Anton Zeilinger's comment about free will being required for science

[mattt]

(BTW, when it comes to consciousness, I agree with Chalmers.)

In that regard I am closer to Paul and Patricia Churchland.

 

[PeterDonis]

he says that consciousness is an illusion, doesn't he?

No. He has been repeatedly misquoted as saying that, and he has repeatedly tried to correct such misquotations. His actual position is that consciousness is real, but does not have all of the properties that most people's untutored intuitions think it has.

 

[PeterDonis]

I would be very curious to have an example of something that is "worth wanting about free will" while not being in contradiction with physical laws.

When you made the post I have just quoted above, I assume you weren't forced to make the post: nobody held a gun to your head. Nobody dictated the words you wrote. You weren't under the influence of any drug or any device implanted in your brain that made it tell your body to do things you didn't choose. You chose to make the post and chose what it would say, and your body made the post happen in accordance with your choice. In other words, your making the post was an example of you exercising your free will.

And yet all of this is perfectly consistent with physical laws, even deterministic physical laws. What I called "choice" above is a process in your brain. It's not magic. Your brain took all the inputs that came into it up to the point of you choosing to make your post and what it would say, and your brain made those choices using those inputs. Whatever process took place inside your brain could be deterministic from the standpoint of physical law, but it's still your brain, using the inputs from your experiences and choosing what to say, without any other influence. That's a kind of free will worth wanting, and it's perfectly consistent with physical laws.

 

[mattt]

When you made the post I have just quoted above, I assume you weren't forced to make the post: nobody held a gun to your head. Nobody dictated the words you wrote. You weren't under the influence of any drug or any device implanted in your brain that made it tell your body to do things you didn't choose. You chose to make the post and chose what it would say, and your body made the post happen in accordance with your choice. In other words, your making the post was an example of you exercising your free will.

And yet all of this is perfectly consistent with physical laws, even deterministic physical laws. What I called "choice" above is a process in your brain. It's not magic. Your brain took all the inputs that came into it up to the point of you choosing to make your post and what it would say, and your brain made those choices using those inputs. Whatever process took place inside your brain could be deterministic from the standpoint of physical law, but it's still your brain, using the inputs from your experiences and choosing what to say, without any other influence. That's a kind of free will worth wanting, and it's perfectly consistent with physical laws.

Yes, but that's not what most people think about free will. Most people really think that they could have done otherwise in such and such situation...for example.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

"Those who maintain a deterministic theory of mental activity must do so as the outcome of their
study of the mind itself and not with the idea that they are thereby making it more conformable with our experimental knowledge of the laws of inorganic nature."

Arthur Stanley Eddington in "THE NATURE OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD"

 

[PeterDonis]

Most people really think that they could have done otherwise in such and such situation...for example.

Dennett has a long discussion of "could have done otherwise" in both of his books on free will (Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves).

The TL;DR is that "could have done otherwise" can have at least two different meanings, and neither of them have the implications that most people intuitively think of when they think that deterministic physical laws rule out "could have done otherwise".

If "could have done otherwise" means "could have done otherwise under the exact same physical conditions", which is the only case for which "could have done otherwise" is actually false for deterministic physical laws, then it's meaningless, because the exact same physical conditions will never occur again.

If "could have done otherwise" means "could have done otherwise under the same relevant conditions", then deterministic physical laws permit this to be true, because "the same relevant conditions" comprises a huge set of different physical conditions, and therefore allows a huge set of possible different physical processes to occur in your brain. In fact, your brain, in order for it to support any meaningful kind of free will (i.e., that your brain can actually reliably tell your body to make happen what you choose), has to ignore most of the microphysical variation in states inside it.

To put it another way, what is important for free will is that, if you make a choice you later believe to have been a bad one, you can change how you make choices so that, under the same relevant conditions in the future, you can make a better choice. And this is perfectly possible with deterministic physical laws, because changing how you make choices doesn't require you to change any physical laws; it only requires you to change the configuration of your brain. And as long as that change in your brain's configuration happens because you choose it--i.e., because of other processes happening in your brain, not because someone held a gun to your head or implanted a chip in your brain that skews its function, etc.--then you have free will in the sense that matters.

 

[mattt]

Dennett has a long discussion of "could have done otherwise" in both of his books on free will (Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves).

