Free Will and Physics

[(Q)]

At any rate, do we agree that free will is an illusion?

Just a wee bit more clarity - we have free will, we are free to make any choice we wish regardless of the outcome. But what is important to remember is that the outcome of our choice is random, thus giving the illusion that free will is... an illusion.

Are quantum events literally random

In that we cannot predict the outcome, yes.

or is it just that they will always appear random to us since our observation influences them

Observation of the event will definitely influence the event in that we may be able to know a particular property (like spin) but cannot know another (like charge), and vice-versa.

I read about Schrodinger's Cat analogy, but I am having a hard time understanding it.

It's a very good gedanken experiment. Keep thinking about it and apply what you have learned, grasshopper.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I disagree, I don't see how we can possibly have 'free will' when there is no 'us' in the first place....after all, which brain cell is the one with free will? We act on what we want, but we can't decide what it is that we want in the first place.

I have been called "grasshopper" before...why do you call me that?

 

[YawgmothsAvatar]

:looks up:

Wha?

:Googles "Schrodinger's Cat":

Oh... right...

This is what I think the application is:

The cat is either strictly alive or strictly dead. Just because we don't know doesn't make it both. But, on the quantum level, it is true, because of the Double Slit Experiment (Ha! Take that!). So, where can we draw the line of when superposition stops?

 

[(Q)]

why do you call me that?

Simple, because you have been called "grasshopper" before

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What on earth does that mean? Are you alluding to a poem or a story? I have a feeling it has someting to do with my young age, but I won't be offended....you've sparked my curiosity here.

(Q) said: "In that we cannot predict the outcome [of quantum events--spinkles], yes."

But just because we can't predict the outcome doesn't mean it's random, it could mean that there are causes but those causes are (forever?) unknowable to us. Am I wrong?

One more thing: when you say free will being an illusion is an illusion, are you saying we have free will? How do you even define free will?

 

[(Q)]

But just because we can't predict the outcome doesn't mean it's random, it could mean that there are causes but those causes are (forever?) unknowable to us

Not really. In the ground state of a hydrogen atom for example, there is no change occuring because the electrons are at their lowest energy levels, so no energy is radiating - the electrons take on the shape of a 'smeared' cloud, hence their positions are unknowable (random). If a change (cause) occurs it can be detected, usually when the electrons energy levels increase and they begin to radiate energy to get back to a ground state.

How do you even define free will?

Definitions like 'free will' are relative (not absolute) to the individual just like their definitions of gods. So, you have free will only in the context of your own definition.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"hence their positions are unknowable (random)"

But just because something is unknowable to us doesn't mean it is random. It just means it is unknowable.

Also, I would be very interested to know why you called me grasshopper.

 

[(Q)]

True, but in this case it is unknowble because the positions are random.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ah. And what about the reason you called me grasshopper? Is that unknowable, too?

 

[(Q)]

It is knowable, grasshopper.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This is driving me nuts. You aren't a transcendentalist or subscribe to any Eastern philosophy by any chance, do you?

 

[(Q)]

[font=Arial,Helvetica] A grasshopper walks into a bar and asks for a drink. The bar tender turns to the grasshopper and says "Hey, you know we have a drink named after you?"

The grasshopper responds "Why in hell do you have a drink named Bob?"[/font]

 

[Mr Spinkles]

LOL, um, so why did you call me grasshopper? I don't see the connection. Like I said earlier, someone else used to call me grasshopper, and I always wondered why.

"True, but in this case it is unknowble because the positions are random."

Ok, so the positions of the electrons are unknowable--what I still don't understand is how do you take the next step, and conclude that the positions are definitely random (not just unknowable)? If it requires calculus maybe I should just take your word for it...lol, I did poorly on the AP exam.

Like with Schrodinger's Cat...it's either dead or alive. We don't know whether it's dead or alive, but it's still not random. In fact, I read in Skeptic magazine that some physicists think that it's not all random, but there are hidden causes.

I'm waiting for you to say "It's random--I could explain it to you, but you wouldn't understand anyway". If that's the case, I'll take your word for it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hmmm...I found this:

Remember, grasshopper, your most dangerous enemy is yourself. The issue is not so much what you COULD do with any of these opportunities, the issue is what WILL you do.
-- Ernie Prabhakar

I think I figured it out...one of my friends told me that 'grasshopper' is what they call students in kung fu movies. I knew it had something to do with my age/naivite.

 

[(Q)]

Ok, so the positions of the electrons are unknowable--what I still don't understand is how do you take the next step, and conclude that the positions are definitely random (not just unknowable)?

Maybe this will help:

http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/PeriodicTable.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pauli.html

 

[Zero Faith]

Quantum events are literally and absolutely random, by definition and to a mathematical certainty. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is inviolate, and its application absolutely necessitates this randomness. If quantum events were patterned, the uncertainty principle would break down and undermine the entire discipline.

If that happens, I will have wasted four years of University study, and that would make me sad. Please don't destroy quantum physics -- I don't want to be homeless.

 

[Zero Faith]

Mr. Sprinkles:

The many worlds theory of quantum physics might explain what those physicists were saying could be 'hidden causes'; namely, the infinite possible outcomes of a quantum event spawn infinite dimensions, and those dimensions interact with each other to influence the event in our dimension. It's how "Single Photon Intereference" is sometimes explained (look it up on the web -- it's probably one of the most fascinating elements of basic quantum physics).

But this is largely overshadowed by the more popular Copenhagen interpretation, which is exactly what I've already stated -- that quantum events are necessarily random.

As for the cat, the Copenhagen interpretation suggests that, until observed, the cat is neither alive nor dead. It exists in some quantum state that is both alive and dead, as well as neither alive nor dead, all at the same time. It's only when the box is opened and the cat observed that the wave function collapses and one of the two alternatives is purely randomly determined. At that moment, the cat will become alive or dead. If it's dead, it will have been dead for some time (it's not like the cat dies as soon as the box is opened).

So, the cat goes into the box and you have a quantum mechanical process attached to a cyanide capsule, also in the box. You leave it there for five minutes, during which time the cat is both and neither alive n/or dead. Let's say you open the box, the wave function collapses, and you're staring at the body of a cat that has been dead for three minutes. That's not to say that the cat died three minutes ago -- three minutes ago, it was both and neither alive n/or dead, as it was two minutes or four minutes ago. At the time the box is opened, the wave function collapsed and randomly 'chose' the time of three minutes that the cat has been dead.

As you can see, quantum physics is crazy-weird.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Zero Faith-- Thank you very much for the excellent posts! Unlike the websites (Q) provided, they were very informative and clearly addressed my specific questions. Have a smiley:

 

[EventHorizon997]

I agree with Mr_Sprinkles. Because on the fundamental level quantum events are inherently random there can be no prediction of future events; even if you know everything there is to know about the state of everything in the universe at a single instant in time there is no certainty for the future. In my opinion this has some pretty big implications....