5 ms·
That quote is mindblowing. I don't think I've ever heard an argument for free will on a sub-atomic level. It never crossed my mind that that was a position some
by josephpmay 7y ago
That quote is mindblowing. I don't think I've ever heard an argument for free will on a sub-atomic level. It never crossed my mind that that was a position someone could conceivably hold. But it's weirdly comforting- it almost feels religious- and I'm now thinking about how that would affect emergence.
- samatman 7y agoConway (yep, that Conway) and Kochen elaborate on this in the Strong Free Will Theorem: https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf
- Causality1 7y agoIsn't that a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of "observer" in quantum physics? To "observe" is to cause a quantum system to interact in such a way that collapses probabilities. Whether there is a living observer is totally irrelevant.
- jes5199 7y agoif I remember correctly, this paper specifically tries to prove that those are the same
- v77 7y agoI would say this is considered an open question.
- hprotagonist 7y agoit is “the measurement problem”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
- scotty79 7y agoOnly for non-physicists and physicists wondering about things outside of physics.
- BalinKing 7y agoAFAIK the details are unknown (e.g. what constitutes the boundary between the “measuring” system and the one that’s being “measured”), but the “alive”-ness of the observer is definitely known to be irrelevant.
- skosch 7y agoUnless ... there is no observer at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
- jes5199 7y agoI don't know where I first heard that view, but I've long thought it was the only one that was plausible - where else could free will come from? is it supposed to sneak into physics somehow at a higher level?
- whatshisface 7y agoAnother plausible view is that it never sneaks in. Nondeterminism would only lead to free will if the mind somehow controlled the nondeterministic outcomes. We know the brain can't do that, so it's clearly a metaphysical question if you want to go further (the mind would have to be an agent distinct from the brain.) The answer to a metaphysical question is not always "no," but you will never be able to prove it.
- jes5199 7y agosure... but that means the three options are: "free will exists in atomic physics" "free will doesn't exist" "free will exists but cannot be studied". I find only one of these to be an acceptable answer.
- whatshisface 7y agoOne of those answers may be acceptable, but their acceptability cannot be studied.
- jes5199 7y agoyeah but you could make this argument about anything. For example: Bacteria can cause disease. Disease is metaphysical. Disease does not exist. these are not generally considered to all be equally plausible!
- fancyfredbot 7y agoI don't get this argument. If your mind deterministically makes a given decision in a given circumstance then that's what your mind decided to do. Another mind would make a different decision. That seems like your mind determined the outcome and that sounds like free will?
- v77 7y agoThis is fairly well-known stance and the intersection of consciousness and quantum decoherence is something people talk about quite a bit. Check out Sean Carroll's stuff for a lot of good discussion on this.
- heed 7y agoI might be misinterpreting the quote but is he saying that he believes quantum particles carry at least some small degree of “consciousness” which compounds to the degree of “consciousness” we experience at our scale?
- hprotagonist 7y agoThis idea is more or less the crux of Leibniz' Monadology. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#MonWorPhe https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#MonWorPhe
- osrec 7y agoIt feels especially religious to me as a Hindu. A lot of Hinduism talks about a so called "sense of existence" - a vitalising, fundamental "thing" that permeates inanimate and animate beings. The quote reminded me a bit of that.
- novalis78 7y agoIt also reminds me of Arthur Schopenhauer’s concept of ‘world as representation of (universal) will’
- heavenlyblue 7y agoThe sad thing is that it takes someone quite smart (or let’s say someone with an abstract mind more or less) to understand how mediocre this idea essentially is.
- osrec 7y agoMediocre in what sense?
- mrmonkeyman 7y agoIt's called panpsychism. Most ancients were onto it.