The TL;DR is that "could have done otherwise" can have at least two different meanings, and neither of them have the implications that most people intuitively think of when they think that deterministic physical laws rule out "could have done otherwise".

If "could have done otherwise" means "could have done otherwise under the exact same physical conditions", which is the only case for which "could have done otherwise" is actually false for deterministic physical laws, then it's meaningless, because the exact same physical conditions will never occur again.

If "could have done otherwise" means "could have done otherwise under the same relevant conditions", then deterministic physical laws permit this to be true, because "the same relevant conditions" comprises a huge set of different physical conditions, and therefore allows a huge set of possible different physical processes to occur in your brain. In fact, your brain, in order for it to support any meaningful kind of free will (i.e., that your brain can actually reliably tell your body to make happen what you choose), has to ignore most of the microphysical variation in states inside it.

To put it another way, what is important for free will is that, if you make a choice you later believe to have been a bad one, you can change how you make choices so that, under the same relevant conditions in the future, you can make a better choice. And this is perfectly possible with deterministic physical laws, because changing how you make choices doesn't require you to change any physical laws; it only requires you to change the configuration of your brain. And as long as that change in your brain's configuration happens because you choose it--i.e., because of other processes happening in your brain, not because someone held a gun to your head or implanted a chip in your brain that skews its function, etc.--then you have free will in the sense that matters.

All that is coherent and sensible, but I wouldn't use the term Free Will to refer to that. I would prefer to create a new term.

Why?

First, because most people (at least most people with whom I speak about these things) think about free will in a totally different way. They really think Free Will is non-physical, that is, beyond the realms of Physics.

Second, precisely because of this, most of them also think that a non-biological machine will never have and cannot ever have this "non-physical ability" that they supposedly have to make "non physical choices".

 

[PeterDonis]

I would prefer to create a new term.

So would many people. That doesn't mean it should actually be done. At least not if we're going to be discussing science. The reasons you give for people having a different definition of Free Will are manifestly non-scientific, so a scientific discussion cannot and should not take notice of them.

most people (at least most people with whom I speak about these things) think about free will in a totally different way. They really think Free Will is non-physical, that is, beyond the realms of Physics.

Whatever people might claim when they are asked for an explicit definition, the operational definition of "free will" that people use in their everyday lives is not based on any claims about "free will" being beyond the realm of physics, but on everyone's common sense notion of what it means to make a free choice as opposed to a coerced one, which is what the more elaborate discussion I gave, which you agree is "coherent and sensible", is based on. So, for example, if you are asked if you signed a legal document of your own free will, you're not being asked whether you have some magical non-physical ability. You're being asked a straightforward question about whether you were coerced or not.

precisely because of this, most of them also think that a non-biological machine will never have and cannot ever have this "non-physical ability" that they supposedly have to make "non physical choices".

If robots with human-like intelligence are ever developed, I suspect a lot of people's intuitions about this will drastically change once they have interacted with such robots and seen what their actual capabilities are.

 

[A. Neumaier]

most of them also think that a non-biological machine will never have and cannot ever have this "non-physical ability" that they supposedly have to make "non physical choices".

How would a biological machine or a human being make "non physical choices"?

 

[nrqed]

When you made the post I have just quoted above, I assume you weren't forced to make the post: nobody held a gun to your head. Nobody dictated the words you wrote. You weren't under the influence of any drug or any device implanted in your brain that made it tell your body to do things you didn't choose. You chose to make the post and chose what it would say, and your body made the post happen in accordance with your choice. In other words, your making the post was an example of you exercising your free will.

And yet all of this is perfectly consistent with physical laws, even deterministic physical laws. What I called "choice" above is a process in your brain. It's not magic. Your brain took all the inputs that came into it up to the point of you choosing to make your post and what it would say, and your brain made those choices using those inputs. Whatever process took place inside your brain could be deterministic from the standpoint of physical law, but it's still your brain, using the inputs from your experiences and choosing what to say, without any other influence. That's a kind of free will worth wanting, and it's perfectly consistent with physical laws.

I don't understand what you mean by "chose" or "did not choose".

