Does Free Will Exist? A Quantum Physics Debate

[Wolf]

On a personal level

I believe in the modified cause and efect theory.

It works like this.

Everyone has a purpose for doing something if there was no purpose than why whould you do it??

So cause=purpose and the efect is what you do as a reaction to the cause(or purpose).

An example of this could be a young boy wishes to become the best foot ball player he can be.So he begins training everyday to become the best football player.

The purpose of his training is to meet his wish and the purpose causes him to train and the training is the efect of the cause /purpose

Cause and efect modified.

Please if anyone see's any problems or flaw in this logic please bring it up i would apreciate the discusion about it.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I don't think that you can equate cause with purpose. The word "purpose" indicates that some conscious being, whether oneself or another, has and intention. An epileptic person does not have the intention of having a seizure, but has a seizure nonetheless.

 

[honestrosewater]

What is the difference?

1) You are sitting in your livingroom. 2) A plane flies over your house and 3) drops a bomb. As the bomb is falling, 4) you sneeze. 5) The bomb hits and 6) you're incinerated.
If you don't make a distinction between before-after and cause-effect, then you must conclude that the bomb caused you to sneeze, and your sneeze caused the bomb to explode.

Or a man wins the lottery. His mom tries to claim the prize for herself because if she hadn't given birth to the son, he never could have won. The store clerk tries to claim the prize for selling him the ticket. The lottery ball machine operator tries to claim the prize for pushing the buttons, etc.

 

[mikesvenson]

Or a man wins the lottery. His mom tries to claim the prize for herself because if she hadn't given birth to the son, he never could have won. The store clerk tries to claim the prize for selling him the ticket. The lottery ball machine operator tries to claim the prize for pushing the buttons, etc.

Oh man, this is were those sticky American lawsuits come from.

 

[Wolf]

man

that sounds like my mom...... the sad part is she wold argue that has she has done it before...

 

[Wolf]

again

i fail to see why you could not have cause = to purpose a cause creates reaction as thus does purpose read thease 2 statements "what was the cause for that?" and "what was the purpose of that?" in both phrases the question you are asking why did you do that

 

[honestrosewater]

Wolf,
But not *all* causes are purposeful. I don't think anyone was denying that *some* causes are purposeful.
And "all purposes are causes" doesn't mean "all causes are purposes". The two are related, but not equal :)

 

[Wolf]

i see

now that you put it in those words i understand you are saying that a majority may very well be the same thiong just nopt all non?

 

[sciart]

Please read the book << The Emporer's New Mind >>

Freewill is Relative Concept.
Anything is be Determined or Randomness(Quantium Field).

 

[kcballer21]

Freewill is a fairytale concept. I remember how dissapointed I was when I came to the conclusion that the universe must be determined. They way I see it, the only instance in which there can be free will is if there is a higher power such as a god that can interfere with the determined universe. (yet that god may just be part of a broader causality net) Otherwise dissident dan's explanation seems to be the most logical. That being said, free will as an illusion can be just as satisfying as if it were true in nature. The fact is this; we will never be able to calculate all the interactions that make up our determined universe, so it will appear that we are making choices. Good enough for me.

 

[merak]

Freewill is a fairytale concept. I remember how dissapointed I was when I came to the conclusion that the universe must be determined. They way I see it, the only instance in which there can be free will is if there is a higher power such as a god that can interfere with the determined universe. (yet that god may just be part of a broader causality net) Otherwise dissident dan's explanation seems to be the most logical. That being said, free will as an illusion can be just as satisfying as if it were true in nature. The fact is this; we will never be able to calculate all the interactions that make up our determined universe, so it will appear that we are making choices. Good enough for me.

well said..good enough for me to!

 

[bola]

And also, how would a non deterministic universe actually work?
If one thing didnt lead to another, wouldn't there be chaos?
Would some parts be non deterministic while others not? I don't see how that would work..
I think in some ways all universe HAVE to be deterministic, or else it would be completely different and chaotic.
So in that regard it may appear that the no determinism is actually happening on high levels. With low levels being quantum mechanics for example.
In the high levels, where our consciousness is, we're not able to see all the interactions that make up the determined results, like kcballer said, so it is kind of non deterministic from that view.

Maybe if we disregard the size of objects in the universe, like the difference between a quark and a tree, determinism and non determinism can co exist together, because we will never know what level is the lowest, and which is the highest, and which of these control each other.

That was just a random thought though, didn't think it through.

