Page 1 of 12 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 179

Thread: Free will?

  1. #1
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,716
    Blog Entries
    556

    Free will?

    I was wondering, and I don't want any fights, what the religious view of "cause and effect" versus "free will" is. The question of whether humans have free will or are directed by destiny has never been answered with certainty. Philosophers have long said that people create their own fates or destinies. On the other hand, science and logic say that everything was caused by causes that preceded the event, and those causes go back to the beginning of this universe and before. Individuals have no control of their actions, because their apparent motivations were caused by causes that go back to before the individual was born. The causes are lock within DNA and in our surroundings and in history.

    Personally, I would like to think that I have some control over my life, but I am a logical person, so I see the validity of the argument that the causes came before I did.

    What do you think about this? And what do the various scriptures say. I know that the Bible is undecided, and I believe that the Koran comes down for cause and effect.

  2. #2
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    One of the things I came across while searching the thread on Many Worlds was Conway and Kochen's "Free will theorem" which might be relevant here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem If we are "not determined" then so would elementary particles be not determined. If one accepts this theorem and the Copenhagen Interpretation, we would then have free will. This is not a religious view, however.

    I recently finished Steven Rosen's Hinduism. He portrayed karma as cause and effect. Although karma appears to be opposed to free will there are two components of it that introduce freedom: (1) the individual can make changes that alter future effects implying the individual has freedom to change and (2) Vishnu can personally offer mercy. That seems similar to the Christian concept of sin and redemption.

  3. #3
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,716
    Blog Entries
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    One of the things I came across while searching the thread on Many Worlds was Conway and Kochen's "Free will theorem" which might be relevant here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem If we are "not determined" then so would elementary particles be not determined. If one accepts this theorem and the Copenhagen Interpretation, we would then have free will. This is not a religious view, however.
    Thanks for posting about the theorem. Unfortunately, the first axiom for it has been demonstrated as false. Paired particles have been shown to apparently communicate instantaneously., which is the entanglement that is mentioned in the third axiom;therefore the theorem is invalid.

    I recently finished Steven Rosen's Hinduism. He portrayed karma as cause and effect. Although karma appears to be opposed to free will there are two components of it that introduce freedom: (1) the individual can make changes that alter future effects implying the individual has freedom to change and (2) Vishnu can personally offer mercy. That seems similar to the Christian concept of sin and redemption.
    Cause and effect work on anything and everything. The only events that are not effects of earlier causes are those that are caused by something from outside the universe. This is where I find that there is no free will. Everything was caused by earlier causes all the way back. There have been so many events that we can't necessarily tell which cuase caused a given effect in all cases, but that does n't mena that there was anything that was not caused.

  4. #4
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterL View Post
    Thanks for posting about the theorem. Unfortunately, the first axiom for it has been demonstrated as false. Paired particles have been shown to apparently communicate instantaneously., which is the entanglement that is mentioned in the third axiom;therefore the theorem is invalid.
    I do think it is the case that paired particles communicate instantaneously. That would be the non-locality part of the Copenhagen interpretation. I don't see this contradicting the theorem, but I'll have to look at it again with that in mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by PeterL View Post
    Cause and effect work on anything and everything. The only events that are not effects of earlier causes are those that are caused by something from outside the universe. This is where I find that there is no free will. Everything was caused by earlier causes all the way back. There have been so many events that we can't necessarily tell which cuase caused a given effect in all cases, but that does n't mena that there was anything that was not caused.
    It seems that you are assuming what you claim to be looking for does not exist.

    What would be the cause of radioactive decay? It is often described as spontaneous, which is another way of saying without any cause.

    Since the universe, including space-time, had a beginning 13.73 billion years ago, there must be something outside it. It is also hard for me to imagine that our big bang was the only one that occurred.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    The Big Bang is a product of Hawking being contracted out by the Roman Catholics to fabricate a new genesis. The cardinalia, gasping for beath, needed to come back with an even more stupid answer to the insanity of the claim to have understood creation.

  6. #6
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,716
    Blog Entries
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    I do think it is the case that paired particles communicate instantaneously. That would be the non-locality part of the Copenhagen interpretation. I don't see this contradicting the theorem, but I'll have to look at it again with that in mind.
    The first axiom in the theorem has something about there being a maximum speed for the transfer of information, but entangled particles appear to transfer information instantaneously.

    It seems that you are assuming what you claim to be looking for does not exist.
    I am not assuming that there is no free will, but science and logic indicate that there is no free will. I was, and am, looking for some reason to believe with a reasonable level of confidence that there is free will.

    What would be the cause of radioactive decay? It is often described as spontaneous, which is another way of saying without any cause.
    Radioactive decay is determined by the laws on physics, but when looking at a particular atom there may not be any way to determine when or if that atom will lose a particle. That's worth looking into. I don't recall anything about why a certain atom would experience decay at any given moment. I am also considering some things that are involved in quantum mechanics.