If the inputs and the connections on my brains determined what I would post, what do you mean by saying that I "chose" to post it?? At what point did I have the choice to not post it if everything was deterministic?? If you say that my brain made a choice even though everything was deterministic, then would you say that a tree "choses" to fall if I cut it? If not, what is the difference between me being able to choose and the tree not being able to choose?

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't understand what you mean by "chose" or "did not choose".

I mean whatever process happens in you (mostly your brain) when you, for example, think of what to write in your post, and then write it and click "Post Reply" to post it.

If the inputs and the connections on my brains determined what I would post, what do you mean by saying that I "chose" to post it??

That it was the inputs and connections in your brain that determined what you would post, not something else.

what is the difference between me being able to choose and the tree not being able to choose?

That a tree doesn't have a brain. Which means a tree is not even sensitive to all the complex information that your brain is sensitive to. A tree can't post on PF, not just because it doesn't have hands or eyes, but because it can't even process the information that is conveyed to you and I by reading PF, let alone form the kind of context that you and I have for reading PF by spending years learning about physics and other abstract topics.

When you compare what goes on in your brain when you post on PF to a tree falling, you are simply ignoring the huge difference in complexity between the two cases, and assuming it can't make any real difference. But it does. Enough additional complexity is a qualitative change. As Philip Anderson famously said, "More is different".

 

[A. Neumaier]

When you compare what goes on in your brain when you post on PF to a tree falling, you are simply ignoring the huge difference in complexity between the two cases, and assuming it can't make any real difference. But it does. Enough additional complexity is a qualitative change. As Philip Anderson famously said, "More is different".

It is not the complexity (hence not just ''more'') but the structure of the brain that allows sufficiently detailed information processing to create choices that are for practical purposes free.

 

[PeterDonis]

It is not the complexity (hence not just ''more'') but the structure of the brain that allows sufficiently detailed information processing to create choices that are for practical purposes free.

I think this is just a matter of choice of words. I agree the structure of the brain is important; I would say that an important reason why the structure of the brain is important is that it is complex and heterogeneous. If the brain were just three pounds of jello it would not support information processing.

 

[nrqed]

It is not the complexity (hence not just ''more'') but the structure of the brain that allows sufficiently detailed information processing to create choices that are for practical purposes free.

I find it extremely strange that one would assign free will to something just because it is very complex. I don't understand how to define "choices that are for practical purposes free". How can someone not be a choice but can be a choice "for practical purposes"? It is a choice only because we cannot reproduce the system on a computer?
If I am free to choose if I post this or not, explain to me at what point am I making a decision? In a deterministic system, it is impossible. Even including quantum effects, there is no such instant. So I don't see how one can say that free will exists if no choice is ever made.

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't understand how to define "choices that are for practical purposes free".

When you post here, is anyone coercing you? Is anyone holding a gun to your head? Is there a chip implanted in your brain that's causing your hands to move and type things that you don't intend to type?

If the answers to those and all questions along similar lines are "no", then your posts here, for all practical purposes, are your free choice. If you want to agonize over whether your posts are your free choice in some magical non-physical sense, that's your free choice too, and I can't stop you, but I don't see what relevance it has to this discussion. We are discussing science here, and any view that only allows "free choice" to exist if it is a magical, non-physical property that can't be analyzed by science, is irrelevant here.

 

[mattt]

I think we all here agree on the fundamentals but we don't agree on the use of English words.

 

[nrqed]

When you post here, is anyone coercing you? Is anyone holding a gun to your head? Is there a chip implanted in your brain that's causing your hands to move and type things that you don't intend to type?

If the answers to those and all questions along similar lines are "no", then your posts here, for all practical purposes, are your free choice. If you want to agonize over whether your posts are your free choice in some magical non-physical sense, that's your free choice too, and I can't stop you, but I don't see what relevance it has to this discussion. We are discussing science here, and any view that only allows "free choice" to exist if it is a magical, non-physical property that can't be analyzed by science, is irrelevant here.

It's funny that you accuse me of being unscientific while using an example of having a gun or not pointed at me as definition of free will or not. Are you saying that free will suddenly cease to exist if someone is pointing a gun at me? How can that be a scientific statement? It sounds like a legal statement, not a statement based on science.

You accuse me of using a "magical non-physical sense" for free will. I am saying that free will does not exist because it is inconsistent with physical laws. You are saying that free will exist even in a completely deterministic world. That seems way more magical than my position.

