The Illusion of Free Will in a Deterministic Universe

[andresordonez]

I'm new at philosophy (not so new at physics though), I mean, I haven't read much about it, so please bear with me if I'm asking something obvious.

A couple of days ago I realized that assuming humans obey the laws of physics we know so far, there's no place for free will. Free will is something hard to explain for me, so I'll ellaborate a little more on my idea, and hope you (and I) understand what I mean by free will.

Suppose you have to make a decision on something anyone would think can make a decision, for example, when choosing what to eat at a restaurant. The desicion you take must be the result of some physical phenomena in your brain (assuming we make our desicion with our brains), these physical phenomena obey the laws of physics we know so far, and so you don't really choose, you just evolve as a system under certain constraints.

I know that we cannot predict the evolution of a system such as the human brain, and for what I've read (which isn't much) there's some relation I don't understand about not being able to predict something and therefore possessing free will. But what does predictability have to do with the fact that the desicion we take is just the evolution of a system? The fact that we can't predict the evolution of the system doesn't mean we can decide the path the system will take right?

P.S.
Ok, now I understand a little more what I mean by free-will. Free will is the ability to change the path of evolution of the system, when the system is our brain.

By the way, if you find some error in my english please inform me.

 

[Boy@n]

Lots of threads on free-will topic here around. In short, I agree that physical laws are firm and unbreakable, but free-will is element of consciousness, and consciousness is not just physical, even if it emerges out of it, or on top of it, and as such, it can make free-choices.

 

[wuliheron]

Yeah, a lot of philosophers today are determinists.

However, another way to look at the issue is linguistically. When words like free will and determinism are applied to such broad contexts as life, the universe, and everything they become meaningless. It's like saying everything is "pure energy" when the simple fact is energy is defined by mass and vice versa. Maybe everything is pure energy, but what the heck does that mean and how useful is such a statement?

Spinoza speculated that only the universe en toto was free because by definition it has nothing to constrain it. Likewise we might say there is nothing to constrain the laws of nature and, so, ultimately they are free. We can go round and round and round juggling abstractions without ever making a single demonstrably coherent statement.

 

[Upisoft]

Free-will. To be a will it must be a cause. As you think it must be able to change the path of evolution of the system, it must be external to that system. Now pick your best candidate. Supernatural 'something' or our natural perception of the natural world.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

IMO: We all feel we have free will, but among the choices we each have, we always choose what makes us the "happiest". And the "happy" feeling is just a series of mostly deterministic (or quantum mechanical)) neurological/chemical/physical reactions.

Our individual futures are deterministic because just like ants, we'll each undoubtedly go where food, oxygen, proper temperature etc. is easier to get.

But I'm ok with that! It's the feeling (of free-will) that counts, and it will always be there. I don't find any disagreement between determinism and free-will.

 

[andresordonez]

Lots of threads on free-will topic here around. In short, I agree that physical laws are firm and unbreakable, but free-will is element of consciousness, and consciousness is not just physical, even if it emerges out of it, or on top of it, and as such, it can make free-choices.

what arguments do you have to say that consciousness is not just physical?

 

[andresordonez]

IMO: We all feel we have free will, but among the choices we each have, we always choose what makes us the "happiest". And the "happy" feeling is just a series of mostly deterministic (or quantum mechanical)) neurological/chemical/physical reactions.

Our individual futures are deterministic because just like ants, we'll each undoubtedly go where food, oxygen, proper temperature etc. is easier to get.

But I'm ok with that! It's the feeling (of free-will) that counts, and it will always be there. I don't find any disagreement between determinism and free-will.

You mean you don't find any disagreement between determinism and the feeling of free will.

 

[andresordonez]

Yeah, a lot of philosophers today are determinists.

However, another way to look at the issue is linguistically. When words like free will and determinism are applied to such broad contexts as life, the universe, and everything they become meaningless. It's like saying everything is "pure energy" when the simple fact is energy is defined by mass and vice versa. Maybe everything is pure energy, but what the heck does that mean and how useful is such a statement?

Spinoza speculated that only the universe en toto was free because by definition it has nothing to constrain it. Likewise we might say there is nothing to constrain the laws of nature and, so, ultimately they are free. We can go round and round and round juggling abstractions without ever making a single demonstrably coherent statement.

You're right about the usefulness of that kind of statement, there's no practical use (apparently anyway) to such a thing like not really having free will. And I guess it would be very hard if not impossible to demonstrate that we don't posses free will, in fact it would be as hard as demonstrating that everything is indeed physical.

But the thing for me (someone who does believe that everything is physical), is that if my reasoning is correct, as a consequence of everything being physical there's no such thing as free will, just an illusion of it, so it doesn't need to be demonstrated directly as it is a consequence of something I take for granted. I assume everything is physical and go from there.