 

[mikesvenson]

but a good thought at that, free flowing input. We may never really know the truth, since we are imperfect.

If we can know the truth, then we can know the future, even of our own thoughts.

That would certainly upset a lot of people. It would crush many ideas about the purpose of life.

 

[olde drunk]

i believe that the physical universe is only deterministic in that it must obey the rules of physicality. freewill, however, allows us to decide which events we wish to activate within these rules.

on the spritual (non-physica) level we probably have more freedom, but it too has rules or guidelines. within these rules we can expand what seems like chaos into meaningful adventures.

it seems that all levels of the universe operate within certian parameters. perhaps what happens in the non-physical is as different as what happens at the quantum level compared to 3D reality.

why must we impose all rules across all levels of reality?

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[selfAdjoint]

i believe that the physical universe is only deterministic in that it must obey the rules of physicality. freewill, however, allows us to decide which events we wish to activate within these rules.

Since we are in the universe and a part of it, if we are free to decide which events to activate, then right there, the universe is not only deterministic.

Of course you have a get-out in the word physical. If you think human choice is not physical, then you have a loophole. But I think human everything is physical, there's no objective evidence otherwise.

 

[dschouten]

if(no free will) then ...

A thought just occurred to me...

Lack of free will implies a lack of personal responsibility.

Pay attention. If we can argue against free will, then in the same breath we must condemn any concepts of morality, since any and all action is simply determined. If action is only determined (and not chosen) then condemning the choices (stating their 'wrongness') is moot.

So I should be able to kill all of you and you'd have nothing to say about it (that is, whether I am wrong in doing so). After all, the longevity of your life and the conditions of its passing are already determined. Or are they? Reply.

 

[kcballer21]

A thought just occurred to me...

Lack of free will implies a lack of personal responsibility.

Pay attention. If we can argue against free will, then in the same breath we must condemn any concepts of morality, since any and all action is simply determined. If action is only determined (and not chosen) then condemning the choices (stating their 'wrongness') is moot.

So I should be able to kill all of you and you'd have nothing to say about it (that is, whether I am wrong in doing so). After all, the longevity of your life and the conditions of its passing are already determined. Or are they? Reply.

That's the question. Let's just clear up the notion that 'determined' refers to the physical nature of the universe and not to some higher power who planned all this out for us. As for the suggestion that the absence of free will implies that morality is 'moot', that could be a slippery slope.
I say that the universe is determined but I 'feel' like I am making choices, and for all intensive purposes that 'feeling' is real. That is why ethics continues to be important. Is it immoral if you kill me? Yes. Why? Because on our level of limited perception choices are still real, even if they are not real on a level which we could (probably) never comprehend.

 

[selfAdjoint]

We have a legal system that is built around the concept of personal responsibility. I think it is important not to push too far in seeking to justify this system with abstract philosophy. If literal free will is abandoned, and the legal system is not somehow insulated from that result, chaos could result. What if juries came to believe that we're all just robots and nobody is responsible?

I personally have a lot of trouble with literal free will. I could see a deterministic universe where everything is predictable, or a random universe where nothing is predictable, but not a universe that makes a big exception for human free will, being deterministic EXCEPT when we excercise our wills.

 

[dschouten]

That's the question. Let's just clear up the notion that 'determined' refers to the physical nature of the universe and not to some higher power who planned all this out for us.

Who cares what factors play the determining role. Everything is determined and that's all we need to 'know' (although I would argue that this isn't knowledge, but a clever fallacy).

As for the suggestion that the absence of free will implies that morality is 'moot', that could be a slippery slope.

Who cares how slippery the slope is? If its the only slope we have - taking that we have no free will, of course - then you have to take what you get and ski down it. To simply shy away from the consequences of a statement without renegging the statement is capricious and shilly-shally.

This is precisely why the argument that we have no free will is so absurd.

I say that the universe is determined but I 'feel' like I am making choices, and for all intensive purposes that 'feeling' is real. That is why ethics continues to be important. Is it immoral if you kill me? Yes. Why? Because on our level of limited perception choices are still real, even if they are not real on a level which we could (probably) never comprehend.

Let me get this straight. What you are saying is that our choices are determined, but we'll never know that they are, hence our 'limited perception'.

But wait! You've just said they are determined! So now I know that they are determined, when in fact this knowledge is beyond my comprehension. I'm dying in a recursive logical loop! Woe is me.