If you are free to decide if you post or not, tell me when this occurs if everything in your brain is deterministic?

 

[mattt]

You accuse me of using a "magical non-physical sense" for free will. I am saying that free will does not exist because it is inconsistent with physical laws. You are saying that free will exist even in a completely deterministic world. That seems way more magical than my position.

He's just using the words "free will" to mean something different than what you think. I myself don't like that way of using those words.

 

[nrqed]

He's just using the words "free will" to mean something different than what you think. I myself don't like that way of using those words.

Maybe, but then he accuses me of being unscientific and using a "magical" sense. I am trying to have a scientific discussion, not a discussion based on a legal definition of free will.

 

[mattt]

How would a biological machine or a human being make "non physical choices"?

That's exactly my reply to them. If they have a theory about it, they should explain the details and mechanisms of those "non-physical entities" to us.

 

[PeterDonis]

You accuse me of using a "magical non-physical sense" for free will.

And you yourself agree with me:

I am saying that free will does not exist because it is inconsistent with physical laws.

In other words, the only meaning you can understand for the term "free will" is something that is inconsistent with physical laws. That's what I mean by you using a magical, non-physical sense of "free will".

You are saying that free will exist even in a completely deterministic world.

I am saying that the kind of "free will" that anybody actually cares about is whatever it is that is causing you to make your posts here. If you don't think "free will" is the right term for that, so what? It's still what people actually care about. Nobody cares about a kind of "free will" that doesn't exist and can't because it's inconsistent with physical laws. They might say they do, but they actually don't when it matters.

In ordinary everyday situations this is easy to overlook because there is no real dispute involved. All of us are posting here, and we each assume everyone is posting of their own free will, and not because Dr. Evil is standing over them with a gun to their head or has implanted a chip in their brains. But that's because nothing is really at stake except discussion. We can each have our own ideas about what would "really" count as free will, and whether such a thing actually exists, and it doesn't matter.

But when real disputes are involved, with real things at stake, nobody cares about whatever kind of concept of "free will" you are using that term to mean, because you say whatever that is doesn't exist anyway. What people actually care about is, for example, whether your signature on a legal document was coerced or not, or whether you pulled the trigger of the gun that shot someone by accident or with intent. In other words, if people care about "free will" at all when real things are at stake, what they care about is something that actually exists and can actually be assessed in real situations.

That seems way more magical than my position.

If you think that using the term "free will" to mean something that can actually exist, and that people actually care about in real situations with real things at stake, is more "magical" than using the term to mean something that, by your own admission, can't exist at all because it's inconsistent with physical laws, then I think we disagree on what "magical" means as well as on what "free will" means.

 

[PeterDonis]

I am trying to have a scientific discussion

How can we have a scientific discussion about a concept that you yourself claim is inconsistent with physical laws? Why should anyone bother discussing such a concept?

 

[mattt]

Maybe, but then he accuses me of being unscientific and using a "magical" sense. I am trying to have a scientific discussion, not a discussion based on a legal definition of free will.

Read carefully what he wrote. I think that it is clear for him that there is no solid reason to believe in non physical entities.

It is just that he (and Daniel Dennett and some others) like to use those words, free will, to describe some physical (deterministic or stochastic) processes that occur in the nervous systems of some animals (especially mammals) to differentiate them from other physical processes.

Of course, even used that way, it's a fuzzy term to say the least.

 

[nrqed]

How can we have a scientific discussion about a concept that you yourself claim is inconsistent with physical laws? Why should anyone bother discussing such a concept?

Because some people say that free will exist. And they don't realize that it is inconsistent with physics.

You are basically saying that discussing free will is not worth it? You don't think that it is worth our time to share what physics has to say about it? I disagree.

I see from your previous post that you are using a legal type of definition for free will. I thought we could have a scientific discussion on the issue, but you attack me for being anti scientific when I want to focus on what science can say about it (which I find extremely strange). Since it's not possible to discuss the scientific aspect of the issue without being told essentially that no one should bother, then I will stop.

Thanks for the open minded and respectful discussion.

 

[nrqed]

Read carefully what he wrote. I think that it is clear for him that there is no solid reason to believe in non physical entities.

