Free Will, Where Does It Come From?

[Solly]

Physics does a bloody awful job of tackling the subjective universe (of which there are billions) and has been going down the wrong road for half a century. Only recently are such things as a Science of Consciousness starting to be approached from the physics side of things.

Free will and consciousness seem to be linked in some fashion with quantum effects, and perhaps free will arises when there is actually an absence of laws to govern between choices we make. We take advantage of the probabilistic nature of quantum particles and can choose between outcomes.

Just an idea..what's your take?

[DRoseDARs]

Deep Thought of the Moment:
Free Will is an illusion. All things were determined at the moment of creation. Choice exists only because we cannot see what has already been and will be again. What always has been and forever shall be are set, we need only play our part.

[Solly]

That sounds strictly deterministic, a notion that quantum experiments have thrown in the bin.

[DRoseDARs]

That's not disturbing to me. Me holding the same position as some sects of the ultra-religious persuasion does.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
That sounds strictly deterministic, a notion that quantum experiments have thrown in the bin.

I used to have pretty convincing theory that explained some aspects of quantum theory in a deterministic universe, but I forgot it.

[The Mad Monk]

Didn't Disney make that one?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
That sounds strictly deterministic, a notion that quantum experiments have thrown in the bin.

Actually no. Steven Hawking has been quoted that he believes in determinism. Not because the future has already been decided, but because humans, when you put them in exactly the same position, will do exactly the same thing. Sure, it's chaotic, so a tiny difference in position could mean any size of difference in consequence, but in exactly the same position there would be no difference. If you knew the exact location and velocity of every particle, then you would be able to predict the movement of everything. Sure, it's impossible to know that, due to uncertainty principle, but the fact that if you were to know it, you could predict the future, means the future cannot change. Therefore, while the future is determined, in that we cannot alter it, as what we will choose in every situation will be what we choose, and we won't deviate from that, it is impossible to know the future. While it's deterministic, we can never know what it is that is determined, so in reality it has no practical use.

Also, you may want to read something on complexity theory. Bits of that suggest determinism, because as things can be chaotic on one level (such as the behavior of an individual human) they can be predictable on a higher level (such as the behaviour of humanity, as a whole). Just because quantum experiments are chaotic (which does not rule out determinism, just the ability to predict) does not mean that their effects on a larger scale are not predictable. They can be - "order for free".

[Solly]

If you knew the exact location and velocity of every particle, then you would be able to predict the movement of everything. Sure, it's impossible to know that, due to uncertainty principle, but the fact that if you were to know it, you could predict the future, means the future cannot change.

Even if you did have all the information of every particle, you still couldn't predict the future.

At the very small level, outcomes are probabilistic.

A good few years back, I remember following the determinism theory. Now I don't because of this probabilistic nature and the following;

Newtonian physics introduced the idea that the universe was made up of a mass of individual particles obeying fixed laws which absolutely determined the motion of each one. In principle, once the state of the universe was known at any one instant, then its state at all other times could be determined. At face value, there seemed no room for novelty, free will, or creativity. The aim of Newtonian Dynamics was to predict exactly what would happen, in numerical terms. The systems regarded as typical of the nature of the universe were those where explicit mathematical prediction was possible, such as the pendulum and the system consisting of a single planet in orbit round a star.

Two things changed this: quantum theory and dynamical systems theory .Quantum theory revealed that, at least on the very small scale, things did not happen predictably. Imagine, for instance, the case of a beam of light passing through the lens of a pair of polaroid sunglasses. On a large scale, it seems as though the beam of light is predictably dimmed. On a small scale, however, the light is found to be made up of particles (called photons) each of which either goes through the lens unchanged, or does not get through at all, at random.

In this particular case, random behaviour on a small scale averages out to deterministic behaviour on a large scale. But it need not be like that. Imagine a stream of water flowing over a weir. The slightest change in the water at the top of the weir gets magnified more and more and the water goes down, becoming a large change when it reaches the bottom. A dynamical system with this property is called dynamically unstable. People sometimes talk about the butterfly effect, in which a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane over India in two weeks time. If now one combines quantum theory with an unstable dynamical system, the random behaviour at a very small scale gets magnified to give a random behaviour of the whole system. Since most dynamical systems are in places unstable, this means that most of the universe is unpredictable.

