Do you believe in Free Will?

[stealth977]

Well, the question is bothering me for quite a while now: Is there anything such as Free Will?

If you drop a ball from a height and note down when and where it drops to and go back in time (to be more precise, rewind the universe) to the exact time you dropped it and drop it again, you can be %100 sure that it will hit the very same spot at exactly very same time, thats a physics rule...

Now, does it apply to us, Human Beings too?

Given decisions are calculated by our brains, and brain being a physical object, bound by physics rules, it means that the end result will always be same no matter how many times you rewind to the beginning of decision. So, if it were possible to rewind, we would still end up with same decision each time...

1 - So, doesnt that also mean our decisions are bound by physics rules?
2 - Or is there any interference (which should not be bound by physics rules, meaning it must not be outta known world) ?
3 - If not, then where is the free will if same circumstances will cause the same decision? (as in same inputs cause same output)

My scientific side tells me that there can not be Free will, but my religious side (well am not *that* religious, but i do believe in god) is very much discomfortable with the idea... What do you guys think?

[mkultra333]

If you drop a ball from a height and note down when and where it drops to and go back in time (to be more precise, rewind the universe) to the exact time you dropped it and drop it again, you can be %100 sure that it will hit the very same spot at exactly very same time, thats a physics rule...

I disagree with this statement. Due to quantum fluctuations, the ball could do any number of improbable things if you repeat the experiment often enough. For such a large object, you'd have to do a lot of experiments to get any noticable randomness, but you could always pick a simpler system, such as watching radioactive decay, and get very obvious randomness almost every single time.

So, I disagree with the determinism you imply. However, whether randomness equates to freewill is another issue.

[betajaen]

If you drop a ball from a height and note down when and where it drops to and go back in time (to be more precise, rewind the universe) to the exact time you dropped it and drop it again, you can be %100 sure that it will hit the very same spot at exactly very same time, thats a physics rule...

I used to think that too, I came up with the theory years ago that if you had a computer and knew the state of every particle after the moment of the big bang then played it back. You could predict the future. Newton realized it, naming it the "Clockwork Universe".

Unfortunately we have Quantum Physics now, which says it can't. Taking the electron in Hydrogen for an example, most school text books say it orbits around the proton, much like a solar system does. In reality it doesn't, we know vaguely where it is around the electron, and where the most probable location it may be, known as an electron shell (1s in this case). Further more, we the more we know about the position about the electron but we know less about the velocity and vice versa(Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).

The thing that freaks me about the most about Physics; is the work by Max Planck; specifically planck distance and planck time, where space and time is not infinitely divisible as we like to think. If you accept the idea of alternative universes (where every possible event happens in an alternative universe), there is only a finite variations of the initial conditions of the universe.




This thread may start to balloon out. So I'm issuing a stern warning to anyone who replies. Please leave religious elements out. This is one of the rules of the off-topic forums, and will obviously conflict or may even complement with the current theme of the thread. But keep please keep it out.

[chaosavy]

Don't have much to add regarding physics, but I often think that if you take certain thoughts too far you could go insane (versus the definition of normal).

[betajaen]

I disagree with this statement. Due to quantum fluctuations, the ball could do any number of improbable things if you repeat the experiment often enough. For such a large object, you'd have to do a lot of experiments to get any noticable randomness, but you could always pick a simpler system, such as watching radioactive decay, and get very obvious randomness almost every single time.

Exactly. It doesn't even have to be that "low-level".

Take organic chemical reactions for example; something I consider very ordered and very "programming like" - if you know all the rules. However there in much cases the end products with have different yields of products that have a different chirality, even though that the reactants are the same.

[mkultra333]

Unfortunately we have Quantum Physics now...

It's not unfortunate if your deterministic future sucks.

[betajaen]

Unfortunately we have Quantum Physics now...

It's not unfortunate if your deterministic future sucks.

Then you know that your alternative mkulta333s have better futures.

[stealth977]

@mkultra

you got it wrong, i mean you are idea is based on Chaos Theory, but what i mean by "Rewind" or "Time" is:

A Raw explanation of Time could be the index to the different states of the whole set of quantum particles making up our known universe. so Time(1) means a collection of all particles at state 1 and Time(2) is collection of particles at state 2 where state(n) != state(n - 1)

so, when i mean Exact Time or Rewind, i mean returning to Time(X) or State(X) where all particles are at same state as before.

The difference between reaction(A) with input(A) and reaction(B) with input(A) is because the quantum state of all other particles are different in both cases, what if we could rewind to same state and re-do the experiment, the results would be exactly same...

I hope i could clarify it...

