Free will on the surface

[Skwim]

Is that a fact?

Yup. In fact, it's been shown that QM even validates determinism.

4.4 Quantum mechanics
As indicated above, QM is widely thought to be a strongly non-deterministic theory. Popular belief (even among most physicists) holds that phenomena such as radioactive decay, photon emission and absorption, and many others are such that only a probabilistic description of them can be given. The theory does not say what happens in a given case, but only says what the probabilities of various results are. So, for example, according to QM the fullest description possible of a radium atom (or a chunk of radium, for that matter), does not suffice to determine when a given atom will decay, nor how many atoms in the chunk will have decayed at any given time. The theory gives only the probabilities for a decay (or a number of decays) to happen within a given span of time. Einstein and others perhaps thought that this was a defect of the theory that should eventually be removed, by a supplemental hidden variable theory[6] that restores determinism; but subsequent work showed that no such hidden variables account could exist. At the microscopic level the world is ultimately mysterious and chancy.

So goes the story; but like much popular wisdom, it is partly mistaken and/or misleading. Ironically, quantum mechanics is one of the best prospects for a genuinely deterministic theory in modern times! Even more than in the case of GTR and the hole argument, everything hinges on what interpretational and philosophical decisions one adopts. The fundamental law at the heart of non-relativistic QM is the Schrödinger equation. The evolution of a wavefunction describing a physical system under this equation is normally taken to be perfectly deterministic.[7] If one adopts an interpretation of QM according to which that's it—i.e., nothing ever interrupts Schrödinger evolution, and the wavefunctions governed by the equation tell the complete physical story—then quantum mechanics is a perfectly deterministic theory. There are several interpretations that physicists and philosophers have given of QM which go this way. (See the entry on quantum mechanics.)
source
​

And here is a piece that speaks to the more obvious notion that quantum events don't impact those on the superatomic level.

Ted Honderich* holds the view that "determinism is true, compatibilism and incompatibilism are both false" and the real problem lies elsewhere. Honderich maintains that determinism is true because quantum phenomena are not events or things that can be located in space and time, but are abstract entities. Further, even if they were micro-level events, they do not seem to have any relevance to how the world is at the macroscopic level. He maintains that incompatibilism is false because, even if determinism is true, incompatibilists have not, and cannot, provide an adequate account of origination. He rejects compatibilism because it, like incompatibilism, assumes a single, fundamental notion of freedom. There are really two notions of freedom: voluntary action and origination. Both notions are required to explain freedom of will and responsibility. Both determinism and indeterminism are threats to such freedom. To abandon these notions of freedom would be to abandon moral responsibility. On the one side, we have our intuitions; on the other, the scientific facts. The "new" problem is how to resolve this conflict.
source
​

*Ted Honderich (born 30 January 1933) is a Canadian-born British philosopher, Grote Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic, University College London[1] and Visiting Professor, University of Bath. His work has been mainly about five things: determinism's truth and its consequences for our lives; the nature of consciousness and its relation to the brain; right and wrong in the contemporary world, in particular with respect to terrorism; the supposed justifications of punishment by the state; and the political tradition of conservatism.
(source:ibid)

 

[idav]

Yup. In fact, it's been shown that QM even validates determinism.

4.4 Quantum mechanics
As indicated above, QM is widely thought to be a strongly non-deterministic theory. Popular belief (even among most physicists) holds that phenomena such as radioactive decay, photon emission and absorption, and many others are such that only a probabilistic description of them can be given. The theory does not say what happens in a given case, but only says what the probabilities of various results are. So, for example, according to QM the fullest description possible of a radium atom (or a chunk of radium, for that matter), does not suffice to determine when a given atom will decay, nor how many atoms in the chunk will have decayed at any given time. The theory gives only the probabilities for a decay (or a number of decays) to happen within a given span of time. Einstein and others perhaps thought that this was a defect of the theory that should eventually be removed, by a supplemental hidden variable theory[6] that restores determinism; but subsequent work showed that no such hidden variables account could exist. At the microscopic level the world is ultimately mysterious and chancy.

