Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Free Will?

Religion and Philosophy
Forum rules
we are introducing this on a trial basis and that respect for other's views is important e.g. phrases like "your imaginary friend" or "you will go to hell" are not appropriate
jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2539
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Free Will?

#408665

Postby jfgw » May 1st, 2021, 9:05 pm

Midsmartin wrote:Ok. But I see these quantum random events as just that, random. A photon or electron may randomly go one way or another. I don't see that as being free will. It's just randomness.

So what, ultimately, decides which way these random events go?

A system cannot explain its own existence. No physical experiment can ever explain how physics works, and no mental experiment can ever explain consciousness. Personally, I have little reason not to believe in free will.


Julian F. G. W.

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: Free Will?

#408673

Postby Itsallaguess » May 1st, 2021, 9:55 pm

mc2fool wrote:
There may well be a quantum leprechaun inside each neuron..


Come on - there's no 'may well be' about it...

Cunning little buggers they are too.

The trouble they cause....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Free Will?

#408714

Postby XFool » May 2nd, 2021, 10:11 am

Lootman wrote:We all intuitively feel that we have control over decisions that have effects, and our society is structured to reflect that.

Indeed. However, what if this intuition that "we" feel is delusional? We feel "we" are in control and "we" make decisions - how do we know this is so?

It may well be that, in some random or non random manner, our brains 'choose' or 'decide' this or that and "we" experience this as "us" making this or that choice or decision but is it like this? What if this is an illusion? Our brains may be in charge, but "we" are just some sort of passenger going along for the ride, labouring under the false impression that "we" are in the driving seat (and what is this "we"?). Does this change anything?

I must say, I am inclined to this view, that in some sense we are all labouring under a delusion. I'm not sure what difference it makes, if any.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Free Will?

#408716

Postby XFool » May 2nd, 2021, 10:23 am

jfgw wrote:
Midsmartin wrote:Ok. But I see these quantum random events as just that, random. A photon or electron may randomly go one way or another. I don't see that as being free will. It's just randomness.

So what, ultimately, decides which way these random events go?

A system cannot explain its own existence. No physical experiment can ever explain how physics works, and no mental experiment can ever explain consciousness. Personally, I have little reason not to believe in free will.

Interesting points.

However, when you say: "I have little reason not to believe in free will." I find I have some reason to differ.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Free Will?

#408748

Postby ursaminortaur » May 2nd, 2021, 12:27 pm

XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:We all intuitively feel that we have control over decisions that have effects, and our society is structured to reflect that.

Indeed. However, what if this intuition that "we" feel is delusional? We feel "we" are in control and "we" make decisions - how do we know this is so?

It may well be that, in some random or non random manner, our brains 'choose' or 'decide' this or that and "we" experience this as "us" making this or that choice or decision but is it like this? What if this is an illusion? Our brains may be in charge, but "we" are just some sort of passenger going along for the ride, labouring under the false impression that "we" are in the driving seat (and what is this "we"?). Does this change anything?

I must say, I am inclined to this view, that in some sense we are all labouring under a delusion. I'm not sure what difference it makes, if any.


We make decisions based upon the inputs we receive and the state of our physical brains at that point, or sometimes randomly because of some quantum event occuring in our brains.
Neither of those allow for "free will". But it doesn't matter since the decisions that you would choose to take if "free will" really existed would be those which you considered were best for you in the circumstances and thus the same that you take because of those inputs. You are your physical brain (and body) not some discorporate spirit which somehow pushes your body around - there is no evidence for Descarte's mind-body duality and lots of evidence against it from studies of injuries to the brain.

Note. The only impact on crime and punishment of this lack of "free will" is that it means that the socially unacceptable behaviour was caused by the state of the criminal's brain reacting to inputs in a way which was unacceptable to our society. Since we don't know enough about the brain to change a propensity for socially unacceptable behaviours directly the best we can do is to change it through a mixture of educaton (carrot) and punishment (stick) which given the plasticity of the brain can allow it to be rewired so that given the same inputs the outputs are more socially acceptable ie pretty much what we should be doing now.

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Free Will?

#408765

Postby vrdiver » May 2nd, 2021, 1:53 pm

jfgw wrote:
Midsmartin wrote:If we imagine my cake-eating thought experiment and rewind the universe a few times to repeat it, how could I "choose"to maker a different decision. I might decide to eat the cake, just for the hilarity that ensues when my family finds only crumbs. But that decision, to me, is still determined by the state of neurons in my brain, and can only go one way with a given state of every particle in the universe.