NOTE: Btw, i know the rules about religion stuff, i just mentioned it because its directly related to my discomfort

[mkultra333]

@mkultra

you got it wrong, i mean you are idea is based on Chaos Theory, but what i mean by "Rewind" or "Time" is:

A Raw explanation of Time could be the index to the different states of the whole set of quantum particles making up our known universe. so Time(1) means a collection of all particles at state 1 and Time(2) is collection of particles at state 2 where state(n) != state(n - 1)

so, when i mean Exact Time or Rewind, i mean returning to Time(X) or State(X) where all particles are at same state as before.

The difference between reaction(A) with input(A) and reaction(B) with input(A) is because the quantum state of all other particles are different in both cases, what if we could rewind to same state and re-do the experiment, the results would be exactly same...

I hope i could clarify it...

NOTE: Btw, i know the rules about religion stuff, i just mentioned it because its directly related to my discomfort

No, when you measure the quantum state the outcome is probablistic, not determinisitic, even if you know the underlying wavefunction exactly. QM can be broken into two parts, a deterministic wavefunction and a probablistic outcome of a measurement on that wavefunction. Chaos isn't really relevant.

If you have two identical wavefunctions and allow them to evolve, then yes, the wavefunctions will evolve to identical states. But when you perform a measurement on those wavefunctions, you'll get random results that need not agree with each other. You're treating the outcome of the measurement as if it were causal, but the outcome is acausal. You shouldn't expect a rewound acausal system to do a repeat performance, because there's nothing to "cause" it to behave that way.

[betajaen]

with input(A) is because the quantum state of all other particles are different in both cases, what if we could rewind to same state and re-do the experiment, the results would be exactly same...

So what your saying is. If the same event was replayed over again, the same outcome will be the same. Pretty sure Quantum Physics says that not possible.

Although mkultra is right about radiation emitted "randomly", it all goes down to the emission of the photon when the electron goes from an excited state to ground state. This like the position/velocity of the electron is indeterminate, thus could happen at any time which is why Quantum Physics and even some parts of Chemistry is measured using statistics and probabilities.

Chaos Theory is a different phenomena where macro objects are influenced by something insignificant; i.e. Butterfly flapping it's Wings, causes a hurricane on the other side of the World.

[Edit]

Ack mkultra got there before me.

[stealth977]

If you have two identical wavefunctions and allow them to evolve, then yes, the wavefunctions will evolve to identical states. But when you perform a measurement on those wavefunctions, you'll get random results that need not agree with each other. You're treating the outcome of the measurement as if it were causal, but the outcome is acausal. You shouldn't expect a rewound acausal system to do a repeat performance, because there's nothing to "cause" it to behave that way.

The point is am not talking about measuring anything, i know that measuring it would alter its state.

You got what i mean right this time, i am talking about identical wavefunctions.

since going back, or rewinding is going back to the exact same spot in the function, the next state will be same as before.

Lets say current universe is a set of quantum states, {state(particle1), state(particle2)...., state(particleN)} and time is the index into the superset that contains consequtive non-identical sets such as {T0{state(particle1), state(particle2)...., state(particleN)}, T1{state(particle1), state(particle2)...., state(particleN)} ....}

since change from T0's set to T1's set and T(n-1)'s set to T(n)'s set is based on physics rules, they always happen in same order (think as a wavefunction)

So, no matter how many times you reset all states to the set T(x), next set of states will always be T(x + 1)

This means T(x) HAS ONLY ONE OPTION and its T(x + 1), so since Free Will is about MULTIPLE OPTIONS and CHOOSING, since there is always ONE OPTION from T(x) and its T(x + 1), you actually do not have any free will...

[CABAListic]

But measurements happen all the time, in fact, I would claim that without measurements the world does not exist (or at least is not observable). Wave functions are immeasurable and are, in that sense, a mathematical aide (and not even unique), but are not actual physical observables. Only the outcomes of measurements are. So it doesn't matter if wave functions are identical or not because they do not represent the actual physics. You have to include measurements in your picture, and at that moment you have randomness.

(You could, of course, speculate that this randomness is just evidence of some deeper physical order that we just haven't found yet. But so far there is no evidence for any such thing.)

[stealth977]

Well i think of physics rules as a function processing an array and returning another array:

char * f(char *x)
{
....some operations...
return x;
}

and the flow is

char * k;

while(1)
{
k = f(k);
}

if we store k in each iteration it forms the superset "T()" where T(x) gives us the array created in Xth iteration. Here x is TIME...

