Do you believe in Free Will?

[FuzzyBoots]

There's an interesting article at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/science/22tier.html on Free Will which links includes references to studies that show that the functioning of a moral society may require belief in free will. Basically, they've shown that the less you believe in free will, the more likely to you are to commit "victimless crimes" like goofing off at work or cheating on your income taxes. More capital crimes like murder show no increase in lenience. ^_^ So basically, whether or not free will exists, we're better off assuming that it does.

[kneeride]

It's an interesting question on whether the universe is deterministic. I don't think we can consider determinism until we understand the the laws of nature/the universe properly. There's just too much out there (esp from a cosmology angle) that we don't understand.

[Lee04]

Roger Penrose wrote the book Empires New Mind where I presented the notion that the brain uses quantum effects to think so massively. Not just the neurons.
If we add to that the idea: the notion of having parallel worlds where our world is copied, but played out differently in each (by physics) and no free will can effect them or exist.
However your mind is aware of them unconsciously and you choose in which world you want your life to continue from now on.

It's like each parallel world in a rail road track that just goes in a direction with your life, but you can choose to switch track.

The tracks are destinies and your mind can by free will change in between them.

I am I making my self clear here?

Usually when I write about programming Ogre no one understands me.... so I don't expect anything better on this subject.

[Lee04]

There's an interesting article at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/science/22tier.html on Free Will which links includes references to studies that show that the functioning of a moral society may require belief in free will. Basically, they've shown that the less you believe in free will, the more likely to you are to commit "victimless crimes" like goofing off at work or cheating on your income taxes. More capital crimes like murder show no increase in lenience. ^_^ So basically, whether or not free will exists, we're better off assuming that it does.

It's important to realize that that researchers have found defects in prisoner brains.
These so your unable to switch to the correct track. (No free will)

[FuzzyBoots]

It's important to realize that that researchers have found defects in prisoner brains.
These so your unable to switch to the correct track. (No free will)

Mmm... I don't know that I can agree with your assertion. Some prisoners have been shown to have defects. Some people who don't commit crimes have shown the same defects. Last I saw, the correlation isn't any greater than, say, being male or being black for an increased chance of being a criminal.

[mr. iknoweverything]

of course the stuff cabalistic mentioned isnt the whole truth. that's the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, there's also hidden variable theories. broglie-bohm, for example.

btw, i think we can exclude the possibility of the brain using quantum effects for computation. my thinking (lots of handwaving involved) goes like this: since the brain is pretty much some kind of analog computer, we are capable of understanding classical mechanics so nicely, they are pretty much evolving the same way our thoughts do. in a, you got it, analog way. so stuff from the macroscopic world pretty much maps one to one to stuff happening in our brain. since we're having so much trouble understanding quantum phhenomenons i kind of conclude nothing of that kind is happening in our brain.

/* Combined the posts. No double posts please */

[CABAListic]

I think your argument is flawed. Since everything is ultimately quantum (assuming the validity of quantum mechanics), so is our brain. Of course, the brain and our thought process in particular are macroscopic objects/events, so you may be able to describe them to good approximation with classical mechanics (although I wouldn't bet on that, given that so far we haven't really managed to do so). But it still means quantum fluctuations can (and will) be present, however small.

As far as understanding goes: I think this has more to do with intuition, which is formed on daily observations and experience. Given that we cannot observe quantum mechanics (directly), we cannot develop an intuition for it and therefore have difficulties understanding it. For me, at least, it's the same with relativity, which is also outside of my intuition.

[mkultra333]

I think given the number of electro-chemical interactions in the brain every moment, odds are a bit of quantum noise makes it presence felt. And apart from that, it also gets in via the senses. For instance:

6 6 2 0 4 10 0 2 4 6

Those numbers are quantum mechanically random in origin. I got them from here. http://www.randomnumbers.info/ So anyone who reads this post has now quite certainly had their brain patterns infected by quantum randomness.

Relating this back to the opening post, the argument was basically "The universe is deterministic, therefore humans have no freewill." Since the first premise is incorrect, the argument fails. This doesn't mean that humans do have freewill, just that the original argument isn't sufficient to prove they don't.

