5 ms·

I never really understood why randomness would be needed for free will. If that's the only thing keeping the will "free" would it even matter if our decisions a

I never really understood why randomness would be needed for free will. If that's the only thing keeping the will "free" would it even matter if our decisions are made deterministically or by a dice roll? Guess I have some reading to do.

pmoriarty 9y ago
I think the point is that if there's no randomness, people's actions must be completely predictable, and if they're predictable it's impossible for people to do other than what's been predicted and so there's no free will. On the other hand, having randomness opens up the possibility to act in ways that are not completely predictable and that's where the potential for freedom of the will comes in. But randomness alone isn't enough for free will, for the reason you allude to (that one might be "forced" to follow some sort of cosmic "dice roll", as unpredictable as it might be). It just seems to be one pre-requisite, in a certain way of viewing the problem.
- syrrim 9y ago
  But the universe is turing complete, so the only way to predict what will happen is to run a perfect simulation of everything in the universe. This is clearly impossible within the universe, and so your actions remain unpredictable.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    This line of thought applies equally well to every individual hydrogen atom in the universe as it does to a person, yet it does not follow that they also have free will. Where OP says 'predictable', I think he means 'determined' or 'pre-ordained'.
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      But since you cannot differentiate between predictable and preordained, what is the difference?
      - mannykannot 9y ago
        That something is not predictable does not mean that it is not pre-ordained, even if one cannot tell the difference. Classical mechanics is a model that is fully deterministic yet ultimately unpredictable, and similarly, syyrim's model of the universe as Turing-complete seems to assume it is pre-ordained (a model that goldenkey challenges), and yet ultimately unpredictable. On re-reading the thread, I am not sure what point syyrim was making. The ultimate unpredictability of the universe doesn't seem to settle any issue with regard to free will. Free will is not a claim that we cannot predict what we will do; it is a claim that we can make a choice (within some constraints) about what we will do.
  - goldenkey 9y ago
    Not even. If you take Heisenbergs uncertainty principle to be true, then we can never truly know the full state of any matter. So even if we knew the rules, we wouldn't have the seed. This is also known as the knowledge balance principle. See link below: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spekkens_toy_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spekkens_toy_model
- mannykannot 9y ago
  While I have seen explanations of how randomness might lead to the illusion of free will, I have not seen any line of reasoning that explains free will itself as being dependent on randomness (because I have not seen any explanation of free will, period.) My guess is that randomness is imagined to have a role in free will only because it is the alternative to strict determinism (which is, as you point out, completely antithetical to free will) rather than because it is clear that randomness does, in fact, enable free will. It certainly feels to me that I have free will, but the older I get, the less sure I am that I actually do. Consequently, I have no idea how I came to write this post.
MaulingMonkey 9y ago
> I never really understood why randomness would be needed for free will For some reason it had to be pointed out to me (awhile back) that being ruled by the rigorous iron fist of science's "yes technically non-deterministic but totally statistically modelable" quantum dice rolls isn't necessarily much better, if any, than being ruled by the rigorous iron fist of deterministic cause and effect. Ruled by chance or by force of sheer causality alone - at this point, I feel that any useful definition of "free will" probably equally applies (or doesn't) to both scenarios, and won't hinge on quantum unpredictability.
visarga 9y ago
There are two senses in which we mean "free will". The first is physical non-determinism - "My actions are not decided by deterministic processes", which is absurd. The second, is psychological - "I select my actions for internal reasons". That's trivial, no mystery there. Maybe when we think about free will we actually refer to cooperation-betrayal strategies between people (prisoner's dilemma) which are essential in the functioning of societies. We want to see ourselves as free to choose our strategy in response to other agent's actions. "If they betray me, I have the choice between cooperation and retaliation" - that's what we feel as free will that counts.
- goldenkey 9y ago
  Determinism removes internal/external separation. They commute when both are deterministic. Consider deterministic system A and deterministic system B in a deterministic environment C. Then the entire system is deterministic and though the situation might not have played out yet, it essentially was decided for the participants. Non determinism is the best free will can be -- neither nature knows the future, nor the participants. Everyone is blind. So the will is "free" with respect to control.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
It's simple: true randomness is a back door for God. If there's a true source of randomness in the universe, and our brains make use of it, you can postulate that the soul is what magically makes this "random source" not random, hence enabling "free will" as religions see it.
xevb3k 9y ago
I think for free will to exist, something neither totally random nor totally deterministic would be required. That’s why free will isn’t really a scientific concept. The idea that there something non-deterministic give some hope that though it “look random” there actually order being directed by “something” there. Essentially if you’re a mind-body dualist, this is the point where mind meets body (would be my understanding).
dahart 9y ago
> If that's the only thing keeping the will "free" would it even matter if our decisions are made deterministically or by a dice roll? This is a good point, and relates directly to the paradox I see. It's not that randomness is required for free will, or even desired, it's that all other known processes are deterministic. It's an age-old discussion that if the state of the universe and all the particles in it at any given moment is determined entirely by physical laws like conservation of energy, then, it is theorized, free will cannot exist because the future state of the universe can be predicted. We may have the appearance of free will, but if our thoughts emerge from predictable phenomena, then autonomy and consciousness as we know it can only be a facade. Quantum randomness is the only process we know of that can't be predicted by a sufficiently powerful simulation. Therefore, quantum randomness is what some people rely on to posit the existence of free will, only because it's the only thing left by process of elimination. Your point is similar to my question, namely that even if there is randomness, we still have a problem. What's willful about an unpredictably chance event?

pmoriarty 9y ago

I think the point is that if there's no randomness, people's actions must be completely predictable, and if they're predictable it's impossible for people to do other than what's been predicted and so there's no free will. On the other hand, having randomness opens up the possibility to act in ways that are not completely predictable and that's where the potential for freedom of the will comes in. But randomness alone isn't enough for free will, for the reason you allude to (that one might be "forced" to follow some sort of cosmic "dice roll", as unpredictable as it might be). It just seems to be one pre-requisite, in a certain way of viewing the problem.

syrrim 9y ago
But the universe is turing complete, so the only way to predict what will happen is to run a perfect simulation of everything in the universe. This is clearly impossible within the universe, and so your actions remain unpredictable.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  This line of thought applies equally well to every individual hydrogen atom in the universe as it does to a person, yet it does not follow that they also have free will. Where OP says 'predictable', I think he means 'determined' or 'pre-ordained'.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    But since you cannot differentiate between predictable and preordained, what is the difference?
    - mannykannot 9y ago
      That something is not predictable does not mean that it is not pre-ordained, even if one cannot tell the difference. Classical mechanics is a model that is fully deterministic yet ultimately unpredictable, and similarly, syyrim's model of the universe as Turing-complete seems to assume it is pre-ordained (a model that goldenkey challenges), and yet ultimately unpredictable. On re-reading the thread, I am not sure what point syyrim was making. The ultimate unpredictability of the universe doesn't seem to settle any issue with regard to free will. Free will is not a claim that we cannot predict what we will do; it is a claim that we can make a choice (within some constraints) about what we will do.
- goldenkey 9y ago
  Not even. If you take Heisenbergs uncertainty principle to be true, then we can never truly know the full state of any matter. So even if we knew the rules, we wouldn't have the seed. This is also known as the knowledge balance principle. See link below: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spekkens_toy_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spekkens_toy_model
mannykannot 9y ago
While I have seen explanations of how randomness might lead to the illusion of free will, I have not seen any line of reasoning that explains free will itself as being dependent on randomness (because I have not seen any explanation of free will, period.) My guess is that randomness is imagined to have a role in free will only because it is the alternative to strict determinism (which is, as you point out, completely antithetical to free will) rather than because it is clear that randomness does, in fact, enable free will. It certainly feels to me that I have free will, but the older I get, the less sure I am that I actually do. Consequently, I have no idea how I came to write this post.

MaulingMonkey 9y ago

> I never really understood why randomness would be needed for free will For some reason it had to be pointed out to me (awhile back) that being ruled by the rigorous iron fist of science's "yes technically non-deterministic but totally statistically modelable" quantum dice rolls isn't necessarily much better, if any, than being ruled by the rigorous iron fist of deterministic cause and effect. Ruled by chance or by force of sheer causality alone - at this point, I feel that any useful definition of "free will" probably equally applies (or doesn't) to both scenarios, and won't hinge on quantum unpredictability.

visarga 9y ago

There are two senses in which we mean "free will". The first is physical non-determinism - "My actions are not decided by deterministic processes", which is absurd. The second, is psychological - "I select my actions for internal reasons". That's trivial, no mystery there. Maybe when we think about free will we actually refer to cooperation-betrayal strategies between people (prisoner's dilemma) which are essential in the functioning of societies. We want to see ourselves as free to choose our strategy in response to other agent's actions. "If they betray me, I have the choice between cooperation and retaliation" - that's what we feel as free will that counts.

goldenkey 9y ago
Determinism removes internal/external separation. They commute when both are deterministic. Consider deterministic system A and deterministic system B in a deterministic environment C. Then the entire system is deterministic and though the situation might not have played out yet, it essentially was decided for the participants. Non determinism is the best free will can be -- neither nature knows the future, nor the participants. Everyone is blind. So the will is "free" with respect to control.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

It's simple: true randomness is a back door for God. If there's a true source of randomness in the universe, and our brains make use of it, you can postulate that the soul is what magically makes this "random source" not random, hence enabling "free will" as religions see it.

xevb3k 9y ago

I think for free will to exist, something neither totally random nor totally deterministic would be required. That’s why free will isn’t really a scientific concept. The idea that there something non-deterministic give some hope that though it “look random” there actually order being directed by “something” there. Essentially if you’re a mind-body dualist, this is the point where mind meets body (would be my understanding).

dahart 9y ago

> If that's the only thing keeping the will "free" would it even matter if our decisions are made deterministically or by a dice roll? This is a good point, and relates directly to the paradox I see. It's not that randomness is required for free will, or even desired, it's that all other known processes are deterministic. It's an age-old discussion that if the state of the universe and all the particles in it at any given moment is determined entirely by physical laws like conservation of energy, then, it is theorized, free will cannot exist because the future state of the universe can be predicted. We may have the appearance of free will, but if our thoughts emerge from predictable phenomena, then autonomy and consciousness as we know it can only be a facade. Quantum randomness is the only process we know of that can't be predicted by a sufficiently powerful simulation. Therefore, quantum randomness is what some people rely on to posit the existence of free will, only because it's the only thing left by process of elimination. Your point is similar to my question, namely that even if there is randomness, we still have a problem. What's willful about an unpredictably chance event?