Determinism, randomness and Free Will...

[Filip Sandor]

Determinism continued...

The purpose of this thread is to better understand what determinism is vs. randomness and hopefully to get some insight into the concept of free will.

As in the case of any theory, we should start off fresh by defining some of the terms relating to what we are debating.


At www.dictionary.com - determinism is defined as: The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

I believe it is ok to substitute "every state of affairs" with "all physical states" along with appropriate changes corresponding in the rest of the definition so that we are talking strictly, without a doubt physics. The new definition would read as follows, determinism is: the philosophical doctrine that all phyiscal states, including every human event, act, [and decision] is the inevitable consequence of antecedent physical states.

Please correct me if you feel this definition is not appropriate. If you agree with it, then please read on...

The way I understand it, according to this definition of determinism (referring to the second definition), the physical state of the Universe now as a whole is a direct consequence of the physical state of the Universe as a whole before "now".

Thought experiment:

In a Universe with only three moving parts A, B and C - we observe that A and B are two metal spheres of equal size and weight, moving around in a hollow, glass ring C where A is moving forward ----> and hitting a motionless B, transferring all of it's momentum perfectly and in turn B then moves forward ----> and hits A, the process continues on indefinately inside C.

Since in physics we understand that no energy is lost or created, let us assume all three parts in our hypothetical Universe are frictionless.

What we can conclude from this model is that at all times, the physical state of this Universe is a direct result of the prior physical state of this Universe and as such, in a deterministic model, the same principle applies to all it's moving parts. However, while we know with certainty where A got it's momentum from, as it whirls around in the glass pipe and where B is about to get it's momentum from, as it sits still waiting to get hit by A we are left clueless as to what initially introduced the momentum that is moving the objects in the ring. In order for the deterministic model to be valid here, we have to assume that the physical momentum driving the motions in the ring between A and B transcends deterministic laws and didn't have to come from a physical source.

These same principles apply in any strictly deterministic model and this same analogy can be drawn for the real Universe, only that the real Universe has more "moving parts," which we can't observe all at once. However, for the simple, three part model I just described we can't claim that the Universe is just too complex for us to understand and therefore, determinism can still be right. In this model, determinism is not compatible with it's own principles and we have to accept it as flawed or re-define what we mean by determinism.

This is probably a good starting point anyway..

Edited to ad: Maybe part of the problem in this definition of determinism is in the use of the term consequence with referrence to each physical state being a direct result of something before it, suggesting the existence of an Alpha cause for everything or an "infinite string" of causes leading into the past with no definite beginning... either way it should probably be re-defined because it's in conflict with a lot of, current, cosmological theories.

 

[toddjh]

If I understand you correctly, the flaw you describe is not actually a problem which affects the definition of determinism you gave.

Your objection seems to be based on the assumption that determinism runs both ways -- that not only are future physical states wholly determined by antecedent states, but also that those antecedent states can be divined by examining the present state. This is not assumed by your definition.

The fact that many initial states can all result in the same future state does not apply in this case. All that matters for your variety of determinism to hold true is consistency in the direction of the future.

Jeremy

 

[Filip Sandor]

The fact that many initial states can all result in the same future state does not apply in this case. All that matters for your variety of determinism to hold true is consistency in the direction of the future.

Jeremy

If all future events inevitably come from the past (as defined by determinism) then it still begs the question of what caused the current, physical state of the Universe. It don't think it matters what side you choose to look at - whether you look forwards or backwards in time - both sides should be logically consistant with eachother.

The point I'm trying to make is that determinism works by describing how physical states change into other physical states through an ordered set of rules, hence, giving us the ability to predict the future and the past, yet, the physical laws (and the states of motion that exist) are in their own right completely arbitrary - they have no ordered cause. So I'm not suggesting that raising logical contradictions is a solution to the problem, I think we should re-define what is meant by determinism if we are to accept it as a valid model of reality!

On the other hand, this simultaneously 'flawed' yet plausible model of physics manages to describe a Universe that's both ordered and arbitrary at the same time.... but that almost sounds too easy.

 

[toddjh]

If all future events inevitably come from the past (as defined by determinism) then it still begs the question of what caused the current, physical state of the Universe.

The initial state is pretty much always assumed in any deterministic system. You're asking the metaphysical question, "why are things the way they are?" Good luck answering it.