Though it may not be useful to realize something like that I don't think it's meaningless. It's kind of like the question about death, you die and that's it? or your soul (or whatever) goes on?, you can't do anything about it, knowing it doesn't have any practical use besides changing the way you think about life.

So I guess I feel it is important to realize that we don't possesses free will, because although it may not be of practical use in science and/or engineering, it has some practical value in the way you take life (even if you don't have a choice at all!)

 

[wuliheron]

If practical value is what matters then why not just focus on that rather than assuming that everything is physical?

For me it is most useful to remain unbiased. Thus I can remain open to using a screwdriver even when it at least superficially seems that a wrench should work better. I don't need to take a metaphysical stance and can instead merely allow myself to be open to the possibilities. This is the great strength of the sciences, not physicalism.

 

[Noja888]

Could freewill be like the uncertainty principle in QM? You can have a prediction based on data/evidence but the result is not known until the measurement is made?

 

[Rasalhague]

But what does predictability have to do with the fact that the desicion we take is just the evolution of a system? The fact that we can't predict the evolution of the system doesn't mean we can decide the path the system will take right?

I agree. There's a video out there on YouTube or somewhere in which Daniel Dennett makes this point too. Some people do seem to equate unpredictability with free will in this context, but unpredictability is hardly free will in any normal sense of the expression.

By the way, if you find some error in my english please inform me.

I just read your posts very quickly, but your English looks pretty good to me.

You're right about the usefulness of that kind of statement, there's no practical use (apparently anyway) to such a thing like not really having free will.

I'd replace "like" with "as" here.

 

[Rasalhague]

Regarding practicality, here's an interesting discussion of possible benefits to society of a belief in free will:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=scientists-say-free-will-probably-d-2010-04-06

As the paradoxical scenario at the beginning suggest, it's not an easy question! There are others who argue that belief in free will is harmful to society on a larger scale.

 

[andresordonez]

Regarding practicality, here's an interesting discussion of possible benefits to society of a belief in free will:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=scientists-say-free-will-probably-d-2010-04-06

As the paradoxical scenario at the beginning suggest, it's not an easy question! There are others who argue that belief in free will is harmful to society on a larger scale.

That link was interesting, thinking that there's no free will takes all the responsability of your actions away from you, what about those who argue that belief in free will is harmful to society on a larger scale, where can I find that?

(Thanks for the correction)

 

[DBTS]

Spinoza speculated that only the universe en toto was free because by definition it has nothing to constrain it.

Is the universe constrained by its own nature?

I believe in the act of freely choosing a decision, however, I do not believe in the concept of having total free will.

 

[genome66]

-In regard to your third paragraph.

Your theory seems solid, but I leave you with this to ponder, andresordonez, it may seem that we have no free will. But it is my belief, that the decision that results from that physical phenomenon is based on the person in questions individuality, so though a phenomenon makes our decisions, is it not the same decision we would make (if possible) in absence of the phenomenon? (pardon my graphical errors)

 

[Ynaught?]

But the thing for me (someone who does believe that everything is physical), is that if my reasoning is correct, as a consequence of everything being physical there's no such thing as free will, just an illusion of it, so it doesn't need to be demonstrated directly as it is a consequence of something I take for granted. I assume everything is physical and go from there.

andresordonez, I trust you have an imagination and I trust that you dream. The objects in both are not physical. In fact, the objects may not even be physically possible (in the strict sense of the expression). They are nonetheless "something". They are thoughts. Einstein's thought experiments are excellent examples. It is certainly not possible to ride a beam of light, but such musings lead him to develop the theories of relativity. "Everything" therefore is not physical and non-physical things can have meaning.

Specifically to free will, have you considered the ramifications that Bell's Theorem has to the question? Quantum uncertainty seems to undermine determinism and so predicates free will.

 

[DBTS]

Could you explain that in a bit more detail, ynaught?

Dreaming or thinking takes the form of non-physical objects… What I am wondering is whether that same form of dreaming and thinking follow the rules to an extent of the physical laws or what could be inferred by them? Alternatively, in other words, whether those same thoughts or dreams are guided by the extrapolation of physical objects? I am thinking of a nail, is that nail non-physical?

I did not get it exactly...

 

[andresordonez]

If practical value is what matters then why not just focus on that rather than assuming that everything is physical?

For me it is most useful to remain unbiased. Thus I can remain open to using a screwdriver even when it at least superficially seems that a wrench should work better. I don't need to take a metaphysical stance and can instead merely allow myself to be open to the possibilities. This is the great strength of the sciences, not physicalism.

