Is Free Will Possible in a Deterministic Universe?

[Pythagorean]

Words from Wiki that I agree with. Basically, stochastic systems are likely systems where our modeling fails because there's so much parameter space to search through that it's unlikely we'll find the parameter range in which a deterministic model exhibits chaos. Thus it appears random to us (due to a lack of a priori knowledge) and stochastic modeling is more time-efficient.

Many mathematical models of physical systems are deterministic. This is true of most models involving differential equations (notably, those measuring rate of change over time). Mathematical models that are not deterministic because they involve randomness are called stochastic. Because of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, some deterministic models may appear to behave non-deterministically; in such cases, a deterministic interpretation of the model may not be useful due to numerical instability and a finite amount of precision in measurement. Such considerations can motivate the consideration of a stochastic model even though the underlying system is governed by deterministic equations.

Wiki's references (appealing to authorities of philosophy and math):

Werndl, Charlotte (2009). Are Deterministic Descriptions and Indeterministic Descriptions Observationally Equivalent?. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40, 232-242.
Werndl, Charlotte (2009). Deterministic Versus Indeterministic Descriptions: Not That Different After All?. In: A. Hieke and H. Leitgeb (eds), Reduction, Abstraction, Analysis, Proceedings of the 31st International Ludwig Wittgenstein-Symposium. Ontos, 63-78.

J. Glimm, D. Sharp, Stochastic Differential Equations: Selected Applications in Continuum Physics, in: R.A. Carmona, B. Rozovskii (ed.) Stochastic Partial Differential Equations: Six Perspectives, American Mathematical Society (October 1998) (ISBN 0-8218-0806-0).

 

[Pythagorean]

as a side note, I'm currently scanning the parameter space of the Morris Lecar model (a neuron model) for chaos. Others have had luck simply adding random noise:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ml7701701xv1l25j/

To me, this isn't very helpful. If the result came from tuning physically meaningful parameters, than we can begin to make some statement about the system to test, but by adding random noise, all we can do is log the observation.

We can also say that the noise simulates each neuron being in a slightly geographic position, due to their history and interaction with their environment (which have fully deterministic causality, but there are obviously technical difficulties in being able to sense, store, and crunch this information).

 

[imiyakawa]

Of course. There are two interpretations. Markov or Brownian properties may be fully determined (for macroscopic Markov walks, but for Brownian motion I'm not so sure) underneath but are labeled stochastic. Or any system with a statistical "random variable".

The other interpretation of the word is as a synonym for actual randomness/indeterminacy. (Search stochastic quantum dynamics, or stochastic interpretations.)

I was employing the latter definition. I should have used the word indeterminate for specificity.

It's kind of like statisticians calling a coin flip random, physicists calling it determined (forgetting the debate about any free will that preceded the toss.).

Modern self-labeled materialists acknowledge the possibility (or probability, depending on personal inclination) of indeterminate quantum phenomena, and this implies that those individuals do not perceive an inherent implication of determinism.

 

[Pythagorean]

I hear what you're saying imiyakawa

I should also add that it's completely possible there may be some indeterminate systems and phenomena that are necessary for determinism to take place.

Regardless of whether truly random systems exist or not, I don't think there's any lack of deterministic processes in the universe.

It's quite possible that they co-exist, but I don't think whole phenomena, like consciousness or the weather are completely random. I think all systems are, for the most part, deterministic.

 

[imiyakawa]

I think all systems are, for the most part, deterministic.

Exactly. I'd even port this to systems we would intuitively call micro. The determinism evolves on top of the system due to the lack of coherence of superpositions as well as the non-existence of a compounding/chaotic effect when individual wavefunctions reduce to an unlikely state space value (you may say an "unprobabilistic "collapse"").

I'm noob at QM, so someone may like to clean that up, but I think you get the drift.

As for the exact wording of your quote, we need to specify it. From human's perspectives, the endogenous (resultant) of the system will essentially be determined (until someone says otherwise, and I am open to this.) I guess we can say the future probability distributions of the system are determined (by the laws of coupling, shroedinger eq'n, etc) with some outcomes [from the perspective of the endogenous only] being much more probable [or definite?].

The actual system at the subatomic/atomic level (and not viewed from the macro perspective) is another story.