The point I'm trying to make is that determinism works by describing how physical states change into other physical states through an ordered set of rules, hence, giving us the ability to predict the future and the past

No. According to the definition of determinism you adopted, the past can be used to predict the future, but not necessarily the other way around.

yet, the physical laws (and the states of motion that exist) are in their own right completely arbitrary

You don't know that. It's still an open question whether it's even possible for other physical laws (or even initial states) to exist. On top of that, there are off-the-wall things like the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. The values of physical constants and such can't be called arbitrary if every possible value exists in one universe or another.

I think we should re-define what is meant by determinism if we are to accept it as a valid model of reality!

Determinism hasn't been accepted as a valid model of reality for nearly a hundred years now. It's unlikely to make a comeback. It's useful in thought experiments, but that's about it.

Jeremy

 

[jan]

Like toddjh, I don't see any flaw in determinism, for the reasons given. "Determinism" is just the name of one property a model of the universe can have or lack: namely, the property that the complete knowledge of a state can be used to predict the future. A model may have many other properties and traits, and it might, for example, contain an elaborate theory as to why the whole universe came into existence in the first place. Or it may lack such a theory.

I would like to add that your frictionless mechanical three-body universe might be a bit misleading since it is just too easy and doesn't show all possible cases.

Especially, within this universe, past and future can be exchanged. That means, if you film that universe, nnobody will be able to tell if we see the film forward or backwards. And that means that if we can predict the future, given the present state, we can also extrapolate the past for an infinite amount of time.

Consider instead a cellular automaton like Conway's "Game of Life". This is a perfectly deterministic universe: if we know one state, we are able to predict the future, since we can simply apply the rules and compute the outcome.

But we can't necessarily reconstruct the past. In many case, there are more than one state that could have caused the present state, so the past is ambigious. On the other hand, there are also states (called "garden of eden") for which you can show that they are not the successor of any state (a tricky puzzle is to construct a state that has at least one possible parent state, but no grandparent state — you can't just simply use the successor of a "garden of eden"-state, since that might be a state that has several possible predecessors — but I digress). That means we can't reconstruct the past (or tell what "caused" the present), but I wouldn't say that this means that the Life universe is in any way flawed. That's just the way it is.

 

[Filip Sandor]

The initial state is pretty much always assumed in any deterministic system.

Does that mean reality assumes it's own state... by choice perhaps??

According to the definition of determinism you adopted, the past can be used to predict the future, but not necessarily the other way around.

My point is that the mechanism determinism uses inevitably must flow into the past as well as the future, not that we can only use it to determine the past (although apparently we should be able to do this also).

It's still an open question whether it's even possible for other physical laws (or even initial states) to exist. On top of that, there are off-the-wall things like the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. The values of physical constants and such can't be called arbitrary if every possible value exists in one universe or another.

Honestly, I am very reluctant to depend on "quantum mechanics" and all it's incredibly complex theories (way beyond my comprehension level) to justify anything.

Determinism hasn't been accepted as a valid model of reality for nearly a hundred years now. It's unlikely to make a comeback. It's useful in thought experiments, but that's about it.

Jeremy

I'm sure most determinists would argue against you, but I'm personally very compelled to agree with you on that last point you made. I think it's important to cast some doubt on determinism if we are to justify the varying "shades" of free will we experience on a daily basis.

 

[toddjh]

Does that mean reality assumes it's own state... by choice perhaps??

No. Like I said, nobody who's kept up with developments in physics of the last century takes determinism seriously anymore. The question of the initial state of the universe is largely irrelevant, barring some unforeseen revelation.

My point is that the mechanism determinism uses inevitably must flow into the past as well as the future, not that we can only use it to determine the past (although apparently we should be able to do this also).

What makes you believe that? If multiple "past states" can all lead to the "present state," how do you propose to determine which of them happened? Jan's example of the Game of Life is a good one.

Honestly, I am very reluctant to depend on "quantum mechanics" and all it's incredibly complex theories (way beyond my comprehension level) to justify anything.

Not to justify, just to cast doubt on assertions that require it to be untrue. Quantum mechanics is counterintuitive sometimes, but the fact that it does work is not in dispute. The only debate these days is about what is implied by the fact that it works. However, determinism is one of the things that was ruled out very early on.

Really, it's very common for people to balk at that. Einstein himself uttered his famous phrase, "God does not play dice," to show his refusal to accept that determinism was on life support. His thinking was that the apparent randomness would be resolved by some future discovery. However, eventually he saw that that could not be the case.

