Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will but how free really?
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 31 of 182 (483820)
09-24-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Modulous
09-24-2008 11:19 AM


Re: Lack of information
Modulous writes:
I submit that anything with the power to calculate all that with the necessary accuracy at the required speed would simply be the universe. But yes, this is the position of the determinists.
We don't need to have all the information in the Universe to prove that chaos does not exist. We can prove "locally", in a particular spot of our realm/environment that chaos is a misconception(by knowing a humanly possible number of variables and guessing the outcome with 100% ceratainity). Then, it follows logically that if chaos and randomness do not exist, we are playing an orchestrated game. And whose game it is is a tough question. We humans being the first ones who would figure out that we are mere puppet on strings, would assing a flair of a somewhat Higher purpose than the other species of the animal world. Maybe there is a higher purpose assigned for us after all.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2008 11:19 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 32 of 182 (483828)
09-24-2008 12:52 PM


Who orchestrated this?
Benjamin Libet discovered that our brain reacts to oncoming muscle action (lifting your foot) before we decide to perform that action. Although Libet himself tried intensively to preserve the concept of free will in the face of this evidence, it is generally believed that he failed, and that it shows our belief in free will to be a illusion.
"Libet's experiments suggest unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, therefore, little room remains for the operations of free will. If the brain has already taken steps to initiate an action before we are aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated."
Benjamin Libet - Wikipedia
If Free Will is not ours then whose is it? Who/what could have a reason for orchestrating an Universe and life and play with our lives, in a pre-determined game?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2017 12:49 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 33 of 182 (483829)
09-24-2008 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Agobot
09-24-2008 11:44 AM


Re: Lack of information
I don't think Free will is possible in a world with fixed past, present and future. Those concepts are mutually exclusive.
Indeed, as long as we stick to traditional understandings of 'free will'. The big question is: is the future fixed?
We don't need to have all the information in the Universe to prove that chaos does not exist. We can prove "locally", in a particular spot of our realm/environment that chaos is a misconception(by knowing a humanly possible number of variables and guessing the outcome with 100% ceratainity).
But chaos is not a misconception. It is the case that some systems are such that even a slight variance on initial conditions can have dramatic differences in the final outcome. You may be confused about Chaos Theory, so have a quick scout around about it. From wiki. As I will expand upon below, the notion that we can even know all the variables may be flawed as well as the assertion that we have been able to predict things '100%'.
quote:
In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain dynamical systems - that is, systems whose state evolves with time - that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
What stands between us and knowing all the variables, other than the computational impossibility of it, is quantum physics. If quantum physics is accurate: it is simply not possible to gain all the information about a system - and even if we could, we'd only be able to assign probabilities to future outcomes.
The determinists case is far from made just yet. We still haven't figured out why a given atom 'decides' to decay at a given time. Maybe there is predictable set of preconditions before it happens, but as far as I can tell - physicists aren't expecting that to be the case.
Try the thought experiment: You have two molecules in the universe. One stable (a stablon), one that will decay (a decayon). The decayon has a half-life of 5 minutes. The stablon will be stationary with respect to the decayon unless it decays, in which case it will be moving at 1000ms. What will the status of the stablon be in 5 minutes? You're only out is that there are some hidden variables.
Living in a reality which is based on probabilities doesn't necessarily rescue free will, of course, but it offers it a possible hiding place for the time being. I'm just pointing out that while it may be 'thought experimentally' possible to know all the variables, that doesn't necessarily mean there is no free will. If 'freewillness' has no associated variables, it means we cannot account for it so therefore the future is not fixed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 11:44 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 1:12 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 35 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 1:16 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 36 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 1:20 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 34 of 182 (483836)
09-24-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
09-24-2008 12:56 PM


Re: Lack of information
Modulous writes:
The determinists case is far from made just yet. We still haven't figured out why a given atom 'decides' to decay at a given time. Maybe there is predictable set of preconditions before it happens, but as far as I can tell - physicists aren't expecting that to be the case.
Try the thought experiment: You have two molecules in the universe. One stable (a stablon), one that will decay (a decayon). The decayon has a half-life of 5 minutes. The stablon will be stationary with respect to the decayon unless it decays, in which case it will be moving at 1000ms. What will the status of the stablon be in 5 minutes? You're only out is that there are some hidden variables
In the case of the molecule scenario above the most one can do is to show that the status of the molecule within the given 5 mins. is not predictable using our current knowledge of the "laws of nature" - but this does not lead to the safe conclusion that the molecule's status is necessarily random. It may simply be that the molecule status is very uniquely determined, but our understanding of the "laws of nature" is inadequate...
The same argument can be applied to any empirical "evidence" of randomness (including quantum randomness).
Hence, any empirical evidence of randomness may be interpreted simply in terms of lack of predictability born of our(CURRENT) inadequate understanding of the laws of nature.
IMHO, the reason why many people seem to want to cling on to the idea of genuine randomness is because this seems to be the only hope for any kind of "free will" - such persons are unfortunately (IMHO) misguided.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2008 12:56 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2008 1:22 PM Agobot has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 35 of 182 (483837)
09-24-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
09-24-2008 12:56 PM


Re: Lack of information
Modulous writes:
But chaos is not a misconception. It is the case that some systems are such that even a slight variance on initial conditions can have dramatic differences in the final outcome. You may be confused about Chaos Theory, so have a quick scout around about it. From wiki. As I will expand upon below, the notion that we can even know all the variables may be flawed as well as the assertion that we have been able to predict things '100%'.
What would be an example of such a system?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2008 12:56 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 09-24-2008 1:29 PM Agobot has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 36 of 182 (483839)
09-24-2008 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
09-24-2008 12:56 PM


Re: Lack of information
Modulous writes:
I'm just pointing out that while it may be 'thought experimentally' possible to know all the variables, that doesn't necessarily mean there is no free will. If 'freewillness' has no associated variables, it means we cannot account for it so therefore the future is not fixed.
How could Free Will not have any associated variables, when free will is supposedly the product of our brains, and all the processes in our brains are essentially variables?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2008 12:56 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 37 of 182 (483840)
09-24-2008 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Agobot
09-24-2008 1:12 PM


Re: Lack of information
In the case of the molecule scenario above the most one can do is to show that the status of the molecule within the given 5 mins. is not predictable using our current knowledge of the "laws of nature" - but this does not lead to the safe conclusion that the molecule's status is necessarily random. It may simply be that the molecule status is very uniquely determined, but our understanding of the "laws of nature" is inadequate...
The same argument can be applied to any empirical "evidence" of randomness (including quantum randomness).
I said as much myself - your only out is 'hidden variables'. I gave a link that discusses such ideas, what did you think of it?
IMHO, the reason why many people seem to want to cling on to the idea of genuine randomness is because this seems to be the only hope for any kind of "free will" - such persons are unfortunately (IMHO) misguided.
Yes, there are better reasons to accept the notion of the probabilistic underpinnings of reality. All one has to point out to the free will people is that it provides no greater 'free will' to have certain decisions based on a number of probabilities than it does to have them based on a single determinable outcome. They have just changed their slavemaster from clockwork to craps.

You can edit posts to keep them down to one per, rather than making lots of single posts.
How could Free Will not have any associated variables, when free will is supposedly the product of our brains, and all the processes in our brains are essentially variables?
Who said free will is the product of our brains?
What would be an example of such a system? {a dynamic system which is highly sensitive to initial conditions}
The weather.
A double pendulum.
If you read the Chaos Theory wiki page, right at the bottom there are links to other examples.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 1:12 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 1:26 PM Modulous has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 38 of 182 (483841)
09-24-2008 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Modulous
09-24-2008 1:22 PM


Re: Lack of information
Modulous writes:
I said as much myself - your only out is 'hidden variables'. I gave a link that discusses such ideas, what did you think of it?
Thanks for the link. I think somebody is trying to save our perception of reality from crumbling to dust(unsuccessfully so far).
How could Free Will not have any associated variables, when free will is supposedly the product of our brains, and all the processes in our brains are essentially variables?
Modulous writes:
Who said free will is the product of our brains?
Are you inferring God/super power/Unknown entity?
What would be an example of such a system? {Chaos}
Modulous writes:
The weather.
Why wouldn't weather be 100% predictable if we knew ALL the forces and variables at play?
I had a great pleasure talking to you but have to run now. I'll be back in a fews hours.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2008 1:22 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 09-26-2008 10:28 AM Agobot has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 39 of 182 (483842)
09-24-2008 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Agobot
09-24-2008 1:16 PM


Re: Lack of information
Any quantum system is inherently probabalistic so no matter what information is known we can only ever make statistical predictions.
Radioactive decay for example. There is no amount of information that will tell us which atoms will decay. Only how many.
So quantum systems are not really deterministic.
The uncertainty principle, that we can never know both the exact position and momentum of a particle, would lead to a limit on the accuracy and the completeness of the initial conditions that we can ever have access to.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 1:16 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 1:37 PM Straggler has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 40 of 182 (483846)
09-24-2008 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Straggler
09-24-2008 1:29 PM


Re: Lack of information
Straggler writes:
Any quantum system is inherently probabalistic so no matter what information is known we can only ever make statistical predictions.
Radioactive decay for example. There is no amount of information that will tell us which atoms will decay. Only how many.
So quantum systems are not really deterministic.
As i've said earlier we know too little about the quantum world yet. You could be right in your assumptions but you could well be wrong. It could be our inadequate understanding of the quantum world that's hindering us from being able to apply the cause and effect principle with 100% certyainity on the quantum world.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 09-24-2008 1:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 09-24-2008 1:44 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 41 of 182 (483848)
09-24-2008 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Agobot
09-24-2008 1:37 PM


Re: Lack of information
It could be our inadequate understanding of the quantum world that's hindering us from being able to apply the cause and effect principle with 100% certyainity on the quantum world.
Agreed. But it could also be our inadequate understanding of the brain that is hindering us from understanding how the appearance of freewill could actually be freewill. To some extent at least.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 1:37 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 42 of 182 (483855)
09-24-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Modulous
09-23-2008 4:42 PM


Deterministic vs. Random, eh?
Modulous writes:
But still, what does it even mean for a decision to be made in a non-deterministic way? Doesn't imply that some or even all decisions are made at least partly for no rhyme or reason? Isn't this almost random decision making just as terrible as its absence?
I'm beginning to see the dilemma.
I admit, my first thoughts were "Determinism - Bad, Free Will - Good", and really not much more beyond that. I now find myself hoping for some sort of 'happy balance'. But, perhpas that isn't even necessary.
If a deterministic process is sufficiently complex... perhaps the inherent "illusion of randomness" that would necessarily be embedded in such a system would be, um... acceptable.
Or perhaps I simply want my decisions to be deterministic (as determined through me), while the universe itself is actually non-deterministic. That way, the decisions brought to my attention are random (life is not boring), but my choices of what to do are not (I would have a non-random method of making decisions).
Or perhpas we may even have the ability to make a decision random if we so choose?
That is, for an important decision I may be able to ensure that I focus on information at hand. While for an unimportant decision I may allow a certain amount of randomness in just "for the heck of it".
Or, perhaps, making our decisions non-random isn't so much a choice as it is something we need to put (great?) effort into, but isn't impossible.
Of course, now I'm just talking about what I'd like to see, rather than what the world actually is. But, I do not know of anything yet-so-far that is preventing any of these scenarios, do you? Have I mentioned anything that you know to have been categorically falsified as of yet?
I wouldn't go so far as lying, but it is absurd equivocation in my opinion.
Heh... I sometimes say things unnecessarily blunt when I'm confident the audience is not going to be offended easily

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 09-23-2008 4:42 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 09-26-2008 10:41 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 43 of 182 (483876)
09-24-2008 4:29 PM


This will spill over many topics but...
This discussion is fascinating but is starting to go beyond the capabilities of regular non-physicist folks like me. Having to sift through an endless amount of incomprehensible quantum mechanics maths in a language that's not my native one, is rather discouraging.
Anyway, i feel that if we have to continue from here we are going to need some help from Cavediver or San Goku(Sp?).
We have seen how chaos is defined in classical mechanics. Can chaos also be defined in quantum mechanics? If so, how? Is there a connection between the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics and chaos and if there is, how are they related? Doesn't chaos arise in a classical, nonquantum world on macroscopic phenomena?
Will the uncertanty principle hold in the future when we will likely have a much more sophisticated and accurate measurements of quantum events than the ones of today? Is there "true, uncaused" chaos in quantum mechanics(I don't really expect anyone to know that with great certainty)? If some of these questions are currently impossible to answer, is an eventual Theory of Everything going to solve them?
What is causing the phenomenon that prevents us from knowing with high accuracy both the position and the momentum of an electron? (kidding, kidding, haha... )
PS. There is something about matter that seems to contradict reality(maybe it's my ignorance) but i will not post it here to avoid going in multiple offtopics.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Syamsu, posted 09-24-2008 5:10 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 09-24-2008 5:34 PM Agobot has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 44 of 182 (483880)
09-24-2008 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Agobot
09-24-2008 4:29 PM


Re: This will spill over many topics but...
Yes Cavediver knows hyperincursive mathematics, he should be able to explain a bit. Hyperincursive math is the kind of math able to deal with choosing. In this kind of math the formula is itself an actor. So the formula is not so much for describing a thing, it is saying that a formula is an informationprocessor and that things (like rocks or anything) are too information processors. Information about past, present and future states, and then by the formula this information is processed, and the formula also processes the formula itself.
(from Review of Incursive, Hyperincursive and Anticipatory Systems - Foundation of Anticipation in Electromagnetism, Daniel M Dubois)
"6.1 Free Will as Unpredictable Hyperincursive Anticipation
Karl Pribram asked me (by email, after the CASYS'99 conference):
"How can an anticipatory hyperincursive system be modeled without a
future defined goal?".
My answer was: an hyperincursive anticipatory system generates
multiple potential states at each time step and corresponds to one-to-
many relations. A selection parameter must be defined to select a
particular state amongst these multiple potential states. These
multiple potential states collapse to one state (amongst these
states,) which becomes the actual state.
This reminds me the following comment an auditor made after a
conference on anticipatory hyperincursion I made:
"You have found the basic theory of free will".Indeed, the brain may
be considered as an anticipatory hyperincursive neural net which
generates multiple potential future states which collapse to actual
states by learning: the selection process of states to be actualized
amongst the multiple potential states is independent of
the fundamental dynamics of the brain, independent of initial
conditions and so completely unpredictable (and computable). The
selection by learning deals with inputs from the brain itself (via the
genetic code and self-reflection) and from environment. These inputs
are final causes at each time step. This creates a memory and at the
same time a program, which give rise to the mind, what I called a
computing memory. Each mind is unique in the sense that this is the
subjective experience of each brain that actualized potential states.
The free will means that we can choose a state amongst the multiple
potential states emerging from the preceding already actualized
states. The free will depends strongly on the history of all the past
memorized events and is not identical for each mind. The free will
does not means that the mind can make what he wants but that he can
choose amongst multiple possible choices. For a human being, this is
not possible to fly by itself, like a bird, but man invented airplanes
to actualize that."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 4:29 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 45 of 182 (483884)
09-24-2008 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Agobot
09-24-2008 4:29 PM


Calling Son Goku
You are absolutely right that Cavediver or Son Goku would add a great deal to this. Son Goku in particular has given some really useful and reasonably understandable insights into this sort of topic previously.
However in the meantime I will see if I can answer some of your questions.
We have seen how chaos is defined in classical mechanics. Can chaos also be defined in quantum mechanics?
Well quantum chaos does exist but I must admit that I know nothing really about it at all. So far, not so good......
Is there a connection between the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics and chaos and if there is, how are they related?
I am not sure that they are related in the way you might be suggesting (as in one is derived from the other). However chaos theory is indeed a classical theory that tells us tiny changes in initial conditions can have dramatic effects on the eventual result. The uncertainty principle tells us that there is a necessary limit on the knowledge that it is possible to have regarding any system. Thus there is a limit to the knowledge we can have of any initial conditions. So we have both a limit on what we can know and an exponential effect of these unknowables. This leads to an inherent and potentially large level of unpredictability of any given system.
Doesn't chaos arise in a classical, non-quantum world on macroscopic phenomena?
Yes. Chaos theory is a classical non-quantum theory. In essence it says that the effects of tiny fluctuations can have exponential effects on the eventual outcome of a system. Chaos theory in itself says nothing about the theoretical limits of knowledge regarding initial conditions. However in most complex classical systems the practical inability to know all of the initial condition info is more than enough to lead to a high degree of unpredictability in any practical sense.
Will the uncertainty principle hold in the future when we will likely have a much more sophisticated and accurate measurements of quantum events than the ones of today?
If current QM theories are correct and not an approximation to some as yet unknown theory then no. The uncertainty principle is not a technological limit. It is an inherent limit of nature.
Is there "true, uncaused" chaos in quantum mechanics(I don't really expect anyone to know that with great certainty)?
Well QM is inherently probabilistic. So causality does go out of the window to some degree. Something like a half life is not just a statistical approximation to caused events. It is inherently probabilistic'
What is causing the phenomenon that prevents us from knowing with accuracy both the position and the momentum of an electron?
How would you measure? By observation? But a photon required to do that measurement would itself change the position and/or momentum of that electron. That is my simplistic understanding anyway.
I am happy to be corrected and/or elaborated upon by anyone with more knowledge regarding any of the above.
To my mind the idea of the many worlds interpretation of QM and the role of (or absence of) freewill is a truly mind-blowing concept. This suggests that all possibilities exist and that whichever possibility we find ourselves living out is just one statistical pathway of many. Thus, as I understand it, there is no freewill as such. There is a "you" who has made every opposite decision and the "you" that you know as "you" is just a statistical path in time. As are the "yous" that are not.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 4:29 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 5:49 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 53 by Son Goku, posted 09-26-2008 8:41 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024