Conservation Laws and Free Will: Understanding the Paradox

[hanilk2006]

i don't get it

if whatever is moved is moved by something else, and if momentum is conserved, then how is it that we have any free will?

I am typing this, but if my hands are moving because it is moved by something else, then what's the point? what's the point of everything? why are we even living?

can somebody tell me, because it seems like everything is systematic.

 

[sweet springs]

Hi.

i don't get it

if whatever is moved is moved by something else, and if momentum is conserved, then how is it that we have any free will?

I am typing this, but if my hands are moving because it is moved by something else, then what's the point? what's the point of everything? why are we even living?

can somebody tell me, because it seems like everything is systematic.

How can you prove that your free will is really free?
Regards.

 

[Rap]

what's the point? what's the point of everything? why are we even living?

can somebody tell me, because it seems like everything is systematic.

Maybe it is, but remember, the process of evolution systematically gets rid of anyone who let's these kinds of questions slow them down. Besides, why do you care?

 

[Drakkith]

What's the reason for living? Do you want to die? If not, why? Thats probably 1 reason to keep on living. The rest you have to come up with yourself, because that is going to be different for everyone.

Does believing that all your thoughts are governed by chemical reactions and quantum effects somehow make it so that you don't have free will? Hell, I know plenty of people that think that god already knows what you are going to do, which tells me that free will pretty much doesn't exist to them.

And the conservation of energy law only says that energy is conserved and can never be created from nothing, only transferred into different forms.

 

[Chi Meson]

Down at the core of all measurement is a built-in amount of uncertainty and probability. That means, no matter how exact and "deterministic" the laws of momentum and energy are (more properly: "appear-to-be"), there is still an element of randomness in everything that happens, including every raw, "original" thought in your brain.

 

[Rap]

Down at the core of all measurement is a built-in amount of uncertainty and probability. That means, no matter how exact and "deterministic" the laws of momentum and energy are (more properly: "appear-to-be"), there is still an element of randomness in everything that happens, including every raw, "original" thought in your brain.

This is an uncertainty about our ability to measure and to know what will happen. As such, it says nothing about an uncertainty in what will happen.

Bell's theorem, however, is based on "if I had done this, then such and such would have happened". In other words, Bell's "paradox" can be explained by superluminal effects, or non-locality, or many worlds, or lack of "counterfactual definiteness" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness). Lack of counterfactual definiteness simply means that as long as the laws of physics are actually obeyed, everything is ok, but if you say they would have been violated if I had done such and such, you are assuming counterfactual definiteness, and that assumption may not be valid. Lack of counterfactual definiteness leads directly to the idea that the future is fixed and inevitable.

My attitude towards lack of counterfactual definiteness is that it is the simplest explanation, and by Occam's razor, has some merit. But then again that attitude was inevitable. From an emotional viewpoint, I don't give a damn whether its true or not. But that was inevitable too. LOL. Don't worry, be happy.

The question is not whether god did create the world.
The question is whether he had any choice.
-Albert Einstein

 

[AlephZero]

Even if everything is deterministic, this does not imply the future is predictable, since nobody has complete knowledge of the past.

So the only reason to worrying about this question is because you enjoy worrying about it

 

[JaredJames]

I've read through this twice and I'm stuck at how we go from the conservation laws to free will. Can anyone clarify?

 

[Rap]

I've read through this twice and I'm stuck at how we go from the conservation laws to free will. Can anyone clarify?

I guess it means that once you know the position and momentum of every particle you can calculate the future with absolute precision using the conservation laws.

 

[Chi Meson]

This is an uncertainty about our ability to measure and to know what will happen. As such, it says nothing about an uncertainty in what will happen.

I disagree. The uncertainty and randomness is not through some limitation of technology, but is a fundamental condition of nature. It seems to me that through random probabilities in each quantum interaction, uncertainties grow through iterative effects in all moments with our without human observation.

From an emotional viewpoint, I don't give a damn whether its true or not.

I agree with that.

 

[Rap]

(Responding to "This is an uncertainty about our ability to measure and to know what will happen. As such, it says nothing about an uncertainty in what will happen. ")
I disagree. The uncertainty and randomness is not through some limitation of technology, but is a fundamental condition of nature. It seems to me that through random probabilities in each quantum interaction, uncertainties grow through iterative effects in all moments with our without human observation.

I was wrong to say what I said, and I think you are wrong too. Uncertainty is OUR uncertainty, an uncertainty in our ability to predict the future, and there is no other uncertainty. I agree, its fundamental, not technical. It stems from our fundamental inability to measure e.g. momentum and position at the same time. For me to say "uncertainty in what will happen (as opposed to what we measure)" is not right, and for you to say "uncertainty exists without human observation" is not right.

Uncertainty in what we measure does not imply that the future is not fixed. It says nothing about whether what we measure is inevitable, no matter that our measurements do not allow us to predict the future.

Bell's theorem is different. It says (very simplistically) that the laws of physics are never actually broken, but if you start thinking in terms of "if I had done such and such", then you come up with contradictions to the laws of physics. One way out is to modify the laws of physics. The other is to focus on the "if". If you start thinking in terms of "if", then you are assuming counterfactual definiteness - You are assuming that you know something despite the fact that you have no measurements to support it. If the detailed future of the universe is inevitable, then there is no such thing as "if" - counterfactual definiteness is a false assumption.

LOL - I used "if" a lot in my explanation - but I think that in the classical limit, "if" is ok, much like its ok to assume you know position and momentum simultaneously.