Well it's not like I'm 100% sure that everything is physical, it's more like if I have to make a bet I would go for saying that everything is physical. I'm like 99% sure that everything is physical (if such thing can be measured at all) given that for the relatively short time we've been doing physics (I mean the humans), we've been able to explain SO MANY phenomena. So it's something similar to the way I feel about god(s), I don't rule out the possiblity that there some kind of god, but I do everything like if there was no god.

Another example would be the fact(?) that we don't know if we're asleep right now, or that maybe we're just a simulation of a supercomputer, or anything like that (I realize that I don't know much about these ideas, so I might be plain wrong), I haven't ruled out that possibility, but in practice I forget about that.

By the way, how is it useful to think that there are phenomena that are not physical?

 

[andresordonez]

-In regard to your third paragraph.

Your theory seems solid, but I leave you with this to ponder, andresordonez, it may seem that we have no free will. But it is my belief, that the decision that results from that physical phenomenon is based on the person in questions individuality, so though a phenomenon makes our decisions, is it not the same decision we would make (if possible) in absence of the phenomenon? (pardon my graphical errors)

Well, I think that's the question we're talking about, can we make our decisions in absence of the phenomenon?

(I think you meant "pardon my grammatical errors", I just found one "... person in questionS individuality...", I think that "s" is not supossed to be there)

 

[andresordonez]

andresordonez, I trust you have an imagination and I trust that you dream. The objects in both are not physical. In fact, the objects may not even be physically possible (in the strict sense of the expression). They are nonetheless "something". They are thoughts. Einstein's thought experiments are excellent examples. It is certainly not possible to ride a beam of light, but such musings lead him to develop the theories of relativity. "Everything" therefore is not physical and non-physical things can have meaning.

Specifically to free will, have you considered the ramifications that Bell's Theorem has to the question? Quantum uncertainty seems to undermine determinism and so predicates free will.

You're right about I having dreams and imagination, but I think your argument for saying that thoughts are not physical is flawed. The fact that we can think of something that is not physically possible, like riding a beam of light (I'm not an expert in relativity so there might be some strange way to do this, but let's assume that it's not possible to do such a thing) doesn't mean (or at least I don't see it clearly) that our thoughts are not physical in the sense that we cannot explain them with physics.

I realize that conciousness is a phenomenon that right now we can't explain at all (I don't know much about neurology and that kind of stuff, so maybe we have explained some things by now), the brain itself is something we don't understand very well yet, but so was the light, the movement of planets, etc, some time ago.

About the uncertainty principle, you should read what I wrote at the beginning (if you haven't). I don't see how the fact that we can't predict the outcome of a measurement means that we have free will.

I haven't read Bell's theorem. According to wikipedia it says:

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

I don't know what ramifications of this theorem you are referring to.

 

[genome66]

Well, I think that's the question we're talking about, can we make our decisions in absence of the phenomenon?

(I think you meant "pardon my grammatical errors", I just found one "... person in questionS individuality...", I think that "s" is not supossed to be there)

Yah, English was never my strong suit, but; and correct me if I'm wrong;it would seem that the phenomenons that are ultimately determining the decisions, if they are as I think based on the person's individuality, are for the most part an extension of the person's consciousness, meaning it is the person that is deciding, so for all intents and purposes free-will does exist.

 

[Deveno]

everthing is physical...i find that statement suspicious. not necessarily wrong, just...suspicious. is a potential function...physical?

i think thoughts. now, perhaps these thoughts are just encodings of certain electrical impulses along my synaptical network in my brain, but where does the organization of these impulses into coherent patterns originate? more pointedly, what is the basis of my "consciousness of self" (as opposed to, say, just processing of sensory data)?

it appears that "i" have an abstract, symbolic existence, as well as a literal physical one. does this symbolic self-construct have a (physical) existence? to be honest, I'm not sure...
personality changes in victims of head trauma seems to suggest that it does, but no one has come up for a good explanation of why certain people seem to have "innate" abilities.

as an interesting note, some neurological studies seem to imply that our bodies know what decision we are about to make, before it reaches our conscious mind. that is, the thought impulses that generate a decision occur before "we" know what the decision is. this is a little bizarre.

of course, even if our actions are totally deterministic, that does not imply predictability, as there may be sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and outside perturbations.

 

[genome66]

i think thoughts. now, perhaps these thoughts are just encodings of certain electrical impulses along my synaptical network in my brain, but where does the organization of these impulses into coherent patterns originate? more pointedly, what is the basis of my "consciousness of self" (as opposed to, say, just processing of sensory data)?

it appears that "i" have an abstract, symbolic existence, as well as a literal physical one. does this symbolic self-construct have a (physical) existence? to be honest, I'm not sure...
personality changes in victims of head trauma seems to suggest that it does, but no one has come up for a good explanation of why certain people seem to have "innate" abilities.

Is it possible that your physical existence, is in essence an abstract and symbolic one, rather than two separate existences

 

[Pythagorean]

everthing is physical...i find that statement suspicious. not necessarily wrong, just...suspicious. is a potential function...physical?

Well, it depends on what you mean by that question. Of course the function describes something physical, that should be obvious. But is the abstraction itself physical? I think so. Since it can't be expressed or stored (remembered) without physical interaction. And I think our imagination runs away a bit here, we may get a sensation that it's not physical because it can't be held, but that sensation can likely be described physically too (and furthermore, wouldn't exist without physical interaction). And there's a lot of physical things that can't be held. Physics is interaction of matter; the matter itself is only half the story.

i think thoughts. now, perhaps these thoughts are just encodings of certain electrical impulses along my synaptical network in my brain, but where does the organization of these impulses into coherent patterns originate? more pointedly, what is the basis of my "consciousness of self" (as opposed to, say, just processing of sensory data)?

They originate in some molecular processes in your ancestors billions of years ago that where in the right environmental conditions

 

[Deveno]

Well, it depends on what you mean by that question. Of course the function describes something physical, that should be obvious. But is the abstraction itself physical? I think so. Since it can't be expressed or stored (remembered) without physical interaction. And I think our imagination runs away a bit here, we may get a sensation that it's not physical because it can't be held, but that sensation can likely be described physically too (and furthermore, wouldn't exist without physical interaction). And there's a lot of physical things that can't be held. Physics is interaction of matter; the matter itself is only half the story.



They originate in some molecular processes in your ancestors billions of years ago that where in the right environmental conditions

while i agree its possible consciousness is just another mutation, that analysis doesn't sit very well with me. it's rather like saying the big bang was a lucky accident...i can't disprove it, but i find it rather depressing.

as far as the "abstraction part" goes...it is a curious thing that the universe we live in yields to logical analysis, at least to a degeee. I'm not sure i would go so far as to suggest that "a universe of forms" exists independent of physical reality, but there does seem to exist some persuasive evidence that the universe has a "template" as it were. does the underlying logical structure of the physical universe, have a physical structure?

i think a case can be made for and against, here. both could still explain the "physical interactions" we record and attempt to understand.

 

[Ynaught?]

My apologies for being a bit vague. I was attempting to give two arguments for the existence of free will but realize that I was not particularly clear on either.

The first argument is based on our ability to think, as manifest in both the imagination and in dreaming. Sans the arguments regarding neural networks and synapses, simple because science cannot yet pinpoint where and how consciousness occurs in the physical mind, the act of thinking, imagining, dreaming, should provide evidence for free will. What purpose does abstract thought (imagination) have in a deterministic world? Akin to Descartes "Cogito ergo sum" if thinking predicates a valid argument for existence, taken is steps, this leads to a valid argument that imagination predicates free will. I think, therefore I am. I dream, therefore I am free to think of things that are not.

The second argument is, to me anyway, much clearer. Determinism requires an absence of free will simple because it states that events are caused by preceding events. This gives rise to the "clockwork universe" in the classical sense. Overly simplified, if one knew the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at any given instant of time, then one could, with 100% accuracy, determine all past and future events. If this were true, then free will would obviously be an illusion. But this is not true, at least according to all of our combined knowledge of quantum mechanics. The unpredictability of events means that there can be know predetermination of outcomes. Ergo, if there is no determinism, there must be free will.

 

[andresordonez]

Sans the arguments regarding neural networks and synapses, simple because science cannot yet pinpoint where and how consciousness occurs in the physical mind, the act of thinking, imagining, dreaming, should provide evidence for free will. .

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack (see "argument from ignorance")

What purpose does abstract thought (imagination) have in a deterministic world?

I don't know, but what does it matter? There's no need for a purpose.

Akin to Descartes "Cogito ergo sum" if thinking predicates a valid argument for existence, taken is steps, this leads to a valid argument that imagination predicates free will. I think, therefore I am. I dream, therefore I am free to think of things t"hat are not.

I don't see clear the "free" part in the last sentence. You are just assuming what you are trying to prove, you are assuming that you can dream whatever you want.

The second argument is, to me anyway, much clearer. Determinism requires an absence of free will simple because it states that events are caused by preceding events. This gives rise to the "clockwork universe" in the classical sense. Overly simplified, if one knew the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at any given instant of time, then one could, with 100% accuracy, determine all past and future events. If this were true, then free will would obviously be an illusion. But this is not true, at least according to all of our combined knowledge of quantum mechanics. The unpredictability of events means that there can be know predetermination of outcomes. Ergo, if there is no determinism, there must be free will.

No way!, that's the point of this post, you have to explain the ergo in "The unpredictability of events means that there can be know predetermination of outcomes. Ergo, if there is no determinism, there must be free will"