 

[Pythagorean]

Exactly. I'd even port this to systems we would intuitively call micro. The determinism evolves on top of the system due to the lack of coherence of superpositions as well as the non-existence of a compounding/chaotic effect when individual wavefunctions reduce to an unlikely state space value (you may say an "unprobabilistic "collapse"").

I'm noob at QM, so someone may like to clean that up, but I think you get the drift.

As for the exact wording of your quote, we need to specify it. From human's perspectives, the endogenous (resultant) of the system will essentially be determined (until someone says otherwise, and I am open to this.) I guess we can say the future probability distributions of the system are determined (by the laws of coupling, shroedinger eq'n, etc) with some outcomes [from the perspective of the endogenous only] being much more probable [or definite?].

The actual system at the subatomic/atomic level (and not viewed from the macro perspective) is another story.

Well, speaking of perspectives, I'm a n00b at QM too, despite taking a full year formal course in it. My professor, however, presented QM as a deterministic science. I try not to make a habit of trying to speak philosophically of QM, because I don't really understand it holistically.

Anyway, the concept of determinism as it applies in the sciences is generally meant to be void of human perspective. That is, a deterministic system will evolve in the same way every time as long as the initial conditions are exactly the same (and the system is isolated, of course). This should happen regardless of human opinion.

In other words, the ideal "determinism" is not really about what humans can or can't determine (though it is obviously limited by it).

 

[GeorgCantor]

Lets be clear, you have absolutely no idea what I believe, as I haven't discussed it on this site, or with you.

Reading your posts I had the impression you agreed with apeiron's position that free will is illusory. A self that negates itself is an oxymoron and could not serve as the basis for a logical argument. The "freewill is an illusion" conclusion is actually a spectacular failure on part of the researchers involved and their methodology, not something to be proud of. Anything that we can't explain, well...it doesn't exist - how cute. Magnetism doesn't exist, quantum entanglement doesn't exist, wave-particle duality doesn't exist, self-awareness doesn't exist, existence is also an illusion, reality doesn't exist, relative spacetime as well doesn't exist. I can't explain why anything exists, oh well I forgot, it doesn't. Talk about killing threads.

 

[apeiron]

Reading your posts I had the impression you agreed with apeiron's position that free will is illusory.

I wish you would quit saying I believe freewill is an illusion. I said it is a social construction, which is something quite real.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I wish you would quit saying I believe freewill is an illusion. I said it is a social construction, which is something quite real.

So it's pre-determined by the environmental, societal and physical influences, but you are saying it's somehow freewill?

 

[nismaratwork]

Reading your posts I had the impression you agreed with apeiron's position that free will is illusory. A self that negates itself is an oxymoron and could not serve as the basis for a logical argument. The "freewill is an illusion" conclusion is actually a spectacular failure on part of the researchers involved and their methodology, not something to be proud of. Anything that we can't explain, well...it doesn't exist - how cute. Magnetism doesn't exist, quantum entanglement doesn't exist, wave-particle duality doesn't exist, self-awareness doesn't exist, existence is also an illusion, reality doesn't exist, relative spacetime as well doesn't exist. I can't explain why anything exists, oh well I forgot, it doesn't. Talk about killing threads.

You're completely wrong about my views, given that the one thing I did imply on page one is that I don't believe in determinism... I was debating that with apeiron actually. You didn't read before you snapped to your judgment without cause, and I am also not a purely logical positivist / empiricist. My belief in free-will is not well grounded by the standards of this forum however, which is why after briefly debating an analogy with apeiron, I didn't pursue the point beyond my depth. My only aim in later pages came from, as I said, a desire to see another user stop dancing around the basis for their beliefs and provide something more concrete in accordance with PF.

Having come to this, I will say that my beliefs are probably functionally similar to apeiron, in that I don't believe that humans have the kind of free-will usually discussed by courts of law (as referenced earlier). I believe that we have a great deal of biological baggage, the baggage of how we are nurtured, and the circumstances in which we find ourselves. If I were not an atheist, I suspect my philosophy would tend towards dualism. As it is, I don't presume that people are capable of finding these kinds of answers, so when the discussions leave the realm of the academic, and move into that of deeply held beliefs, I tend to back off.