I'm sure most determinists would argue against you, but I'm personally very compelled to agree with you on that last point you made. I think it's important to cast some doubt on determinism if we are to justify the varying "shades" of free will we experience on a daily basis.

I don't know what you mean by "free will." I haven't seen a definition of that term that can be distinguished from either determinism or randomness. But I'm sure you've heard all this before, judging from the title of the thread.

Jeremy

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by toddjh

I don't know what you mean by "free will." I haven't seen a definition of that term that can be distinguished from either determinism or randomness.

By definition, libertarian free will couldn't be either of those. I say anyone who can't accept compatibilism is forced to invoke dualism (where the same objection could be made all over again, but it's maybe easier to hide the inconsistencies).

 

[Filip Sandor]

Not to justify, just to cast doubt on assertions that require it to be untrue. Quantum mechanics is counterintuitive sometimes, but the fact that it does work is not in dispute. The only debate these days is about what is implied by the fact that it works. However, determinism is one of the things that was ruled out very early on.

I don't know enough about quantum physics to judge whether the physicist who say true randomness exists are right or wrong and seriously, if determinism is so outdated and obviously flawed then why do so many people still believe in it?!

Einstein himself uttered his famous phrase, "God does not play dice," to show his refusal to accept that determinism was on life support. His thinking was that the apparent randomness would be resolved by some future discovery. However, eventually he saw that that could not be the case.

Hey, if even EINSTEIN was unsure about it [with an IQ of 160+ apparently]... how can I be sure?

...last time I took an IQ test I scored well below 160+

I haven't seen a definition of that term that can be distinguished from either determinism or randomness. But I'm sure you've heard all this before, judging from the title of the thread.

Yes, I've heard of this before. It's a debate that's been going on for many years since I first even read any of the posts on this board, including many other forums, at many different websites. Yet, some people claim to have such simple answers to such a complex problem..!

To me, free will is something that is evident in my life experience, in fact, the more aware I am of what influences me to make the choices I do, the more choice I feel I have (not less) to avert the 'choice inhibiting factors' I experience. I actually experience varrying degrees of freedom of choice in different circumstances. The fact that this experience is quite profound, as opposed to the experience of say, tying my shoes is actually convincing enough for me to think it is something that extends into observable reality and not just my imagination. I think if free will does in fact exist at some level then it should be evident at the physical level as well, since our choices also extend well into the 'physical'.

That's just my take, I know it sounds weird and maybe it doesn't make much sense to you, so let's just call it my opinion.

 

[Filip Sandor]

oops - double posted!

 

[jan]

Quantum mechanics is counterintuitive sometimes, but the fact that it does work is not in dispute. The only debate these days is about what is implied by the fact that it works. However, determinism is one of the things that was ruled out very early on.

I used to think that the many-worlds-interpretation of Quantum Physics still allows the universe to be deterministic. It goes like this: whenever an experiment has two possible outcomes (a slight simplification, it may usually have infinite many), then the universe doesn't make a random decision between the two of them, but just splits in a predictable manner into two universes. In one universe, the inhabitants wonder why the universe took this apparantely random decision. In the other universe, the inhabitants wonder why the universe took that apparantely random decision. But from an external viewpoint, there was no random decision at all, just a completely predictable bifurcation.

I don't know enough about quantum physics to judge whether the physicist who say true randomness exists are right or wrong and seriously, if determinism is so outdated and obviously flawed then why do so many people still believe in it?!

I assume "determinism" now means: "the believe that the one true and complete model of the universe must be deterministic". How often have you met people believing in determinism? If I remember correctly, neither in this nor in the previous thread anybody took such a stance.

What I do believe is that it is likely that quantum mechanical randomness doesn't have much effect in how the brain works. That is, I believe it to be highly likely that a deterministic model of the brain, although being a simplification of the underlaying physical processes, might well be sufficient to explain how the brain works (that means, no microtubules back door).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As Dymanic said, libertarian free will requires some sort of supernatural intervention. That is why we keep asking people to describe the supernatural mechanism of free will, which must be something other than algorithmic with possible randomness.

No one accepts determinism as a valid model of reality, do they? We know there is randomness involved.

~~ Paul

 

[toddjh]

I don't know enough about quantum physics to judge whether the physicist who say true randomness exists are right or wrong and seriously, if determinism is so outdated and obviously flawed then why do so many people still believe in it?!