 

[dschouten]

We have a legal system that is built around the concept of personal responsibility. I think it is important not to push too far in seeking to justify this system with abstract philosophy. If literal free will is abandoned, and the legal system is not somehow insulated from that result, chaos could result. What if juries came to believe that we're all just robots and nobody is responsible?

I personally have a lot of trouble with literal free will. I could see a deterministic universe where everything is predictable, or a random universe where nothing is predictable, but not a universe that makes a big exception for human free will, being deterministic EXCEPT when we excercise our wills.

Maybe we'll just have to accept that the universe is comprised of more than chance stellar explosions. Once this (obvious) notion is granted, free will is suddenly less strange.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nobody has to concede anything where no evidence is presented. Your "more" may be obvious to you, but not to tohers.

 

[dschouten]

Right then. I can't FORCE you to believe anything, but when you incredulously exclaim that you cannot accept free will, even though there are serious flaws in refusing to do so, then it is perfectly acceptable for one such as myself to point you towards a solution to your conundrum. Clearly, you are in state of limbo here, and adamantly refusing any intuition or advice from others on the grounds that you prefer not to discuss their implications is not a wise course of action.

Seriously man, think about it. Don't just talk - think. Ponder. Is there any alternative?

 

[hitssquad]

Retributive justice vs being adult

What if juries came to believe that we're all just robots and nobody is responsible?

Retributive justice might end, and all crime might end with it.

We do not hold our cars and computers responsible for their actions, so we manage their programming in such a way that their actions minimally harm us.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I actually believe in this, I just wonder if it could ever be implemented. I think the only reason to imprison anybody is because they have a "design defect" which makes them dangerous. And prison should not be a deliberately dismal, cruel, or dangerous place, since that obviously doesn't work, either in preventing or in reforming.

And there is absolutely no justification for capital punishment.

 

[kcballer21]

dschouten: Who cares what factors play the determining role. Everything is determined and that's all we need to 'know' (although I would argue that this isn't knowledge, but a clever fallacy).

I concede that a deterministic universe may be a clever fallacy. i don't 'know' the universe is determined, it is my opinion based on the information I have reviewed. The difference is I base my claim on something that is scientifically plausible (I'll borrow Dissident Dan's quote "Our thoughts are brain processes. These processes involve the transfer of momentum. If these momenta transfers are not the predetermined result of prior states, then conservation is violated. Therefore, the momenta transfers must be the predetermined results of prior states, according to the laws of physics. If these momenta transfers are predetermined, then one's thoughts are predetermined.") I once thought that free will was saved by the uncertainties of quantum mechanics, but then was convinced that the end result of any quantum occurrence could just be another variable in what ends up as determined.

Who cares how slippery the slope is? If its the only slope we have - taking that we have no free will, of course - then you have to take what you get and ski down it. To simply shy away from the consequences of a statement without renegging the statement is capricious and shilly-shally.

I said the consequences of a determined universe are not the loss of moral standards, how is that shying away?.. it is in direct contrast with what you said. For me the question is not whether the universe is determined, the question is how is it that we feel we have 'free will' if it doesn't exist?

Let me get this straight. What you are saying is that our choices are determined, but we'll never know that they are, hence our 'limited perception'. But wait! You've just said they are determined! So now I know that they are determined, when in fact this knowledge is beyond my comprehension. I'm dying in a recursive logical loop! Woe is me.

No, I said we do 'know' (given that all things are based in causality) that the universe is determined. What we don't know is how to calculate all interactions that ultimately lead to our brain making a 'choice'. Therefore free will is an illusion and a convincing one at that, you think you have it. Intuition may have the best of you. Also the fact that you ‘know’ something exist does not mean it is within your comprehension. Can you comprehend infinity? We can conceive of a universe with 11 space-time dimensions but can you comprehend it?

 

[dschouten]

I concede that a deterministic universe may be a clever fallacy. i don't 'know' the universe is determined, it is my opinion based on the information I have reviewed. The difference is I base my claim on something that is scientifically plausible (I'll borrow Dissident Dan's quote "Our thoughts are brain processes. These processes involve the transfer of momentum. If these momenta transfers are not the predetermined result of prior states, then conservation is violated. Therefore, the momenta transfers must be the predetermined results of prior states, according to the laws of physics. If these momenta transfers are predetermined, then one's thoughts are predetermined.") I once thought that free will was saved by the uncertainties of quantum mechanics, but then was convinced that the end result of any quantum occurrence could just be another variable in what ends up as determined.

