Determinism vs Free Will by Physicists.

[GoodbyeDave]

I would like to know your source please.

There's plenty of literature if you look — even a Journal of Near-Death Studies.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

First of all, I accept that people have religious *experiences*. I just believe they are products of brain activity and have nothing at all to do with a supernatural.

Of course you do. It's called Confirmation Bias.

And, as for evidence that the brain is where thoughts happen, pretty much all of brain research over the past century shows that: you affect the brain and you affect thoughts.

Obviously the brain affects thoughts — so does indigestion.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you do. It's called Confirmation Bias.

OK, so how do you test otherwise?

Obviously the brain affects thoughts — so does indigestion.

The differences are quite stark. Indigestion affects thoughts only to the extent that it affects the brain. On the other hand, we invoke thoughts by directly stimulating the brain. We can point to specific places in the brain that process different types of information, etc.

 

[Skwim]

]Well, the bomb would be caused by that quantum decay. The quantum decay is, strictly speaking, uncaused.

There's been discussion on the internet about uncaused quantum events, but I have yet to see anyone who's field of study is quantum mechanics ever make the claim, and in light of such a claim by lay people I await their evidence. What do you have?

But I *still* chose: I pondered and decided what to do. That it was predetermined (if it was), is irrelevant to whether I made a choice.

If an event is predetermined where does your "choosing" come into the picture as a controlling agent? Your pondering, deciding, and doing X were simply the necessary result of the chain of causal events leading up to X. You didn't choose X. You had to do X. You could not have done Y.

Cause and effect is NOT a simple matter of addition.

Obviously not, but it's the best analogy of determinism's requisite nature I could think of.

And, in the real world, there are situations where it simply isn't the case that an event is *determined* by previous events.

Please share.


.
.

 

[Polymath257]

There's been discussion on the internet about uncaused quantum events, but I have yet to see anyone who's field of study is quantum mechanics ever make the claim, and in light of such a claim by lay people I await their evidence. What do you have?

Well, I am not a specialist, but I have taken and passed the PhD qualifying exams in physics for QM. Does that work for you?

More specifically, you might want to Google the article by Mermin entitled "Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory"

http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/lectures/Mermin longer.pdf

This discusses the import of an actual experiment that has been done in many variations at this point. Quantum mechanic fits the observations and NO local causal description can fit the observations.

The specific experiment was one done by Aspect (you can Google him also). It was quite famous. And the results for determinism are devastating.

If an event is predetermined where does your "choosing" come into the picture as a controlling agent? Your pondering, deciding, and doing X were simply the necessary result of the chain of causal events leading up to X. You didn't choose X. You had to do X. You could not have done Y.

Well, to choose is a process in the brain. That process happens whether or not it is determined ahead of time.

So, the question becomes whether 'choices' are a macroscopic phenomenon (at cellular level and above), in which case you *do* choose, or if they are something else.

I understand that you believe there is determinism, so that the choices are pre-determined, but that does not mean there was no 'choice'.

Also, even if you *had* to do X, you *wanted* to do X. And I would not expect 'free will' to mean you choose things you don't want.

 

[Skwim]

Well, I am not a specialist, but I have taken and passed the PhD qualifying exams in physics for QM. Does that work for you?

You're the best I've seen yet, so lay it on; although, I can't promise I'll understand it all.

More specifically, you might want to Google the article by Mermin entitled "Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory"

http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/lectures/Mermin longer.pdf

This discusses the import of an actual experiment that has been done in many variations at this point. Quantum mechanic fits the observations and NO local causal description can fit the observations.

The specific experiment was one done by Aspect (you can Google him also). It was quite famous. And the results for determinism are devastating.

Don't have the time right now, but I will take a look at it. Thanks.

Well, to choose is a process in the brain. That process happens whether or not it is determined ahead of time.

Looking at the operation of choosing, I see it as the mind making a conscious effort to do one thing or the other (select X or not). I then ask myself, why would the mind do either? Either of which amounts to an act. So, how did such an act arise? Was it an utterly random occurrence or was there some kind of impetus prompting it? Disregarding an utterly random act, I'm compelled to believe there was some kind of impetus that gave rise to it, and the only thing I can think of is cause. And how did this cause arise? for the same reason the act arose; a prior cause. So it's turtles all the way down. Every act act occurs because a chain of cause/effect events eventually concluded in bringing it about. It then may or may not serve to help bring about some future event.

You may think you chose X over Y, but your sense of choosing was simply a part of decisive cause/effect events that brought about the act. And for that reason there was absolutely no possibility that Y would ever arise (be chosen). X had to arise.

I understand that you believe there is determinism, so that the choices are pre-determined, but that does not mean there was no 'choice'.

And I contend that choosing is mere illusion. The force that prompted X rather than Y was a cause whose nature was born out of a host of preceding cause/effect events that inexorably had to lead to that cause and no other.

Also, even if you *had* to do X, you *wanted* to do X. And I would not expect 'free will' to mean you choose things you don't want.

Right, so where does the free in free will enter the picture? Your will is compelled to do X rather than Y by all the antecedent events leading up to the moment of the X-not-Y event. Which means the X event was predetermined long ago. Don't ask when.

.