Do you believe in Free Will?

A place for Ogre users to discuss non-Ogre subjects with friends from the community.
User avatar
mkultra333
Gold Sponsor
Gold Sponsor
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:25 am
x 116

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by mkultra333 »

As I've said before, randomness is not necessarily the same as freewill. But to the extent that determinism is the source of stealth977's concerns:

Most of us are used to indeterminism and essential randomness in physics. Famous information theorist Gregory Chaitin upped the ante by arguing that parts of mathematical logic are arbitrary and random too. http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/summer.html

It's based on a number called Omega which is to do with the probability of Turing Machines halting (not actually a unique number, it depends on the type of Turing Machine.) Omega is random to an extreme degree (to do with things like oracles and the arithmetic hierarchy, which I'm certainly no expert on).

According to Chaitin, "...this is how you get randomness, this is how you show that there are facts that are true for no reason in pure math."
God not only plays dice in physics, but even in pure mathematics, in logic, in the world of pure reason.
...
Some mathematical facts
are true for no reason,
they're true by accident!
"In theory there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is." - Psychology Textbook.
User avatar
betajaen
OGRE Moderator
OGRE Moderator
Posts: 3447
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:15 pm
Location: Wales, UK
x 58

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by betajaen »

jacmoe wrote:The more we learn, the more we discover how little we actually know. :wink:
I like this, but I prefer Socrates version though; "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."

[Edit]

I have a thought.

If each wavefunction is inheritantly random each time you measure it. So in other words; if the universe is repeatable, the end of the universe will be in different states; each time. But the theory that when a wavefunction collapses the other event that could of happened, happened in an alternative universe. If you combine that theory with Max Plancks constant h which effectively issues a lower limit for all types of basic principals of the universe; distance, time, energy, etc. If then the universe is allowed to replay itself, each planck time there will be a finite amount of alternative universes "created" for each wavefunction collapse, and each of those universes will create alternative universe and so on. At the end of the universe there will be an extremely large number but not infinite alternative universe and this universe; prime universe.If you keep replaying the prime universe; then it the possible outcome will be either the prime universe, or more likely an alternative universe, but always those states, and nothing else. I think I'm describing some parts of M-theory here though.

My point is; if there is a limited amount of end states of the universe, then I suppose you can't have free will. Like a computer random function and a seed. The random numbers are not truly random but based on the seed, each time you repeat the function with the same seed, the numbers are the same.

Just a thought, I don't even think you can even prove alternative universes.
User avatar
stealth977
Gnoll
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
x 42

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by stealth977 »

betajaen wrote: My point is; if there is a limited amount of end states of the universe, then I suppose you can't have free will. Like a computer random function and a seed. The random numbers are not truly random but based on the seed, each time you repeat the function with the same seed, the numbers are the same.
Thats almost what i was trying to tell :)
Ismail TARIM
Ogitor - Ogre Scene Editor
WWW:http://www.ogitor.org
Repository: https://bitbucket.org/ogitor
CABAListic
OGRE Retired Team Member
OGRE Retired Team Member
Posts: 2903
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:48 pm
x 58

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by CABAListic »

Well, except not all quantum systems are discreet. In the constructed example I posted before there were essentially only three possible states for the atom that could be measured (ground state and excited states) and thus only three possible outcomes. But other properties are not limited. Measuring e.g. the point in space of a particle still has infinitely many possible outcomes, as far as our current theory goes.

Besides, even if there were only two possible ways in which our universe could evolve, then the "final" outcome would still be non-deterministic. Would free will really require infinitely many possible outcomes? I guess we could use the number of possible outcomes as the "quality" of our free will. :)
User avatar
betajaen
OGRE Moderator
OGRE Moderator
Posts: 3447
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:15 pm
Location: Wales, UK
x 58

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by betajaen »

Ah, then my theory doesn't work then.

I need to brush up on my Wavefunctions again. I forgotten most of it from two years ago.
CABAListic
OGRE Retired Team Member
OGRE Retired Team Member
Posts: 2903
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:48 pm
x 58

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by CABAListic »

Oh, and let's not forget: If you measure the point in space of a particle (to infinite precision), you would at the same time lose all information about that particle's speed by Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. So in that particular universe where the place of the particle was fixed, you would now have infinite new possible outcomes of a velocity measurement.
So I actually think that the uncertainty relation makes it impossible to construct such a set of universes that could possibly happen, simply because every measurement also introduces new uncertainties.
User avatar
Jabberwocky
OGRE Moderator
OGRE Moderator
Posts: 2819
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:17 pm
Location: Canada
x 220

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by Jabberwocky »

Of course I believe in Free Will.
I saw a movie about him.
Image
Image
User avatar
stealth977
Gnoll
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
x 42

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by stealth977 »

