A simple explanation of free will.

[ryan]

Would you mind providing this evidence of hidden variables?

Since you claim to have overwhelming evidence of determinism, would you be able to use that knowledge to predict/determine - beforehand - which slit a single photon goes through and the known mechanism that causes it to go through that particular slit?

You cannot know, even after the event, which slit it went through. You may address the probabilities, though. It came all ways weighted by probability. Beforehand all you know is that it will go all ways weighted by probability. We can only predict a pattern after multiple trials. One trial? Random.

Oh yeah, I was thinking about what happens when detectors are in the slits, but then I guess that isn't really a probabilistic system anymore. It would act in a classical way because we eventually see the path it takes.

 

[ryan]

Would you mind providing this evidence of hidden variables?

I can provide you with a partial list of previously hidden variables, that turned out to be part of the sometimes chaotic deterministic system we live within:

Gravity was a hidden variable. Bacteria were hidden variables. Penicillium mold was a hidden variable. Genes were a hidden variable. Chemical structure was a hidden variable. Elements were a hidden variable. The fundamental forces were hidden variables. The existence of the CMB was a hidden variable. The existence of distant galaxies was a hidden variable. The existence of sociological phenomena was a hidden variables. Memes were hidden variables. Pi was a hidden variable. The potential existence of higher dimensional spacetime was a hidden variable. The existence of cement, the effects of lead on humanity were hidden variables.

Every single place that humanity has persisted in exploration, they have found hidden variables that impacted the evolution of the system. Things were not happening without reason.

Since you claim to have overwhelming evidence of determinism, would you be able to use that knowledge to predict/determine - beforehand - which slit a single photon goes through and the known mechanism that causes it to go through that particular slit?

I can't predict the outcome of a deterministic pseudorandom number generator. Being able to predict something with complete accuracy has little to do with whether it is deterministic.

Classical mechanics arises from quantum mechanics. So far, it is the true nature of the universe.

And remember, the bottom is not going to necessarily look anything like the middle or the top. So if physics does bottom out at QM, nobody should be surprised because the bottom is unique.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah. There is no evidence of nondeterminism at the quantum level- things follow the deterministic pattern that the Schrodinger equation describes, even if we aren't able to discover the underlying nonlocal variable or variables that determine which particles particles interact with.

 

[ryan]

Yeah. There is no evidence of nondeterminism at the quantum level- things follow the deterministic pattern that the Schrodinger equation describes, even if we aren't able to discover the underlying nonlocal variable or variables that determine which particles particles interact with.

Scientifically, you have the burden of proof. Scientifically, QM/universe is indeterminate, so it is up to you to convince me, or the world for this matter, that there is an underlying deterministic process. But as of now, I have yet to come across any strong empirical evidence for such a process.

 

[DBT]

Yeah. There is no evidence of nondeterminism at the quantum level- things follow the deterministic pattern that the Schrodinger equation describes, even if we aren't able to discover the underlying nonlocal variable or variables that determine which particles particles interact with.

Yes...radioactive decay may be random, but Schrodinger equation describes the ''probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time.''

 

[DBT]

The particle collapse is the will.

No it's not. You must be using a really odd definition of will. A definition that you must have cooked up in order to suit your contention.

As all of the objects in the universe are composed of 'wave/particles' - perhaps objectively collapsed into particle state/classical physics by gravity, matter energy does not have 'will' - ie -

Definition of WILL
transitive verb
: desire, wish <call it what you will>
verbal auxiliary
1
—used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent,


Full Definition of WILL
1
: desire, wish: as
a : disposition, inclination <where there's a will there's a way>
b : appetite, passion
c : choice, determination
2a : something desired; especially : a choice or determination of one having authority or power

And you are still not addressing my questions:

Given the proposition that random interference within the system alters an intended outcome, that outcome has been neither chosen or willed.

Your random number generator, for example, spits out the numbers 6 and 11, but while you (brain) were in the process of adding the two numbers together a microtubule goes into overdrive effecting a change in the calculation process of 'your' brain and instead of your result being 17 your brain spits out the number 15 - you have experienced a mental glitch, a brain fart - this being one of your proposed 'different decisions' (not that math results are a decision, but just an example of the process).

So given my example, the question is: why do you believe such a non chosen, non willed alteration to information processing is an example of 'free will?'

Please don't just say - "I" still chose it - when in fact the example shows an error. You do not choose to make an error.

 

[bilby]

The particle collapse is the will.

No it's not.

...

You do not choose to make an error.

Are you certain ? Remember, you are talking to ryan...

 

[Kharakov]

Quantum indeterminacy is about the limits of what can be measured, it indicates nothing about whether the quantum world evolves deterministically or not.

Ignorance of the quantum realm is the last refuge for imaginary nondeterminism. Don't let your imagination let go of your dreams. I did once, and I lost everything. Be nondeterministic ryan....

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah. There is no evidence of nondeterminism at the quantum level- things follow the deterministic pattern that the Schrodinger equation describes, even if we aren't able to discover the underlying nonlocal variable or variables that determine which particles particles interact with.

Yes...radioactive decay may be random, but Schrodinger equation describes the ''probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time.''

I doubt the randomness is nondeterministic in nature.

 

[ryan]

The particle collapse is the will.

No it's not. You must be using a really odd definition of will. A definition that you must have cooked up in order to suit your contention.

We are assuming that will is matter, so properties of matter are shared with will.

As all of the objects in the universe are composed of 'wave/particles' - perhaps objectively collapsed into particle state/classical physics by gravity, matter energy does not have 'will' - ie -

Gravity collapsing the wave function is going out on a limb.

Definition of WILL
transitive verb
: desire, wish <call it what you will>
verbal auxiliary
1
—used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent,


Full Definition of WILL
1
: desire, wish: as
a : disposition, inclination <where there's a will there's a way>
b : appetite, passion
c : choice, determination
2a : something desired; especially : a choice or determination of one having authority or power

I don't know what you are getting at.

And you are still not addressing my questions:

Given the proposition that random interference within the system alters an intended outcome, that outcome has been neither chosen or willed.

Your random number generator, for example, spits out the numbers 6 and 11, but while you (brain) were in the process of adding the two numbers together a microtubule goes into overdrive effecting a change in the calculation process of 'your' brain and instead of your result being 17 your brain spits out the number 15 - you have experienced a mental glitch, a brain fart - this being one of your proposed 'different decisions' (not that math results are a decision, but just an example of the process).

So given my example, the question is: why do you believe such a non chosen, non willed alteration to information processing is an example of 'free will?'

Please don't just say - "I" still chose it - when in fact the example shows an error. You do not choose to make an error.

I brushed it off because it is ridiculous.

First of all, why am I suppose to answer the correct answer? That doesn't say anything about having free will or not having it. Secondly, the microtubules might behave in a way that gives the right answer.

I don't know what this has to do with your argument.

 

[ryan]

Ignorance of the quantum realm is the last refuge for imaginary nondeterminism.

Ignorance of the "quantum realm" is all we have scientifically. Jumping to conclusions stays in philosophy.

Don't let your imagination let go of your dreams. I did once, and I lost everything. Be nondeterministic ryan....

I can't tell if you are joking. If not, PM me.

 

[DBT]

Yes...radioactive decay may be random, but Schrodinger equation describes the ''probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time.''

I doubt the randomness is nondeterministic in nature.

Perhaps, I don't know. Radioactive decay does appear to be accepted as being a stochastic, or a random process.

 

[DBT]

I brushed it off because it is ridiculous.

That is amusing. The irony....

First of all, why am I suppose to answer the correct answer?

Mathematics. Just by adding the numbers you get the answer that is determined by mathematical relationships. If you have one object on the table and you put three more objects onto the table...it is not guesswork or 'free will' that determines how many objects there are on the table.

That doesn't say anything about having free will or not having it. Secondly, the microtubules might behave in a way that gives the right answer.

I don't know what this has to do with your argument.

Sure it does. You are avoiding the issue.

'Microtubules' are not aware of numbers, objects on the table....the the objects and relationships of the Macro World, or any thing at all.

Microtubules have no awareness, no decision making ability, or will.

That is the role of the macro scale structures of a brain.

 

[ryan]

That is amusing. The irony....

First of all, why am I suppose to answer the correct answer?

Mathematics. Just by adding the numbers you get the answer that is determined by mathematical relationships. If you have one object on the table and you put three more objects onto the table...it is not guesswork or 'free will' that determines how many objects there are on the table.

This has nothing to do with our discussion. Why does your position (incompatible determinism) mean that one should get the correct answer? Similarly, why wouldn't a blatantly wrong answer help support free will. None of this is an argument.

That doesn't say anything about having free will or not having it. Secondly, the microtubules might behave in a way that gives the right answer.

I don't know what this has to do with your argument.

Sure it does. You are avoiding the issue.

'Microtubules' are not aware of numbers, objects on the table....the the objects and relationships of the Macro World, or any thing at all.

Microtubules have no awareness, no decision making ability, or will.

That is the role of the macro scale structures of a brain.

And cells don't either. When we talk about the whole, we include all of the properties of the parts if they still exist and are relevant on the higher levels.

 

[DBT]

That is amusing. The irony....



Mathematics. Just by adding the numbers you get the answer that is determined by mathematical relationships. If you have one object on the table and you put three more objects onto the table...it is not guesswork or 'free will' that determines how many objects there are on the table.

This has nothing to do with our discussion. Why does your position (incompatible determinism) mean that one should get the correct answer? Similarly, why wouldn't a blatantly wrong answer help support free will. None of this is an argument.

Sure it is. You are basically claiming that an element of quantum randomness changes a decision, and that this is an example of free will. I pointed out that randomness does not aid decision making.

