Let's redo a classic: Freewill vs Determinism

[Kittycat5]

My free enough will is broken.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Good discussion. It's gotten into that territory where I feel like a professor is going to pop out any moment now and quiz me on my multiplication tables but I'm going to muster up some free will juice and attempt an analogy of weak measurement that can sort of help guide one through the material out there. I don't really understand this stuff to be clear, not well enough to defend its interpretation, but I've tried to understand it for a while now. I'll try to give an analogy that is desperately lacking in all these treatments of weak measurement instead of pointing at some equation.

Imagine a dim stream of photons hitting a detector. You've prepared them in a particular well-defined polarization state in the quantum sense. Essentially, you've pre-selected the state (careful now, this is a quantum state, not a classical one so you need to picture a bloch sphere). Polarization is the measurable value. Now consider this stream of particles hitting a detector. You hear a click, click, click counting the photons as they arrive. Let's say you count 100 clicks/sec.

Next, you expand this stream of particles in a region with a lens so that the narrow beam of particles (----) becomes spatially very wide (###) (you turn that narrow stream of particles into a very fat beam for a portion of the path ( -----()#####()------ ) ). Into that fat beam portion, you insert a beamsplitter and divert a very small portion of that beam away from the detector. Then you narrow the beam back down again and count photons as before. You've set it up so that now you only get 99 clicks/sec at the detector, but 1 of those 100 original photons is diverted away from the stream statistically speaking. Using that one photon from that ensemble you perform a hard measurements to glean information about the polarization state of the ensemble even though statistically you are probing less that a full qubit. That falls short of being a full explanation, but is a good start

 

[Nixiam]

Like I said previously, I've no real experience with quantum physics but this makes sense afer a second read ^. Art thou a god, oh wise levels? And to be correct, this is your explanation of weak measurement, right? I want the smarts to rub off on me.

 

[Jabberwocky]

yeah man, and the I haven't told you about the detector yet Nix, it's got this little chamber in it and if you pack a nug in there just right you can use it as a bong :D

 

[swilow]

I read the word polarisation and had a panic attack.

 

[belligerent drunk]

I will admit I am not well read on philosophy so could there be something in between or a hybrid that has been considered?

I'm even less read on philosophy, which is why I tackle such questions as scientific matters. However, I think as long as you can practice logic, you can do some sorts of philosophy, although I believe it has to be at least partially scientific (e.g not completely out-there speculations).

Back to the topic, though. What exactly do you mean by a hybrid? I see this more of as a yes/no question, either you have free will or you don't. How can there be middle ground? Or do you mean in the sense that full free will would mean that you can change anything in the nature (a la god), and limited free will means you can only influence yourself?

the system seems to not be deterministic but doesnt have to mean the observer isnt

I may be missing something, but I don't see how you can derive conclusions about the free will of the observer in such experiments, don't you have to examine the observer in detail to determine whether he's a quantum mechanical system or there's some supernatural free will at work? This is what I mean by the argument "the observer appears to have free will, therefore he has free will". Yes, an observer can influence the experiment in a non-random fashion that cannot be easily described by simple statistics, but that's everywhere in human life. A human is complex enough that it can defy simply statistics if it wants, but how does that give it free will? You can devise a complex algorithm for a robot or whatever, and it can perform just as well - so it has free will too?

And whether our brain is deterministic or not doesn't matter here. It is of interest, of course, to me especially, but QM doesn't add to the free will of anyone. What I mean by deterministic or not is, if we look at the same chemical chain reaction example as I presented before:

A (stimulus) -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F (result #1) - has ~100% probability of happening, meaning it is deterministic.

A (stimulus) -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F (result #1) - has 29% probability of happening, meaning it will happen in 29% of the universes
A (stimulus) -> B -> C -> G -> U -> T (result #2) - has 33% probability of happening, and so on. This is non-deterministic.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Hey BD, there is a field of study called chaotic chemical reactions. I sometimes feel like I got one of those going on in my brain. That might be a fruitful avenue to explore to make your argument because wild chemical trajectories develop that can be modeled but not predicted in the traditional sense. It still doesn't totally address the question of whether there is a spark of something else behind it but you can sort of see order within disorder developing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov–Zhabotinsky_reaction

Computer simulation of the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction occurring in a Petri dish (gif embedded)

 

[belligerent drunk]

Interesting, however the probabilities I was talking about are the quantum uncertainties, rather than the chemical reactions you presented. Nevertheless, I believe we're complex enough that we can't be modeled in a "traditional sense" and our chemistry is, in some places, akin to those chaotic reactions. After all, we (all organisms) have been pretty successful at evading entropy and we're far from being in thermodynamic equilibrium as a whole.

