If QM is true does free will exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Schrodinger's Dog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Free will Qm
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of quantum mechanics (QM) for the concepts of free will and determinism. Participants explore various interpretations of QM, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation and Many Worlds Theory, and how these relate to the nature of human decision-making and the existence of free will.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how the Copenhagen Interpretation and the dual nature of light as both a wave and a particle affect the debate on free will and determinism.
  • Others suggest that the Many Worlds Theory introduces complexities that may or may not concern the existence of free will.
  • One participant humorously claims that free will must exist to explain their own irrational actions.
  • Another participant argues that if nature is fundamentally random, as QM suggests, then free will does not exist.
  • Some participants differentiate between randomness and chaos, suggesting that QM implies a chaotic system where past and future are not predetermined, potentially allowing for free will.
  • One participant asserts that for free will to be meaningful, the future cannot be predetermined, but also notes that deterministic mechanisms in the brain could negate free will.
  • Another participant argues that quantum effects are confined to the submicroscopic domain and are irrelevant to the metaphysical question of free will.
  • Contrarily, a later reply claims that macroscopic quantum effects, such as superconductivity, indicate that quantum phenomena can influence larger systems.
  • One participant presents definitions of determinism, randomness, and free will in the context of QM, questioning whether humans possess free will or merely pseudo free will.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the relationship between QM and free will. Some argue for the existence of free will under certain interpretations of QM, while others maintain that determinism or randomness negates it. The discussion remains unresolved with competing perspectives on the implications of quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions, such as the nature of randomness and chaos, the influence of quantum effects on macroscopic phenomena, and the definitions of free will and determinism. These assumptions remain open to interpretation and debate.

Schrodinger's Dog
Messages
840
Reaction score
7
I'm not sure where to put this so I'll start here.

If we accept the posits of the Copenhagen Interpretation, or accept that light is both a wave and a particle, how does this affect the debate about free will and predeterminism or doesn't it and why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One may and may not worry more about the implications of the Many Worlds Theories. :biggrin:
 
Ivan Seeking said:
One may and may not worry more about the implications of the Many Worlds Theories. :biggrin:

:biggrin: I'm not to worried personally, but it's a nice idea, if not exactly scientific.
 
If QM is true does free will exist?
Yes - that is the only possibility that explains the stupid things that I do. :biggrin:

that light is both a wave and a particle, how does this affect the debate about free will and predeterminism or doesn't it and why?
It doesn't.
 
What are virtual particles, and what does it mean to be virtual?
 
Ivan Seeking said:
What are virtual particles, and what does it mean to be virtual?

You can imagine imaginary numbers. What is it in a name?
 
If nature is fundamentally random (as QM suggests, but in no way proves), then free will does not exist.
 
There's a difference between random and chaotic, QM suggests that fundementally everything is not only random but chaotic too, ie totally without rules, even the rule of the random, if I roll a dice there is an equal chance of 1 to 6 coming up, in the quantum world, often no one even knows the number of possible states that could be involved let alone whether there are finite possibilities, or how the rules work if there are any?

Some physisists posit that the future and the past don't exist only a quanta in time, put that with a chaotic QM, you have the possibility of free will, if the past or the future are not cast in stone, in fact don't even exist except as memories or as a conception or hope, then you have free will right there, so if you take the premise to be true then free will would be a natural consequence of a truly chaotic system with no set past or future. Anything could happen and given enough time probably will.
 
Last edited:
Hi Schrödinger,
I'd agree that in order for 'free will' to have any meaning at all, then the future can't be predetermined. But I think there's much more to it than that. Note that the future could be influenced by QM interactions, but if the human brain is strictly governed by deterministic mechanisms such as computationalism requires, then even if the future isn't determinate, all the thought processes the brain has certainly are. So in the coloquial sense, computationalism prohibits free will. This problem with computationalism has been cited by many, and I haven't seen any decent rebuttle.

