No. Free only means that it is determined by nothing else than the person whose free will is under discussion, not that it is not determined at all!Demystifier said:If the behavior is deterministic then it's not free
With that definition of "free", a human is not more free than a robot. I don't think it is what most people mean by "free".A. Neumaier said:No. Free only means that it is determined by nothing else than the person whose free will is under discussion, not that it is not determined at all!
This is the position that Sam Harris outlines in his book titled "Free Will". He makes some reference to Heisenberg (I think it was Heisenberg, I must re-read it) and other "compatbilists". It's one of the reasons I'm interested to find out what role - if any - free will plays in QM. It's an interesting topic!Demystifier said:Neither deterministic nor probabilistic fundamental laws are compatible with a true free will. If the behavior is deterministic that it's not free, if the behavior is probabilistic then it's not controlled by a will.
Compatibilism is an attitude that I never understood.Lynch101 said:He makes some reference to Heisenberg (I think it was Heisenberg, I must re-read it) and other "compatbilists".
A. Neumaier said:No. Free only means that it is determined by nothing else than the person whose free will is under discussion, not that it is not determined at all!
I can't remember the details of it now, I need to go back over itDemystifier said:Compatibilism is an attitude that I never understood.
This is indeed the philosophical position of strong AI.Demystifier said:With that definition of "free", a human is not more free than a robot.
But it is consistent with what most people mean by "free". Most people have reasonable motives for their free decisions; the motives together with the external constraints determine the decisions. The minority for which this is not the case are considered to be whimsical or psychotic by their surrounding.Demystifier said:I don't think it is what most people mean by "free".
A. Neumaier said:No. Free only means that it is determined by nothing else than the person whose free will is under discussion, not that it is not determined at all!
Really? Many of those are atheists who believe that everything is purely the result of the natural laws encoded into quantum mechanics. We don't have interpretations of quantum mechanics other than either stochastic or deterministic.mattt said:Most people that believe in Free Will, will reject the explanation that everything they do is the result of a deterministic or stochastic process.
I know, but that's the way they feel, and that's what they say they believe.A. Neumaier said:Really? Many of those are atheists who believe that everything is purely the result of the natural laws encoded into quantum mechanics. We don't have interpretations of quantum mechanics other than either stochastic or deterministic.
This just means that they don't care about (or are confused about) the consistency of their beliefs. Most people are inconsistent in their beliefs. Rationality is exercised only where convenient.mattt said:I know, but that's the way they feel, and that's what they say they believe.
That's what they say, I have had hundreds of conversations along these lines with all kinds of people that believe that they have Free Will, no matter if they are scientist or not, religious or not.
A. Neumaier said:This just means that they don't care about (or are confused about) the consistency of their beliefs. Most people are inconsistent in their beliefs. Rationality is exercised only where convenient.
Loosely speaking, yes, I do think that. I think my free will is just an a posteriori interpretation of my acts, emerging from my inability to pinpoint to the exact reason why have I chosen this rather than that.A. Neumaier said:Do you really think that a child is not free in its decisions just because we can predict that it will say yes when it is asked whether it likes to have ice cream?
Ah, so according to you, the freedom of will is not in the actions (which may well be perfectly determined by Nature) but how you interpret them a posteriori. This is of course also a resolution of the problem!?Demystifier said:I think my free will is just an a posteriori interpretation of my acts, emerging from my inability to pinpoint to the exact reason why have I chosen this rather than that.
In my opinion, yes.A. Neumaier said:Ah, so according to you, the freedom of will is not in the actions (which may well be perfectly determined by Nature) but how you interpret them a posteriori. This is of course also a resolution of the problem!?
Demystifier said:I think my free will is just an a posteriori interpretation of my acts, emerging from my inability to pinpoint to the exact reason why have I chosen this rather than that.
A. Neumaier said:so according to you, the freedom of will is not in the actions (which may well be perfectly determined by Nature) but how you interpret them a posteriori. This is of course also a resolution of the problem!?
Is your a posteriori interpretation of your acts a mental activity in the Platonic worlds of ideas, independent of quantum physical laws?Demystifier said:In my opinion, yes.
At the fundamental level it isn't, but at the emergent level it may look so.A. Neumaier said:Is your a posteriori interpretation of your acts a mental activity in the Platonic worlds of ideas, independent of quantum physical laws?
So at the fundamental level, there is no free will in your sense?Demystifier said:At the fundamental level it isn't, but at the emergent level it may look so.
That's right. But of course, there is "free will" in the sense of post #2.A. Neumaier said:So at the fundamental level, there is no free will in your sense?
Demystifier said:Compatibilism is an attitude that I never understood.
Demystifier said:I think my free will is just an a posteriori interpretation of my acts, emerging from my inability to pinpoint to the exact reason why have I chosen this rather than that.
Exactly. I would even go that far to say that Copehagen interpretation is not a stochastic interpretation. Truly stochastic interpretations are GRW interpretation and Nelson interpretation.DarMM said:Just to say quantum theory taken as a probability theory is more than just stochastic. A quantum system constitutes a stochastic process only when provided with another system to define the space of outcomes. With no second system a given quantum system isn't even random, there are no events in the formalism under such a scenario.
Could it be interpreted by saying that free will is an emergent higher level phenomenon, like e.g. a tiger? At the fundamental microscopic level there is no free will and there are no tigers, but at the higher level of organization of matter there are structures that can be interpreted as free wills or as tigers. If that's what compatibilism means, then I'm OK with it.PeterDonis said:One way of looking at it is that it is just recognizing what the terms "I" or "you" and "free will" actually refer to. You are not some abstract disembodied essence with magical powers. You are a physical thing, made of physical parts, that obey physical laws. So of course any interpretation of "free will" is going to have to be compatible with those facts, and any valid referent of the term "free will" is going to have to be some physical process going on in the physical system that is "you".
And compatibilism is simply the view that if your acts can be validly given such an interpretation, then they are acts of free will. You don't have to have magical non-physical powers to have free will.
Another way of putting it would be to say that the kind of "free will" I have just described, while it might not be what many people thought they meant by "free will", is still sufficient, because it gives us all the capability we need in practice to have the things that "free will" is supposed to give us.
But Born got in 1954 the Nobel prize ''for his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction''!Demystifier said:I would even go that far to say that Copenhagen interpretation is not a stochastic interpretation.
statistical ##\neq## stochasticA. Neumaier said:But Born got in 1954 the Nobel prize ''for his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction''!
The former is based on the latter:Demystifier said:statistical ##\neq## stochastic
Well, it's a matter of semantics. When I say "stochastic", what I have in mind is a stochastic process, meaning something akin to Wiener process, Brownian motion, Ito calculus, etc.A. Neumaier said:The former is based on the latter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_model
''in a statistical model specified via mathematical equations, some of the variables do not have specific values, but instead have probability distributions; i.e. some of the variables are stochastic.''
One has that also in a sequence of quantum measurements...Demystifier said:Well, it's a matter of semantics. When I say "stochastic", what I have in mind is a stochastic process, meaning something akin to Wiener process, Brownian motion, Ito calculus, etc.