 

[Kittycat5]

I meant belligent is there some form of philosophy that says both determismn and free will can coexist. I think anyone can say there may be both, but was wondering if someone has formally argued this.

 

[turkalurk]

I meant belligent is there some form of philosophy that says both determismn and free will can coexist. I think anyone can say there may be both, but was wondering if someone has formally argued this.

You can only find an argument for freewill convincing if you want to. It takes a narrow point of view. Basically the argument takes some form of:

It feels like I am making a self determined decision, there for freewill exists. If you start to analyze what things came into play for them to want to make the decisions they made there are always more factors at play than the conscioua mind is aware of and they all have to do with pre-existing causal events. QM is just a fresh new theory that confuses the hell out of people enough that it convinces those seeking to be convinced that it somehow implies a freedom of the ego. Some even use it to suggest that consciousness creates reality itself rather than creating a subjective impression of reality. It gets pretty ridiculous but it all comes down to ego defense mechanisms. Our personality wants to emphasize our individuality so it can feel important and be the master of its own destiny. Any rational person with experience who can see past the cognitive biases created by the desires of the ego can easily see how silly the notion of absolute freedom is. To be free is to be nonexistent.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Our personality wants to emphasize our individuality so it can feel important and be the master of its own destiny.

Exactly. Don't take it the wrong way, Kittycat, I respect your opinion, but I think you're wrong about free will. I've enjoyed the discussion, however.

Also, regarding your last question of whether free will and determinism can coexist. How can they? Are they not mutually exclusive? If everything is pre-determined, how can there be free will? The only reasonable argument I can imagine is that even though everything is pre-determined, the choices that were, are, and will be made are free choices, not abiding by the law of causality.

E: oh, I realized what your question was now. No, I haven't heard of anyone formally arguing for such an idea. But considering the number of different people out there, I think it's safe to assume that at least someone has seriously considered such an idea.

 

[Kittycat5]

Well that is why I asked in there has been a philosophical notion of determinism and choice/free will existing not a scientific one and made no mention of absolute anything. Ive said I feel free will isnt really real, but feels real enough for it to make no difference, so I am far from an absolutist.

I did a quick search and aparrently people have. One form is called compatablism, but many philosophers have denounced and even ridiculed it.

But even science touches on it. Since we are talking about QM, I will talk about that. Depending on which interpertation you believe is correct, it can be said that QM itself is either deterministic or not (many worlds is deterministic, objective collapse is indeterministic). Even two of the granddaddy principles of QM, Schrodinger's equation and Heisenberg's uncertainty, are opposed. Schrodinger equation is resolutely deterministic as given all the inputs, you can only have the wave function behave one way. But the uncertainty principle is completely indeterministic as you can only know the probability of the location or momentum of a particle if you know the precise value of one of them.

I guess, a point which I dont think anyone brought up, is that indeterminism does not equal free will. But some argue that they are equivalent. I mentioned how the object, observer, and environment are locked in a superposition in QM and how something the observer does affects the outcome of the experiment, which gives the appearance of choice. I said that yhis choice may be illusory as the random firing of one neuron is not necessarily under the observers control, but in my brief research on the question of free will and determism coexisting, I have come across neuroscientists who say these stochiastic neural processes are the foundation of free will. So I do not think it is as clear as A+B>>>C. I am not sure, I buy it yet, but the discussion is a topic debated by philosophers and scientists alike.

I am now interested and will need to read more.

 

[Cotcha Yankinov]

In my opinion there is no way to get free will without something similar to a spirit. One of the basic questions that we might ask ourselves is if you "swapped brains" with someone else, would you make all the same decisions as them (given the same exact randomness occurring at the quantum level)?

When the average human imagines themselves swapping brains they tend to think of their consciousness inside of someone else's brain - because I believe that the consciousness is produced by the brain I think that once you leave your brain behind and swap places with someone else you would gain their subjective experience, minus your subjective experience. Which means that if you and I swapped brains, I would never realize I was me and you would never realize you were you - the memories and everything that makes us us don't carry over because the brain cells don't carry over. So the swap would be instantaneous and we would never know the difference. And we would hence make all of the same decisions, leaving no room for free will.