Because they don't know enough about quantum physics, either.

Determinism is very seductive. At the everyday level, so many things appear to follow fixed physical laws that it's easy to believe in the clockwork universe. It's very intuitive. I don't blame you for being skeptical about its demise.

Hey, if even EINSTEIN was unsure about it [with an IQ of 160+ apparently]... how can I be sure?

He was unsure because he had hopes that the randomness might be removed with some future discovery (what are known in quantum talk as "hidden variables"), but eventually that was shown not to be the case.

Yes, I've heard of this before. It's a debate that's been going on for many years since I first even read any of the posts on this board, including many other forums, at many different websites. Yet, some people claim to have such simple answers to such a complex problem..!

I don't claim to have any answers. All I'm saying is that the problem itself has not been defined adequately enough for me to attempt to address it. I don't know what "free will" is, so I can't say anything about whether it exists or not.

To me, free will is something that is evident in my life experience, in fact, the more aware I am of what influences me to make the choices I do, the more choice I feel I have (not less) to avert the 'choice inhibiting factors' I experience.

What does what you feel or experience have to do with anything? Plenty of people feel or experience crazy things all the time. That's not a reliable basis for forming an ontological opinion.

Jeremy

 

[Filip Sandor]

I used to think that the many-worlds-interpretation of Quantum Physics still allows the universe to be deterministic. It goes like this: whenever an experiment has two possible outcomes (a slight simplification, it may usually have infinite many), then the universe doesn't make a random decision between the two of them, but just splits in a predictable manner into two universes. In one universe, the inhabitants wonder why the universe took this apparantely random decision. In the other universe, the inhabitants wonder why the universe took that apparantely random decision. But from an external viewpoint, there was no random decision at all, just a completely predictable bifurcation.

Jan, even the word Universe sounds to me like it desceribes all 'verses' or maybe 'versions' that might exist united into one Universe. I always found the many worlds theory to be very speculative and somewhat ridiculous, even in this age of time dialation physics and wormholes. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it does the same thing for materialists as God does for Christians in the way of explaining the "unknown." I think the theory lacks any demonstrated connection to reality at best!

What I do believe is that it is likely that quantum mechanical randomness doesn't have much effect in how the brain works.

But are you talking about determinisitic randomness where everything is actually determined, but we just call it 'random' or actual randomness? What's your stance? Are you for determinism, against it or undecided at this point?

 

[jan]

I always found the many worlds theory to be very speculative and somewhat ridiculous, even in this age of time dialation physics and wormholes.

I see no dispute here. As I understand it, the many-worlds-interpretation is pure metaphysics. I am not strictly against metaphysics (I think it has its place and can have its use), but we should always know when we are talking about physics and when we are talking about metaphysics.

It was not my intention to defend the many-world-interpretation. I was just trying to say that, as far as I am able to grasp it (and there are certainly people with a better understanding of quantum mysteries), the race is still open, determinism is not as completely dead as toddjh described it.

But, as far as I know, the orthodox interpretation of quantum physics is that our universe contains a genuine source of randomness. I certainly can live with that.

But are you talking about determinisitic randomness where everything is actually determined, but we just call it 'random' or actual randomness? What's your stance? Are you for determinism, against it or undecided at this point?

My stance: it is likely that there is a genuine source of randomness on the quantum level. There are ways to make those effects macroscopic (as in Schrödinger's cat). But since I don't believe in microtubules as quantum effect amplifiers, I also think that it is likely that it is possible to describe the human brain without any recurrence to quantum phenomenons.

Therefore, a deterministic model of the brain can be sufficient: although it is a simplification, because basically there are just atoms and void, and the atoms behave in a nondeterministic way, and a really really thorough explanation would start with atoms and void, atoms and void are not needed to explain how the brain works, some basic biology and physiology is sufficient.

I can't prove this stance: it is just my understanding of the current trends in science.

And I don't believe in libertarian free will.

 

[Filip Sandor]

My stance: it is likely that there is a genuine source of randomness on the quantum level. There are ways to make those effects macroscopic (as in Schroudinger's cat). But since I don't believe in microtubules as quantum effect amplifiers, I also think that it is likely that it is possible to describe the human brain without any recurrence to quantum phenomenons.

I can only argue that the brain is so finely comlex it's hard to say - and I'm not referring to the 'ol it's so complex it could be anything theory either...