This is an intrinsically classical picture, inherently modernist, and thus quite 'debunkable'. There is no modern physical law which asserts that, given some ensemble of particles with a given momentum and position, one can extrapolate forwards or backwards and determine the particles' positions and momenta for all time. To apply conservation laws in an argument favoring determinism, you would have to apply such a rule (which is known not to exist) and so I leave it to you (or Dissident Dan) to derive and proove one. A brief study in quantum statistical mechanics should illuminate your mind sufficiently in this regard.

I said the consequences of a determined universe are not the loss of moral standards, how is that shying away?.. it is in direct contrast with what you said. For me the question is not whether the universe is determined, the question is how is it that we feel we have 'free will' if it doesn't exist?

No. What you said was "as for the suggestion that the absence of free will implies that morality is 'moot', that could be a slippery slope". Either you misspoke, or upon reminder of some sound argument you shifted your original claims to avoid being caught spending time in a 'clever fallacy'.

No, I said we do 'know' (given that all things are based in causality) that the universe is determined. What we don't know is how to calculate all interactions that ultimately lead to our brain making a 'choice'. Therefore free will is an illusion and a convincing one at that, you think you have it. Intuition may have the best of you. Also the fact that you ‘know’ something exist does not mean it is within your comprehension. Can you comprehend infinity? We can conceive of a universe with 11 space-time dimensions but can you comprehend it?

You've missed my point. Neglecting our comprehension of determinism, there exists a simple dichotomy: either we know that what we are doing is predetermined or we don't.
Allow me to provide an (albeit lame) example: I don't need a PhD in physical chemistry to know that fire is hot when I touch it - I only need to burn my hand once. Similarly, I don't need to understand a completely predetermined universe (as if such a thing existed) to 'know' that everything I do is predetermined. Regardless of the clever ruses we invoke to convince ourselves of our own free will, if I 'knew' that it wasn't free will, then THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW.
Therefore, armed with this new 'knowledge' I can have the following conversation with myself, and anyone who would care to listen:
ME: "Is it immoral if you kill me?"
ME: "No."
ME: "Why not?"
ME: "Because on our level of limited perception choices are known not to be real, even if they seem to be real on a level which we can comprehend."

 

[dschouten]

And there is absolutely no justification for capital punishment.

Who needs to justify that which is predetermined?

 

[kcballer21]

dschouten,
Before I go any further with this I would like to know how you qualify your stance that there is such a thing as free will? (That is, before I spend the next 2 years studying quantum mechanics statistical analysis, what's your argument?) From what you said it seems like the only reason free-will must be true is because otherwise we would all for some reason start killing each other. Perhaps your 'simple dichotomy' isn't so simple.

Let me state that I am not biased toward a deterministic universe, in fact if there is any bias it is for free-will. That is part of my hesitation to accept free-will, it seems so fundamental on a human level that it makes me question the reality of it. It seems that the more advanced our knowledge becomes, the distance between our intuition and reality grows greater.

(I brace for the onslaught)

 

[dschouten]

Before I go any further with this I would like to know how you qualify your stance that there is such a thing as free will? (That is, before I spend the next 2 years studying quantum mechanics statistical analysis, what's your argument?) From what you said it seems like the only reason free-will must be true is because otherwise we would all for some reason start killing each other. Perhaps your 'simple dichotomy' isn't so simple.

Not really. What I said (or indeed, meant to say) was that the insolubility of free will within our generally accepted framework of morality is untenable. We have to drop one or the other. In my (limited) experience, whenever the most obvious truths such as the injustice of murder are juxtaposed against theories which implicate alternatives to these truths, proponents of the theories often make lousy excuses to prop them (that is, their theories) back up. I don't accept this escapism. If you are going to really assert that we have no free will than you must assert that there is no moral standard (or even a loose moral standard). That's NOT to say that if we had no free will then we would all kill each other. It IS to say that if we had no free will, we could never argue against killing each other.

Let me state that I am not biased toward a deterministic universe, in fact if there is any bias it is for free-will. That is part of my hesitation to accept free-will, it seems so fundamental on a human level that it makes me question the reality of it. It seems that the more advanced our knowledge becomes, the distance between our intuition and reality grows greater.

Just take whatever empirical data is at your fingertips and decide (inductively) with what you have. If you are waiting for some physical proof for or against free will, I would offer the advice 'don't hold your breath'.

(I brace for the onslaught)

It wasn't that bad. I try to keep my virtual tongue on a short leash.

 

[dschouten]

Now for the proof of free will: I decided to write this.

The end.