Simple example:

Send a vertically polarised photon at a polarising filter angled at 45°. Does it go through? The probability is 50%. Whether or not it goes through is not determined, as far as we know, by the given state of every particle in the universe. If you were to rewind time and rerun the experiment, would the outcome be the same? There is no proof that it would be. The physical world is not, as far as we can tell, deterministic.

To say an event has a "random outcome" is simply to state that we don't have enough data to calculate the outcome correctly for each specific occurrence.

If I toss a fair coin a million times, I'd expect a 50:50 split between heads and tails. What I couldn't tell you is what the next coin toss will be. However, if I had enough data about the starting conditions, the energy input and all the other variables, I'd be able to tell you with absolute certainty. Same thing with the photon experiment; all it tells us is that we don't have all the variables at the required level of sensitivity yet.

Lootman wrote:
Midsmartin wrote:If someone thinks I could rewind the universe exactly and then somehow "choose" a different outcome, I'd like to know how. How could my neurons choose to provide a different output if the input is identical?

If you decide that you do not believe in free will, then you still have to decide if you are a fatalist or a determinist:

fatalism is the theory that there is some destiny that we cannot avoid, although we are able to take different paths up to this destiny. Determinism, however, is the theory that the entire path of our life is decided by earlier events and actions.

https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/10942 ... -fatalism/

By definition, Midsmartin is a determinist. There is no "different path" since each subsequent arrangement of the entire universe is a consequence of the state of matter and energy (and whatever) that exists at that point.

CliffEdge
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1554
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 434 times

Re: Free Will?

#408771

Postby CliffEdge » May 2nd, 2021, 2:32 pm

ReformedCharacter wrote:
Elon Musk has a some interesting comments, suggesting a more advanced type of Turing test and says that if you cannot tell the difference between human consciousness and an AI's apparent consciousness then consciousness can be created in a machine.

RC


Nope

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: Free Will?

#408789

Postby Bubblesofearth » May 2nd, 2021, 4:42 pm

vrdiver wrote:To say an event has a "random outcome" is simply to state that we don't have enough data to calculate the outcome correctly for each specific occurrence.

If I toss a fair coin a million times, I'd expect a 50:50 split between heads and tails. What I couldn't tell you is what the next coin toss will be. However, if I had enough data about the starting conditions, the energy input and all the other variables, I'd be able to tell you with absolute certainty. Same thing with the photon experiment; all it tells us is that we don't have all the variables at the required level of sensitivity yet.



My extremely limited knowledge of quantum mechanics suggests this is not the case. The uncertainty principle is not a consequence of our inability to measure momentum and position exactly but rather a fundamental aspect of nature;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.

BoE

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Free Will?

#408791

Postby vrdiver » May 2nd, 2021, 4:58 pm

Bubblesofearth wrote:My extremely limited knowledge of quantum mechanics suggests this is not the case. The uncertainty principle is not a consequence of our inability to measure momentum and position exactly but rather a fundamental aspect of nature;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.

Just because we are uncertain about the state of something, doesn't mean that state is random.

As an example, we're pretty good at calculating the half-life of radioactive material, but have no way of knowing when a specific atom will fission. If we had the technology and scientific knowledge to understand the trigger for fission, we might be able to calculate when that atom was going to go bang, but we don't. Quantum principles aside, my application of Occam's razor leads me to believe we are missing key data (and knowledge) rather than accept that that two identical (in all respects) atoms, receiving the same inputs in identical environments, would behave differently.

I'll accept that my knowledge of science, especially quantum mechanics, is (severely) limited, but since we don't have a grand unified theory of everything yet, I'll hold out that there is more going on than we currently understand ;)

VRD

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: Free Will?

#408838

Postby Bubblesofearth » May 2nd, 2021, 9:38 pm

vrdiver wrote:Just because we are uncertain about the state of something, doesn't mean that state is random.

As an example, we're pretty good at calculating the half-life of radioactive material, but have no way of knowing when a specific atom will fission. If we had the technology and scientific knowledge to understand the trigger for fission, we might be able to calculate when that atom was going to go bang, but we don't. Quantum principles aside, my application of Occam's razor leads me to believe we are missing key data (and knowledge) rather than accept that that two identical (in all respects) atoms, receiving the same inputs in identical environments, would behave differently.

I'll accept that my knowledge of science, especially quantum mechanics, is (severely) limited, but since we don't have a grand unified theory of everything yet, I'll hold out that there is more going on than we currently understand ;)

VRD


Almost certainly. The problem with quantum mechanics is it doesn't lend itself to intuition. In some ways classical mechanics is simply the quantification of physics we already experience - gravity, momentum, weight etc. But there is no intuitive grasp of why photons produce an interference pattern when passing through two-slits one at a time. The idea that two properties may be simultaneously fundamentally unknowable is also counter intuitive. Quantum entaglement is another example.