As an example of free will, consider symbolic acts of self-immolation: what options did that person have? They could have overcome their morality in favor of a desire to live and:

-Kept their heads down regarding the issue at hand.
-Switched sides so to speak, and attempt to curry favor with the issue or regime.
-Left the field entirely to pursue the life of a hermit or other personal endeavors.
-OR... they could choose to end their certainty of existence in what they must know is a symbolic act.

I find it difficult to accept such an act as anything other than mentally ill, or a profound act of free will. They have chosen to NOT be a tree, or rather, a burning bush. This is a superficial example of course, but it is a powerful one for me. It is contradicted by those driven by compulsions, benign or lethal however, and this individual act could be construed as deciding that the universe is neither homogeneous or isotropic based on examination of our solar system alone. I really don't know, so for me this is just a personal belief, much as your faith in a creator is, albeit mine is far more open to logical inquiry and is not certain.

Now, when you say that spacetime doesn't exist, I would say, "indeed not", because it is a model used to describe an underlying physical reality; it is an element of a theory and all of those are wrong as the saying goes. I am not a solipsist however, but when I operate within a certain set of guidelines, be they personal or mutually agreed upom, then I draw various conclusions. I don't require empirical evidence of spacetime, because I accept it as conditional, as I do all things. I don't believe that the lens through which humanity views the universe is so vast that it can ever deliver the answers we want. I have no problem with the ensuing revisions, and uncertainty, but see it as a healthy and constant evolution of thought.

That, is my personal philosophy: I have deep faith in ignorance and limitations, and I mistrust certainty.

 

[apeiron]

Anyway, the concept of determinism as it applies in the sciences is generally meant to be void of human perspective. That is, a deterministic system will evolve in the same way every time as long as the initial conditions are exactly the same (and the system is isolated, of course). This should happen regardless of human opinion.

Let's again make the distinction between reality and our models of reality. Our models are clearly "deterministic". That is just built into them as an axiom. If a, then b. It is the way we do maths and logic. We assume as a formal model that this must lead to that which must lead to the next, in strict step by step fashion.

But the map is not the terrain. Reality may behave with sufficient regularity that deterministic models give us simple maps. But what may underly that superficial regularity could be a more complex causality. And we start to appreciated this fact when we start to look at reality on the scale of the very small and the very energetic.

So determinism (and randomness) are concrete features of our formal models. They are "real" in that epistemological sense. But we don't know them to be true of reality in an ontological sense. And indeed, as we stretch our observations, we find reality starting to behave in ways which don't conform to our simple maps.

Just consider the quantum zeno effect. This is equally troubling for a naive belief in either the determined or the random.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

 

[imiyakawa]

Does anyone here think the definition of free will through the prism of physics is applicable? That's the discussion I see to have more dire consequences.. Despite any correct set of premises that basically begs the question,

Georg, when you hear people deny free will in the total sense, it's highly likely they're talking about it from a physicist's perspective. This definition has achieved attention in the literature and so this is likely what you've heard, much to your dismay.

They're likely asserting that a third type of causality that would enable conscious causation (there are two ways of looking at conscious will, I'm talking from the physicist's perspective) has no reason to exist until demonstrated why a complex system that has "emergent properties" can lead to this [this doesn't include a type of law that enacts on the level that consciousness 'arises', if it does actually arise on a particular 'level', as it is still determined [not literally, perhaps] by laws][/size]. They also assert that the illusion of it is no issue as consciousness doesn't emerge on the fundamental level.

 

[The riddler]

No one really knows if the universe is deterministic or random (simples).

But with free-will I am not sure. Answers.com defines free-will as "the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies" but we're effected by external agencies when we make desicisions all the time. For example, I dare whoever is reading this reply to put your fist through your computer screen right now, you wouldn't do it (i assume) due to the following reasons:

1. You'd probably have to spend money buying another one from some company
2. Over the years the world has taught you that it would be a stupid thing to do
3. Anyone in the room with you would think you were nuts causing you to become sociable upset
4. You might hurt your hand

Reason 2 is based on what exeternal agencies have taught you since you were very young (Causing a perminent effect). Some people may suggest that reasons 3 and 4 do count as free-will because they are based on nature, but is that not an external agency in itself?