I think free will is around not only because people like to feel in control but because heaven and hell don't make any sense without free will - if you raise somebody a nazi on purpose and they go to hell, where is the free will in that?

 

[turkalurk]

Well that is why I asked in there has been a philosophical notion of determinism and choice/free will existing not a scientific one and made no mention of absolute anything. Ive said I feel free will isnt really real, but feels real enough for it to make no difference, so I am far from an absolutist.

I did a quick search and aparrently people have. One form is called compatablism, but many philosophers have denounced and even ridiculed it.

But even science touches on it. Since we are talking about QM, I will talk about that. Depending on which interpertation you believe is correct, it can be said that QM itself is either deterministic or not (many worlds is deterministic, objective collapse is indeterministic). Even two of the granddaddy principles of QM, Schrodinger's equation and Heisenberg's uncertainty, are opposed. Schrodinger equation is resolutely deterministic as given all the inputs, you can only have the wave function behave one way. But the uncertainty principle is completely indeterministic as you can only know the probability of the location or momentum of a particle if you know the precise value of one of them.

I guess, a point which I dont think anyone brought up, is that indeterminism does not equal free will. But some argue that they are equivalent. I mentioned how the object, observer, and environment are locked in a superposition in QM and how something the observer does affects the outcome of the experiment, which gives the appearance of choice. I said that yhis choice may be illusory as the random firing of one neuron is not necessarily under the observers control, but in my brief research on the question of free will and determism coexisting, I have come across neuroscientists who say these stochiastic neural processes are the foundation of free will. So I do not think it is as clear as A+B>>>C. I am not sure, I buy it yet, but the discussion is a topic debated by philosophers and scientists alike.

I am now interested and will need to read more.

scientists and philosophers alike are all just people like you and me. They succumb to the same ego defense mechanisms and cognitive biases that we do. I've met stupid scientists and I've met stupid philosophers. I've even had professors in these fields that weren't the brightest. Thats why you can find an argument for anything because nothing is certain which means anything is possible. However, not every possibility holds the same weight. In fact, I don't see an argument for freewill holding any weight at all without weaking what we mean by freewill to the point it could be interchanged with the word will.

You can't free yourself from fate, but you can gain degrees of freedom. There are a wide range of external and internal factors that affect your behavior. The more you know and understand these processes the more you can free yourself of cognitive biases and egoic tendencies to make rational decisions that are based from a more objective point of view. To really gain freedom you must free yourself of ego, and that freedom wouldn't be absolute. Its like the freedom we have here in america. Its not really free, but the more laws we have to protect ourselves the higher degree of freedom we feel we have. Just like the more you can minimize environmental influences the higher degree of freedom your brain can operate under, but its never absolutely free because there will always be pre-existing factors that came into play that are affecting all of your decision-making, and you can't do anything to change those things. So, we have a will of our own, and its the only freedom we have, but its ultimately only free to be what the world made it to be.

 

[Nixiam]

<cough> free enough will </cough>

 

[swilow]

But, Turk, there is a difference between absolute freedom and free-will right? I can't become a dolphin or a rain drop...but, I can kill myself. I can recite the alphabet backwards whilst playing air guitar on one foot.

There are biological constraints on my behaviour but if I accept my basic biology, which I must, I still have a lot of freedom within that paradigm. Not absolute or infinite but still a certain freedom. I guess I am getting hung up on the implication that individuals aren't responsible for their actions.

I agree with you in this case, but just seeking clarity.

 

[Nixiam]

^ That's why I said decisions that are determined are only determined when eviornmental factors set them up to be. The free in will might not exist or be present in every decision, but the will still does. The idea that humans can't be held responsible is probably only plausible in certain situations. Unfortunately, because our subjective experience matters, people expect that we change the factors that determine our decision. When early humans were leaving Africa, being the instinctive savages they were, the sun was the enviornmental factor (in this case) that caused them to move.

I'mma go pass out.

 

[turkalurk]

But, Turk, there is a difference between absolute freedom and free-will right? I can't become a dolphin or a rain drop...but, I can kill myself. I can recite the alphabet backwards whilst playing air guitar on one foot.

There are biological constraints on my behaviour but if I accept my basic biology, which I must, I still have a lot of freedom within that paradigm. Not absolute or infinite but still a certain freedom. I guess I am getting hung up on the implication that individuals aren't responsible for their actions.

I agree with you in this case, but just seeking clarity.

it just depends on what you want your will to be free from. For your will to truly be free, it must operate independently of environmental/genetic influence. If there are limits on your freedom then it is not actually free. just like limited omnipotence is an oxymoron so is a freewill that is interdependent upon a preexisting causal chain. Its basically hopeful nonsense that makes one feel better.

As far as responsibility, that's another lame implication. Why would a person not be held responsible for their actions? The world made them to break the rules, but it made everyone else the way they are. It made societies that protect themselves from criminals. What it allows is a little sympathy for their plight. Instead of alienating them as evil creatures we can respect the function of selfishness while providing consquences and applying methods to protect the innocent. If the world made you a psychopath, then you are still what you are regardless of what made you that way and society still needs to be protected from you. But, seeing them also as a victim of circumstances allows society to realize that we all have a role to play. It is rarely one person's fault for anything. Your actions aren't just your responsibility, but is a reflection of who you are, and many people had alot to do with that. So, everyone is responsible for the role they play in the actions of those they've influenced.

 

[swilow]

Does it need to be binary though? Could we have partial free will or do u think its either/either?

The "lame implication" is based on quote by Einstein mentioned earlier, where he claims criminals are not responsible for their actions. Do you agree? I must admit, I recoil from such an idea.

You've obviously thought about this quite a bit Turk, I am sincerely interested in your views...

 

[turkalurk]

Does it need to be binary though? Could we have partial free will or do u think its either/either?

The "lame implication" is based on quote by Einstein mentioned earlier, where he claims criminals are not responsible for their actions. Do you agree? I must admit, I recoil from such an idea.

You've obviously thought about this quite a bit Turk, I am sincerely interested in your views...

You can have a limited freewill but the limited and free part of the "will" just cancel each other out and the underlying message is that you have a will. If it makes you feel better about your life, then by all means label your will whatever you'd like. But, yes, I believe we are responsible for our actions. We just aren't solely responsible. We are held accountable for our actions because we experience how our actions effect our world. But the world shares the burden with us. Its all interconnected and life is interdependent upon its biosphere.

Let me give you an example. My gf's sixteen year old daughter is a wild child. bipolar drama queen. Been thru all sorts of trouble: lying, stealing, sneaking out with her mom's car, skipping school, typical teenage bulshit. She's actually a missing person right now. got caught stealing a few hundred from her mom's credit card. Her mom finally had enough and pressed charges and took her privileges away. first she threatened suicide, now she ran away and is pretending to be kidnapped.

My point is, with teenagers, their mind is like a scale. It predicts the effects of a particular action and weighs the potential reward against the potential consequence. If you don't apply enough weight to the consequence side of the equation you won't be able to teach a kid self control. Their reward system develops first. Makes sense as thats the easy part. Much more complicated to predict the consequences so it takes more experience to mature those other parts responsible for impulse control.

These unruly kids are very predictable. Most of them just don't get a sustained enough consequence to outweigh the reward of their actions. If a person lives under conditions that never teaches any consequences to their actions how is it fair to judge him or her as solely responsible for developing into a shitty person? That person didn't have the same opportunities as most of us that got to learn from the consequences of our actions. Is it fair to say lawbreaker was free to choose the same way we choose when his experiences formed a different neural pathway uninhibited by the fear of repercussions? Not to mention any genetic disposition that can influence impulsivity.

My gf becomes pretty upset when her child blames her for the way she turned out. She's right, parents play a huge role in the development of their offspring. No parent is solely responsible though. Each member of the community has a role to play in its population. I always tell her that if its her mom's fault she is the way she is, then she might as well blame her grandmother or great grandmother, and so on. If you wanting to point the finger ar someone, than point it every which way you can. Everyone has a part in the causal system of being. Its not about finding whose to blame. Its about understanding the role we played in it. In finding what parts everyone played in a given situation we are more likely to find an adequate solution. If we continue to place sole responsible on an individual's freewill without considering what conditions were involved to form that individuals will, then how can we modify the impact society has on these unruly individuals so that humanity can make progress?

As for Einstein, show me a solid reference that Einstein said such nonsense. I've read lots of his quotes and he is often misquoted. Here is a quote that helps explain what I've been trying to communicate:

“I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.”
— Albert Einstein (1932), “My Credo”, Aug [5]