It is just that he (and Daniel Dennett and some others) like to use those words, free will, to describe some physical (deterministic or stochastic) processes that occur in the nervous systems of some animals (especially mammals) to differentiate them from other physical processes.

Of course, even used that way, it's a fuzzy term to say the least.

Interesting. But from a physics point of view, this seems completely undefined. I wish that given we are supposed to have a scientific debate here, with very smart people, that they would at least acknowledge that their definition of free will is, and that it is not well defined. Instead I am the one accused of believing in magic. Strange.

 

[mattt]

Because some people say that free will exist. And they don't realize that it is inconsistent with physics.

You are basically saying that discussing free will is not worth it? You don't think that it is worth our time to share what physics has to say about it? I disagree.

I see from your previous post that you are using a legal type of definition for free will. I thought we could have a scientific discussion on the issue, but you attack me for being anti scientific when I want to focus on what science can say about it (which I find extremely strange). Since it's not possible to discuss the scientific aspect of the issue without being told essentially that no one should bother, then I will stop.

Thanks for the open minded and respectful discussion.

I'm not sure that you understood what he's saying.

I think that what he's saying is that the traditional view on Free Will is so incompatible with all that we know from current Neuroscience, for example, that it is simply a non-starter.

That is, he's not going to waste his time on the traditional view of Free Will because it doesn't make any sense to him or to Science.

 

[nrqed]

I'm not sure that you understood what he's saying.

I think that what he's saying is that the traditional view on Free Will is so incompatible with all that we know from current Neuroscience, for example, that it is simply a non-starter.

That is, he's not going to waste his time on the traditional view of Free Will because it doesn't make any sense to him or to Science.

Maybe, but his definition of free will is not what I would expect in a scientific discussion. It has no scientific merit. I would expect it when talking to lawyers, not when talking to scientists. For example, he gave the example I quote below. How can a scientist say that there is no free will if someone points a gun at me? If free will really existed, it would still my decision to post even if there is a gun pointed at me. But a lawyer would disagree,

I was trying to have a scientific discussion, and I am being accused of not wanting to have a rational discussion, which is nonsense.

Quote:

"When you made the post I have just quoted above, I assume you weren't forced to make the post: nobody held a gun to your head. Nobody dictated the words you wrote. You weren't under the influence of any drug or any device implanted in your brain that made it tell your body to do things you didn't choose. You chose to make the post and chose what it would say, and your body made the post happen in accordance with your choice. In other words, your making the post was an example of you exercising your free will."

 

[mattt]

It is interesting the way we tend to use those fuzzy words as "decision", "intent", "choice", "free",...

We think that we make choices, that we make decisions. I think that a thermostat doesn't make any decision.

What about those many systems in between ?

Does a mosquito make choices? A bacterium? An amoeba? A fish, frog, lizard, rat...? Was that dog "free" when it killed a human baby?

A chimpanzee?

Are humans the only "free" species?

My guess: in the future we will find much better terms and concepts ( and theories and models) to deal with all this.

 

[PeterDonis]

You are basically saying that discussing free will is not worth it? You don't think that it is worth our time to share what physics has to say about it?

Physics can't have anything to say about something that is inconsistent with the laws of physics. We close threads all the time here because people ask questions that basically amount to "what does physics say about this hypothetical scenario that is inconsistent with the laws of physics?" So whatever your concept of "free will" is, if it is inconsistent with the laws of physics, then I can't see what point there is in discussing it here in a physics forum.

I see from your previous post that you are using a legal type of definition for free will.

No, I'm using a common sense definition for free will, one that points at something that obviously does exist and is therefore consistent with the laws of physics. Such a common sense definition of course plays a role in legal contexts, but that's not the only place it plays a role. It plays a role all the time in all aspects of everyday life.

I thought we could have a scientific discussion on the issue

Then let's talk about something science can actually address, such as how the human brain produces the kinds of human actions that fall under the common sense definition of "free will", and how the human brain produces the conscious experiences that we are pointing to when we talk about having a sense of free will. Dennett's books on free will are full of references to that kind of science. I'd be thrilled to talk about it. But you don't think any of that is about "free will", so we can't even get started.