    Since the universe, including space-time, had a beginning 13.73 billion years ago, there must be something outside it. It is also hard for me to imagine that our big bang was the only one that occurred.
    What happened before the Big Bang is pure guesswork. It is entirely possible that this universe has always existed, or something else. It might be fun to speculate, but until I get my time machine running I will have no real answer about it. But the most elegant answer is that it will collapse into a singularity and explode into a new universe, and it has done that infinityly many times before.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterL View Post
    The first axiom in the theorem has something about there being a maximum speed for the transfer of information, but entangled particles appear to transfer information instantaneously.



    I am not assuming that there is no free will, but science and logic indicate that there is no free will. I was, and am, looking for some reason to believe with a reasonable level of confidence that there is free will.



    Radioactive decay is determined by the laws on physics, but when looking at a particular atom there may not be any way to determine when or if that atom will lose a particle. That's worth looking into. I don't recall anything about why a certain atom would experience decay at any given moment. I am also considering some things that are involved in quantum mechanics.


    What happened before the Big Bang is pure guesswork. It is entirely possible that this universe has always existed, or something else. It might be fun to speculate, but until I get my time machine running I will have no real answer about it. But the most elegant answer is that it will collapse into a singularity and explode into a new universe, and it has done that infinityly many times before.
    O, my God. You are so inespectacularly singular. LOL

  8. #8
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,716
    Blog Entries
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by cafolini View Post
    O, my God. You are so inespectacularly singular. LOL
    And what, if anything, does that mean?

  9. #9
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,422
    We define words as we see fit, because we see the world in our own (possibly flawed and idiosyncratic) way. To the prisoner, being “free” means being unconfined by locked bars. To the married polyamorist, it means being unconfined by marriage vows. To the lawyer, it means an action unconstrained by other people either physically or through the threat of force.

    In none of these standard uses of “free” is it relevant that sub-atomic particles reacting to one another in our brains can be said to “cause” our behaviors.
    Unless we want to conclude that choosing to murder someone is as constrained by circumstance as failing to rescue a drowning man because you are handcuffed to a bike rack, we are forced to conclude that our normal use of the word “free” (as in “free will”) has little to do with sub-atomic physics.

    The extent to which the laws of physics “cause” everything that happens is irrelevant to the “freedom” or lack of “freedom” of most of these behaviors. The prisoner remains less “free” than the man living in his own home; the murderer remains responsible for his choice; the man handcuffed to the bike rack is less culpable for failing to rescue the drowning man than the one who is not handcuffed.

    Of course it is also true that none of us can choose to do other than what we do. We can say, “Joe CHOSE to murder his wife.” But once the murder is committed, there is no other possible “choice”. Nonetheless, the concept of “free will” is still relevant. No choice other than murder can be made – but we can imagine a different choice, and moral judgments (what “should” occur) are always a matter for the imagination.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterL View Post
    And what, if anything, does that mean?
    "But the most elegant answer is that it will collapse into a singularity and explode into a new universe, and it has done that infinityly many times before."

    It's so elegant. Like a Pope's hat or zuchetto.

  11. #11
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,716
    Blog Entries
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    We define words as we see fit, because we see the world in our own (possibly flawed and idiosyncratic) way. To the prisoner, being “free” means being unconfined by locked bars. To the married polyamorist, it means being unconfined by marriage vows. To the lawyer, it means an action unconstrained by other people either physically or through the threat of force.

    In none of these standard uses of “free” is it relevant that sub-atomic particles reacting to one another in our brains can be said to “cause” our behaviors.
    Unless we want to conclude that choosing to murder someone is as constrained by circumstance as failing to rescue a drowning man because you are handcuffed to a bike rack, we are forced to conclude that our normal use of the word “free” (as in “free will”) has little to do with sub-atomic physics.

    The extent to which the laws of physics “cause” everything that happens is irrelevant to the “freedom” or lack of “freedom” of most of these behaviors. The prisoner remains less “free” than the man living in his own home; the murderer remains responsible for his choice; the man handcuffed to the bike rack is less culpable for failing to rescue the drowning man than the one who is not handcuffed.

    Of course it is also true that none of us can choose to do other than what we do. We can say, “Joe CHOSE to murder his wife.” But once the murder is committed, there is no other possible “choice”. Nonetheless, the concept of “free will” is still relevant. No choice other than murder can be made – but we can imagine a different choice, and moral judgments (what “should” occur) are always a matter for the imagination.
    Then, to be terse, you believe that all human activities are the results of actions, observations, events, or whatever that preceded the actions, or do you?

    Certainly the idea of subatomic particles having free will is absurd, but is this how the quantum level of existence applies the macro-world?

  12. #12
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterL View Post
    The first axiom in the theorem has something about there being a maximum speed for the transfer of information, but entangled particles appear to transfer information instantaneously.
    I find these things puzzling as well. As I understand it, there is a maximum speed for the transfer of information which would be the speed of light. However, non-locality supposedly does not involve transfer of information (although I don't quite follow this). In that case non-local causality occurs with entangled particles.

