In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[DBT]

I think you mean a unification theory that works with relativity and the Standard Model (field theories and quantum physics).

No, I meant what I said...the theory that unifies everything into a single master theory (ToE) - ''the master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[1]:6 Finding a ToE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, as a whole, most closely resemble a ToE. The two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT). ''

The operative word here being 'resemble'

Anyways, I will admit that I do not know exactly how classical mechanics arises from quantum mechanics, but I have found many sources that seem to say quantum mechanics is all that needs to exist to explain much of what we see on Earth.

Go for it ryan, give an explanation for distinctions between different bird species and their behaviours by using only QM for explanation.

While you are at it, add an explanation for the emergence of brain, mind and decision making in terms of QM.

I am eager to see it.

 

[ryan]

Classical mechanics is quantum mechanics on a larger scale. The macro world is still just quantum mechanics.

Probabilist particle evolution/soft determinism is of no aid in establishing what you call 'free will' because behaviour, both conscious and unconscious, always comes back to the architecture of the processor itself, the brain.

Yes, and quantum mechanics is the architecture of the brain.

Your statements are misleading. And you are equivocating....Copenhagen interpretation/decoherance, plants, animals, planets galaxies and so on, do not exhibit signs of Susperposition or the uncertainty principle/wave function, gravity rules the formation and motions of macro scale structures, etc, etc.

I am so tired of this.

Here is the part where I say that I am not saying that: [ ... ].

Then we both will exchange a couple posts, and then I will be told that the Moon does not have wavelike properties all over again. I mean this has stop at some point. I am so tired.

It is your resistance to the fact that it information processing on a macro scale, brain scale, that determines output in terms of behaviour, and not the fact that there is jittery, uncertain states on a quantum scale (Planck/ Compton), which virtually disappears above that scale, that is making you very, very tired, ryan.

It is because your opponents get frustrated by your unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that it is not quantum uncertainty that enables decision making, but decoherence/wave function collapse.

Agiaaaan, all of this comes from the randomness of quantum mechanics.

There you go again, using the fallacy of the excluded middle....as if saying ''all of this comes from the randomness of quantum mechanics'' has now become the established Grand Unification Theory!

I think you mean a unification theory that works with relativity and the Standard Model (field theories and quantum physics).

Anyways, I will admit that I do not know exactly how classical mechanics arises from quantum mechanics, but I have found many sources that seem to say quantum mechanics is all that needs to exist to explain much of what we see on Earth.

I thought that I had actually come across articles in the past that claim an incomplete explanation of classical mechanics from quantum mechanics. So can you please find a reliable source that explains this "middle problem" because I cannot find it.

Furthermore, even if there is a problem with bridging the two scales, I would still say that what happens on the very small and individual scale of particles has much to do with how the higher level behaves. This would mean that our choices greatly depend on what is going on at the quantum level.

Look at it this way: in a computer the working parts are best described using quantum mechanics and yet you dont have to know any QM to be a programmer.

And if we turn the arguments around a bit: if the brain really is QM how do free will arise from that?
You have show a consitent dezcription of this before you even has an srgument.

Remember; my argument is an argument against the positive claim that free will does not exist. I am only trying to say that free will is still possible. You have the burden of proof.

 

[DBT]

Remember; my argument is an argument against the positive claim that free will does not exist. I am only trying to say that free will is still possible. You have the burden of proof.

My argument is that the term 'free will' is a misnomer, that the term is irrelevant, that 'will' or decision making is carried out by a deterministic, rational, intelligent, interactive information processor, a brain. Not being a 'free will' system, the term 'free' is irrelevant to 'will' - will being a broad reference to 'decision making' and 'acting' (volition). Words that more accurately represent the process of volition than the term 'free' will.

 

[rrr6]

We have an illusion of freedom to will this or that to happen. It is similar to observing magic when we know it is just a good illusion.

Free will is limited i.e. there exists limits to what can be willed to happen.

Free will is a great illusionary resultant of non-observed connection--- missing link --between gravity and our observed reality.

A cosmic missing link. imho My recent, an dvery preliminary numerical sine-wave--- that is inside-outed ---explorations, have led me to assign the label/identity of time as the link between positive shaped gravity and negative shape gravity/reality.

Torus = ( ( ) ) = great torus

Non-occupied space torus--- defined by time (( )) ---within a great torus

(--( (--( )--) )--)

So we may say, that, we have gravitational time and gravitational/reality time.

Outer, positive shape gravity--time

non-occupied space within

Inner, negative shape gravity/reality--time

With the inside-outed, numerical sine-wave, the sequence of numbers,beginng with 0 on outer time line goes to #1 on the outer gravity line.

From #1 on outer surface, we may find that, there is trajectory of geodesic connection between outer positive surface #1 and inner negative surface #2

........1................5........7..............................
0.............................6....................................

non-occupied space tube within the toroidal tube

.................3...............................................
............2........4...........................................

 

[DBT]

We have an illusion of freedom to will this or that to happen. It is similar to observing magic when we know it is just a good illusion.

Free will is limited i.e. there exists limits to what can be willed to happen.

...

Sorry, but I feel compelled to point out an apparent contradiction between the statement - ''We have an illusion of freedom to will this or that to happen'' and the statement - ''Free will is limited i.e. there exists limits to what can be willed to happen''

Which, the latter implies that free will is not an illusion, but is real in limited form, thereby contradicting the first statement, that free will is an illusion and therefore not real.

 

[Juma]

In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

Remember; my argument is an argument against the positive claim that free will does not exist. I am only trying to say that free will is still possible. You have the burden of proof.

So you dont say that libertarian free will is possible?

 

[ryan]

Remember; my argument is an argument against the positive claim that free will does not exist. I am only trying to say that free will is still possible. You have the burden of proof.

My argument is that the term 'free will' is a misnomer, that the term is irrelevant, that 'will' or decision making is carried out by a deterministic, rational, intelligent, interactive information processor, a brain. Not being a 'free will' system, the term 'free' is irrelevant to 'will' - will being a broad reference to 'decision making' and 'acting' (volition). Words that more accurately represent the process of volition than the term 'free' will.

Why does this have to be a misnomer? Just add undetermined with your version of "will". That makes it something that is not just will.

Would two brains in identical initial states eventually divert from each other if each was in an identical environment that didn't change?

 

[ryan]

Remember; my argument is an argument against the positive claim that free will does not exist. I am only trying to say that free will is still possible. You have the burden of proof.

So you dont say that libertarian free will is possible?

What makes you ask that? I do think it is possible.

 

[Kharakov]

So you dont say that libertarian free will is possible?

What would make you ask that? I do think it is possible.

That's just because you have decided to base your argument on something you know is not logical. You have desires to do stuff, based on various inputs into your consciousness.

A quantum input that influences your will doesn't cause it to be free. It's just another causal factor. You don't need free will.

For example, the will to play an awesome video game, or go have beer with friends is not some major mystery. The fact that some of us are limited in our ability to do so is... maybe a bit of a mystery.

 

[ryan]

What would make you ask that? I do think it is possible.

That's just because you have decided to base your argument on something you know is not logical. You have desires to do stuff, based on various inputs into your consciousness.

A quantum input that influences your will doesn't cause it to be free. It's just another causal factor. You don't need free will.

For example, the will to play an awesome video game, or go have beer with friends is not some major mystery. The fact that some of us are limited in our ability to do so is... maybe a bit of a mystery.

What mystery? In your universe, that's how the universe evolves, no mystery. Tomorrow you might wake up and decide to burn your hand on a hot element all day. That wouldn't be a mystery either; it's just where your universe is at in its linear evolution, facetiously speaking.

 

[ryan]

A quantum input that influences your will doesn't cause it to be free. It's just another causal factor. You don't need free will.

I also want to comment on this.

The particles that make up my decisions have degrees of freedom. Am I any less the particles that make up my brain than I am my brain?

 

[Kharakov]

A quantum input that influences your will doesn't cause it to be free. It's just another causal factor. You don't need free will.

I also want to comment on this.

The particles that make up my decisions have degrees of freedom. Am I any less the particles that make up my brain than I am my brain?

A cog in a gearbox has a degree of freedom about an axis. Doesn't mean way too much.

 

[ryan]

I also want to comment on this.

The particles that make up my decisions have degrees of freedom. Am I any less the particles that make up my brain than I am my brain?

A cog in a gearbox has a degree of freedom about an axis. Doesn't mean way too much.

So what is its degree of freedom when it is moving at a constant angular speed?

 

[Kharakov]

A cog in a gearbox has a degree of freedom about an axis. Doesn't mean way too much.

So what is its degree of freedom when it is moving at a constant angular speed?

Much larger when I have a sledge hammer.

What's degree of freedom have to do with free will? Keep in mind that having an independently changing variable in a system doesn't mean you don't have an input or inputs to the variable.

 

[ryan]

So what is its degree of freedom when it is moving at a constant angular speed?

Much larger when I have a sledge hammer.

What's degree of freedom have to do with free will?

I thought you would get the idea, so let me be more explicit.

Quantum mechanics allows freedom within the degrees of freedom.

It is so bloody obvious how quantum mechanics leaves the door open for at least *some* free will - what the hell is so controversial?!?!?!

Try to assume that I know something instead of talking about how cogs work. This will save more time for the precious gift we call life.

 

[Kharakov]

Quantum mechanics allows freedom within the degrees of freedom.

It is so bloody obvious how quantum mechanics leaves the door open for at least *some* free will - what the hell is so controversial?!?!?!

Controversial isn't the term I'd use. Whatever quantum effects contribute to the formation of your intent, the particles are not you, and you are not the particles, although you may be one in some sense.

You don't will something without intent. If you have intent to do something, whether it is a recently formed intent to scratch an itch, or on a list of chores that you need to do, or your body wants a nap, or whatever... will does not exist without intent.

So, ask yourself this: does it make any sense to say that you intend something, yet the intent is not formed out of experience? Will is not free, it is influenced by many factors.

 

[DBT]

My argument is that the term 'free will' is a misnomer, that the term is irrelevant, that 'will' or decision making is carried out by a deterministic, rational, intelligent, interactive information processor, a brain. Not being a 'free will' system, the term 'free' is irrelevant to 'will' - will being a broad reference to 'decision making' and 'acting' (volition). Words that more accurately represent the process of volition than the term 'free' will.

Why does this have to be a misnomer? Just add undetermined with your version of "will". That makes it something that is not just will.

I just explained why it is determined. Just as I have explained why 'non determined' is not an instance of 'free will' - a rock, for example, being composed of quantum particles, just as you are, cannot process information and make decisions, like you can (the brain does it). And again, that QM is a form of determinism; probabilist determinism...which does not allow conscious selection of outcomes.

Your proposition is a dead end regardless of the energy you put into maintaining it.

Would two brains in identical initial states eventually divert from each other if each was in an identical environment that didn't change?

The output in terms of conscious experience of each brain is determined by its physical/informational condition - inputs, memory content, connectivity, etc - therefore each brain would generate its own internal representation of environment (and self) independently of the presence of another brain, be it identical or not.

 

[DBT]

The particles that make up my decisions have degrees of freedom. Am I any less the particles that make up my brain than I am my brain?

Your reasoning applies equally to particles that make up hills, mountains and rocks, yet these things are unable to even experience the world, yet alone make decisions.

 

[ryan]

Quantum mechanics allows freedom within the degrees of freedom.

It is so bloody obvious how quantum mechanics leaves the door open for at least *some* free will - what the hell is so controversial?!?!?!

Controversial isn't the term I'd use. Whatever quantum effects contribute to the formation of your intent, the particles are not you, and you are not the particles, although you may be one in some sense.

If you take away the particles, you take me away. I am the particles.

You don't will something without intent. If you have intent to do something, whether it is a recently formed intent to scratch an itch, or on a list of chores that you need to do, or your body wants a nap, or whatever... will does not exist without intent.

So, ask yourself this: does it make any sense to say that you intend something, yet the intent is not formed out of experience? Will is not free, it is influenced by many factors.

Intention consists of what my particles are doing. If I have intentions, then the sum of my particles must have intentions. The sum of my particles would choose what I do with their collective but limited "free" randomness.

 

[ryan]

Why does this have to be a misnomer? Just add undetermined with your version of "will". That makes it something that is not just will.

I just explained why it is determined. Just as I have explained why 'non determined' is not an instance of 'free will' - a rock, for example, being composed of quantum particles, just as you are, cannot process information and make decisions, like you can (the brain does it). And again, that QM is a form of determinism; probabilist determinism...which does not allow conscious selection of outcomes.

Your proposition is a dead end regardless of the energy you put into maintaining it.

Would two brains in identical initial states eventually divert from each other if each was in an identical environment that didn't change?

The output in terms of conscious experience of each brain is determined by its physical/informational condition - inputs, memory content, connectivity, etc - therefore each brain would generate its own internal representation of environment (and self) independently of the presence of another brain, be it identical or not.

If you want to understand my argument, it is important that you read and understand the scenario.

Imagine a twin gets put into a specific environment. The other twin gets put into an identical environment as his twin on a different planet. Both environments are perfectly static, no quantum mechanics or any differences at all. Initially, both twins are exactly identical and are put in the same place as the other in their identically static environments. Will one twin eventually make a different choice than the other due to chaotic effects from quantum mechanisms in their respective brains?