There is now I believe a lot of experimental evidence that these quantum phenomena are real and that quantum mechanics really is stranger than fiction!

BoE

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2539
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Free Will?

#409040

Postby jfgw » May 3rd, 2021, 5:20 pm

Midsmartin wrote:I've never seen how free will could be possible.

I've never seen how consciousness could be possible either. Experience suggests that it is, though.

If you wrote a computer program to analyse the internal workings of a computer, it may come up with a functional description, but that is all. Even if it identifies each individual logic gate and flip-flop, it will never be able to explain how such elements could be possible. It would be like trying to determine how the brain works from inside, just by using thoughts.

ursaminortaur wrote: there is no evidence for Descarte's mind-body duality and lots of evidence against it from studies of injuries to the brain.


Consciousness itself is evidence. How are studies of injuries to the brain evidence against mind-body duality? We can never know how the system works and can never justifiably make such assertions. It is even possible to give an analogous counter-example: I am the mind and my computer system is the body. If something in my computer system breaks, it becomes disabled in some way. It limits what I, the mind, can do with it. If my printer goes up in a puff of smoke, I can't print. If a hard drive fails, I will be unable to recall what was on it. If the network port fails, I will not be able to send or receive anything via the 'net. That is not evidence that it is not operated by a mind.

The physical world is very limited. If you want to store an image on a computer, each pixel takes up several bits, and each bit is stored in a different physical location. Those locations may be a few nanometres apart but they are still different physical locations. Multiply that by the number of pixels, and that image is spread over a huge number of different locations. However, if I look at that image, I am aware of the whole image all at once, all "in one place". I experience each colour as a colour, and each shape as a shape. "Seeing", as opposed to processing ones and zeros individually (or applying some logic function to a very small number of bits at a time), is, to the best of my knowledge, physically impossible.

vrdiver wrote:
Bubblesofearth wrote:Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.

Just because we are uncertain about the state of something, doesn't mean that state is random.
VRD

The point being made is not that the state cannot be measured precisely, it is that such a precise state does not exist. If, for example, you know the location of a particle to a very high level of precision, that particle does not have a precise velocity.


Julian F. G. W.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Free Will?

#409046

Postby scrumpyjack » May 3rd, 2021, 5:33 pm

I certainly believe in Free Will

There is an annual Free Will month
https://freewillsmonth.org.uk/

:D :D

Midsmartin
Lemon Slice
Posts: 778
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 7:18 am
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 491 times

Re: Free Will?

#409051

Postby Midsmartin » May 3rd, 2021, 6:05 pm

I see no evidence that any soul or mind duality exists.

But suppose for a minute that it does. I would argue that the workings of any such mind, even a supernatural one, must be governed by some rules of cause and effect, as otherwise it could not function. Therefore, it too must be constrained in the same way: if I rewind the universe even my (non existent in my opinion) soul/spirit/mind would make the same decision again, barring truly random events. For it to make a different decision, it would need different inputs. Obviously this is all pub hand waving to a degree until or unless someone can actually demonstrate anything supernatural.
Last edited by Midsmartin on May 3rd, 2021, 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Free Will?

#409056

Postby scrumpyjack » May 3rd, 2021, 6:13 pm

I certainly don’t believe in anything supernatural but who knows what factors the brain can take into account in reaching decisions. It is clear that the way the brain operates can be altered by training it (eg OCD treatments etc etc). One can also look at it from the other direction – evolution depends on effort affecting outcomes for development and improvement. If everyone thought that everything was predetermined, why bother trying – that would not be helpful to the process of evolution. So I choose to believe in free will (exercising free will!) and to regard philosophical rejection of free will to be mere academic playing with the meaning of words, and of no significance.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Free Will?

#409066

Postby Lootman » May 3rd, 2021, 6:50 pm

scrumpyjack wrote: I choose to believe in free will (exercising free will!) and to regard philosophical rejection of free will to be mere academic playing with the meaning of words, and of no significance.

There was a widespread criticism of the UK analytical style of philosophy in the middle of the last century that it had become little more than semantic navel-gazing. And that as clever as it all was, it was pointless because it was not instructive about anything material, and just concerned itself with endless contemplation about the meaning of words. When you find yourself asking what is the meaning of the word "meaning" and then which sense of the word "meaning" did someone mean, then you are well on the way to spiralling into irrelevance.

Continental philosophy generally always retained a more practical and social element, as Asian philosophy always had done, whilst the US diverged from the UK approach with William James who founded the Pragmatism school of philosophy.

