31 ms·

The “no free will” argument just relies on the brain strictly following the laws of physics.

by setopt 2y ago

lukan 2y ago
Is it though? I kind of do believe in a deterministic universe, but I thought quantum physics disagree with that.
- thrance 2y ago
  Quantum phenomenons appear non-deterministic, but there is no definitive proof that they are not. But I think this is irrelevant to the question of free will: having quantum states randomly collapse insinde my brain would have nothing to do with freedom.
  - lupire 2y ago
    It depends on what the RNG is.
    - Filligree 2y ago
      That's just moving the problem around. Say the RNG is controlled by a soul of some kind; next up, how does the soul work? It's either random or an algorithm, and either way we're right back where we started.
      - kaibee 2y ago
        That's fine, as long as its complex enough to keep us busy and nurse the ego :)
    - Evidlo 2y ago
      If the universe uses Dual_EC_DRBG then the NSA can read your mind.
- setopt 2y ago
  > I kind of do believe in a deterministic universe, but I thought quantum physics disagree with that. Not necessarily. Most people learn the "Copenhagen interpretation" in intro quantum mechanics. The quantum wave function then evolves deterministically (Schrodinger equation), but collapses probabilistically (on observation). In that sense, the world is fundamentally random – although I personally wouldn't describe a robot driven by a real RNG as having "free will", even though it is indeed non-deterministic. However, there is a major caveat here: This is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and there are fully deterministic alternatives. For instance, in "non-local hidden variable" and "superdeterministic" interpretations, the wave function collapse is believed to be a deterministic process. In the "many worlds" interpretation, the wave function doesn't collapse at all (it only entangles), and you're left with only the deterministic Schrodinger equation. It has also been shown that quantum-like behavior can arise in deterministic systems, see e.g. the "bouncing droplet" experiments on YouTube if you're interested (which is a beautiful macroscopic analogue to the "pilot wave" interpretation, which is a viable "non-local hidden variable" theory). The reason it's commonly stated that quantum mechanics requires non-determinism is that (i) the philosophically most appealing "local hidden variable" theory has been falsified, (ii) the Copenhagen interpretation is easy to teach, and (iii) for practical calculations it actually doesn't matter. (Source: I work in quantum mechanics.)
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
Free will is inherently supernatural?
- mathematicaster 2y ago
  Not inherently. Just unexplained (and many think, with good reasons, unexplainable) by current physics.
  - thrance 2y ago
    If it is unexplained and impossible to measure, then it might as well not exist. Just like deities, invisible unicorns...
    - Xcelerate 2y ago
      See... but I would say that experiential consciousness is unexplained and impossible to measure, and yet, if I were to rank everything based on how certain I am that it exists, experiential consciousness would be at the top of the list. If you take away all of my senses, what am I left with? Just the ability to think and experience my own existence.
      - thrance 2y ago
        Well... you are certain that consciousness exists because you experience it: that is measuring. As for explaining it, I guess it's more of a definitional problem than a physical one. I'm still confident that one day we'll be able to look at something and approximate how conscious it is. Free will, on the other hand, requires supernatural phenomenons coming from outside the material world (dualism) to explain how we, humans, can make decisions free of any (or some) of the influences of the physical world. I don't buy it, and I believe the burden of proof falls on the ones who do.
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
    Hm. My stance is that free will is just not well-defined
samatman 2y ago
John Conway makes a solid case that this is backward: https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf
Tagbert 2y ago
In the articles I’ve read claiming that there is no free will, they seem to be assuming that “free” means that it would arise spontaneously without any interaction with the prior environment that could influence the decisions. They claim, rightly that that cannot happen but then assume that means that nothing short of that can be free will. That seems an excessively restricted definition.

The “no free will” argument just relies on the brain strictly following the laws of physics.

by setopt 2y ago

The “no free will” argument just relies on the brain strictly following the laws of physics.

lukan 2y ago

Is it though? I kind of do believe in a deterministic universe, but I thought quantum physics disagree with that.

thrance 2y ago
Quantum phenomenons appear non-deterministic, but there is no definitive proof that they are not. But I think this is irrelevant to the question of free will: having quantum states randomly collapse insinde my brain would have nothing to do with freedom.
- lupire 2y ago
  It depends on what the RNG is.
  - Filligree 2y ago
    That's just moving the problem around. Say the RNG is controlled by a soul of some kind; next up, how does the soul work? It's either random or an algorithm, and either way we're right back where we started.
    - kaibee 2y ago
      That's fine, as long as its complex enough to keep us busy and nurse the ego :)
  - Evidlo 2y ago
    If the universe uses Dual_EC_DRBG then the NSA can read your mind.
setopt 2y ago
> I kind of do believe in a deterministic universe, but I thought quantum physics disagree with that. Not necessarily. Most people learn the "Copenhagen interpretation" in intro quantum mechanics. The quantum wave function then evolves deterministically (Schrodinger equation), but collapses probabilistically (on observation). In that sense, the world is fundamentally random – although I personally wouldn't describe a robot driven by a real RNG as having "free will", even though it is indeed non-deterministic. However, there is a major caveat here: This is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and there are fully deterministic alternatives. For instance, in "non-local hidden variable" and "superdeterministic" interpretations, the wave function collapse is believed to be a deterministic process. In the "many worlds" interpretation, the wave function doesn't collapse at all (it only entangles), and you're left with only the deterministic Schrodinger equation. It has also been shown that quantum-like behavior can arise in deterministic systems, see e.g. the "bouncing droplet" experiments on YouTube if you're interested (which is a beautiful macroscopic analogue to the "pilot wave" interpretation, which is a viable "non-local hidden variable" theory). The reason it's commonly stated that quantum mechanics requires non-determinism is that (i) the philosophically most appealing "local hidden variable" theory has been falsified, (ii) the Copenhagen interpretation is easy to teach, and (iii) for practical calculations it actually doesn't matter. (Source: I work in quantum mechanics.)

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago

Free will is inherently supernatural?

mathematicaster 2y ago
Not inherently. Just unexplained (and many think, with good reasons, unexplainable) by current physics.
- thrance 2y ago
  If it is unexplained and impossible to measure, then it might as well not exist. Just like deities, invisible unicorns...
  - Xcelerate 2y ago
    See... but I would say that experiential consciousness is unexplained and impossible to measure, and yet, if I were to rank everything based on how certain I am that it exists, experiential consciousness would be at the top of the list. If you take away all of my senses, what am I left with? Just the ability to think and experience my own existence.
    - thrance 2y ago
      Well... you are certain that consciousness exists because you experience it: that is measuring. As for explaining it, I guess it's more of a definitional problem than a physical one. I'm still confident that one day we'll be able to look at something and approximate how conscious it is. Free will, on the other hand, requires supernatural phenomenons coming from outside the material world (dualism) to explain how we, humans, can make decisions free of any (or some) of the influences of the physical world. I don't buy it, and I believe the burden of proof falls on the ones who do.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  Hm. My stance is that free will is just not well-defined

samatman 2y ago

John Conway makes a solid case that this is backward: https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf

Tagbert 2y ago

In the articles I’ve read claiming that there is no free will, they seem to be assuming that “free” means that it would arise spontaneously without any interaction with the prior environment that could influence the decisions. They claim, rightly that that cannot happen but then assume that means that nothing short of that can be free will. That seems an excessively restricted definition.