Free Will
Pages
| Author | Topic: Free Will |
|---|---|
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Saturday, January 10 2004 13:08
Profile
As an A-level student not taking any sciences, I'm out of my depth in this discussion. But please go on. It's very interesting. Jame, please listen to less emo. -------------------- Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned I'll tell you my story, man Though I wish I'd never been born I'm loose at the seams, I've broken my dreams And my hand it shakes the pen Come on, come on now baby, Let the good times roll again Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3022
|
written Saturday, January 10 2004 14:46
Profile
quote:Er... no. The chaotic nature of the system has not changed. What has changed is the accuracy of our measurements. What some literature overblows on chaos is the unpredicatability. Chaos does not make it absolutely unpredictable - rather, there is a prediction window that depends on the accuracy of the measurements, and the lyapunov exponent of the system. What chaos is about is systems exaggerating effects from what appeared to be insignificant. The butterfly effect still works, just that we keep better track of our butterflies, and learn to work around it, keeping to only certain limits of forecasting where it is not visible, for example. quote:The key this is that quantum effects make things less a matter of actual instance, but more of probabilities. Thus, it is not certain whether something occurs, though we can work out how likely it is. That gaves us the "free" part of free will. Of course, as you corrected stated, it doesn't do the "will" part of free will. Perhaps nothing will, perhaps nothing is already enough. This is why I said there can be no decisive answer. We may find out if the brain has a freedom to act - whether that act is according to will is anybody's guess. But the prevention of the firing of even a single neuron is very significant, because brains have no CPU which plans out everything, and so we have redundancy. One neuron fires, partially due to the influence of another firing. Take out the initial impulse, and a whole cascade may not happen. quote:Yes, but you didn't click on the link. It is true that decoherence tends to remove the quantum wierdness in most cases. But the jury is still out on whether that is true of the brain. The links I gave are two articles giving drastically different assessments of this. quote:And my final point is... er no, or at least only as a personal interest. Meaning of life and stuff. I just read physics articles, think, hang around on physics forums and talk to physicists alot. On no account listen to be because of an aura of authority and suchlike. Always check up on stuff yourself. Me do maths, really. Posts: 269 | Registered: Saturday, May 24 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, January 10 2004 15:22
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'm aware of how chaos works. Anyway, my point was that I've read that the global climate doesn't actually magnify the effect of small changes over time, that the belief that it does was a result of inaccurate and overly simplistic models -- an artifact of inaccuracies building up in the mathematical approximations used, rather than the measurements themselves. I'm not a meteorologist, though, so I'm not really qualified to say whether this is all bunk. And even if I do have roughly the right idea, it doesn't really go toward proving anything about the brain. quote:Well, yes, but the initial impulse itself depends on more than one neuron being stimulated. In theory, it's certainly true that one neuron can still make a difference between an impulse propagating and dying out; I just don't find it plausible that it makes a difference very often in practice. Then again, if we didn't have free will would that make any perceptible difference? quote:I clicked the links, but I'm afraid the physics in those articles is beyond me. I can get enough out of them to see that there's a lot that's not yet known in neuroscience and quantum physics, though, which I guess was your point in the first place. -------------------- I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 105 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons. -- Sir Arthur Eddington Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Sunday, January 11 2004 01:21
Profile
I can just about get my head around those snippets, but without knowing about the Penrose-Hameroff model, or who Tegmark is, they still fail to make much sense. As regards to the weather system, I think it's very easy to label something as chaotic simply when we do not know all the laws of physics that are involved, nor how they affect each other. It may just be that the weather system acheives a level of complexity that today's science cannot cope with. I've never been a great fan of the butterfly theory - from my understanding, you'd need a very controlled scenario for that to work. Again, I'm no meteorologist, so I have only a working knowledge of how it all works (it doesn't extend much beyond the water cycle, a grasp of how pressures affect everything, and a basic understanding of chaos). quote:It depends. On an individual scale, free will *should* make a difference to our brains. However, if you look at mob mentality, all free will generally goes out of the window, as most people become generally mindless to the mob. It seems that if free will exists, it only exists on the level in which we interact with each other. -------------------- KazeArctica: "Imagine...wangs everywhere...and tentacles. Nothing but wangs and tentacles! And no pants!" Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, January 11 2004 02:02
Profile
Homepage
El primero de la estirpe está amarrado en un árbol y al último se lo están comiendo las hormigas. [ Sunday, January 11, 2004 02:13: Message edited by: General Secretary Custer ] -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Sunday, January 11 2004 19:57
Profile
You really have to define "free will" before you can ask quesitons about it. I like the nice, simple outlook on the universe where physical laws have complete exactitude and there is no uncertainty. If you are given the equations and properties for a universe, you can predict exactly what will happen in the future, and it will always happen that way no matter how many times you compute it. I don't believe in parallel universes where you made a different choice or something like that. On the other hand, uncertainty and the possibility of real randomness make free will possible. Then there should be provisions for parallel universes although that's not a given. But the question about free will is kind of pointless since you are free to do whatever that is possible. Is free will freedom to do what you want, or is it just the product of a universe of uncertainty [chaos]? And it's pointless at so many other levels as well. Why waste your life thinking about whether or not everything is predetermined? If it is predetermined, then live with it cause you have to anyway. If not, well, there is still no use in doing anything about it. -------------------- How do signature's work? -Keep Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Sunday, January 11 2004 22:30
Profile
quote:Unfortunately, the universe just doesn't work like that (to the best of our knowledge). Even if there is a kind of order to quantum uncertainty and radioactivity, then it is so complex it might as well be chaotic. As for parallel universes, I believe quantum is going some way to proving that they may exist. quote:Because somehow, it matters to the human ego somewhat. And it's an interesting point of discussion. -------------------- KazeArctica: "Imagine...wangs everywhere...and tentacles. Nothing but wangs and tentacles! And no pants!" Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
Master Jeweller
Member # 409
|
written Monday, January 12 2004 03:43
Profile
Homepage
Keep -> Your statement is incorrect. If you are given the equations and properties for a universe, then by calculating certain things (such as the position of an electron given its current position and momentum) WILL yield two different answers. Study quantum theory before rejecting this one; it has to do with particles not having a position but rather a probability curve of positions. The tunneling effect is related (i.e. an object can travel on a mathematical line from A to C, without passing through B). Similarly, a ball thrown to the left, MAY actually land on the right. However the chance of this actually occuring is astronomically small to the extent of it never happening in the lifetime of the universe. As a side point, free will is often asserted as something outside the physics of the universe; humans (and maybe dolphins etc) are said to have a 'soul' or 'spirit' that enables them to think for themselves. Either way, free will indicates the means of having a choice. As opposed to biopsychologists' claims that human 'intelligence' is actually just a series of chemical processes, or people who are mistaken about the laws of physics and state that any given present can have only one future. The discussion is only pointless if you believe that talking about anything that cannot be proven, is pointless. But if you look at that idea deeply, you'll see that there aren't many things that can actually be proven. I believe Morgan has a good point about free will mattering to the human ego. I obviously can't prove that I have free will, but I cherish the belief in it. Regarding earlier statements, it is indeed easy to label something as 'chaotic'. However the word has a precise meaning in physics, and basically refers to a system where the outcome cannot be calculated via shortcuts. Example: multiplication is defined as a repeated addition. However you can multiply 123 * 456 in a quicker way than by adding 123 to itself 455 times. This is called a shortcut (not an official term though) and it has full precision. A sinewave is a periodical function and thus 'later' values can be predicted by observing 'earlier' ones. For a chaotic system, these shortcuts do not exist. However predictions may be made to a certain degree of precision. That being said, the 'butterfly theory' is a gross exaggeration. For an easy example of such, google for Conway Life and download a sample. -------------------- Freude, schöner Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heilighthum! Deine Zauber binden wieder, was die Mode streng getheilt, Alle Menschen werden Brüder, wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt. Pieter Simoons aka Radiant Official Crystal Shard and SubTerra webpage Posts: 798 | Registered: Monday, December 17 2001 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 1877
|
written Monday, January 12 2004 08:13
Profile
Think about this: If we had no free will, why would we be talking about free will? -------------------- MDNZZZ ZMMMBIS WBLOONZ 33111-CRUSADER-4849 Posts: 662 | Registered: Friday, September 13 2002 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Monday, January 12 2004 08:21
Profile
A fairly simplistic argument, I'm afraid. It could simply be a cocktail of chemical reactions in our brains causing us to have discussions about the nature of free will. Our consciousness could simply be a byproduct of these chemicals. I choose not to take this view, mainly because I fail to see why we would do certain things that directly contradict evolution. However, I'm not entirely convinced of the existance of free will (though I want to), but I don't think looking at it from a chemical point of view provides conclusive proof. -------------------- KazeArctica: "Imagine...wangs everywhere...and tentacles. Nothing but wangs and tentacles! And no pants!" Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Monday, January 12 2004 08:28
Profile
Homepage
It's a point. Of course, it may be in our nature to argue about free will. That, our someone (the MICE, who else? :P ) thought they were going to have some fun seeing us contemplate something we do not even have. On the other hand, this is analogous to a solution to the question of whether you're dreaming or awake: Once you wonder if you're awake, you know that you're doubting, and you must be awake. A bit like Descartes, but less philosophical. In a dream, apparently, you can't reflect on something, or doubt something. You either don't think about it at all, or you 'know' it with complete certainty. So yes, if we're thinking about free will, wouldn't that imply that we possess it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oh, yes, some other idea; this relates in part to the chaos theory mentioned earlier: How about what we experience as 'free will' is akin to random movement of particles in a substance, say water? You can't predict this movement, but you can predict that overall, the water will flow down if you pour it on a slope. Similarly, humans individually are unpredictable, but as a group they behave according to patterns they cannot change. In effect, that would mean we have a free will, but it doesn't affect the universe one bit for reasons of scale... How about that? :) -------------------- "And all should cry, Beware, Beware! His Flashing eyes, his Floating hair!" S. T. Coleridge --- "It is as if everyone had lost their sense Consigned themselves to downfall and decadence And a wisp it is they have chosen as their beacon." Reinhard Mey. --- Quote of the Week: "I have a high opinion of myself, which makes up for my total lack of intelligence." Anon. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Monday, January 12 2004 13:51
Profile
Speak for youself. I know when I'm dreaming fairly often :P -------------------- We were once Mao Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Monday, January 12 2004 14:21
Profile
You mean what I'd like to believe in is incorrect according to your information, Radiant. Anyway, I like things nice and exact because I fear the unknown. Free will is an interesting concept since it would be immensely difficult to find out if it exists. You'd first have to find proof of something that is truly random. Then you'd have to prove that your brain contains these random functions. Or you could go back in time and find out. I don't believe in free will, but that doesn't mean I have no choice. And therefore I am content with that. -------------------- How do signature's work? -Keep Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3022
|
written Monday, January 12 2004 14:37
Profile
Er... Radiant... are you sure about that? I know a professor who works in chaos theory, and as far as he (and I agree) is concerned, chaos is defined in terms of the lyapunov exponent, or the rate of divergence of a give set of nearby initial conditions. If a system is chaotic, then it has a positive lyapunov exponent, and by definition the butterfly effect must be true - an infintessimal deviation must eventual overwhelm prediction ability. How long it takes depends on the size of the difference, and the precise lyapunov exponent of the system. What you described appeared to be Kolmogorov complexity, which is related, but very different. Additionally, though everyone agrees with the calculated outputs of QM, there is much debate over *how* it actually works. A number of interpretations (in particular, the Copenhagen interpretation) take the view, as you do, that Quantum uncertainty is about entirely random at fundamental levels. But there are other interpretations. Bohm espouses a non-local hidden variable, which has escaped disproof thus far. And Everett's many worlds interpretation sidesteps the entire issue. The Copenhagen interpretation is currently the most popular, but its position is really because it is there by default, the others having so far failed to generate a way to distinguish themselves from the other model. [ Monday, January 12, 2004 14:43: Message edited by: FZ ] Posts: 269 | Registered: Saturday, May 24 2003 07:00 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Monday, January 12 2004 14:48