Like you I see no practical purpose or value underlying a rejection of free will. It can sometimes be useful to understand how someone's background or upbringing may have influenced their decisions, but relying too much on that ends up that you give everyone a pass on their errors. The rest of the time I think the common sense perception of cause-and-effect is accurate. What I generally notice about events is that I experience the following sequence:

1) I become aware of a feeling or emotion, that represents the realisation that I have a need that should be answered, e.g. hunger.
2) I then employ thoughts designed to turn satisfaction of that need into competing plans of action e.g. fast food place, deli, corner shop etc.
3) Based on those thoughts I then decide on what specific action I will take, say going into a bakery and buying a doughnut.
4) I buy and consume the doughnut.

How much of that chain of events could be predicted by someone with vast knowledge is interesting but not possible, so why concern oneself with it? Someone who knows me well can better predict my behaviour, certainly, but then I could always confound them just to reassert my capacity for unpredictable behaviour.

The reality is that the perception of having free will works very well, whilst it is hard to see how the alternative can work at all.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Free Will?

#409068

Postby ursaminortaur » May 3rd, 2021, 6:56 pm

jfgw wrote:
Midsmartin wrote:I've never seen how free will could be possible.

I've never seen how consciousness could be possible either. Experience suggests that it is, though.

If you wrote a computer program to analyse the internal workings of a computer, it may come up with a functional description, but that is all. Even if it identifies each individual logic gate and flip-flop, it will never be able to explain how such elements could be possible. It would be like trying to determine how the brain works from inside, just by using thoughts.

ursaminortaur wrote: there is no evidence for Descarte's mind-body duality and lots of evidence against it from studies of injuries to the brain.


Consciousness itself is evidence. How are studies of injuries to the brain evidence against mind-body duality? We can never know how the system works and can never justifiably make such assertions. It is even possible to give an analogous counter-example: I am the mind and my computer system is the body. If something in my computer system breaks, it becomes disabled in some way. It limits what I, the mind, can do with it. If my printer goes up in a puff of smoke, I can't print. If a hard drive fails, I will be unable to recall what was on it. If the network port fails, I will not be able to send or receive anything via the 'net. That is not evidence that it is not operated by a mind.


I was thinking of brain injuries which change a person's personality or destroy their memories (or for that matter diseases such as dementia which destroy memory). These show that any supposed mind-spirit doesn't have inate memories or personality separate from the physical brain. Any such will of the wisp spirit can't direct the body to do anything except through the brain and can't make decisions on what to do without memories and continuous feedback fron the physical brain. Without its own memories or personaity it seems difficult to see how such a will of the wisp spirit could itself be conscious. Such a spirit would also need to interact with the physical brain pulling out the inputs which the brain is receiving and appropriate memories and then influencing the brain to take actions. Nothing we have discovered about the Universe indicates how such interactions could take place or where this spirit is located. Is it inside the universe maybe stuck inside the body or is it outside of the physical universe entirely ? It is impossible to totally rule out such a spirit just as it's impossible, at least with present technology, to rule out there being a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars. However occams razor suggests it doesn't exist.

As to consciousness I freely admit we don't know how it arises but it would seem to require some sort of feedback mechanism collating recent actions and memories stored in the physical brain. The fact that we don't understand how consciousness arises though doesn't indicate that there is any sort of spirit involved. A spirit of the gaps is as bad as a god of the gaps.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Free Will?

#409072

Postby scrumpyjack » May 3rd, 2021, 7:14 pm

The other aspect of this idea of a 'spirit' that I find no sensible answer to is where is the dividing line? eg If you say the human being has a spirit, and the human being with hardly any mental capacity has a spirit, then logically other animals have a spirit, all the way down to the single cell amoeba? It is an absurd concept and one of the things that put me off the whole idea of religion. Mind you, going to a Cathedral School helped kill the concept.

But perhaps these things alternate each generation. My great grandfather was a vicar, his son rejected religion. He made a lot of money and gave huge amounts away to help the poor. He used to say Father, Son and Holy Ghost - I don't know which I hate the most! That was ahead of its time in the 1890's! Now my daughter has swallowed it hook line and sinker, in spite of being very intelligent and an exhibitioner at Oxford, and married a vicar.

Ah well, perhaps it was all pre-determined!?

mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7812
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3017 times

Re: Free Will?

#409076

Postby mc2fool » May 3rd, 2021, 7:28 pm

Midsmartin wrote:if I rewind the universe even my (non existent in my opinion) soul/spirit/mind would make the same decision again, barring truly random events. For it to make a different decision, it would need different inputs.

So you keep on asserting but repetition doesn't make it true!

