Does free will exist?

[Papa1]

i don't see this as contradictory to "randomness"

as a parallel, if you were playing a game in which you choose randomly between zeros and ones.
each answer may be totally random. thus expressing your free will (according to my definition, which is related to "randomness"), even though one could point out that you'll only choose one or zero, and never three or another number

free will has its place within the restriction of some parameters too



or let's say that you have a glass of water on your left and one on your right with no reason to choose one over the other

you have free will to choose which one you want to drink first
even though we're sure that by tomorrow you'll have drunk both because you were thirsty, free will will have played its role until then

that the final result of a process is certain does not prevent free will from influencing how the process unfolds

^ In the zero-or-one game, the number of times I chose either could really be any fraction of the total choices. Say I have some inner fixation with the number 1 and after 1000 trials I've chosen it 70% of the time, or maybe I'm having a zero day and decide to pick that 58% of the time - whatever, there's no strict stipulations on how my distribution of choices will fall. We can phrase this by saying that there are no strict rules governing the probability that I'll choose a 1 or a 0.

In quantum mechanics, however, there are. If the 0-or-1 game was a quantum mechanical system (say, measuring 'spin up' or 'spin down' of an electron) counting the measurements would reveal an extremely strict probability rule (say 50%-50% ). For a given system, these probability rules never change. So whereas the individual measurements are themselves random, the behaviour of the system over a long time is controlled: if we could take an infinite number of measurements, we would find exactly half were spin up and exactly half were spin down, and we could have predicted this beforehand. It's in this sense that quantum mechanics still has some level of 'determinism' - only now it's the probabilities, rather than the specific measurements, which are tightly constrained.

Does this make sense? Please feel free to let me know if I'm being unclear.. There are a few other people floating around (i.e. zorn and qwe) who could probably give a better explanation if you wanted it.

 

[kandytime]

Believing in free will directly depends on your spiritual/religious beliefs. If you are christian then think of this, they claim god is an almighty and perfect being who knows all, this is referred to as omniscience.

Due to the fact that god is omnipotent, he knows EVERYTHING, even what will occur in the future. So if god knows what will happen in the future, and since he is never wrong due to omniscience, then what he knows about the future MUST occur.

If what will happen in the future must happen to us then we do not have free will, as we are not free to make a choice to change this pre-determined future. Ultimately meaning we cannot do anything else other than what god has already known we will do. This means we do not have unrestricted choices, and that any choice we do make would be shrouded behind a false hope of freedom given to us from the bible.

Choosing not to believe in this logic would be an admittance to god's imperfect powers, which would effectively strip him of the title "god" in the first place. Luckily I choose not to believe in one single religious idea, so full heartedly support the notion that humans are in the end, free.

 

[MrM]

Believing in free will directly depends on your spiritual/religious beliefs. If you are christian then think of this, they claim god is an almighty and perfect being who knows all, this is referred to as omniscience.

Due to the fact that god is omnipotent, he knows EVERYTHING, even what will occur in the future. So if god knows what will happen in the future, and since he is never wrong due to omniscience, then what he knows about the future MUST occur.

I always wondered why more hasn't been made out of that rather obvious little catch 22 in regards to free will and god's omniscience. I suppose believers in an omniscient god could argue that omniscience doesn't include the dimension of time, somehow... um..., well not really.

 

[blauwelichten]

Youre all being a little too clever, look the cartoons are on telly, you like cartoons, cartoons are funny, remember how you used to laugh at the cartoons.
seriously you'll all make yourself ill thinking so hard.

 

[ebola?]

Forgive me for asking but...

What is free will?

Thank you. Hopefully, this will save wasted effort which would otherwise be put to people talking past one another. Given that most people are dissatisfied with quantum mechanics' probabalistic determinism as providing sufficient conditions for free will, I'm going to define free will as the following:

Free will is a condition where the entity doing the willing is not subject to full causal determination from an entity outside itself.

That it, free well may be thought of as autonomy exercised by the 'willer'.

Now, if we think that the mind emerges on a level of analysis distinct from the brain, then free will may be congruent with physical determinism:

even though physical laws may dictate what's the individual is going to do from moment to moment, looking to the level of personal psychology, we may have an emergent willer subject to its own logic, even though from one particular physical state, we may derive what the mental state will be.

ebola

 

[Papa1]

^ Yes, that's great. Except

"Free will is a condition where the entity doing the willing is not subject to full causal determination from an entity outside itself"

would count quantum measurements as free will, since, say, the 50-50 measurement of either up or down is not causally determined from an outside entity. Which is just getting hung up on the word 'determined'. I see what you're saying though. Maybe something like "Free will is a condition where the entity doing the willing has agency over and above outside laws".

I guess good questions are a. what's the mathematical formalism describing a system that's probabilistically deterministic (whatever that really means, if it means anything), and b. given that description, is a system described by this formalism on one level described by on it on all levels (whatever that really means).