    For example, if one of the entangled particles is tested to be "spin up", the other would have to be "spin down". Prior to the testing of either of the particles it could be either spin up or down. It is still free or not determined. Once one of them is tested, everything changes. Then the other particle has its spin determined instantaneously no matter how far apart they have been separated.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterL View Post
    I am not assuming that there is no free will, but science and logic indicate that there is no free will. I was, and am, looking for some reason to believe with a reasonable level of confidence that there is free will.
    That's why I offered the article on the free-will theorem. Apparently not all science and logic indicate there is no free will. The article was written by mathematicians using the science of quantum physics. They would not agree that there is "no free will". In this case "free will" is defined as "not determined" in some sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterL View Post
    Radioactive decay is determined by the laws on physics, but when looking at a particular atom there may not be any way to determine when or if that atom will lose a particle. That's worth looking into. I don't recall anything about why a certain atom would experience decay at any given moment. I am also considering some things that are involved in quantum mechanics.
    Initially, I suspect scientists assumed they could model such things statistically hoping later they would find a cause. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle cut short that search for causes. And on top of that, even more disconcerting is the non-locality we discussed above.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterL View Post
    What happened before the Big Bang is pure guesswork. It is entirely possible that this universe has always existed, or something else. It might be fun to speculate, but until I get my time machine running I will have no real answer about it. But the most elegant answer is that it will collapse into a singularity and explode into a new universe, and it has done that infinityly many times before.
    That's what I thought happened until a few years ago when OrphanPip posted a talk on one of these forums by Lawrence Krauss and introduced by Richard Dawkins. They claimed the universe had a beginning out of nothing 13.73 billion years ago and it would continue indefinitely into the future since the universe was "flat". I didn't believe it, so I started looking for some evidence for it and apparently that is the standard view of science.

    The only reason I bring this up is because you mentioned causes outside our universe. Well, something is outside our universe because our universe had a beginning.
    Last edited by YesNo; 02-11-2013 at 09:32 PM.

  13. #13
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,716
    Blog Entries
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    I find these things puzzling as well. As I understand it, there is a maximum speed for the transfer of information which would be the speed of light. However, non-locality supposedly does not involve transfer of information (although I don't quite follow this). In that case non-local causality occurs with entangled particles.
    For example, if one of the entangled particles is tested to be "spin up", the other would have to be "spin down". Prior to the testing of either of the particles it could be either spin up or down. It is still free or not determined. Once one of them is tested, everything changes. Then the other particle has its spin determined instantaneously no matter how far apart they have been separated.
    I remember looking at that several years, and I decided that someone simply defined the information exchannge between entangled particles as something other than the exchange on information. And, if one tried hard, one could make entangled particles into a tool for communications. That's something for a Science Fiction novel.

    [QUOTE]That's why I offered the article on the free-will theorem. Apparently not all science and logic indicate there is no free will. The article was written by mathematicians using the science of quantum physics. They would not agree that there is "no free will". In this case "free will" is defined as "not determined" in some sense.

    Initially, I suspect scientists assumed they could model such things statistically hoping later they would find a cause. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle cut short that search for causes. And on top of that, even more disconcerting is the non-locality we discussed above.
    I don't remember bothering to think about this before, but there probably is some way to determine when a nucleus would decay.


    That's what I thought happened until a few years ago when OrphanPip posted a talk on one of these forums by Lawrence Krauss and introduced by Richard Dawkins. They claimed the universe had a beginning out of nothing 13.73 billion years ago and it would continue indefinitely into the future since the universe was "flat". I didn't believe it, so I started looking for some evidence for it and apparently that is the standard view of science.
    There is disagreement whether the universe is flat, open, or closed, and there is not enough evidence to determine what it is. There also is some evidence that parts of the universe may be older than other parts, and there may have been localized spurts of "expansion". Then there is the idea of "branes", which may have interacted to create this universe any may continue to interact with it.

    There's a lot to think about. I think that I stay with decay for a little while for right now.

  14. #14
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterL View Post
    I don't remember bothering to think about this before, but there probably is some way to determine when a nucleus would decay.
    There might be. I don't know if it falls into the Heisenberg uncertainty level or not.



    Quote Originally Posted by PeterL View Post
    There is disagreement whether the universe is flat, open, or closed, and there is not enough evidence to determine what it is. There also is some evidence that parts of the universe may be older than other parts, and there may have been localized spurts of "expansion". Then there is the idea of "branes", which may have interacted to create this universe any may continue to interact with it.

    There's a lot to think about. I think that I stay with decay for a little while for right now.
    There's a lot that is speculation. It is hard to separate the science from the fiction.

  15. #15
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,716
    Blog Entries
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    There might be. I don't know if it falls into the Heisenberg uncertainty level or not.
    That, is exactly what killed Heisenberg's cat. I don't think there has been any notable work in regard to what causes nuclei to decay at a given point, but I think that it would be determinable, if one could make enough observations of suittable nuclei.

    There's a lot that is speculation. It is hard to separate the science from the fiction.
    But the fiction and imagination are what make it interesting. As I understand it, it is thought that nothing can be determined about the period before expansion. In effect it is sating that some stuff was there, and then it expanded, and after the expansion it was the universe that we know and love. There is some great fiction about it. "Before the Universe" by ? and "Tau Zero" by Poul Anderson are the ones that first come to mind.

Page 1 of 12 12345611 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •