Free will - you only think you have it

[phisix]

The article with title is in the 04 May 2006 issue of New Scientist.

Quotes from the article:

"Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist" [Gerard ’t Hooft] "finished
polishing up his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the
apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics."

"two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has profound implications
beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of quantum physics means we
must give up the cherished notion that we have free will."

I think the mathematicians have got it backwards. I think that free will is
useless, and therefore meaningless, without a deterministic universe.

The reasoning by analogy is that, in an automobile, a steering wheel is
useless if the wheels turn in random directions at random times, instead
of deterministically in response to the steering wheel.

(Then again, it would be nice to get rid of the troublesome "axiom of choice"
in mathematics.)

[Xerxes314]

Free will is an illusion regardless of whether the universe is deterministic or not. Worse, the term is probably meaningless. How do you define something that cannot exist in a physical universe?

Xerxes

[Copernicus]

How is free will an illusion regardless?

[Xerxes314]

If the universe is deterministic, your brain function and resultant body motion may be determined from the initial state of the universe.

If the universe is not deterministic, the wavefunction of your brain function and resultant body motion may still be determined from an initial state, tho the classical observables resulting from "measurement" will be randomly determined by this wavefunction.

Neither of these scenarios seems compatible with the antique notion of "will".

Xerxes

[phisix]

hmmm, boundary conditions...

How about the following as a model for discussion (but is not how I think free
will actually works in our universe).

Conway's "game of life" aka Wolfram's "2D cellular automaton" has completely
deterministic rules, however, the boundary conditions are not included in the
rules.

So, let's say I can insert new boundary conditions whenever I want.
I can stop the simulation, insert or remove "particles," and then restart the
simulation, and I can do this multiple times. In this way, I can steer the
outcome the way I want, even though the "universe" has deterministic rules.

However, to keep things subtle, I make up the following "meta rule:"
If I insert a new particle, I must remove it in a certain amount of
simulation time T, according to the formula T < H/E, where H is some
arbitrary constant, and E is the "effective size" of the particle (maybe,
the number of cells it occupies?).

[Xerxes314]

Yes, but the automata in the simulation cannot control their own boundary conditions. If they did, there must be some rule regulating how the boundaries change as a function of what they do. But then that rule would be deterministic or probabilistic. Mere feedback does not allow you to escape the rules of the game.

Xerxes

[phisix]

I still get the strong illusion that my mind is not in my body and is out of
the "universe", maybe in a "meta-universe," and that questions that are
unanswerable inside the "universe" are answerable in this "meta-universe." However, the next question is "am 'I' also out of my mind?"

[Sir_Zerp]

Originally Posted by phisix

I still get the strong illusion that my mind is not in my body and is out of the "universe"

Cut out the grass and see if it helps.

[watchayakan]

Originally Posted by Xerxes314

If the universe is not deterministic, the wavefunction of your brain function and resultant body motion may still be determined from an initial state

How so?

[N^N]

Originally Posted by phisix

I still get the strong illusion that my mind is not in my body and is out of
the "universe", maybe in a "meta-universe," and that questions that are
unanswerable inside the "universe" are answerable in this "meta-universe." However, the next question is "am 'I' also out of my mind?"

No, you are not "out of your mind". You are just sub-consciously disconcerted at the fact that you cannot completely control your own thought process (which is, by the way, impossible). The revelation ofthe fact that your thoughts are not truly "yours" throw off your own conceptions of your mind's true limits. It is similar to catching your wife in bed with another man, and then feeling like you don't know her anymore. The example is not all that good, in fact in the example there was one precise point in time at which you felt that you didn't really know your girlfriend anymore. In your own mind, there isn't. You have sub-consciously known all your life, but the feeling of your mind being in a meta-universe was triggered by other posts.


(I feel like I'm taking forever to say nothing )

[nmondal]

This is a fantastic quote:--

Free will is an illusion regardless of whether the universe is deterministic or not.
---Xerxes

I will use it as my signature.

[Fernanda]

free will is only limited to the types/speed/connectors of molecules moving in my brain.

so you tell me if this is free will.

[Brinx]

Define 'free'. :)

[edit]: While you're at it, define 'will' as well!

[N^N]

Nothing is "free", hehe

[JoeSF35]

"An intelligence which at a given instant knew all the forces acting in nature and the position of every object in the universe – if endowed with a brain sufficiently vast to make all necessary calculations – could describe with a single formula the motions of the largest astronomical bodies and those of the smallest atoms. To such an intelligence, nothing would be uncertain; the future, like the past, would be an open book."

Now to play devil's advocate, and forgetting about information getting lost in black holes.

When we try to debunk the idea of "free will" we consider life to be made up of only the objects we know about in our 3 spacial dimesions. When in fact it could also include entities we can't detect experimentally or that are hidden in other dimensions...these may allow free will. There are many theories like this that already exist and they all depend on things that have not yet been discovered. But when we think about quantum determinism doesn't that depend on the things we do know being governed by things we don't know? How could there ever be a particle that is not composed or governed of anything but itself?

And Xerxes please state your opinions as opinions or questions, not fact. I completely agree with your opinions here, but you state them as though they are 100% true.