4 ms·
> 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 p
by 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 agoIs 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 agoI 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 agoMore 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.