You appear to believe in a solely Newtonian (classical physics) universe, but people cleverer than both of us (well, certainly me!) have shown that the universe is not deterministic but probabilistic instead, one where particles are defined by their wave function and are effectively in many places at the same time ... so it's not actually possible to rewind the universe to a previous state as no exact state exists.

But don't feel bad, even Einstein got it wrong! :D (God does not play dice with the universe)

Obviously this is all pub hand waving to a degree until or unless someone can actually demonstrate anything supernatural.

Well if you don't think quantum mechanics is spooky then you have looked into it enough yet! :D

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Free Will?

#409078

Postby ursaminortaur » May 3rd, 2021, 7:36 pm

Lootman wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote: I choose to believe in free will (exercising free will!) and to regard philosophical rejection of free will to be mere academic playing with the meaning of words, and of no significance.

There was a widespread criticism of the UK analytical style of philosophy in the middle of the last century that it had become little more than semantic navel-gazing. And that as clever as it all was, it was pointless because it was not instructive about anything material, and just concerned itself with endless contemplation about the meaning of words. When you find yourself asking what is the meaning of the word "meaning" and then which sense of the word "meaning" did someone mean, then you are well on the way to spiralling into irrelevance.

Continental philosophy generally always retained a more practical and social element, as Asian philosophy always had done, whilst the US diverged from the UK approach with William James who founded the Pragmatism school of philosophy.

Like you I see no practical purpose or value underlying a rejection of free will. It can sometimes be useful to understand how someone's background or upbringing may have influenced their decisions, but relying too much on that ends up that you give everyone a pass on their errors. The rest of the time I think the common sense perception of cause-and-effect is accurate. What I generally notice about events is that I experience the following sequence:

1) I become aware of a feeling or emotion, that represents the realisation that I have a need that should be answered, e.g. hunger.
2) I then employ thoughts designed to turn satisfaction of that need into competing plans of action e.g. fast food place, deli, corner shop etc.
3) Based on those thoughts I then decide on what specific action I will take, say going into a bakery and buying a doughnut.
4) I buy and consume the doughnut.

How much of that chain of events could be predicted by someone with vast knowledge is interesting but not possible, so why concern oneself with it? Someone who knows me well can better predict my behaviour, certainly, but then I could always confound them just to reassert my capacity for unpredictable behaviour.

The reality is that the perception of having free will works very well, whilst it is hard to see how the alternative can work at all.


The above sequence of events are determined by the inputs (such as your body signalling to the brain that you are hungry) and the state of your brain at that particular time - which might include the random firing of a neuron through quantum processes making you choose to get a doughnut rather than a pizza. From that point of view there is no free will involved as your brain simply responded to inputs in a deterministic fashion or randomly in accordance with the laws of physics as we understand them.

However the fact that quantum processes are involved means that noone in the Universe could precisely predict what you would do with 100% accuracy. Even if we ignored the chances for quantum randomness to intervene still no limited physical being in the universe would be able to totally 100% predict your actions since the firing of neurons appears be non-linear and somewhat chaotic in nature (ie it would only be perfectly predictable if the initial conditions were known to a degree of accuracy which would be impossible to achieve - especially in a world where there is Heisenberg uncertainty).

Whether some super being/God who could view the Universe from outside would be able to see all your future actions though is another question. Both Special and General relativity would suggest that that would be possible as they incorporate a block model of the universe in which past, present and future already exist. So that your future is predetermined even though no-one within the universe could predict that future.

With quantum theory the question is more open and may depend upon what interpretation is correct eg with the many worlds interpretation there could be infinite block universes diverging from each other mapping out all your possible choices - all of which would happen in one or other universe.

Hopefully a future Quantum-Gravity theory would help answer that question.

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Free Will?

#409135

Postby vrdiver » May 4th, 2021, 12:12 am

jfgw wrote:
vrdiver wrote:
Bubblesofearth wrote:Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.

Just because we are uncertain about the state of something, doesn't mean that state is random.
VRD

The point being made is not that the state cannot be measured precisely, it is that such a precise state does not exist. If, for example, you know the location of a particle to a very high level of precision, that particle does not have a precise velocity.

I understand (the concept of) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. My point is that whilst the velocity of that precisely located particle may be somewhat smeared, the consequences of that particle's interaction with whatever it collides with will be identical every time you rewind-and-replay the universe. That is a very different situation from performing the same experiment twice with (as far as we can determine) identical and perfectly positioned particles.

Unfortunately, without being able to rewind and replay the universe, or at least build a sophisticated enough model the represent such an event, we'll never know.

VRD


Return to “The Meaning of Life”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests