Determinism and Free will

Quiksilver421

If you think about it, freewill is only freewill when thinking about it in the present. After the fact it seems more predeterminedishy.

Only after computers are powerful to map out every single particle of mass, predict their past and future paths (just by their current location and trajectory) we will have our answer.

Some believe that when such a computer becomes reality the old saying "if these walls could speak" will become a fact. Ancient Astronaut Theorist believe (LOL JK). The impressions left by matter on your walls could tell what happened.

I think the amount of variables in this problem (freewill or no freewill) is so astronomical that it would be impossible to name one outcome as being fact, (dust=sneeze, sneeze=Atom a shift in x'y'z direction, Atom a= interact w/TV sound-wave, interact=collision, etc....). Instead we will be given a number of "possible outcomes". The whole consciousness thing really throws a fork in the road of time.

It might just be variable specific, with us logging negative variables (smokes, speeds a lot, hates seat belts, eats McD's 3/5 of the time) and positive variables (brushes teeth, wears sunscreen, eats healthy)
Like- If 'condition' == smokes cigs(a -2 value on life) then
'condition'== 68 years of life
But each profile would have to have extensive lifestyle/trait data on the subject. You'd have to chip us all to keep the data current.

A kid walking in the library and deciding to pick up a Anatomy book, only to cure cancer forty years later is just too unpredictable. Consciousness is a "female dog".

Freewill or not, I'm going to go play some Xbox!

skeptic2

Welcome to Physics Forums even though you haven't officially arrived yet because you still have zero posts.

Think of all the program variations that are possible in writing a game versus the number that would result in a game that will actually run. Now think of the probability that all the instructions for your next game were encoded in the chaos 13.7 billion years ago and that the universe has been unfolding deterministically like a computer program all these billions of years, resulting only now in your producing a computer game.

Quiksilver421

Yeah, whats up with the whole zero post thing?

I'm just not sure if we'd have to build a time machine to gather the data from 13.7 b.y.a, or if we could map out the trajectory of present day atoms/mass.

For option 1- IDK

For option 2 we'd have to create a bubble-wrap sphere of spheres within spheres w/a layered curtain of these sensors on the x & y axis' (to cover the holes in between the outer spheres). Although, by measuring the "mass/atoms" we'd end up changing their trajectories for any future data points in the QikSphere (<-made it up) Maybe offset the spheres to counteract the previous spheres interaction (like bouncing a laser off 2000 mirrors, leaving the end trajectory unchanged). We'd have to do this to the whole freaking Universe

Seeing step one instead of step 1.37x10^10 would be preferable. Mapping out everything that ever happened... ever.... is unfathomable!

Im all for option 1

Ps- I suck at sentence structure, Sry.

eloheim

That is quite a loaded definition. What does "beneficial" mean exactly? For example, if you're talking about AN organism, it's hard to see how that organism cares about events that will occur long after it is deceased. Now if you're saying that, e.g., ending up with the stunning girl is beneficial to me because I get to enjoy her beauty and make my rivals envious, then to me that makes more sense.

I know this has been covered before, but even without a predetermined cosmos, that does not ensure that there exists free will. Alternatively, things could (merely) be the result of blind chance. I suppose in some conceptions the determinism is "recovered" on the scale of a multiverse, but this is really not necessary.

skeptic2

Does maintaining a car on the road and obeying traffic laws, not only you but all the drivers on all the roads, seem like it could be the result of blind chance?

Whovian

I just feel like pointing something out. Sorry if I'm acting too scientific for this forum. We haven't rigorously defined free will, so I really can't say whether or not free will can exist with our current understanding of the universe.

Well, no, but there is a reason it was stated as the result of blind chance. In a non-closed system, order can arise.

eloheim

Well, to me, it means "input" into the universe outside the normal course of the physical evolution of the systems involved. For example, if the universe were a computer program, free will would be if it stopped at certain points, and awaited input from a user sitting at the terminal. So, in other words, there is an intelligence making choices that are more than just the standard 'churning' of the algorithms.