Jabberwocky wrote:Of course I believe in Free Will.
I saw a movie about him.
I knew someone would eventually make this joke.. :P
Ismail TARIM
Ogitor - Ogre Scene Editor
WWW:http://www.ogitor.org
Repository: https://bitbucket.org/ogitor
User avatar
syedhs
Silver Sponsor
Silver Sponsor
Posts: 2703
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
x 51

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by syedhs »

My belief in 'free will' can be summed as this quote from The Last Samurai Film:-
Katsumoto: You believe a man can change his destiny?
Nathan Algren: I think a man does what he can, until his destiny is revealed.
Interestingly, I managed to catch this dialog the first time I watched the film - I don't have very keen ears. And I very much agree to the quote.
A willow deeply scarred, somebody's broken heart
And a washed-out dream
They follow the pattern of the wind, ya' see
Cause they got no place to be
That's why I'm starting with me
User avatar
CoreDumped
Gremlin
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:55 pm
x 14

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by CoreDumped »

Very interesting topic. I had this very same idea like stealth977, after i learnt how to code game replays :D

I never got the idea why people stress so much on quantum theory.

Heisenberg's uncertainty states that you cannot measure both velocity and position at the same time. But this is true only when you are INSIDE the simulation (universe)

I like to think of the universe as a simulation run by a set of rules (physics) started with an initial condition (big bang)

However, someone outside the simulation (universe) is not constrained by uncertainty principle and can always measure both variables for any given state. Its like putting a breakpoint on the universe and dumping its state.

The mere fact that we humans try to [s]predict[/s] measure the current state of the simulation, changes that simulation. So one can never [s]predict[/s] measure the entire state of the universe unless we are outside of the system.

If stealth977 formula is applied by someone/something who is outside this simulation/universe, the next state should always be the same, and hence no free will?
User avatar
mkultra333
Gold Sponsor
Gold Sponsor
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:25 am
x 116

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by mkultra333 »

There is a version, or interpretation, of QM that works that way. It's called the Hidden Variables Theory.

There are two problems. One is that it is non-local, meaning communication has to happen faster than light. The second is that it's fundamentally an unscientific theory, since it's postulating hidden stuff that we can never see that makes no difference to any of our calculations. May as well believe that the randomness is really caused by invisible pink unicorns.

If believing in hidden variables or invisible pink unicorns calms someones fears and incomprehension of randomness, then I guess that's ok. As long as they don't delude themselves that they're being scientific at the same time. I don't really get the randomness-phobia. Why the mental block over acausal events?
"In theory there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is." - Psychology Textbook.
User avatar
_tommo_
Gnoll
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:09 pm
x 5

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by _tommo_ »

The inner workings of the brain are heavily dependent on quantum fluctuations, as many cognitive processes can account for the contributes of something as small as "some molecules".
So the brain is not deterministic (as the ball in your example) at all.

On top of that you have to define what do you mean for "free will"... because something as simple as a current AI program can exhibit a free will behaviour, where it will make choices that are unknown to everyone other until they are actually made.

@everyone: the idea that the universe could be predicted given sufficient computing power is sooooo positivistic, it has been proven wrong in nearly every case; from quantum mechanic to deterministic chaos theory.
OverMindGames Blog
IndieVault.it: Il nuovo portale italiano su Game Dev & Indie Games
CABAListic
OGRE Retired Team Member
OGRE Retired Team Member
Posts: 2903
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:48 pm
x 58

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by CABAListic »

CoreDumped wrote: Heisenberg's uncertainty states that you cannot measure both velocity and position at the same time. But this is true only when you are INSIDE the simulation (universe)

I like to think of the universe as a simulation run by a set of rules (physics) started with an initial condition (big bang)

However, someone outside the simulation (universe) is not constrained by uncertainty principle and can always measure both variables for any given state. Its like putting a breakpoint on the universe and dumping its state.
I very much doubt this, and I would point you to the electron double slit diffraction experiment. The resulting intensity patterns very much show that the electron does not have a sharp location until you measure it, so even an observer outside of the universe couldn't tell the exact location. It simply doesn't exist. If it did, the experiment would show quite different results (and in fact does if you measure the electron's location before the double slit).
User avatar
CoreDumped
Gremlin
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:55 pm
x 14

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by CoreDumped »

Interesting. I'll have to read that up.
CABAListic wrote:so even an observer outside of the universe couldn't tell the exact location
do you mean exact location at a particular point in time? because time does not exist outside the universe and the external observer would be able to control time (pause and examine)?
User avatar
stealth977
Gnoll
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
x 42

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by stealth977 »

Well, its interesting that even Einstein doubted Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, yet he failed to falsify it.

On the other side, experiments made to prove it (even the ones that are widely accepted as the proof) are susceptible to loopholes...