By your definition of "free will", as I said above, we can't have a scientific discussion about "free will" at all, because it violates the laws of physics and therefore physics can't say anything about it except that it doesn't exist. Okay, I agree that "free will" by your definition doesn't exist. Now what do we talk about?

 

[PeterDonis]

his definition of free will is not what I would expect in a scientific discussion. It has no scientific merit.

You are extremely mistaken. If you have not read any of the voluminous scientific literature investigating the kind of concept of "free will" that I have been describing, please take some time to do so. (As I noted in my previous post, Dennett's books on free will give plenty of references to that literature.) There is a lot of scientific work being done in this area.

 

[PeterDonis]

it would still my decision to post even if there is a gun pointed at me

This is a valid point of view, and different workers in this area draw the lines in cases like this in different ways. Some would indeed say it's still your free choice, but made under a set of constraints very different from the case in which no gun is being pointed at you (due to the very different inputs your brain is getting and the very different context your thoughts are taking place in).

Note, also, that I did not give the gun as my only example. I also gave the examples of being under the influence of drugs, and having a chip implanted in your brain (the latter, of course, being much more science-fictional today).

However, by your definition, none of this is about "free will" anyway. Or have you changed your mind, since you are now saying it is your "decision to post" in this case? Is this now allowed by you as a case of free will?

 

[PeterDonis]

My guess: in the future we will find much better terms and concepts ( and theories and models) to deal with all this.

I agree, and so does Dennett, at least judging from what is in the books of his that I referred to.

 

[A. Neumaier]

I think this is just a matter of choice of words. I agree the structure of the brain is important; I would say that an important reason why the structure of the brain is important is that it is complex and heterogeneous. If the brain were just three pounds of jello it would not support information processing.

But soil is very complex and heterogeneous and still does not support information processing. The same holds for the ecology of tropical rain forests.

I find it extremely strange that one would assign free will to something just because it is very complex.

It is not the complexity but the abilidy to do complex information processing according to meaningful criteria that makes the difference.

I don't understand how to define "choices that are for practical purposes free". How can someone not be a choice but can be a choice "for practical purposes"? It is a choice only because we cannot reproduce the system on a computer?

It is already common practice to talk about a computer program to make random choices when it calls a random generator. If (as is often done) these random choices are afterwards screened by selecting the useful choices among the random ones according to certain criteria, the program makes no longer purely random choices. It now makes choices according to the internal criteria of the screening program. These criteria constiture the will of a system based these programs. This will is free once the system can modify the criteria according to its needs.

If I am free to choose if I post this or not, explain to me at what point am I making a decision?

At the moment where your internal processes restrict the possibile responses to the one actually executed.

Note that you need to answer this question even if the system constituting 'you' is not deterministic, and the correct answer is necessarily the same.

In a deterministic system, it is impossible. Even including quantum effects, there is no such instant.

In a deterministic computer, it is known precsely when any particular instruction is execued. Hence it is known precisely when a specific decision was made.

So I don't see how one can say that free will exists if no choice is ever made.

Well, lots of choices are made deterministically. For example the decision when to switch the cooler on and off, made by the thermostat in your fridge. Except that the latter are not free since the thermostat is not complex enough to be self-modifying.

I am saying that free will does not exist because it is inconsistent with physical laws.

You claimed this without any scientific support.

you are using a legal type of definition for free will. I thought we could have a scientific discussion on the issue

Then state your scientific definition of free will!

I wish that given we are supposed to have a scientific debate here, with very smart people, that they would at least acknowledge that their definition of free will is, and that it is not well defined. Instead I am the one accused of believing in magic. Strange.

It is strange because you want a scientific discussion without giving a precise meaning to the concept. Only saying what it is not is not enough.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Of course, even used that way, it's a fuzzy term to say the least.

Free will is a fuzzy term, even (and especially) when used in the usual informal way.

 

[PeterDonis]

But soil is very complex and heterogeneous and still does not support information processing. The same holds for the ecology of tropical rain forests.

Hm, yes, interesting examples. I think there is a sense of "complex" for which a human brain is still much more complex than soil or a rain forest, but I admit I can't formulate it explicitly right now. I think the term "information processing" could also stand to be formulated more explicitly (after all, there are lots of things going on in soil that could be interpreted as "information processing" in some sense), but it's probably a better term to start with than "complexity".