 

[brainstorm]

But with free-will I am not sure. Answers.com defines free-will as "the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies" but we're effected by external agencies when we make desicisions all the time.

I hear the argument repeatedly that the impossibility of absolute freedom means that freedom is absolutely impossible. That's a logical mistake. Relative freedom is still freedom. It's an ingredient in the mix. Then you have to look at the extent to which free-will is constrained or influenced by other factors. I don't think anyone would claim that free-will has absolute power over everything, but then who would argue that free-will has no effect on anything either?

 

[nismaratwork]

I hear the argument repeatedly that the impossibility of absolute freedom means that freedom is absolutely impossible. That's a logical mistake. Relative freedom is still freedom. It's an ingredient in the mix. Then you have to look at the extent to which free-will is constrained or influenced by other factors. I don't think anyone would claim that free-will has absolute power over everything, but then who would argue that free-will has no effect on anything either?

People who believe in a completely deterministic universe, fates, and so forth. In other words, anyone who thinks that a god writes a destiny for them, or that the initial conditions at the BB did the same. I don't believe that, but plenty do, and their concept of free-will combined with fate obviates the element of freedom.

 

[imiyakawa]

I don't believe that, but plenty do, and their concept of free-will combined with fate obviates the element of freedom.

How does randomness make it any better? A physicist I've spoken to says the future probability distributions of any system of wave functions is determined under a random interpretation, as the values in complex state space are determined (I'm not sure about HUP). It seems the best you can have is random & determined will. The outlook for a brain consciousness is just as bleak under both models. Neither has consciousness as a self-causal property, which is required for the free will that people on the street think they have (the ability to do otherwise - "emergence" and "downwards causation", i.e. the ability to either bias the brain's future probability distributions or bias what has to be under determinism). I don't see such a definition of free will to be possible under materialism.

I'm not talking about apeiron's, Georg's, brainstorm's definitions of free will.

In closing, randomness in the quantum realm is JUST as bad for free will as pure determinism. Neither gives a causally efficacious will.

However, as I've said, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, apeiron's, Georg's, and brainstorm's definitions of free will are valid.

This is not an invalid definition of free will. It has received substantive coverage in the literature. See wikipedia, consc.net, Kim's 2005 book has a nice section on this.

 

[GeorgCantor]

People here seem to consistently forget that the WHOLE notion of causality is under question and in certain interpretations Determinism actually plays NO role. What Bell and Aspect proved was that determinism is very likely a fairytale. Now don't go multiversing on me before we can settle that at least 1 universe exists before i look/measure or potentially inquire about it.

If anyone is able to see the so-called God's view of the universe in their mind and is NOT majorly confused, he/she is not only deeply wrong about it, they have failed to grasp the fundamentals of what science is suggesting.

 

[imiyakawa]

People here seem to consistently forget that the WHOLE notion of causality is under question and in certain interpretations Determinism actually plays NO role. What Bell and Aspect proved was that determinism is very likely a fairytale.

That's true.. Randomness could be (or is, by definition?) acausal.

Do you think self-causation of consciousness, assuming physicalism (i.e. no "soul"), is possible? Even logically possible?

 

[Pythagorean]

apeiron:

It's generally assumed that we're making guesses about the territory based on the map. In general, that's what philosophy is (where science is more in the business of map-making).

 

[GeorgCantor]

Do you think self-causation of consciousness, assuming physicalism (i.e. no "soul"), is possible? Even logically possible?

If we denounce realism, we are left with "esse ist percipi", or as George Berkeley would say - Are we but thoughts in the Mind of God?

Do you see another possibility? Bolzmann brains?

 

[apeiron]

It's generally assumed that we're making guesses about the territory based on the map. In general, that's what philosophy is (where science is more in the business of map-making).

Personally, I don't see a huge difference between philosophy and science (done properly!). Both can be described epistemologically as a modelling relation with the world.

http://www.panmere.com/?page_id=18

Philosophy is more generalised or meta. So science is making the map of this actual world, and philosophy is dreaming about the map of all possible worlds perhaps.

Science tightly ties the models to the observations. Philosophy generalises from the specifically observed to create ideas about general objects. And also generalises the logic of formal models so as to suggest general truths.