I'm definately not an expert in biology, but my general knowledge of physics and the brain would suggest to me that the electo-chemical or mental activity which occurs in the brain is so fine it can probably be broken down to the level of individual or collective, eletro-chemical bonds. In the case of the brain, it would also be ok assume an outside source of energy that can set things into motion at the electro-chemical level and chemical bonds are basically comprised of atoms inter-reacting with other atoms, according to their specific properties and physical states. Since the states of individual atoms are not so far from the quantum weirdness that affects sub-atomic particles, if true randomness exists at the quantum level it might be possible for it to "leak out" via subtle, atomic fluctuations which might even change the physical state of a few corresponding, electro-chemical bonds, which in turn, might lead to full blown chain reactions that "explode" into small chunks of electro-chemical or mental activity.

At such a point, almost anything on the macro-scale might manifest for no apparent reason that we can see.

The principle at work here would be similar to that of quantum chain reactions that occurs in nuclear substances, only this chain reaction would occur in an otherwise 'chemically calm' (but sensative) region of the brain, exploding into what we would observe as an arbitrary 'burst' of ordered, electro-chemical activity or a 'glow' on the MRI scanner without any concrete physical evidence of a source to all the activity, as if it just popped up out of nowhere.

I think this is a fascinating concept really, but I admit my poor knowledge of neuro-physics might render this theory completely wrong. What is most curious about such a theory to me is why we exhibit such orderly behaviour rather than running around chaotically like chickens with our heads cut off??

Since randomness already transcends logic and order, is it so far-fetched to assume that free will and the apparently "random" activity in the brain is somehow connected??

 

[jan]

I'm definately not an expert in biology, but my general knowledge of physics and the brain would suggest to me that the electo-chemical or mental activity which occurs in the brain is so fine it can probably be broken down to the level of individual or collective, eletro-chemical bonds.

Reconsidering my stance, perhaps I should change it. If I want to describe how the human brain works on a higher level than individual atoms, and maybe even on a higher level than individual cells (since there are still too many of them to deal with all of them individually), it may be necessary to allow for some wiggle room. That is, like a theory of gambling would treat a roll of a dice as a random event due to a lack of knowledge, a sufficient high-level theory of how the brain works could be expected to be nondeterministic. That is, it would contain statements like "if this happens, there is a chance of p percent that that follows". In this case, the nondeterminism might well be a consequence of the negligence of low-level effects.

But since I wrote "but since I don't believe in microtubules as quantum effect amplifiers, I also think that it is likely that it is possible to describe the human brain without any recurrence to quantum phenomenons" and not "...possible to describe the human brain with a deterministic model", it seems as if I don't have to retract anything.

Since randomness already transcends logic and order, is it so far-fetched to assume that free will and the apparently "random" activity in the brain is somehow connected??

I wouldn't call it "far-fetched". But it seems as if nobody of us (including you) is able to imagine how it should work.

Probably introspection tells you that sometimes you make decisions, without knowing why you made this decision.

It could be that the decision is the result of an unconscious computation that is pretty deterministic, but you are unaware of it.

It could be that the decision is the result of some chaos resulting in the complexity of your brain and its chemistry, and therefore random as in "random roll of dice".

It could be that the decision is the result of some quantum effect and therefore random as in "random quantum effect".

In either case, I fail to see an autonomous soul with libertarian free will making the decision.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor

...is it so far-fetched to assume that free will and the apparently "random" activity in the brain is somehow connected??

I think it becomes more far-fetched the more you think about it. Let's say that somewhere deep in the brain, a potassium ion moves across the plasma membrane of a nerve cell. Or, it doesn't. We might consider everything that could possibly influence such an event -- including Saturn's gravity, fluctuations in the Dow, and the lingering effects of the flapping of ancient butterfly wings -- to be subsumed under the heading: 'deterministic causes'. Quantum effects would go under: non-deterministic causes'.

True quantum randomness requires no scare-quotes; it earns the title "truly random" by virtue of its being uncaused. Any suggestion that quantum randomness is being pushed around by free will invalidates its random status; might as well let free will run the show directly.

On the other hand, we can't have randomness driving free will, either. Suppose you had to flip a coin every single time you had to make a decision -- where's the free will in that?

Therefore, since libertarian free will can't possibly go under either 'deterministic' or 'non-deterministic' causes', where the heck do we put it?