3 ms·

If you think about this in the quantum-mechanical framework, it appears to contradict this free-will problem. In relativity, reality is a solid block, and futur

If you think about this in the quantum-mechanical framework, it appears to contradict this free-will problem. In relativity, reality is a solid block, and future events are as immutable as past (no free-will). But in QM this statement would be expressing a level of certainty which violates the measurement problem and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. In Penrose's recent book he posits an interesting hypothesis on the Big Bang based on this. Roughly... stuff in the observable universe appears to be slowing down, getting colder, and further away from each other. Things start hot and energetic, and slowly lose energy, slow down and disperse. So, taking this model of the universe and winding it back, you get to the Big Bang, when the universe was infinitely hot and dense. Winding the model forward, you eventually reach a state when the universe is infinitely cold and empty. This is the heat death of the universe, a state of oblivion where there is absolutely no interaction, and no stuff. This violates Heisenberg, but QM is the map, not the territory, right? So maybe, in practice, reality has a way of beating Heisenberg? Thanks to technology, we have been able to probe this question quite recently. Scientist tried to create a near-perfect vacuum, with all the energy and stuff removed, and isolated from the rest of the universe. Inside the vacuum they created an electrical circuit fed to a computer. The circuit was broken by two floating polished plates, separated by an incredibly small gap, roughly the size of a short wavelength of light. So in this test chamber photons of all sizes could exist around the two plates, but between the plates only the smallest photons could fit. If any large photons enter the chamber they would create positive pressure around the plates, pushing them together, closing the circuit and registering a result. As the scientists pushed the vacuum closer and closer to a perfect vacuum, would Heisenberg get in the way? Maybe the experiment is not powerful enough to push the vacuum close enough to really challenge him? The experiment was a success. As the vacuum increased, eventually large photons showed up outside of the plates and pushed them together. Photons where appearing out of thin air to ensure that no perfect vacuum could be attained. We call these Virtual Particles. They usually annihilate themselves before becoming "real" and observable, but if local conditions are just right, like near a black-hole, some virtual particles are lucky enough to get pulled and stretched, and this process lends them enough energy to materialize. The virtual particles are of course random, and this apparatus is actually used now to generate proper random values. You can actually tap in to the vacuum energy with an API to get your source of entropy! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect Vacuum energy quantum RNG: https://qrng.anu.edu.au/ Back to Penrose... when the universe approaches this infinitely cold empty state, it turns out to be the same, mathematically, as the hot dense state. With everything being so distant and disconnected, the universe sort of forgets that it is big and empty. Then all it takes is the enough quantum fluctuations and virtual particles to appear in some small region of space, that they pull on each other and become real. This might, according to Penrose, trigger another Big Bang. What does this have to do with relativity and free will? If it is true that nature, at the smallest level, is fundamentally random, then the block universe containing a predetermined future cannot be real. So free will is safe? Not quite. If the Andromeda people are anything like us, their brains are subject to same laws. The electrical activity in the firing synapses, that we call thinking, must also be subject to the random fluctuations of quantum mechanics. How can they have free will, when the electrical impulses driving that will are fundamentally random and unpredictable? Weird, eh?

tzs 5y ago
There was a PBS Space Time episode about a year ago that covered what I think is the same recent Penrose idea that you have mentioned [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC2JOQ7z5L0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC2JOQ7z5L0
vidarh 5y ago
To me the main reason quantum effects does not affect the free will argument is because one can - and probably should given that otherwise it makes QM keep coming up -, reframe it to not worry about absolute determinism and instead apply just probabilistic models. The real question becomes one of probabilities: Unless some entity is able to introduce measurable biases that deviates from predictable probabilistic distributions relative to what could be predicted based on its complete state (including its internal physical structure) and complete inputs, it makes little sense to suggest the entity has agency. But that leaves us with the problem of explaining how something could effectively break the laws of physics in a way that doesn't just lead to infinite regress. The day I see someone give a definition of free will that overcomes that, I'll be in awe. Not holding my breath.
- parineum 5y ago
  > Unless some entity is able to introduce measurable biases that deviates from predictable probabilistic distribution This is always the problem with arguments for free will or at least the idea that one "could have done something different" that try to use physics/science. It requires metaphysical action, literally something that cannot be understood with physics. The whole purpose of physics is to define the universe as deterministic. Quantum randomness is exactly that, random. If it was influenceable in some way, it wouldn't be random. Furthermore, the decision to influence it would still be deterministic so the metaphysics doesn't even make sense. Quantum magic is just the bleeding edge of woo.

tzs 5y ago

There was a PBS Space Time episode about a year ago that covered what I think is the same recent Penrose idea that you have mentioned [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC2JOQ7z5L0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC2JOQ7z5L0

vidarh 5y ago

To me the main reason quantum effects does not affect the free will argument is because one can - and probably should given that otherwise it makes QM keep coming up -, reframe it to not worry about absolute determinism and instead apply just probabilistic models. The real question becomes one of probabilities: Unless some entity is able to introduce measurable biases that deviates from predictable probabilistic distributions relative to what could be predicted based on its complete state (including its internal physical structure) and complete inputs, it makes little sense to suggest the entity has agency. But that leaves us with the problem of explaining how something could effectively break the laws of physics in a way that doesn't just lead to infinite regress. The day I see someone give a definition of free will that overcomes that, I'll be in awe. Not holding my breath.

parineum 5y ago
> Unless some entity is able to introduce measurable biases that deviates from predictable probabilistic distribution This is always the problem with arguments for free will or at least the idea that one "could have done something different" that try to use physics/science. It requires metaphysical action, literally something that cannot be understood with physics. The whole purpose of physics is to define the universe as deterministic. Quantum randomness is exactly that, random. If it was influenceable in some way, it wouldn't be random. Furthermore, the decision to influence it would still be deterministic so the metaphysics doesn't even make sense. Quantum magic is just the bleeding edge of woo.