Taking a systems science view of anything, I would have a general philosophical map which says it must be organised as a local~global hierarchy and persist as a structure due to some throughput of entropy.

Or if I was taking a mechanical view of anything, I would have a different map of its probable structure - any structure would be composed of a set of definite atoms with intrinsic properties.

 

[brainstorm]

People who believe in a completely deterministic universe, fates, and so forth. In other words, anyone who thinks that a god writes a destiny for them, or that the initial conditions at the BB did the same. I don't believe that, but plenty do, and their concept of free-will combined with fate obviates the element of freedom.

You can have a deterministic system without free-will that still is not pre-destined in any planned sense. Think of a tennis ball falling down through the branches of a tree. It can bounce in various directions, run into leaves, the wind blows it, etc. such that each interaction with other matter changes the path it takes to the next deterministic bounce or brush with leaves. Still, the ball doesn't have free-will in any sense. It's just the cocktail of deterministic forces it is subject to at any moment are partly the product of coincidence and randomness in the last deterministic impulse. You can't predict the path the ball will take, but it's not because it is exercising free-will.

 

[imiyakawa]

You can have a deterministic system without free-will that still is not pre-destined in any planned sense. Think of a tennis ball falling down through the branches of a tree. It can bounce in various directions, run into leaves, the wind blows it, etc. such that each interaction with other matter changes the path it takes to the next deterministic bounce or brush with leaves. Still, the ball doesn't have free-will in any sense. It's just the cocktail of deterministic forces it is subject to at any moment are partly the product of coincidence and randomness in the last deterministic impulse. You can't predict the path the ball will take, but it's not because it is exercising free-will.

You're mixing unpredictability (in practice only) with randomness.

In a deterministic world, it is determined! That ball's path is determined. Everything is determined. You think the universe didn't know the wind was coming and it "slipped" or something?

Chaos never implies fundamental indeterminacy.

 

[JoeDawg]

You think the universe didn't know...

This, in my opinion, is one of the problems with understanding determinism.
No, the universe did not know. The universe doesn't know anything and certainly not ahead of time. You are anthropomorphising, and this only confuses the issue.

Initial conditions merely lead, causally, to resulting conditions.
Knowledge is a separate issue.

Put more simply, the causal chain does not imply purpose, or direction.

If a mobster pays a boxer to throw a fight, then the result of the fight is predetermined, even if most people predicted he would win and bet accordingly. What determines the winner however, in this case, is the ten count.
If a clumsy person with no training enters the ring against a champion, that would be an example of fate. No amount of effort on that person's part would make them win. (Assuming they have no choice but to fight fair)

Chaos never implies fundamental indeterminacy

True.

 

[GeorgCantor]

This, in my opinion, is one of the problems with understanding determinism.
No, the universe did not know. The universe doesn't know anything and certainly not ahead of time. You are anthropomorphising, and this only confuses the issue.

Huh? What is the Universe in your opinion?! And how do you know it?

People are naive and like to assume, assume, assume... People now think they know everything. But the only thing they still don't know is that they actually don't know ANYTHING.

People always need someone to give it to them point blank, like "Sorry people, realism is wrong, there is no universe..."


You need to go back and rethink the double slit experiment done with C60 molecules and what it says about the assumption of objective reality. Molecules, atoms, and matter only have definite properties when you look, measure and inquire about them(this is also confirmed by the quantum eraser experiment, Bell's theorem, the HUP, the EPR, etc...).

Now we can sit down and talk about the most SERIOUS issue there could ever be before humanity - what the Hell is really going on?

Initial conditions merely lead, causally, to resulting conditions.

Naivety is the other name of humanity.

 

[imiyakawa]

No, the universe did not know.

Lol! Of course I didn't mean it literally! Just for purposes of exposition.

People are naive and like to assume, assume, assume...

Joe simply said that a deterministic physical universe doesn't possesses the human semantic category of knowledge. That's all he's asserting. Of course it doesn't, unless the universe is aware. A prerequisite of knowledge is awareness.

If the universe isn't "real", then the universe cannot know, and so Joe is still correct.

Joe is not saying that the universe is deterministic. Joe is saying that a determined universe doesn't, as far as we know, posses knowledge.