An unpredictable universe is open to new things breaking in at every moment. Creativity and the action of free will now become possible.

http://www.greenspirit.org.uk/resources/SystemsTheoryandChaos.htm

[Enigma_Nova]

The Self is illusory ergo self-direction (i.e. free will) is illusory.
Choices exist in the realm of beliefs and opinions, not in reality.
Disjoint as I see these worlds to be, one can have a completely predetermined reality yet still have 'choice' since it is a belief, not a reality.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
At the very small level, outcomes are probabilistic.
Yes, on a small scale. On a large scale, they are not. Sure, you'd need an adaptive system to do it, but a probabalistic nature on a very small level can lead to a definate effect on a higher level.

random behaviour on a small scale averages out to deterministic behaviour on a large scale.

However that article will soon be superceeded. The things is says are not random, they are chaotic. Sure, that has much the same effect: they are completely unpredictable, but that is because of uncertainty principle. We can never know down to an exact enough level to predict chaotic things, because any change at all makes them react completely differently. However if there is no change at all, then they will act the same. Now, since life only happens one, since this moment in time will not happen again, it is exactly the same as itself. Therefore it will happen exactly the same as itself. If something, going from this position in time, happens the same as itself, then that is the only way it can happen. If this exact moment were to happen again, at this point in time, say as a paralell universe, exactly the same thing would happen. For something to be different, even if it's chaotic, there needs to be some change. If there isn't, it will happen the same way, the only way it can happen. Hence, while we cannot predict it, we cannot change the future.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
The Self is illusory ergo self-direction (i.e. free will) is illusory.
Choices exist in the realm of beliefs and opinions, not in reality.
Disjoint as I see these worlds to be, one can have a completely predetermined reality yet still have 'choice' since it is a belief, not a reality.

Nicely put

[Solly]

How can you guys so confidently state that something is an illusion like that? I don't follow your argument.

[Drogue]

Because the concept of the self, the idea that we, as humans, have some special conciousness beyond our simple chemical states seems laughable, to me. We think because of chemicals and neurons in the brain. Any romantic idea of free will seems wrong to me. It's just my opinion, as what Enigma posted was just his, but IMHO it is the only way it can be.

I don't usually argue about free will, because I find it very hard to explain what I mean. However I consider determinism as true to me as evolution is. Sure, it is just a theory, but I consider it as fact, due to the fact it is the only thing that seems logically consistant and plausable.

I really would recommend you to read about Complexity Theory (Complexity by Roger Lewin is good, IMHO) because it explains far better some of the ideas, and it makes you realise a few things, how things fit together. Eye opening IMHO

[Solly]

"We think because of chemicals and neurons in the brain."

I disagree. You need to expand on this point.

"Because the concept of the self, the idea that we, as humans, have some special conciousness beyond our simple chemical states seems laughable, to me. "

Look around you. Look at the different colours. Explain those colours in an objective way. You can't. It's impossible - you need to consider subjectivity, the privacy of information (ie, colours). Only "you" know what you are seeing and feeling - the universe outside does not have this information.

I really dislike the way science based on Descartes and then Newton still holds in aspects of brain and sense theory. There have been some advancements recognising the importance of observers in this universe, yet we're still clinging to outdated theories of the brain as a simple accumulation of chemicals and electrical pulses.

It seems to me like the scientist's version of faith: clinging to an idea of matter-above-all, merely because there isn't a decent, plausible alternative.

Sorry for the pun, but I'll keep an open mind. All I can say is that I strongly disagree with the way your theory of the brain really doesn't do justice to the amazing thing that is consciousness.

[Drogue]

I agree completely on the subjectivity. We are subjective because of the way our brains interpret the world around us.

The brain is how we think, and the brain is a physical entity. That is where my chemical and neuron statement came from. I don't think there is a soul, or any non-coporeal part of a human. It's not just their isn't a plausable alternative, it's that this works, it is logical, consistant and plausable. Only we know what we are seeing, because inly we interpret the world the way that we see it.

Faith is clinging to something without evidence, which is what you seem to be doing. You seem to be convinced that their is a non-coporeal part of a human.

Conciousness is nothing special. It is just us, it has no meaning, no purpose, it just is, like everything else. Sure, it's quite amazing the chemicals and probabilities involved, but nature's had millions of years to do it.

We are concious, we do interpret things, we are subjective. I never tried to explain them in an objecive way. But that doesn't stop us being physical and chemical states. I don't think life has a purpose, or a reason, I think it just is a chemical reaction that has grown over millions of years. It's complex, but I wouldn't call it special. It just is.