And, as a side note, to address the "free will vs. determinism" issue, discussed above. The computer program could make use of a random number generator, so that its exact outcomes could not be predicted. Like the free will (user input) example, the program could freeze at certain points and proceed based upon the result of the random number generator. Obviously this would make it indeterminant, but also in no way free, or intelligent.

I take it other people may disagree or consider this definition too radical. If so I'd like to hear alternative ideas about the nature of free will.

Maui

In that no-faster-than-light mechanistic universe, we would not have encountered entanglement between space-like separated particles. So either the idea of the existence of such a universe is wrong or we haven't even begun to understand the universe and don't really know what we mean by 'universe', which leaves the question about freewill open.

John Creighto

What exactly is free will. If your actions aren’t determined by the laws of nature then what are they determined by? Is it our soul, and if so what would make this concept of a soul distinct from nature? It is fine to argue immigrant properties but if we can’t define and measure these properties then what use is such an argument? There is an alternative view of reductionism where what is small is determined by what is large (this is an anti-reductionism) and this would match the free will theorem mentioned above.

This anti-reductionism actually make such ridiculous views as Schweitzer’s cat possible such a viewpoint would be very uncomfortable to science because we can’t measure free will and consequently couldn’t derive deterministic laws of science from such a (property?). Moreover even if their was such thing as free will which partly determines nature all evidence suggests that we are constrained by the laws of nature.

How can any form of dualism be reconciled with our inability to influence the nature beyond what can be modeled with a form of determinism?

Maui

This way of thinking leads back to the Big Bang where everything was an undivided whole and because it's not understood(and very likely never will), one can say its potential for explanation of philosophical quesions is very close to zero. You could as well ask - if your actions are determined by the laws of nature(the properties of the constituents that sprung forth during the BB), what determined these properties so that self-reflecting intelligence would arise? There are no self-evident answers to these questions, are there?





I'd guess people love to fill in vacant knowledge with whatever is most accessible to them - as they say "Too stupid to understand science? Try religion!" :)

On a side note, we know that nature abhors vacuum, so we can't put all the blame on them if we are unable to provide an adequate and satisfying answer to the deep questions(e.g. that of determinism and free will).





One possibility is that all that is observable with the senses is not absolutely all that exists(we haven't reached the end, science is rather young and really just beginning). Call that hidden variables, yet unknown mechanisms or underlying reality, etc. The purported existence of dark energy is somewhat close to what i have in mind as "something" that can only be 'detected' and inferred as an influence on that which is observable.

josh1492

How I see determinism:
Determinism-if I do this the result will be that.
action A results in the effect C and etc

How I see free-will:
Free will-I can choose to complete any action or inaction based upon all conceivable possible actions or inactions. The result(effect) is not within my control but my ability to set an event or non event into action is under my complete control.

In my definitions determinism and freewill not only coexist but they are essentially two sides of the same coin. These concepts apply equally to thought as they do to physical action or communication. I am of the belief that to an extent your mental state is the composition of prior thoughts and experiences IE past thoughts determine how you conceptualize other events/thoughts.

I was trying to avoid delving into the semantics of how the OP perceives the world and offer my individual spin on the question.

Whovian

Alright. Please don't take this wrong. Here's what I think about why that kind of free will won't work. What one decides is based on a very complicated system (the brain), but its outcome is still determined by determinism (or, at least, "quantum determinism.") And so ... we've sort of taken care of that.

DrSnarl

I find it interesting that in a thread on free will, there is no mention of conscious experience. (If there was and I missed it, then I apologize.) How can we even begin to evaluate what "free will" means without first nailing down the elusive problem of conscious experience? It is like trying to explain the behavior of an object without even knowing what the object in question is.

I noticed that someone mentioned the idea of elementary particles having free will. That sounds absurd, but what if we state that a little bit differently? What if conscious experience is a fundamental property of the universe - something that is inseparable from even elementary particles? In other words, do electrons have experience? Is there "something that it is like to be an electron"? If so, then it is quite reasonable to think that advanced (ie. human) conscious experience could arise from matter. If that is the case, then the question of "free will" becomes somewhat misleading. In a sense, we would have free will because we ARE the universe, and the universe IS our will.