What this says is that if free will is real, consciousness will need to incorporate QM. This problem with computationalism is just one of many.
 
  • #10
Schrödinger's Dog said:
If we accept the posits of the Copenhagen Interpretation, or accept that light is both a wave and a particle, how does this affect the debate about free will and predeterminism or doesn't it and why?
In my opinion it has no effect whatsoever.

The idea that our minds can be taken outside the realm of the wavefunction of the universe and above that being able to influence it is as absurd to me as the idea of some deity ruling the universe.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
QM suggests that fundementally everything is not only random but chaotic too, ie totally without rules,

This post shows confusion, and uses the techincal term 'chaos' in exactly the wrong sense. To clarify:

Random: Doesn't depend on anything.

Chaotic: Appears random but actually depends on some small number (n < 10) of variables.

I will add that QM is irrelevant to the metaphysical question of free will. Quantum effects are confined to the submicroscopic domain outside of carefully controlled laboratory experiments.
 
  • #12
Crosson said:
Quantum effects are confined to the submicroscopic domain
Not true. For example, superconductivity is a macroscopic quantum effect. In principle, every quantum effect can be realized at the macroscopic level as well, but in practice it is usually difficult to achieve this owing to the interaction with the environment that destroys quantum coherence.
 
  • #13
Crosson said:
This post shows confusion, and uses the techincal term 'chaos' in exactly the wrong sense. To clarify:

Random: Doesn't depend on anything.

Chaotic: Appears random but actually depends on some small number (n < 10) of variables.

I will add that QM is irrelevant to the metaphysical question of free will. Quantum effects are confined to the submicroscopic domain outside of carefully controlled laboratory experiments.

If a small effect on a microscopic scale such as a synapses tubuoles can be effected by the quantum(specifically QET) And enzymes in DNA use Quantum mechanical effects to more quickly find genes to replicate, aren't we seeing something at the x level that could given enough time effect the macro level.

In fact if you have probability a, given enough time couldn't the quantum turn it into probability b, then where is predeterminism? One single effect in the history of humans that should of been x becomes y, how does this effect the predetermined, particularly if there is no past and future? Since it's now on a track that can't lead to the predetermined, and it was truly random.

Also if there is no future or past, where does that leave causality anyway? slightly less well refined perhaps?
 
  • #14
PHYSICS FORUMS
Quote From Sd01g
IMO Best saying ever

Sometimes it is best to step back from the equations and observe what is really happening.
 
  • #15
This is from another thread talking about how freewill and determinism are affected by QM. Here are some definitions I got from reading the thread:

Wizardsblade said:
1) Determinism- QM's statically nature is, as random as it seems, is controlled by a hidden variable (something we can not discern at this time).

2) Randomness or pseudo freewill- QM's stastical nature is truly random and, therefore so are our choices.

3) Freewill- QM's statically nature is governed by something we control. Our will controls our decisions and therefore it will control which quantum paths to take. And as I said this would require something beyond the physical universe, call it what you will.

Both humans and computers with QRNGs (quantum random number generators) would not possesses freewill but rather pseudo freewill.

So do humans have an organic QRNG?
Are my definitions suitable for this discussion? (If not please help redefine them)
Can an experiment (real or thought) be devised to test these definitions?
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Is there any interpretation of QM that doesn't clash with intuition?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Graduate QM Eigenstates and the Notion of Motion
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
6K
Undergrad Are Copenhagen and Blockworld Interpretations Compatible in Quantum Mechanics?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Undergrad Relational QM question from Rovelli's book Helgoland
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
Undergrad What Are the Key Questions and Challenges in Understanding Quantum Gravity?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad A Heuristic View of QM: Axioms & Gleason's Theorem
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Undergrad Questions Regarding Free Particles - Griffith's QM (I)
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad Pilot Wave Theory: Against the Rest of Quantum Mechanics?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad The missing 3D magnetism theory
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
772
Graduate Collapse in QM: in conflict with SR?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K