the assumption that we have free will is correct, or it's not. If it is, then [...] And if it's not correct, then we had no choice in the matter, anyway, so why worry about it?

Tricky is right, why get bent out of shape about something we can't possibly change? If you are right Mercutio then we will believe or not believe and there is no choice on our part. Tripe?

ETA: Though it is only rhetorical I think the JREF poster who goes by the user name President Bush has an interesting point. You debate as if any of us has a choice.

Saying that you don't have free will doesn't mean that you're going to believe whatever you're going to believe, independently of everything else. It is entirely possible, even if you don't have free will, that whether you end up believing in free will depends on what Mercutio tells you. Since he thinks that people don't have free will, and since he thinks that people would be better off if they realized it, he's telling you stuff that he thinks might convince you of it.

No one would argue, "Computers don't have free will. Therefore why bother programming them? They're just going to do whatever they're going to do, anyway." What they're going to do depends on how they're programmed.

 

[RandFan]

Saying that you don't have free will doesn't mean that you're going to believe whatever you're going to believe, independently of everything else. It is entirely possible, even if you don't have free will, that whether you end up believing in free will depends on what Mercutio tells you. Since he thinks that people don't have free will, and since he thinks that people would be better off if they realized it, he's telling you stuff that he thinks might convince you of it.

No one would argue, "Computers don't have free will. Therefore why bother programming them? They're just going to do whatever they're going to do, anyway." What they're going to do depends on how they're programmed.

That's not my point. I, like Mercutio am telling people my opinion for a purpose. To put them at ease about free will. It really is no big deal. I'm only saying one thing, live your life as if you have free will because in the end it doesn't matter.

 

[Mercutio]

That's not my point. I, like Mercutio am telling people my opinion for a purpose. To put them at ease about free will. It really is no big deal. I'm only saying one thing, live your life as if you have free will because in the end it doesn't matter.

Funny...I wish I had the exact words one of my students used on this; he said it very nicely. Something along the lines of ... True freedom comes from recognizing the things that control your behavior. Ignorance of control is not freedom, it is just ignorance. To him, in the end it really does matter. It is too easy to be taken advantage of by somebody else, or to fall victim to superstitious conditioning, or to follow short-term happiness to your long-term peril, if you are not aware of the things that control your behavior. Recognizing that you are controlled does not make you any more controlled; denying that you are controlled does not make you any less controlled. But knowledge is power, and this is no exception.

 

[RandFan]

Funny...I wish I had the exact words one of my students used on this; he said it very nicely. Something along the lines of ... True freedom comes from recognizing the things that control your behavior. Ignorance of control is not freedom, it is just ignorance. To him, in the end it really does matter. It is too easy to be taken advantage of by somebody else, or to fall victim to superstitious conditioning, or to follow short-term happiness to your long-term peril, if you are not aware of the things that control your behavior. Recognizing that you are controlled does not make you any more controlled; denying that you are controlled does not make you any less controlled. But knowledge is power, and this is no exception.

Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not preaching ignorance at all. I'm telling people not to get bent out of shape about it. I discuss free will or the lack of it with family and friends all of the time. Sometimes people ask me why I bother with such things. I do because I really do care about the truth and we can't know about it by sticking our heads in the sand. I just don't see a reason for it to be a source of unease for anyone. Accept what we know, which isn't absolute, and live as though you have free will. I'm on your side Mercutio.

 

[Mercutio]

Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not preaching ignorance at all. I'm telling people not to get bent out of shape about it. I discuss free will or the lack of it with family and friends all of the time. Sometimes people ask me why I bother with such things. I do because I really do care about the truth and we can't know about it by sticking our heads in the sand. I just don't see a reason for it to be a source of unease for anyone. Accept what we know, which isn't absolute, and live as though you have free will. I'm on your side Mercutio.

Hmmm... why is "live as though you have free will" supposed to be comforting? (not being confrontative; I am genuinely curious. My own free will implies that others have it too; does that mean I should live as if I have no influence on them?) Why not live with the recognition that we are not free, but interdependent? Live as if the things you do really do matter to other people...

 

[RandFan]

Hmmm... why is "live as though you have free will" supposed to be comforting? (not being confrontative; I am genuinely curious. My own free will implies that others have it too; does that mean I should live as if I have no influence on them?) Why not live with the recognition that we are not free, but interdependent? Live as if the things you do really do matter to other people...

Hey, you can challenge me anytime. Don't worry about it.

Do we have a choice? Sorry for pulling a Presdient Bush but in this one instance he would be right.

Forget the comforting part, it's important to me but that is just an emotional response on my part.