 

[ebola?]

would count quantum measurements as free will, since, say, the 50-50 measurement of either up or down is not causally determined from an outside entity.

Ah...but are we happy to define localized particle-interactions as the 'willer'? And even though probabalistically determined in behavior, such interactions remain subject to interactions with outside particles to determine them.

Great questions...if I had the answers, I bet I'd have a more definitive conclusion.

ebola

 

[Heuristic]

ebola, I agree with your definition.

But now for the really difficult part: what does it mean to will?


What is striking to me about the debate above is how much energy is being focused on whether the universe is deterministic, or not. And it seems taken for the granted that, if the universe is deterministic, then free will cannot exist; and if the universe is not, then free will does exist.

But this assumes that 1) predictability is incompatible with free will--an argument that no one on here, as best I can tell, has made, and, 2) in the course of assuming 1, also assumes that free will must ultimately be susceptible, in total, to a physical explanation.

Let me explain what I mean by 2 (this will be familiar ground to some, but not everyone, and it's worth stating out loud in any event so we're all on the same page). I cannot describe the sense of seeing red, in total, by a physical explanation. I could tell you with great precision, theoretically, which particles traveling at which times at which locations can produce the sense of seeing red. But this will not tell you what it is like to see red.

So, with respect to 2, why couldn't free will be a similar sort of emergent phenomenon?

I think we need to focus more energy getting clear on what we mean by free will, and less on whether the universe is deterministic or not.

 

[straycatphizzle]

Of course there is free will. You are free to do literally whatever you wish to do.

 

[kandytime]

Of course there is free will. You are free to do literally whatever you wish to do.

if you had read earlier posts you would see the argument that whatever you do could already be determined, sure you think you have the free will to do exactly as you please. Sure anyone can get a gun and fuck up 20 people's lives at the local mall, but would you actually do that? Or are you just walking down a metaphorical tight-rope? A life where you have plenty of room to move and look around you, but will you ever actually falter from the only path available?

excuse my highness

 

[straycatphizzle]

^ excuse my lethargy. You have the ability to do whatever you wish to do, the question of would you is irrevelant. We're not asking whether you exorcise free will we're asking if it exists. Everything may be predictable but this doesnt mean you arent the architect of your own future. I was reading a compare and contrast piece last night on Sartre and Freud's idea of free will. You seem to lean towards freudian thought and i think its simply arrogant to say you can analyze a human mind fully and completely and then predict their actions.

 

[Papa1]

Ah...but are we happy to define localized particle-interactions as the 'willer'?

Well, if you're a priori limiting what can will and what can't, what use is a strict definition? To answer your question though, I'd say we aren't happy with that, which was my point: there are entities that are not fully causally determined, which we would not be comfortable including in the free will camp.

And even though probabalistically determined in behavior, such interactions remain subject to interactions with outside particles to determine them.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Quantum measurements are stochastic and so not fully causally determined. Stop. Do you mean that there are additional interactions required to 'read' the measurement?

it seems taken for the granted that, if the universe is deterministic, then free will cannot exist; and if the universe is not, then free will does exist.

But this assumes that 1) predictability is incompatible with free will--an argument that no one on here, as best I can tell, has made,

How could predictability not be synonymous with free will? At least the 100% predictability of classical determinism? Are you suggesting that the 'willer' is freely choosing to do exactly what's been predetermined? Is this fitting with what most people would be comfortable calling 'free', or would this be an illusion of free? Please expand if you have time...

Let me explain what I mean by 2 (this will be familiar ground to some, but not everyone, and it's worth stating out loud in any event so we're all on the same page). I cannot describe the sense of seeing red, in total, by a physical explanation. I could tell you with great precision, theoretically, which particles traveling at which times at which locations can produce the sense of seeing red. But this will not tell you what it is like to see red.

So, with respect to 2, why couldn't free will be a similar sort of emergent phenomenon?

This is a great point. What prevents broad free will emerging from a fine level of probabilistic determinism? I don't see how the strict determinism of newtonian mechanics could have room for an emergence like that, since a collection of fully determined particles is itself be fully determined. However, I'm not familiar enough with QM to say that a collection of probabilistically determined particles would itself in sum be probabilistically determined, or whether additional dynamics could come in. Maybe a physicist could help out with that one.

I think we need to focus more energy getting clear on what we mean by free will, and less on whether the universe is deterministic or not.

Yes yes yes. I like ebola's definition, although suggest that it needs some tweaking.

 

[)4u2nV(Infini]

Cause and effect, is the only aspect. Free-will is an illusion, whether you are christian, or a determinist like me. Christians spout out about free-will, and then in the same sentence, "god's plan". Well which is it? Does he or doesn't he know EVERYTHING. By knowing "everything" that means that since the beginning of time itself he has known every out-come and who is going to heaven or hell. Interesting that your god willingly sends his creations to hell. Not to mention this silly game of the universe and all seems rather useless when you know EVERYTHING that is going to happen. You're god is flawed, sounds human to me. ANYWAYS all things that are currently happening are happening because of a cause before them, starting at the beginning (big bang, or whatever you're answer is). If you input the same variables, in every instance the exact same outcome MUST HAPPEN. But what do I know, yawn.

 

[Papa1]

Cause and effect, is the only aspect. Free-will is an illusion, whether you are christian, or a determinist like me. Christians spout out about free-will, and then in the same sentence, "god's plan". Well which is it? Does he or doesn't he know EVERYTHING. By knowing "everything" that means that since the beginning of time itself he has known every out-come and who is going to heaven or hell. Interesting that your god willingly sends his creations to hell. Not to mention this silly game of the universe and all seems rather useless when you know EVERYTHING that is going to happen. You're god is flawed, sounds human to me. ANYWAYS all things that are currently happening are happening because of a cause before them, starting at the beginning (big bang, or whatever you're answer is).

If you read above, this is being discussed. We'd be happy if you joined the ongoing discussion, and it would make a nice and tidy thread.

If you input the same variables, in every instance the exact same outcome MUST HAPPEN.

Not true. e.g. measurement of spin of a particle

 

[FrostyMcFailure]

Clearly OP has never had a ++++

 

[)4u2nV(Infini]

Your quantum example "E.G. the measurement of spin of a particle" is a good one, and as with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is very true. But lets say your right and electrons and such are "random" as they seem. That still doesn't prove free-will it just shows that particles are "random".

 

[Kaelfi]

For me, the closest definition of god that makes sense is the universe or better yet, all of existence, IS god. Thus we are god becoming aware of itself.

I had a very wise friend who had the very same idea(s). We were friends for 25 years until his death about 5 years ago, but we did not discuss these ideas until about 15 years into our friendship - he stated that I was not "ready" until then. I learned so much from him and grew so much with his help and guidance.

I very much believe in a "universal intelligence" and that we are in fact all part of "what is" god. The more I meditate, the more the idea that we are god becoming aware of itself makes perfect sense. The burden of and the illusions that the ego create is what held me back from seeing this for so long.

Thank you.

 

[TheAppleCore]

Clearly OP has never had a ++++

I dunno about that, dude. Taking drugs isn't going to magically gift you with any sort of wisdom about the universe and its physical laws.

Psychedelic trips are revelatory, but what they reveal pertains more to one's psychology than the quantum physics involved in its creation.


Also, I've had plenty of trips that have made me feel very much like a gear in a machine - they seemed to shatter the illusion of free will (although I've never believed in free will, so that was probably a bit of a biased interpretation the feelings my trip gave me).

 

[ebola?]

I cannot describe the sense of seeing red, in total, by a physical explanation. I could tell you with great precision, theoretically, which particles traveling at which times at which locations can produce the sense of seeing red. But this will not tell you what it is like to see red.
...
So, with respect to 2, why couldn't free will be a similar sort of emergent phenomenon?

This is what I attempted to suggest in my attempted reconciliation of physical determinism and free will...but you did so vastly more succinctly and eloquently.

Well, if you're a priori limiting what can will and what can't, what use is a strict definition?

Good (rigorous) point. I think that the fact that particle interactions are subject to physical antecedents and perhaps the universe's roll of the dice discounts them from fulfilling my prior definition of a "willer"...but you point to a key issue: what is it to will and/or be a willer?

I'm going to put forward another provisional definition:

A "willer" not only acts as the 'initial' cause of his/her/its actions but also holds 'intentionality' (meant mostly colloquially in this case) over what is 'willed'. That is, a 'willer' must have an experience of (qualia pointing intentionally (this time in the philosophical sense) to/production of meanings bound up with) deciding, dictating, and enacting which actions he/she/it takes.

How could particle interactions, taken alone fulfill such a condition?

 

[Papa1]

A "willer" not only acts as the 'initial' cause of his/her/its actions but also holds 'intentionality' (meant mostly colloquially in this case) over what is 'willed'. That is, a 'willer' must have an experience of (qualia pointing intentionally (this time in the philosophical sense) to/production of meanings bound up with) deciding, dictating, and enacting which actions he/she/it takes.

How could particle interactions, taken alone fulfill such a condition?

I don't think they would. You're saying that willing involves having an experience of fulfilling an initial cause. In another thread it seemed pretty much in agreement that particles (namely water) don't experience, so they couldn't fit the definition as is.

I think it makes sense only if consciousness is necessary to will. Hmm... Say, is a sleep walker willing? I would say that he might not be... And how arbitrary is something like this?

Also, it hinges on 'initial', which would need to be defined. Say, defining some threshold that's crossed (or something).

But I think the experience angle is a good way to do it.