As an aside, many people reject this line of reasoning with the following type of counter: "That is complete nonsense. We know that conscious experience is purely a physical result of interactions between our neurons. There is nothing to explain." The rebuttal to this is fairly involved, but let me summarize it by saying that such an argument makes the mistake of equating observable output with conscious experience. It is theoretically possible for a human to behave in an indistinguishable fashion from any other human, and yet be completely unaware of its actions (like sleep walking). This is what is meant by the term "philosophical zombie". Such a zombie would have identical observable output, but would lack conscious experience.

Another attack against this line of reasoning is of this form: "Conscious experience MUST arise from neurological processes because there is no alternative." This is circular reasoning, and it also demonstrates a bit of hubris. There is so much about physics and the human brain that we do not understand.

Here is an interesting thought: Is it possible to model the human brain in a super huge computer? If so, and if conscious experience arises purely from neural interactions in the brain, then it is possible for a computer to have conscious experience. By extension, it would then be possible to write an equation for conscious experience (computers are nothing more than logical equation solvers). If we wrote this equation on a sufficiently large chalkboard, would we effectually give that chalk and chalkboard conscious experience? I would claim that the answer is "no", which invalidates the initial assumption that we can model the brain in a computer, no matter how big or advanced that computer is.

skeptic2

Whovian, I understand your argument and don't disagree with it, yet I still can't support pure determinism. The reason I can't makes me very uncomfortable because it is the same argument used by creationists or intelligent design advocates, both of which, I am strongly opposed to.

The issue is how to explain the self organization of nature. With regard to creationism, an effective mechanism, evolution, is sufficient to explain development of higher and higher life forms. However I can find no equivalent mechanism to explain how an organism manipulates nature to satisfy its needs. On a human scale that would include inventions, laws, software, literature and the understanding and usage of mathematics to name a few. The probability of these developments occurring by chance, even since the big bang is so remote, either we must consider that these developments were somehow encoded into the chaos of the big bang (Deism, which I don't support) or there must be some, yet undiscovered mechanism, that permits the selection of one effect among several for a given cause.

josh1492

What I mean is that free will is the ability to take an action or not to take an action(the number of inactions being infinitely greater than the number of actions) and determinism is the result of that action. Obviously you do not have control over the actual outcome but you have the freedom to choose an action based upon your perception of what the outcome will be. Determinism for me is another way of saying that a free will action will interact with the world and the result will be an "effect" or an "ineffect." Effect being a relational term that is only given meaning when compared or not compared to something else.

This is one of those subjects that I think everyone does understand in basically the same way but because of the complexity of how we interpret information, communicating the ideas with exact detail is very difficult. Even though we are thinking of the same concept communicating this to each other is very difficult....thus this is a shinning example of how breakdowns in communication occur when dealing with exact finite details.

Goodison_Lad

I agree, DrSnarl. I doubt there’d be a discussion at all unless we all had the conscious experience of feeling we have free will.

If free will is somehow an illusion, what is not illusory is the conscious experience of the illusion (although I’m sure I’ve seen conscious experience explained seriously as some sort of illusion!). If free will is real in the sense that some decision could be made that is beyond the inevitably of the physical laws playing themselves out, there is still some operational agency that is conscious of executing this free will.

I’m not sure whether ‘genuine’ free will in the absence of conscious experience would mean anything.

Your later point about whether modelling the human brain perfectly would produce a conscious computer or a philosophical zombie is another tough question. The key question would be: how could you tell the difference? Arthur C. Clarke commented that when he told people that one day sufficiently sophisticated computers might be built that had conscious emotions, those people put on a very impressive simulation of anger!

josh1492

I wanna reference an episode of StarTrek, next generation, where Data was excluded from a life of slavery, as all the other robots had to do, because he had developed consciousness. Anyway, everyone knows that shortly after computers develop consciousness they will deem humans a threat to the planet and they will have to exterminate us, for our own good of course.