In the end it just doesn't make any difference. If we do have free will, great, we have free will as it intuitively seems that we do, right? Suppose that we don't? What can you do about it? Nothing. What you will do is not up to you, right? The question is meaningless. Whatever the answer is it can't and won't change anything by the very nature of the question.

I'm all for philosophically exploring free will but I can't escape the logical consequence that it doesn't matter.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Saying that you don't have free will doesn't mean that you're going to believe whatever you're going to believe, independently of everything else.

If the world is determinstic, then what meaning does "independently" have? Everything either happens or it doesn't.

It is entirely possible, even if you don't have free will, that whether you end up believing in free will depends on what Mercutio tells you.

If the world is determistic, then what Mercution tells me depends on prior events, and so what Mercution tells me can't be the ultimate cause of anything that I do.

Since he thinks that people don't have free will, and since he thinks that people would be better off if they realized it, he's telling you stuff that he thinks might convince you of it.

But if he has no free will, the he isn't really choosing to do this.

No one would argue, "Computers don't have free will. Therefore why bother programming them? They're just going to do whatever they're going to do, anyway." What they're going to do depends on how they're programmed.

The problem with your analogy is that we're not discussing whether a particular person has free will, we're discussing whether free will in general exists. If no one has free will, then no one has a choice whether to program computers.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

My position is that of a hard determinist. Doesn't Mach's principle (the universe is not given twice...etc.) come into play for discussions like this?

Just because the universe is deterministic does not imply it is possible to perfectly predict events within it in a finite period of time. However we do manage to make quite good predictions with limited information all the time.

I think what stops most people from accepting determinism is our very limited view of cause-effect relationships and our desire to attach meaning/blame to events/people.

 

[Tez]

I think that's a misunderstanding of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is not a practical problem with measurement (though it is often illustrated as if it was) but a fundamental limit on what we can know about the physical world.

This is more than just a philosophical position. The alternative view, that there is something definite underneath the apparent quantum randomness (Einstein's "hidden variables") was experimentally demonstrated to be false, I think. It's scientific orthodoxy that God does play dice. Unless there's some more up-to-date developments I've missed.

You havent missed them - I think you have just misinterpreted what we do and dont know.

Whether the HUP is fundamental *is* a matter of interpretation - e.g. in Bohmian mechanics the particles always have definite positions and momenta. In fact I have designed local theories with a completely classical ontology that obey the HUP "fundamentally" (i.e. its provable that no object in such a universe can be constructed so as to violate the HUP). THis tells me the HUP only has a little to tell us about the true mysteries of QM.

It has only been shown that if something definite lies under quantum mechanics then it must be nonlocal. It has not been shown that it cannot exist - and in fact Bohmian mechanics is a counterexample. (n.b. I am not a fan of Bohmian mechanics per se, but it is a useful philosophical filter of quantum claptrap, and anyone who wants to talk about what QM does or doesn't say should learn something about it).

 

[Soapy Sam]

According to my computer's random number function, I'm a hard determinist.
I think.
Who knew?

 

[President Bush]

I wish I had the exact words one of my students used on this; he said it very nicely. Something along the lines of ... True freedom comes from recognizing the things that control your behavior. Ignorance of control is not freedom, it is just ignorance. To him, in the end it really does matter.

Sounds like an acknowledgement of self-determination, through the medium of internal control... free will.

What is it that is mattering to your student here?

 

[chriswl]

It has only been shown that if something definite lies under quantum mechanics then it must be nonlocal. It has not been shown that it cannot exist - and in fact Bohmian mechanics is a counterexample.

If it must be non-local what does this mean - that I can predict when a radioactive nucleus will decay but I need to include the whole universe in my calculations? Then we'd just be exchanging uncertainty for intractability.

 

[Tez]

If it must be non-local what does this mean - that I can predict when a radioactive nucleus will decay but I need to include the whole universe in my calculations? Then we'd just be exchanging uncertainty for intractability.

no, of course thats not what it means.

Google "Bell's theorem" or "Bell inequalities", do some reading, and then I'll be happy to answer questions...

 

[chriswl]

no, of course thats not what it means.

Why "of course not"? How non-local is non-local? Are you saying there is a method of actually predicting when a radioactive nucleus will decay? What things would we have to measure? I'm interested in how a deterministic non-local universe would be any more predictable, in practice, than a random one.

Google "Bell's theorem" or "Bell inequalities", do some reading, and then I'll be happy to answer questions...

I've read stuff on it before and never got close to an answer on what this idea of "non-locality" idea is supposed to mean in practice. Though I have noticed how few physicists have any time for Bohm's ideas.