But, i have to admit that, theoretically its quite logical, yet it is still about measuring precision, so:
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.
if i dont misunderstand it, it means that you cant measure this superposition? So, if we cant measure it, it doesnt exist at all?

Is there a condition that if not measurable, it doesnt exist? How can we easily say that, when we dont have enough measurement precision for measuring both of the un-commutative properties, there does not exist a set of those properties? Doesnt it only mean we lack the ability/tools to measure it correctly?
Ismail TARIM
Ogitor - Ogre Scene Editor
WWW:http://www.ogitor.org
Repository: https://bitbucket.org/ogitor
User avatar
betajaen
OGRE Moderator
OGRE Moderator
Posts: 3447
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:15 pm
Location: Wales, UK
x 58

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by betajaen »

That is if outside the Universe exists.

Even in zero, one and two dimensional universes, time exists. If there was a outside to our Universe. Who's to say the user could control time? Wouldn't they just see everything at once?


p.s. I remembered this; http://www.youtube.com/10thdim
CABAListic
OGRE Retired Team Member
OGRE Retired Team Member
Posts: 2903
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:48 pm
x 58

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by CABAListic »

stealth977 wrote:if i dont misunderstand it, it means that you cant measure this superposition? So, if we cant measure it, it doesnt exist at all?

Is there a condition that if not measurable, it doesnt exist? How can we easily say that, when we dont have enough measurement precision for measuring both of the un-commutative properties, there does not exist a set of those properties? Doesnt it only mean we lack the ability/tools to measure it correctly?
I have simplified the picture of measurements a little. But the way that we know that the superposition exists is because it implies certain probabilities for measuring either state 1 or state 2. And these probabilities can be measured by repeating the experiment several times.

In fact, the electron double slit experiment would be a prime example. Once you've registered a certain number of electrons behind the double slit, an interference pattern will begin to emerge that basically coincides with the square of a wave function representing the superposition state where the electron passes both slit 1 and slit 2.
User avatar
mkultra333
Gold Sponsor
Gold Sponsor
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:25 am
x 116

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by mkultra333 »

Even in zero, one and two dimensional universes, time exists. If there was a outside to our Universe. Who's to say the user could control time? Wouldn't they just see everything at once?
I'll give you an example of what such an observer might see. Of course, anything is possible, but the following is fairly consistent with the known laws of physics. I'll treat the "outsider" as if our universe was running on a "cosmic computer" and they're looking at the computer display, free to examine the memory as they like. They can look at the beginning of the universe, the end, or any time inbetween.

They'd see the wavefunction, which spreads out from the beginning of the unverse like a cone, encapsulating every possible state of the universe at every moment. The wavefunction is like an evolving probability, only a special kind of probability that uses complex numbers (numbers that have an imaginary component) that can be positive or negative and bigger or smaller than one. The evolution is deterministic, the wavefunction always comes out looking the same.

From that wavefunction he might pick some spacetime moment and examine it for a human flipping a coin. What he'll find is a blur of a human smeared over all the quantum posibilites ranging from flipping and getting heads to flipping and getting tails, with most in blurry states where they're flipping both heads AND tails.

The outside viewer might also have a "decoherence" display running on a second monitor, I expect it would be a pretty standard plugin for such outsiders. On this monitor, the blurry "in-between" realities almost completely disappear for large objects, so he'd see a nice clear image of both the human flipping heads in one universe and the human flipping tails in the other.

So based on the most frequently accepted interpretation of QM used at the moment, the outside observer would see a universe where every possibility is explored side by side.

Now, perhaps instead they employ a "collapse" plugin. Now it's a bit trickier, because everytime you activate collapse the big cone of expanding wavefunction collapese down to just one point, and all future evolution only continues on from that point. So running the collapse module constantly isn't recommended or you'll lose all the quantum evolution (and the program won't look like our worlds, since things like the two slit experiment won't work anymore.) But run here and there, it's fine. Run on the human coin flipper, the computer will randomly choose to either show a heads flip or a tails flip.

Now, why one or the other. We are back to square one. Perhaps its a perfectly predictable pseudo random number generator, something like the Hidden Variables Theory. Or perhaps it's some further deep QM true randomness the cosmic computer can utilize. The point is, we have no scientific information to indicate there is a determinsitic pattern to such a collapse, and so it's unscientific to assume there is, and says more about individual philosophy and taste than it does about how the universe really works.
"In theory there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is." - Psychology Textbook.
FuzzyBoots
Gnoblar
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:52 pm

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by FuzzyBoots »

mkultra333 wrote:There are two problems. One is that it is non-local, meaning communication has to happen faster than light. The second is that it's fundamentally an unscientific theory, since it's postulating hidden stuff that we can never see that makes no difference to any of our calculations. May as well believe that the randomness is really caused by invisible pink unicorns.
^_^ Postulated invisible pink unicorns isn't unscientific at all if it fits the data. There are any number of scientific theories which involved the researchers saying, "According to our mathematics, A should happen. Instead, B happens 10% of the time. Therefore, there must be an additional factor that we have not accounted for." That additional factor is your pink invisible unicorn. Where you get into trouble is when you name the factor and start extrapolating. "So, since invisible pink unicorns influence the results of the test, obviously the number of virgins in the world are the reason why our test results fluctuate". One needs to to let the data drive the theory, not the model.