Profile
Homepage
Hrrmm. With the many-worlds interpretation, free will is completely meaningless. You do every option somewhere, so you don't choose. -------------------- Grammar wenches beware: This is the house that the malt that the rat that the cat that the dog that the cow that the maiden that the man that the priest that the cock that the farmer kept waked married kissed milked tossed worried killed ate lay in. My Website desperance.net - Leave your sanity at the door Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Monday, January 12 2004 15:02
Profile
Homepage
In another way, it might allow for more free will than anything else. *YOU* go down *this* possibility every single instant, right? The other possibilities happen in parallel universes, and we don't know about them. So what if you could choose which possibility you want to follow...? Say you get an exam back. You know you did good, but there's always the possibility of the teacher finding your work absolutely unacceptable for some small reason, or something else. So in theory any grade is possible. So while the teacher walks towards you with the exam and a grave expression on his/her face (and the grade is still in a state of uncertainty, like a cat in a box :P ), you tell yourself "I know I got an A, I just know it,"... Utter nonsense, of course, but it 'happened' with the Semester exam I got back yesterday, or at least seemed to happen. Utterly random chance, I know. ;) -------------------- "And all should cry, Beware, Beware! His Flashing eyes, his Floating hair!" S. T. Coleridge --- "It is as if everyone had lost their sense Consigned themselves to downfall and decadence And a wisp it is they have chosen as their beacon." Reinhard Mey. --- Quote of the Week: "I have a high opinion of myself, which makes up for my total lack of intelligence." Anon. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, January 12 2004 17:55
Profile
Homepage
But in another universe, you were hit by a falling ceiling tile and died before receiving the grade. —Alorael, who doesn't consider parallel universes an adequate substitute for free will. Parallel universes mean, essentially, that everything happens somewhere, so free will doesn't even matter. Every time you make a choice, you also don't make that choice. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Tuesday, January 13 2004 00:26
Profile
I've never seen conclusive proof that just because there *are* parallel universes, doesn't mean that everything that can possibly happen does happen. I've always assumed that part of the theory was jumped upon by science fiction writers. -------------------- KazeArctica: "Imagine...wangs everywhere...and tentacles. Nothing but wangs and tentacles! And no pants!" Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, January 13 2004 03:48
Profile
Homepage
Well, for parallel universes to be "useful" as a model of quantum mechanics, they have to preserve information identical to the wave function under the Copenhagen interpretation. Since the wave function of a system expresses its entire range of possible histories, the set parallel universes postulated as an explanation for the statistical nature of quantum mechanics would have to contain every possible combination of histories for every particle. I'm no physicist, so I'm certain I'm oversimplifying, but that's the basic idea. -------------------- I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 105 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons. -- Sir Arthur Eddington Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Master Jeweller
Member # 409
|
written Tuesday, January 13 2004 08:59
Profile
Homepage
Keep -> No, what I mean is that what you claim to be the laws of physics, aren't actually what contemporary physicists claim them to be. FZ -> Reasonably sure. Then again it's been a couple of years and those Russian names don't ring a bell. I think that what you state is the official definition of chaos, then, and what I said is a consequence thereof. If as you say 'an infintessimal deviation must eventual overwhelm prediction ability', then it follows that one cannot take 'shortcuts' to calculate the end result, doesn't it? I haven't heard of the non-local hidden variable but it sounds interesting, maybe you could offer a brief explanation? By the way I must say I like Master Chief's argument. It has aesthetic value. Also by the way I believe that whether or not we have free will is a different matter from quantum theory. I just wanted to