4 ms·

Can anyone dumb this down for me?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
all2 8y ago
> It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity. More precisely, if the experimenter can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus in a certain measurement, then the particle’s response (to be pedantic—the universe’s response near the particle) is not determined by the entire previous history of the universe. That about sums it up. I think (and I could be very wrong) that the last sentence refers to a particle's lack of dependence on previous state; that for a measurement, only the present state will inform the measure. That seems to infer something about the idea of 'free will', that is, 'free will' in this context seems to refer to an independence from prior states. Loosely, we can choose to step out of the path of our past's falling dominoes and change the course of our lives. Or something like that.
- criddell 8y ago
  Is that basically saying that at some level, we should be able to see effects that have no cause? Is that what freewill boils down to?
  - all2 8y ago
    I don't know. "effects with no cause" makes me think of the 'quantum soup' at zero-point energy levels: things just appearing and disappearing in some random way. I don't know if that could be classified as 'causeless' though.
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    More like effects whose cause we can't ascribe... would have a free will component to their cause. It seems a bit silly because wherever you can ascribe a cause, there's no free will, so when is there free will?
    - criddell 8y ago
      > so when is there free will? I open to the possibility that the answer is never.
shellac 8y ago
Suppose you're told that somebody has halved an apple and put the two pieces in separate boxes. You are given a box, and the other is sent to a friend on the other side of the planet, who phones you when it arrives. You both open the boxes and describe what you see. "Oh my half has the stalk", "oh, mine doesn't". "I see 5 pips", "so do I". There are a bunch correlated (and anti-correlated) observations about the two halves. Nothing surprising about this. The quantum equivalent seems to work the same way at first glance. However on closer inspection there are some weird correlations that suggest that: * The apple wasn't cut in advance, but the two halves were created and put in the box just before they were opened. * Or maybe the apple was cut in advance, but somehow the person cutting knew what observations I would make ('I have the stalk'). * Or maybe the boxes were never separated but remained paired in 5-d space and only on opening did the apple split. * Or maybe I messaged the apple-cutter back-in-time to say what I would do. * Or something else. My box is so remote from the other relativity (and practicality) surely means I'm causally independent of the other box. And I got to chose my observations freely, nothing influenced me. And yet we know one - or both - of these can't be true. The mention of free-will in the paper is a bit cheeky, really. IIRC in the literature 'parameter-independence' and 'outcome-independence'have been to used to name the sort of factors that feel bad to violate (did I have a free choice about what to observe?) verses supposedly more innocuous quantum magic.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

all2 8y ago

> It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity. More precisely, if the experimenter can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus in a certain measurement, then the particle’s response (to be pedantic—the universe’s response near the particle) is not determined by the entire previous history of the universe. That about sums it up. I think (and I could be very wrong) that the last sentence refers to a particle's lack of dependence on previous state; that for a measurement, only the present state will inform the measure. That seems to infer something about the idea of 'free will', that is, 'free will' in this context seems to refer to an independence from prior states. Loosely, we can choose to step out of the path of our past's falling dominoes and change the course of our lives. Or something like that.

criddell 8y ago
Is that basically saying that at some level, we should be able to see effects that have no cause? Is that what freewill boils down to?
- all2 8y ago
  I don't know. "effects with no cause" makes me think of the 'quantum soup' at zero-point energy levels: things just appearing and disappearing in some random way. I don't know if that could be classified as 'causeless' though.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  More like effects whose cause we can't ascribe... would have a free will component to their cause. It seems a bit silly because wherever you can ascribe a cause, there's no free will, so when is there free will?
  - criddell 8y ago
    > so when is there free will? I open to the possibility that the answer is never.

shellac 8y ago

Suppose you're told that somebody has halved an apple and put the two pieces in separate boxes. You are given a box, and the other is sent to a friend on the other side of the planet, who phones you when it arrives. You both open the boxes and describe what you see. "Oh my half has the stalk", "oh, mine doesn't". "I see 5 pips", "so do I". There are a bunch correlated (and anti-correlated) observations about the two halves. Nothing surprising about this. The quantum equivalent seems to work the same way at first glance. However on closer inspection there are some weird correlations that suggest that: * The apple wasn't cut in advance, but the two halves were created and put in the box just before they were opened. * Or maybe the apple was cut in advance, but somehow the person cutting knew what observations I would make ('I have the stalk'). * Or maybe the boxes were never separated but remained paired in 5-d space and only on opening did the apple split. * Or maybe I messaged the apple-cutter back-in-time to say what I would do. * Or something else. My box is so remote from the other relativity (and practicality) surely means I'm causally independent of the other box. And I got to chose my observations freely, nothing influenced me. And yet we know one - or both - of these can't be true. The mention of free-will in the paper is a bit cheeky, really. IIRC in the literature 'parameter-independence' and 'outcome-independence'have been to used to name the sort of factors that feel bad to violate (did I have a free choice about what to observe?) verses supposedly more innocuous quantum magic.