Personally, I believe in Free Will because otherwise life would seem completely meaningless. If we're all automatons, it really doesn't matter (even the sense of existential despair would be pre-programmed). ^_^ Since I believe that I matter, I believe in Free Will. Cogito et Ego, ergo Sum
User avatar
mkultra333
Gold Sponsor
Gold Sponsor
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:25 am
x 116

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by mkultra333 »

FuzzyBoots wrote: ^_^ Postulated invisible pink unicorns isn't unscientific at all if it fits the data. There are any number of scientific theories which involved the researchers saying, "According to our mathematics, A should happen. Instead, B happens 10% of the time. Therefore, there must be an additional factor that we have not accounted for." That additional factor is your pink invisible unicorn.
Yes, postulating hidden stuff occurs all the time. For instance, quarks and the insides of black holes, neither of which are observable. But I didn't say postulating hidden stuff was a problem, I said postulating hidden stuff that we can never see that makes no difference to any of our calculations. Quarks and the insides of black holes make big differences to the calculations and predictions. Doesn't mean they do or don't exist, but it does mean they are very important mechanisms in calculating our predictions.

Hidden Variables Theory posits that there are unseen mechanisms that account for the quantum randomness, but those mechanisms are both unobservable AND add nothing to our ability to calculate more accurate predictions. They don't have any effect on our perception of the randomness. Therefore they're just useless wishful thinking, a philosophical position rather than a scientific one. They're ok as thought experiments but not as part of a practical, useful scientific theory.

It might be tempting to see the multiple other universes as similarly wishful thinking, but the difference is that these other worlds DO influence the equations and predictions. In fact, we arrived at the idea of the other universes as a result of looking at the equations that best made predictions, instead of the other way around. The other universes are sort of a direct, literal translation of what the equations are saying.
"In theory there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is." - Psychology Textbook.
User avatar
mkultra333
Gold Sponsor
Gold Sponsor
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:25 am
x 116

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by mkultra333 »

Personally, I believe in Free Will because otherwise life would seem completely meaningless. If we're all automatons, it really doesn't matter (even the sense of existential despair would be pre-programmed). ^_^ Since I believe that I matter, I believe in Free Will. Cogito et Ego, ergo Sum
Not necessarily. If determinism is true, it just means life is more like watching a movie than playing a game. Watching movies can be fun and emotionally engaging even if we have no real control over the outcomes.
"In theory there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is." - Psychology Textbook.
FuzzyBoots
Gnoblar
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:52 pm

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by FuzzyBoots »

mkultra333 wrote:Not necessarily. If determinism is true, it just means life is more like watching a movie than playing a game. Watching movies can be fun and emotionally engaging even if we have no real control over the outcomes.
:) Ah, but if one doesn't believe in free will, what use is that enjoyment? You're not enjoying it as an outside observer, but rather as a puppet whose "that was interesting" string is being pulled.
theweirdn8 wrote:Free will, is usually executed when humans go against the will of God(or at least try or think they are), however due to the blood of Christ Jesus on the cross, God will constantly work everything out for His will and for those who love God and have the Holy Spirit.
Er... one of the early posts does ask that we keep this on the philosophical level and not bring religion into it. I do, however, find it interesting that Free Will is a relatively recent invention theologically speaking. Prior to that, it was simply assumed that an omniscient God meant we had no real choice as to what our eventual destination would be.
LBDude
Gnome
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:53 pm
x 22

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by LBDude »

Couldn't the I think therefore I am argument be applied to this also? What is the point if you have no freewill and everything is predestined and you are merely a robot going through the motions (reality's puppet). Maybe it's more about the experience (ZEN lol) rather than what it's means (philosophically speaking)?
My blog here.
Game twitter here
FuzzyBoots
Gnoblar
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:52 pm

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by FuzzyBoots »

^_^ Cogito ergo Sum essentially is entirely about this (well, more to do with whether or not we can prove that reality is real, but Descartes was discussing it in the context of whether real choices could be made). The general argument against the idea that we have free will because we can contemplate it is that we could be preprogrammed to have that predilection, or that belief could come as a natural consequence of physical stimuli upon the brain's state.
LBDude
Gnome
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:53 pm
x 22

Re: Do you believe in Free Will?

Post by LBDude »

I N C E P T I O N
My blog here.
Game twitter here