So goes the story; but like much popular wisdom, it is partly mistaken and/or misleading. Ironically, quantum mechanics is one of the best prospects for a genuinely deterministic theory in modern times! Even more than in the case of GTR and the hole argument, everything hinges on what interpretational and philosophical decisions one adopts. The fundamental law at the heart of non-relativistic QM is the Schrödinger equation. The evolution of a wavefunction describing a physical system under this equation is normally taken to be perfectly deterministic.[7] If one adopts an interpretation of QM according to which that's it—i.e., nothing ever interrupts Schrödinger evolution, and the wavefunctions governed by the equation tell the complete physical story—then quantum mechanics is a perfectly deterministic theory. There are several interpretations that physicists and philosophers have given of QM which go this way. (See the entry on quantum mechanics.)
source
​

And here is a piece that speaks to the more obvious notion that quantum events don't impact those on the superatomic level.

Ted Honderich* holds the view that "determinism is true, compatibilism and incompatibilism are both false" and the real problem lies elsewhere. Honderich maintains that determinism is true because quantum phenomena are not events or things that can be located in space and time, but are abstract entities. Further, even if they were micro-level events, they do not seem to have any relevance to how the world is at the macroscopic level. He maintains that incompatibilism is false because, even if determinism is true, incompatibilists have not, and cannot, provide an adequate account of origination. He rejects compatibilism because it, like incompatibilism, assumes a single, fundamental notion of freedom. There are really two notions of freedom: voluntary action and origination. Both notions are required to explain freedom of will and responsibility. Both determinism and indeterminism are threats to such freedom. To abandon these notions of freedom would be to abandon moral responsibility. On the one side, we have our intuitions; on the other, the scientific facts. The "new" problem is how to resolve this conflict.
source
​

*Ted Honderich (born 30 January 1933) is a Canadian-born British philosopher, Grote Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic, University College London[1] and Visiting Professor, University of Bath. His work has been mainly about five things: determinism's truth and its consequences for our lives; the nature of consciousness and its relation to the brain; right and wrong in the contemporary world, in particular with respect to terrorism; the supposed justifications of punishment by the state; and the political tradition of conservatism.
(source:ibid)

That is something different than saying quantum doesn't apply to the brain. Also it doesn't answer the probablistic portions of the wavelength. The microscopic world however insignificance will make a difference in the macro world. That sounds very similar to the micro argument against macro evolution.

 

[Skwim]

That is something different than saying quantum doesn't apply to the brain. Also it doesn't answer the probablistic portions of the wavelength. The microscopic world however insignificance will make a difference in the macro world.

If random quantum level events impacted superatomic events eg. synapse firings and chemical interactions, then you would be just as apt to start eating lint as making a response to me. To be meaningful their combined probability would have to be so coincidental as to be statistically absurd. The makeup of superatomic processes has just too much redundancy for random subatomic events to make any difference in them. It's like expecting a sock thrown at a moving car to alter its direction of travel.

That sounds very similar to the micro argument against macro evolution.

Yes it does, but it's a false analogy because it hasn't been shown that quantum level events are capable of affecting the neural functions of the brain. And as has been shown, their very nature goes a long way in confirming the deterministic theory. But hey, if you believe that random quantum events somehow influences our thinking then you'd be obliged to admit that our free will actions are no less random. Is that what you want to do?

 

[idav]

If random quantum level events impacted superatomic events eg. synapse firings and chemical interactions, then you would be just as apt to start eating lint as making a response to me. To be meaningful their combined probability would have to be so coincidental as to be statistically absurd. The makeup of superatomic processes has just too much redundancy for random subatomic events to make any difference in them. It's like expecting a sock thrown at a moving car to alter its direction of travel.


Yes it does, but it's a false analogy because it hasn't been shown that quantum level events are capable of affecting the neural functions of the brain. And as has been shown, their very nature goes a long way in confirming the deterministic theory. But hey, if you believe that random quantum events somehow influences our thinking then you'd be obliged to admit that our free will actions are no less random. Is that what you want to do?

Multiple probalistic events would mean that there are "choices" in the causality realm. If our brains have any influence on the wave function it shows a potential that we can influence at a probabilistic level.

 

[Skwim]

Multiple probalistic events would mean that there are "choices" in the causality realm.

Not those at the quantum level.

If our brains have any influence on the wave function it shows a potential that we can influence at a probabilistic level.

The probabilistic events are random and at the quantum level.

In any case, so as not to take the thread off topic any further this will be my last post regarding quantum events. Please have the last word if you wish.