Nor does it form 'free will' - my example of decision making, calculations made on the basis of non random information, in relation to random interference disrupting the process and producing 'noise' rather than a rational calculation, is an example of the failure of your contention.

I realized that you would probably find this upsetting, but it can't be helped.

And cells don't either. When we talk about the whole, we include all of the properties of the parts if they still exist and are relevant on the higher levels.

That's right, the whole. But some of the parts of the whole happen to misfire from time to time and consequently produce nonsense results (refer to my example). Rational will then becomes irrational will....but 'will' being a product of the cognitive process, it is not 'free will.'

There you have it, ryan.

Sorry to be the messenger of bad news.

 

[ryan]

This has nothing to do with our discussion. Why does your position (incompatible determinism) mean that one should get the correct answer? Similarly, why wouldn't a blatantly wrong answer help support free will. None of this is an argument.

Sure it is. You are basically claiming that an element of quantum randomness changes a decision, and that this is an example of free will. I pointed out that randomness does not aid decision making.

If it is intrinsic to the decision-making process, then the decision is suppose to be what it was. I can agree with you if something following the decision-making process causes the decision to change from what was intended. An example of that would be a speech impediment.

Nor does it form 'free will' - my example of decision making, calculations made on the basis of non random information, in relation to random interference disrupting the process and producing 'noise' rather than a rational calculation, is an example of the failure of your contention.

I agree if it is outside of the decision-making process. But I am assuming that the microtubules are a part of the decision-making process.

And cells don't either. When we talk about the whole, we include all of the properties of the parts if they still exist and are relevant on the higher levels.

That's right, the whole. But some of the parts of the whole happen to misfire ...

"misfire" is totally subjective, an outside judgement on the system.

... from time to time and consequently produce nonsense results (refer to my example). Rational will then becomes irrational will....but 'will' being a product of the cognitive process, it is not 'free will.'

Free will includes the choice to be irrational.

 

[Kharakov]

Ignorance of the "quantum realm" is all we have scientifically. Jumping to conclusions stays in philosophy.

Exploring and testing ideas are part of both.

What is the quanta of blue? There are some things that can't be grouped, like the qualia of blue and momentum. They can be associated with one another, like how our brain associates certain momenta of light with blue, but they aren't the same thing (unless blue is a continuous loop of behavior).

Someone might claim that various momenta combined in the exact right manner creates blue, in a different way, the thought of blue. You can't predict that you will create blue until you do it, but every time certain momenta are combined in a certain way, you make blue, or maybe just a thought. So now you have a formula for blue....

This doesn't mean that things are non-deterministic. If every time momenta are combined in a specific manner they form blue, things are quite deterministic, even if we are unable to predict how or why they combine into the color blue, nor predict how this color will be reacted to at the classical level, when the color blue is combined with something else.

 

[Kharakov]

I doubt the randomness is nondeterministic in nature.

Perhaps, I don't know. Radioactive decay does appear to be accepted as being a stochastic, or a random process.

I don't equate random with undetermined, more with unpredictable (or chaotic). Could be wrong, of course.

 

[ryan]

Ignorance of the "quantum realm" is all we have scientifically. Jumping to conclusions stays in philosophy.

Exploring and testing ideas are part of both.

What is the quanta of blue? There are some things that can't be grouped, like the qualia of blue and momentum. They can be associated with one another, like how our brain associates certain momenta of light with blue, but they aren't the same thing.

Someone might claim that various momenta combined in the exact right manner creates blue, in a different way, the thought of blue. You can't predict that you will create blue until you do it, but every time certain momenta are combined in a certain way, you make blue, or maybe just a thought.

This doesn't mean that things are non-deterministic. If every time momenta are combined in a specific manner they form blue, things are quite deterministic, even if we are unable to predict how or why they combine into the color blue, nor predict how this color will be reacted to at the classical level, when the color blue is combined with something else.

Yes, I totally agree. There seems to be many deterministic aspects of reality. If a wave function is actually the true model of an electron's probability density for its location for some atom, and we assume no interference from the environment, then there are places where the electron absolutely can't be. The wave function for some electron has predetermined something about the electron's future. But then there might also be indeterminate positions of the electron within the constrains/limits of zero probability.

The point is that we may have limited freedom. If we were to somehow perfectly apply the Schrodinger equation to me, I am not sure but there might be some choices that are actually impossible for me to make, not ridiculously small but 0% probability. That, of course is assuming that the equation is a completely true explanation of reality.

 

[DBT]

I agree if it is outside of the decision-making process. But I am assuming that the microtubules are a part of the decision-making process.

More likely a part of the physical makeup of a brain, but not responsible for sifting information. Random vibrations are not information filters that select options that are based on a set of given criteria.

Random vibrations do not make decisions.

Free will includes the choice to be irrational.

Oh, right...now I see. An Engineer working on a new space shuttle design makes an error in a critical calculation because his random microtubule vibrations decided to alter the process on the basis of 'free will' - thus choosing an incorrect and irrational calculation which consequently causes loss of life because a failure to launch correctly.