[_tommo_]

Science, please

Some random facts:

-everything is ultimately quantum, yeah - but it is demonstrable that in the vast majority of macroscopic physical systems, quantum effects collapse and the system IS deterministic, as in "you can compute its future state with classical mechanics".

-Macroscopic universe is deterministic, but still there exists a thing called "deterministic chaos" which makes positivistic assumptions fall. Even if we would know the state of the whole universe, we could not know its future state, even if there aren't important quantum effects.
So given the extreme complexity of our brain, "mechanical free will" could exist even in a deterministic universe.

And besides that, to me the whole idea of "free will" is a flawed argument - how we are supposed to know that there was a choice in the first place?
The idea of free will is based on the assumption that like in a videogame, starting from a "checkpoint", you could continue from it in more than one different ways, acting by different decisions...
And it is impossible to prove or disprove this, because at any time you will be able to make one and only one decision. That is sure unforeseeable and undeterministic, but still you will take it once.

[CABAListic]

-everything is ultimately quantum, yeah - but it is demonstrable that in the vast majority of macroscopic physical systems, quantum effects collapse and the system IS deterministic, as in "you can compute its future state with classical mechanics".

Only approximately. Although the approximation is very good, of course. Or do you actually mean a system where all quantum objects always remain in an eigenstate to the acting Hamiltonian? I kind of think that is unrealistic on a large scale system.

-Macroscopic universe is deterministic, but still there exists a thing called "deterministic chaos" which makes positivistic assumptions fall. Even if we would know the state of the whole universe, we could not know its future state, even if there aren't important quantum effects.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. "Deterministic chaos" is called "deterministic chaos" for a reason - because it is deterministic and, thus, completely predictable. The only problem is that we don't have the computational power to do it.

And it is impossible to prove or disprove this, because at any time you will be able to make one and only one decision. That is sure unforeseeable and undeterministic, but still you will take it once.

Agreed on that

[FuzzyBoots]

^_^ Ah, but that's only if you assume that those numbers are truly random. And, for that matter, that it's not hardcoded that your brain sees a particular sequence of numbers there no matter what is actually present. C.f. Descarte's demon theory from which we get that famous quotation of Cogito Ergo Sum.

To me, the whole Free Will argument very quickly descends into solipsism, so it's only really useful as a theoretical argument.

[_tommo_]

Only approximately. Although the approximation is very good, of course. Or do you actually mean a system where all quantum objects always remain in an eigenstate to the acting Hamiltonian? I kind of think that is unrealistic on a large scale system.

Don't know about the eigenstate thing, I'm not an expert in the field
Anyway from what I know, at an "human and bigger scale" every quantum effect is non-existent if you exclude light effects like diffraction; so Galileo's and Newton's experiments are just as correct as before quantum theory was discovered, and any "simple enough" situation can be predicted with "any precision".
And it's because of those "simple enough" and "any precision" that you have:

I'm not sure what you are talking about. "Deterministic chaos" is called "deterministic chaos" for a reason - because it is deterministic and, thus, completely predictable. The only problem is that we don't have the computational power to do it.

According to wiki, it is a chaos that emerges from a deterministic situation and deterministic rules, but is ultimately unpredictable, and not because of insufficient computational power but per the inherent limits of physics and mathematics.
For example, a seemingly trivial problem like the Three-Body Problem can lead to deterministic chaos and can't be solved analytically.

It is "less random" than the intrinsic randomness of quantum mechanics, but still any conceivable computational system can not foresee the future state of a chaotic system, as this would require infinite steps at infinite precision.
You can foresee ONE OF its future states, or even the probability of one state over another, but not the state it will actually assume. This effectively forbids the '800's assumption that knowing all the information of the universe one could compute its whole future.

And going back IT, to me it is likely that the brain is a "chaotic" system because of its complexity, so that we will never be able to foresee what someone will think at any point in the future, even without calling in quantum mechanics.

[mr. iknoweverything]

please, no analytical chauvinism here. even basic functions in analytical solutions have to be developed into a series at some point, there's no way around getting your head /computer on fire and calculating the darn solution. numerical solutions might not be elegant, but they are solutions.