 

[GeorgCantor]

If the universe isn't "real", then the universe cannot know, and so Joe is still correct.

Joe is not saying that the universe is deterministic. Joe is saying that a determined universe doesn't, as far as we know, posses knowledge.

I took issue with the anthropomorphising part and it's visible(I think) from what followed in my post about the 'real' universe and what it actually is.

 

[alt]

Huh? What is the Universe in your opinion?! And how do you know it?

People are naive and like to assume, assume, assume... People now think they know everything. But the only thing they still don't know is that they actually don't know ANYTHING.

Do people always need someone to give it to them point blank, like "Sorry people, realism is wrong, there is no universe..."?


You need to go back and rethink the double slit experiment done with C60 molecules and what it says about the assumption of objective reality. Molecules, atoms, and matter only have definite properties when you look, measure and inquire about them(this is also confirmed by the quantum eraser experiment, Bell's theorem, the HUP, the EPR, etc...).

Now we can sit down and talk about the most SERIOUS issue there could ever be before humanity - what the Hell is really going on?








Naivety is the other name of humanity.

what the Hell is really going on?

There is a giant melaluca (native gum tree) in my back yard. Probably about 40m high and 2m diameter at the base of the trunk. I visit it often. It is inhabited by a billion ants(more or less). I watch them as they go about their little lives in their little universe, furiously and incessantly rushing up and down the trunk.

Occasionally, I bang my fist on the trunk near their path. I suppose they would sense that, as I would sense a clap of thunder on my horizon.

Once I ripped off a piece of bark, and it came off in a large jagged sheet, causing much damage and havoc to the ants for some considerable time. I suppose to them, that would be as an earthquake would be to me, ripping the ground apart and rendering the Earth asunder.

Now we (they) can sit down and talk about the most SERIOUS issue there could ever be before humanity (antity) - what the Hell is really going on?

 

[nismaratwork]

what the Hell is really going on?

There is a giant melaluca (native gum tree) in my back yard. Probably about 40m high and 2m diameter at the base of the trunk. I visit it often. It is inhabited by a billion ants(more or less). I watch them as they go about their little lives in their little universe, furiously and incessantly rushing up and down the trunk.

Occasionally, I bang my fist on the trunk near their path. I suppose they would sense that, as I would sense a clap of thunder on my horizon.

Once I ripped off a piece of bark, and it came off in a large jagged sheet, causing much damage and havoc to the ants for some considerable time. I suppose to them, that would be as an earthquake would be to me, ripping the ground apart and rendering the Earth asunder.

Now we (they) can sit down and talk about the most SERIOUS issue there could ever be before humanity (antity) - what the Hell is really going on?

My takeaway from this is that I really don't want to be an ant on your gum tree! ;)

Brainstorm: Imiyakawa beat me to it, but I never said that unpredictability obviates free will, or that it implies free will. Unpredictability, randomness, deterministic, and probabilistic... these are issues on the table and they are distinct, if linked. QM is probabilistic, not deterministic, but it is not random, although within a given domain it can be unpredictable. Where your photon strikes a detector screen is unpredictable, the distribution over time is predictable at large scales (interference patterns), but overall it is probabilistic, not deterministic. Random would have to include the null result, and many more.

 

[GeorgCantor]

what the Hell is really going on?

There is a giant melaluca (native gum tree) in my back yard. Probably about 40m high and 2m diameter at the base of the trunk. I visit it often. It is inhabited by a billion ants(more or less). I watch them as they go about their little lives in their little universe, furiously and incessantly rushing up and down the trunk.

Occasionally, I bang my fist on the trunk near their path. I suppose they would sense that, as I would sense a clap of thunder on my horizon.

Once I ripped off a piece of bark, and it came off in a large jagged sheet, causing much damage and havoc to the ants for some considerable time. I suppose to them, that would be as an earthquake would be to me, ripping the ground apart and rendering the Earth asunder.

Now we (they) can sit down and talk about the most SERIOUS issue there could ever be before humanity (antity) - what the Hell is really going on?

I wouldn't spend much time worrying about what kind of reality de-localized, indefinite, unmeasured and non-existent ants would experience.

Can non-existent ants wonder - what the Hell is really going on?