So, what i say is f(T(x)) is always equal to T(x + 1), each time you reset "k" to T(x) and feed to function f() as f(k), the result will be T(x + 1)...

so each for each T(n) there is only one option that will happen next and it is T(n + 1) and ONE OPTION means there i nothing to choose from and that means no free will, everything happens since it is the ONLY POSSIBLE OUTCOME OF PREVIOUS STATE...

[CABAListic]

But you are misinterpreting what the wave function represents. Although we physicists call it the "state" of a (quantum) system, it doesn't represent what we can observe from the system. It is a purely mathematical variable. In fact, the wave function itself is meaningless. Physical statements can only be made about the square of the wave function, but the square value only gives you probabilities. It does not tell you what happens to your system, it only tells what could happen with a certain probability.
So in your context, what an identically evolving wave function means is that the probabilities for measurement outcomes evolve identically. But those do not tell you what will happen.

[stealth977]

@CABALISTIC:
yes, right, i agree on that, but the problem is measurements are intrusive.

in the above example, the system is running continously, if you want to measure any component of T(x), you need to lock that part of memory and fetch the data from there, but the iteration still continues and the part of memory you locked will not be updated till you complete your measurement. And since every component of the array is dependent on other components, transformation from T(x) to T(x + 1) and any further transformation will be altered as soon as you lock (for measuring) so you only have a probability about the outcome since you altered the outcome by measuring...

And, why do you virtualize the observer? the observer is also subset of the set T(x), so actually it will only measure when state requires it to and the alteration is actually not an intervention but natural iteration of the function...

[CABAListic]

But as you said, the measurement breaks the evolution. (This is actually an unsolved problem in modern physics, because we don't know exactly what makes a measurement and why it behaves so completely differently to the other evolution.)

To stay in your picture, you have some kind of evolution, but at some point a measurement occurs, and at that point the possible evolutions branch. Depending on the outcome of the measurement, the state of your system changes (completely), and as a consequence the evolution from that point onwards continues differently. And even if you reset your system to the original point, the measurement still remains a branching point that you cannot predict.

Maybe it helps to look at a very simple system. This is a constructed system which doesn't really exist, but still. Let's say we have an atom with two excited states. When the atom is excited to one of these states and then falls back to the ground state, it will emit a photon with a certain wavelength. Let's say the first excited state would be a red photon and the second excited state a blue photon.
Now, quantum physics says that the atom can be in a superposition of both excited states (e.g. half in the first excited state, half in the second excited state), and in fact we know how that superposition evolves. But this superposition is not observable, it has no immediate meaning. You only get meaning when the atom falls back to the ground state and emits the photon (which you can then observe). However, also according to quantum physics (and to actual experiments), you will only ever see either the red or the blue photon, but never a photon with a wavelength in-between these two possibilities. So at the moment that the atom goes back to the ground state, the superposition dissolves and the atom falls either from the first or the second excited state, but never from a position in-between. The state's superposition whose evolution you calculated will only tell you a probability with which either a red or a blue photon occurs.

The measurement is an entirely different form of evolution, and it breaks the previous behaviour, because it collapses the state of the system to one of only two possible choices. You cannot model it in the same way as you model the state's evolution. They are separate things (as far as we know).

BTW, what you might have meant with your last point, i.e. include the measurement in your system: This has been tried. You can describe a measurement on a system by constructing a super-system (basically, an ancilla quantum bath or something). But this doesn't resolve the asymmetry, because you would then have to describe measurements on this super-system, so you would need to construct a super-super-system, etc.. It's a never-ending story. Point is, measurements are special, and they do not behave like the model evolution that you are trying to do.

[stealth977]

ok lets re-design your simple system : When you throw a ball at a turning roulette wheel, you know that there are 2 outcomes a red or a black, you can calculate the probability of final result being red or black, but its only when the wheel stops, you will be sure if its black or red, it never returns anything in between...

But, if you knew the speed of the wheel, the ball's exact point of impact, ball's and wheel's all physical properties, woul it not be possible to calculate the exact result?

Does, not having the exact data about a calculation and the algorithm to calculate it, mean that we can only stick to probabilities??

If we had means to measure the excitement state of the atom without intervening its state, we could precisely determine the outcome of that state, but we, as a part of the set T(), have limits to what we can measure, which doesnt mean it cant be done or that solution doesnt exist, it just means WE can not do it...

[CABAListic]

ok lets re-design your simple system : When you throw a ball at a turning roulette wheel, you know that there are 2 outcomes a red or a black, you can calculate the probability of final result being red or black, but its only when the wheel stops, you will be sure if its black or red, it never returns anything in between...

But, if you knew the speed of the wheel, the ball's exact point of impact, ball's and wheel's all physical properties, woul it not be possible to calculate the exact result?

This is the counter-intuitive postulation of quantum mechanics: It would indeed not be possible! Quantum mechanics postulates that there is an inherent randomness to the outcome that has nothing to do with missing information!

If we had means to measure the excitement state of the atom without intervening its state, we could precisely determine the outcome of that state, but we, as a part of the set T(), have limits to what we can measure, which doesnt mean it cant be done or that solution doesnt exist, it just means WE can not do it...

Well, this is now a philosophical problem: Is our view on things incomplete because we are a part of it and simply cannot look beyond? Is there a hidden complexity to quantum physics that we haven't found (and perhaps cannot ever) which dictates the "random" outcomes? From a physical point of view this is irrelevant; so far all of our experiments say that the randomness physically exists, and it has no explanation that we could see in an experiment. But physics will never fully satisfy our desire for a "complete" view of the world, so you are free to assume there still is a deterministic order to quantum physics
Me personally I actually like the thought that our universe is not fully deterministic so that it does leave room for free thought. And I like to think of quantum physics as a strong indication for that.

[stealth977]

Me personally I actually like the thought that our universe is not fully deterministic so that it does leave room for free thought. And I like to think of quantum physics as a strong indication for that.

we have seen before that what we once believed or what we once somehow proved become obsolete with new facts (anyone still believes the world is flat? or the sun orbits around the world? or matter is made of fire/ice/earth/air elements? Dont laugh, those were highly discussed facts of the near past)

Each time we saw randomness in something, the next thing we discovered is that randomness is caused by limited knowledge and a building block smaller than we thought existed which formed the previous object that we thought was the building block...

So, those facts are also is a sign that our current building blocks and the rules that we think certain maybe obsolete in near future, that is also a part of the evolution...

BUT; still, i also like to think that our universe is not fully deterministic, since, the other option doesnt make me any different than a pile of particles...

[CABAListic]

Of course, but as I said, so far all of our experiments have fully confirmed the postulates of the quantum theory. So until a new experiment (fundamentally) disagrees with quantum physics, it is a valid theory, nothing more, nothing less. It does have open questions, as mentioned, so it will certainly experience some modifications in the future. I just hope that the core principle will stand, but it's not my choice

[Kojack]

I believe in a completely deterministic reality, but I'm a Compatibilist, I don't believe determinism is mutually exclusive to free will. Every decision I make is based on my mind receiving input, processing it based on my mental state, and reaching a conclusion. Whether that conclusion could be determined in advance by sufficient mathematical skill (understanding beyond the current quantum theories) and a snapshot of all known information regarding the region of space I'm occupying doesn't really matter.

[mkultra333]

Boo Compatibilism!

Hehe, sorry, but I think it's an abuse of philosophy and language. Compatibilists just co-opted the word "freewill," redefined it as "a complicated processing system rigidly constrained to following deterministic laws" (which is essentially the exact opposite of what every other philosopher means by "freewill") and then confused and muddied every freewill discussion thereafter. Which, I think, was the goal. Typical Daniel Dennet!

Wouldn't it be cool if we could get into a bitter, divisive argument over philosophy in the Ogre forums? Make a nice change from bitter, divisive arguments over politics. Let's see if we can get someone to angrily leave the board, never to return, and a moderator demoted for a few weeks. And freewill and philosophy of mind added to the list of banned subjects.

[mkultra333]

Ok, apologies if I was overly dismissive there. Had a flashback to my bad old days of arguing on philosophy forums.

Compatibilism is not completely without its merits. It does capture something of what we mean by freewill in everyday and legal senses, namely the property of a system being able to choose based on a systems own desires as opposed to being coerced by outside forces. However there are other aspects of the philosophy which I disagree with.

[Kojack]

If the goal of compatibilists is to confuse every discussion of free will, and this is a discussion of free will, then I probably shouldn't say anything further on this topic.

(I wish this agenda of confusion was pointed out when I first heard the term compatibilist a few minutes before I made the above post and decided it fit my beliefs slightly closer than hard determinism. So to avoid muddying the discussion consider me a hard determinist instead).

Wouldn't it be cool if we could get into a bitter, divisive argument over philosophy in the Ogre forums? Make a nice change from bitter, divisive arguments over politics.

I think I prefer the current "everyone getting along" topics this board has now.

[jacmoe]

I believe in Free Will.

That's what makes us different from the other animals inhabiting this planet: free will - or (rather) the illusion that we have it.
Or maybe better put: the fact that we are aware of us having those thoughts.

The truth is a relative term IMO - what's true now might be false tomorrow - even if it's universally regarded as a law.
Like the laws of Newton.

The more we learn, the more we discover how little we actually know.