[_tommo_]

yeah they are solutions, but not THE solution. What was being discussed is "is it possible to always predict the future state of any non-quantum system?"
And if more often than not the best that you get is a numerical solution, this is obviously impossible.

[CABAListic]

so Galileo's and Newton's experiments are just as correct as before quantum theory was discovered, and any "simple enough" situation can be predicted with "any precision".

No. While this may be true to very high precision (if your measurement devices are good enough, of course), it will break down if you approach very, very high precision (meaning: very, very small values on your scales).
Saying that Galileo's and Newton's mechanics are "correct" for some situation means they are good enough. But not "correct to any precision".

yeah they are solutions, but not THE solution. What was being discussed is "is it possible to always predict the future state of any non-quantum system?"
And if more often than not the best that you get is a numerical solution, this is obviously impossible.

But only practically, not theoretically. If you are only interested in practical possibilities, then the whole argument is moot, since the sheer size of the universe already eliminates any practical possibility of calculating its future state
On a theoretical level, anything deterministic can in principle be predicted. This includes chaos.

[FuzzyBoots]

Of course, even if the Universe is non-deterministic, that still doesn't prove Free Will because there could still be no choice. Even if there's a 50/50 chance of the cyanide capsule breaking, the cat in the box never makes the choice whether to live or die.

There's the concept of a Watchmaker God who created the world and set it in motion to watch its beautiful mechanics run, probably in a deterministic fashion since anything else would presumably be inelegant. Then, there's the Trickster God who probably occasionally nudges results just to provide exceptions to the rule and to keep people seeking...

[mkultra333]

Science, please

Since my post preceeded this, I assume the eyeroll was aimed at me. What part of what I said wasn't scientific?

My conjecture about quantum noise occurring innately in the brain? While there's no definitive proof, I didn't state it as a fact, only as a possibility. There's room for debate and ultimately room for scientific verification or falsification, so I don't see anything unscientific about that.

My statement of fact that quantum noise enters through the senses and affects brain states? I gave a concrete example by actually providing the noise. Doesn't get much more scientific than that.

Some random facts:

-everything is ultimately quantum, yeah - but it is demonstrable that in the vast majority of macroscopic physical systems, quantum effects collapse and the system IS deterministic, as in "you can compute its future state with classical mechanics".
...
Anyway from what I know, at an "human and bigger scale" every quantum effect is non-existent if you exclude light effects like diffraction.

The idea the QM effects are off in some other realm distant from our experience is a myth. The mere existence of solid matter is a quantum effect.
Classical physics cannot derive solid matter, chemistry or electromagnetism from first principles. Quantum physics came into existence precisely because classical physics totally failed at explaining the most mundane, common facts of experience we have: That there's a solid, stable world around us.

-Macroscopic universe is deterministic, but still there exists a thing called "deterministic chaos" which makes positivistic assumptions fall. Even if we would know the state of the whole universe, we could not know its future state, even if there aren't important quantum effects.
So given the extreme complexity of our brain, "mechanical free will" could exist even in a deterministic universe.

Getting into the grey area of just what is meant by freewill here. I'm taking the traditional line of it being the opposite of a predetermined, "entire life runs on a railway line fixed at birth" existence. In that case, as CABAListic pointed out, chaos makes no difference. The argument isn't over whether life is completely predictable, it's about whether it's completely determined.

Also, keep in mind that wavefunction collapse may or may not exist. It's impossible in principle to distinguish between wavefunction collapse, decoherence, the many worlds, or any of the other interpretations of QM. Since they are all interpretations of the same underlying mathematical theory, they all have the same correspondence to observations.

[hpesoj]

Getting into the grey area of just what is meant by freewill here. I'm taking the traditional line of it being the opposite of a predetermined, "entire life runs on a railway line fixed at birth" existence. In that case, as CABAListic pointed out, chaos makes no difference. The argument isn't over whether life is completely predictable, it's about whether it's completely determined.

Has anyone actually talked about whether lack of determinism equals free will? I know you (mkultra333) brought up the question right at the start of the thread, but I don't remember reading any further discussion (though I did skim some parts of the thread). In the end, does it really make a difference whether there was one path set from the beginning of our life, or many (perhaps infinitely many) paths, one of which we happened to experience as a result of the random nature of quantum mechanics?

In the end I can't help but think that choice is just an illusion, and that we can't possibly have any true effect on the outcome of our lives unless there is some element of our consciousness that exists outside of the physical world as we know it.

[CABAListic]

I think we agreed that that question is essentially undecidable and outside of the reach of science. Scientifically we argued that the argument "the world is deterministic, therefore there is no free will" is false because the world is not deterministic. But you are right that the negation "the world is not deterministic, therefore there is free will" does not automatically follow and cannot be proven.
I still like to take nondeterminism as an indicator for free will, but mostly because to me life without free choice would appear to be pointless, and I think it is a potentially dangerous mindset to be in (because, if you have no free will, you are ultimately not responsible for your actions).

[_tommo_]

(because, if you have no free will, you are ultimately not responsible for your actions).

This implication is interesting because it is obvious, but not always true.
Christianity has not always believed in free will, yet places Judas in the depths of Hell because of his actions - that were part of the "plan" for the resurrection (or at least, they told me this way).
Or, there are millions of people still guilty from the original sin, that never hear of Christianity only because of where they were born, so they do not have the slightest chance to redeem (and there's no free will in this, let alone responsibility).
I'm no christian, but I always found this strange since I too think free will = responsibility.

PS @mkultra333: I was not strictly replying to your post, only to the exceedingly "metaphysical" tone that the thread was taking
To me, nondeterminism and free will are not two related concepts, as there could exist unpredictable behaviour in a deterministic world, and could not exist in a quantum world.

PPS: I can't convince myself of the fact that "macro" world is nondeterministic

[mkultra333]

PS @mkultra333: I was not strictly replying to your post, only to the exceedingly "metaphysical" tone that the thread was taking

Ah, fair enough. Although if that's the case, why talk of Christian concepts of freewill vs determination?

On that line, I am aware that some christian strains believe in predestination. So the universe is basically a script God wrote, and if he wrote you as a villain then bad luck, you're gonna burn in hell. Even christian God might be predetermined. Perhaps the only truly free entity is Satan. Go Satan!

PPS: I can't convince myself of the fact that "macro" world is nondeterministic

Why not? You already accepted things like quantum diffraction. Plenty of experiments have been done that magnify QM indeterminacy to classical sizes. Evolution itself involves a lot of QM noise, since cosmic rays and radiation (both QM random phenomena) cause mutations. And I've already linked to a website that hands out QM random number for free, nice big "macro" numbers on your computer screen. Just looking at them is going to scramble your mind (via classical chaos), since seeing a "6" is going to lead, via the butterfly effect," to a different brainstate than seeing a "3", whether you pay much attention to them or not.

Take it further, and consider the typical stand alone computer running a program. Is it deterministic? Not always, because it exists in the real world, and every now and then a bit will get flipped just because a cosmic ray hit the RAM. That such "soft errors" occur, and are caused by cosmic rays, is well known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_error ... nd_protons

[betajaen]

PS @mkultra333: I was not strictly replying to your post, only to the exceedingly "metaphysical" tone that the thread was taking

Ah, fair enough. Although if that's the case, why talk of Christian concepts of freewill vs determination?

On that line, I am aware that some christian strains believe in predestination. So the universe is basically a script God wrote, and if he wrote you as a villain then bad luck, you're gonna burn in hell. Even christian God might be predetermined. Perhaps the only truly free entity is Satan. Go Satan!

Guys. Less of the religious elements please.

[CoreDumped]

Guys. Less of the religious elements please.

Your cat disagrees

[betajaen]

My cat is a non-sentient being, incapable of understanding what free-will is, let alone give an informed opinion.


Either way, if any more religious elements crop in, I'm closing this thread. Rules of the forums, rules of my sanity.

[CoreDumped]

My cat is a non-sentient being, incapable of understanding what free-will is, let alone give an informed opinion.

Duh. that comment was about your avatar.

Besides, I agree with you. Religion and science are incompatible and leads to unnecessary flame wars