point out that one cannot use the laws of physics to prove that we have no free will, since the statement that "one can calculate the one possible future from the present using the laws of physics" doesn't necessarily hold true. I've read about a many worlds theory where only some of the possibilities actually occur (granted this wasn't in a science book but I found it interesting nonetheless). It operates on the principles that 1) certain things just do not happen (for instance you may have scored an A or a B on your test but you wouldn't score an F at random on some worlds), and 2) most actions have little effect in the long run; this theory is the opposite of the butterfly theory, and states that what exactly you score on your physics test, for instance, likely has no bearing on political decisions in the next decade. Like ripples on a pond of water, they fade into the background with time and distance. Hence, one can have multiple worlds (a lesser part of infinite) and still have free will. Actually I haven't read about multiple universes in real physics, except on a quantum level. I'm not sure if any important physicists are considering it. -------------------- Freude, schöner Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heilighthum! Deine Zauber binden wieder, was die Mode streng getheilt, Alle Menschen werden Brüder, wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt. Pieter Simoons aka Radiant Official Crystal Shard and SubTerra webpage Posts: 798 | Registered: Monday, December 17 2001 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3022
|
written Tuesday, January 13 2004 10:03
Profile
quote:Well, the best "proof" of QM we currently have is the Aspect experiment. Previously, detracters (notably Einstein himself) posed the issue of the EPR paradox as a disproof. What they said, essentially, that quantum uncertainty is an issue of measurement or knowledge only, and that hidden variables, or unknown factors work to give the appearance of uncertainty, when it is actually behaving normally. The Aspect experiment disprove pretty conclusively all local versions of the hidden variable idea - all versions where, for example, the particles are affected by a guiding wave that propogates at the speed of light. However, Bohm had an escape clause, with a non-local hidden variable. In short, the entire universe is interconnected instantaneously in subtle ways, which work to give the appearance of uncertainty, probablistic effects and so on. There are some advantages to this model, but also many disadvantages. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ Posts: 269 | Registered: Saturday, May 24 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Tuesday, January 13 2004 11:09
Profile
FZ: The article looks fairly interesting; unfortunately, I haven't the time to look at it in detail. From the technical terms used, I guess I'd have to brush up somewhat on my quantum mechanics (my knowledge doesn't extend much beyond whatever tidbits New Scientist provides, as well as a few papers). On the subject of many worlds: I'd forgotten the necessity (or seeming necessity) for it to have every possible outcome for it to be a working model for quantum mechanics. I'm also fairly intrigued by chaos theory. Looks like it's going to be a night of science for me. -------------------- KazeArctica: "Imagine...wangs everywhere...and tentacles. Nothing but wangs and tentacles! And no pants!" Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 1877
|
written Wednesday, January 14 2004 10:41
Profile
Im thinking that if we didn't have free will, we would not have been that influenced by media, real life, and stuff like that. And what about feelings and free will. If we are meant to be robots, why would we feel something? -------------------- MDNZZZ ZMMMBIS WBLOONZ 33111-CRUSADER-4849 Posts: 662 | Registered: Friday, September 13 2002 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, January 14 2004 14:02
Profile
Homepage
If we don't have free will, it is because the laws of physics determined the course of every particle from the beginning of time. We experience emotions, have our opinions swayed, and in all ways behave as if we have free will. But in fact there is never any chance of anything different happening, because the stimuli are pre-programmed and our responses to those stimuli are pre-programmed as well. —Alorael, who already said it's not useful to think about it. Even if we don't have free will, we can't do anything about it and it isn't any more uncomfortable than life with free will. Just go ahead and make your choices, whether you really have them or not. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, January 14 2004 16:58
Profile
Homepage
Think about it, STD. We do things because we have reasons for doing them. If we do something for a reason, can we really be said to be doing it freely? We're not doing it because we're "free", but because we want to. -------------------- I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 105 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons. -- Sir Arthur Eddington Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |