Free Will Vs Determinism

[atanu]

Of course you're physically intervening, you are changing the physical setup. You do have to set up something that interacts with the photons to extract the "what way" information. Quantum effects are counter-intuitive but that doesn't make consciousness any more significant. If you put a brick in a stream, you'll change the way the water flows. There is no fundamental difference with putting a detector in a double slit experiment.

So, you imply that although a camera is part of entangled system and influences behaviour of photons, a human experimenter who puts the camera there is irrelevant?

 

[ratiocinator]

So, you imply that although a camera is part of entangled system and influences behaviour of photons, a human experimenter who puts the camera there is irrelevant?

Not entirely sure what you mean. If you're implying that the camera is in and entangled state, then you're begging the question about the interpretation of QM. Otherwise, the experimenter is exactly as relevant as in any sort of (non-quantum) experiment or as the person who puts a brick in a stream.

 

[atanu]

Not entirely sure what you mean. If you're implying that the camera is in and entangled state, then you're begging the question about the interpretation of QM. Otherwise, the experimenter is exactly as relevant as in any sort of (non-quantum) experiment or as the person who puts a brick in a stream.

No. You are begging the question. In a previous post I had clarified that I am not into interpretation. It is an experimental fact that when an experimenter decides to check on photons, a collapse takes place. How does that support hard determinism? I also cited example of brain plasticity as evidence against hard determinism.

 

[ratiocinator]

No. You are begging the question. In a previous post I had clarified that I am not into interpretation.

I thought that was what you said. However, when you said "a camera is part of entangled system" that implies that a macro-scale object (a camera) can be entangled - which is firmly into the territory of interpretation. If you meant something else, then please clarify.

It is an experimental fact that when an experimenter decides to check on photons, a collapse takes place. How does that support hard determinism? I also cited example of brain plasticity as evidence against hard determinism.

My point is that there is no evidence that an experimenter is any more significant in quantum experiments than they are in any experiments.

You could use the mathematics of quantum mechanical measurement to make a credible argument that some aspects of the universe aren't strictly deterministic (and actually involve true randomness) but that would have nothing directly to do with consciousness and there is no evidence that (for example) such effects are significant in the brain.

 

[Nakosis]

I agree with the metaphor to a large extent. However, since the hardware-software metaphor leaves room for mind-body problem to remain unsolved, I lean towards non dualism.

Non dualism as in the attainment of the enlighten individual?
How many actual enlightened folks mucking about?
At best, I see myself as only semi-enlightened.

 

[atanu]

Non dualism as in the attainment of the enlighten individual?
How many actual enlightened folks mucking about?
At best, I see myself as only semi-enlightened.

I am not even quarter.

 

[atanu]

I thought that was what you said. However, when you said "a camera is part of entangled system" that implies that a macro-scale object (a camera) can be entangled - which is firmly into the territory of interpretation. If you meant something else, then please clarify.

My point is that there is no evidence that an experimenter is any more significant in quantum experiments than they are in any experiments.

You could use the mathematics of quantum mechanical measurement to make a credible argument that some aspects of the universe aren't strictly deterministic (and actually involve true randomness) but that would have nothing directly to do with consciousness and there is no evidence that (for example) such effects are significant in the brain.

You seem to be complicating a simple issue. I indeed believe that consciousness collapses wave function. Else, you are led to unprovable many world scenario.

But, I did not invoke ‘consciousness’. Please recall that you brought in consciousness. Please check back. I pointed to the experimental fact that an intentional intervention by the experimenter has effect on behaviour of photons, which are not connected to the experimenter physically.
...

 

[ratiocinator]

You seem to be complicating a simple issue. I indeed believe that consciousness collapses wave function. Else, you are led to unprovable many world scenario.

Neither are currently provable but they are not the only two options by a very long way (Interpretations of quantum mechanics).

But, I did not invoke ‘consciousness’. Please recall that you brought in consciousness. Please check back. I pointed to the experimental fact that an intentional intervention by the experimenter has effect on behaviour of photons, which are not connected to the experimenter physically.

To the extent this is true it is no different from any other experiment that doesn't involve QM. If an experimenter changes the experimental setup then the system will behave differently. The important part is that the setup is changed, not the intention of the experimenter.

 

[atanu]

To the extent this is true it is no different from any other experiment that doesn't involve QM. If an experimenter changes the experimental setup then the system will behave differently. The important part is that the setup is changed, not the intention of the experimenter.

Bulls. We are simply wasting our time, since materialistic indoctrination does not allow you to comprehend the simple fact of the double slit experiment that the setup does not get changed on its own. The point, in the context of this thread, is that 'billiard ball' type determinism fails and quantum contextuality, which cannot exclude the experimenter, prevails.

...

 

[ratiocinator]

Bulls. We are simply wasting our time, since materialistic indoctrination does not allow you to comprehend the simple fact of the double slit experiment that the setup does not get changed on its own.

This is true of any experiment.

The point, in the context of this thread, is that 'billiard ball' type determinism fails and quantum contextuality, which cannot exclude the experimenter, prevails.

This is false. There is no evidence at all that the experimenter (as in a conscious being) cannot be excluded. There are even interpretations that return to a fully deterministic system (for example, The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics). The measurement problem has not been solved - it is not known how (or whether) the wave function collapses.

As far as this thread goes, whether the ultimate laws of nature are deterministic or stochastic has little relevance to free will. Introducing some random element can't make somebody's choices any more "free".

 

[Skwim]

Introducing some random element can't make somebody's choices any more "free".

Something that's never understood or is frequently forgotten, and often takes a discussion off track.

.

 

[atanu]

Something that's never understood or is frequently forgotten, and often takes a discussion off track.
.

Please do not pick one aspect of the issue only. I had mentioned that combination of three factors: cause-effect; self determination, and chance, produce result. Self determination theory is a well accepted theory in psychology. Do you think that physics determines 'Intrinsic motivations' of people?

Self-determination theory - Wikipedia

Even if you reject the intrinsic self determination power of beings as illusion, the facts of quantum indeterminacy and violation of Bell's inequality indicate that either locality or determinism is wrong.

...

 

[Skwim]

Please do not pick one aspect of the issue only. I had mentioned that combination of three factors: cause-effect; self determination, and chance, produce result. Self determination theory is a well accepted theory in psychology. Do you think that physics determines 'Intrinsic motivations' of people?

Self-determination theory - Wikipedia

Even if you reject the intrinsic self determination power of beings as illusion, the facts of quantum indeterminacy and violation of Bell's inequality indicate that either locality or determinism is wrong.

...

So we have "cause -effect," or determinism, "self determination," which is driven by cause -effect, and "chance," or utter randomness, which has not been shown to exist, all of which comes down to determinism as the guy running the show. I agree.

.

 

[atanu]

This is true of any experiment.

Yes. But, this experiment hints against assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) of the classical realms. You will recall that Bell's inequality comprises factors: realism, locality, and the freedom to choose between measurement settings.

In this case, without invoking any other factor, we can simply state that the experimenter can exercise choice of experimental set-up and thus non locally (apparently) influence the result. This is the empirical fact of the experiment.

Since you, instead of acknowledging this simple fact, are dragging me to unnecessary speculations, I may not reply to you further. Best.

...

 

[atanu]

So we have "cause -effect," or determinism, "self determination," which is driven by cause -effect, and "chance," or utter randomness, which has not been shown to exist, all of which comes down to determinism as the guy running the show. I agree.

.

How do you know that self determination is physical? Is it not begging the question? Psychology does not agree with you. But as I said, whether you agree to self determination being non physical element in the mix does not really matter.

Since, Quantum Mechanics more or less has given up on realism: local or nonlocal. I am including citation for a very important paper on the subject.

An experimental test of non-local realism


And finally, Quantum indeterminacy also asserts that the state of a system does not determine a unique collection of values for all its measurable properties. So, the final outcome will be one out of a probabilistic set -- therefore to some extent random.
...

 

[Skwim]

How do you show that self determination is physical?

I don't have to. Whether thoughts are generated by physical aspects of our brain, or arise from some other mechanism, that mechanism has to be run by a deterministic engine, unless, that is one, feels our thoughts are utterly random in nature.

Is it not begging the question. Psychology does not agree to you. Further, Quantum Mechanics more or less has given up on realism, local or nonlocal. I am including citation for a very important paper on the subject.

An experimental test of non-local realism

...

Irrelevant. And just to be clear:

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function.
source

.​

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes. But, this experiment hints against assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) of the classical realms. You will recall that Bell's inequality comprises factors: realism, locality, and the freedom to choose between measurement settings.

You're going beyond the double slit now, but yes, tests of Bell's inequalities do rule out certain classes of local, hidden variable theories but they don't tell us anything at all about minds or experimenters.

In this case, without invoking any other factor, we can simply state that the experimenter can exercise choice of experimental set-up and thus non locally (apparently) influence the result. This is the empirical fact of the experiment.

It tells us that an experimenter's choice of setup influences the outcome, just like every other experiment, it still tells us precisely nothing more about minds or experimenters. Everything that connects QM to minds is pure speculation.

 

[wellwisher]

The original definition of free will or free moral agent comes from Genesis in the Bible and has to do with being able ago make choices apart from natural instinct. A wild animal follows natural instinct, while humans can make choices outside of the realm of natural instinct. Free will allows choices that are outside of natural and instinctive determinism.

The reason this is possible is the human brain has two centers of consciousness, the inner self and the ego. The inner self is much older and is connected to instinct. It is the center of the unconscious mind. The ego center is newer and is the center of the conscious mind. Between these two centers are many layers of personality firmware. Consciousness of the inner self requires effort since it is quite deep in the brain's operating system.

Two centers of consciousness allows two sets of choices. These choices can converge or diverge with each other. Free will is more obvious when they diverge. For example, the new fad called many genders, comes from the ego center, since this is not natural to the inner self. It is connected to willpower, since this choice diverges from an optimization between form and function.

Many genders starts in the super ego of culture and is connected to supply side economics. Consider all the new merchandise that is being sold to new customers. The cosmetic industries now has more male customers because of this social choice.

As an analogy, the inner self would use the Chevy Corvette as a sports car, since this is how it is constructed and how it is optimized. The ego may use the Corvette as a lunch cart. This is a possible choice, but it diverges away from the inner self. The inner self attempts to maximize form with function, since natural survival requires using all cylinders. Artificial survival in culture may not require all cylinders, so a Corvette lunch cart becomes a possible choice.

Free will, in the biblical sense, was assisted by the unnatural environments created by culture. The tree of knowledge of good and evil or law is such a social construct, Artificial environments add a secondary level of social optimization, beyond instinct, thereby creating possible divergence with the inner self. The inner self evolved in nature and see things the natural way.

For example, transgender is only possible because of science and medicine. Nature does not provide health care. You can't go into the back woods to have this operation done by a bear, nor can you get the drugs you need from the trees. The inner self won't go there, since it makes no sense. On the other, culture vis supply side economics, can make this choice available. The net affect is there is secondary layer of determinism in action; super ego, connected to culture and civilization, instead of nature and inner self.

The Tree of Life with its twelve types of fruit and leaves for healing the nations, is symbolic of a social construct that converges free will with the inner self. This allows humans to run on all cylinders. They stop wasting energy opposing themselves, via divergence with the inner self. For example, eating can be natural as well as consistent with choices in culture and civilization; same page leading to healthy satisfaction.

 

[atanu]

I don't have to. Whether thoughts are generated by physical aspects of our brain, or arise from some other mechanism, that mechanism has to be run by a deterministic engine, unless, that is one, feels our thoughts are utterly random in nature.

1. I agree. In an earlier post, I had said that Free will is an oxymoron. Once a will is exercised, cause-effect chain will kick in. Please refer to my earlier post where I said that a) one can be as bound as an instinctive animal is or b) one can be as free as a meditative Buddha is.

Probably, you are not equipped to appreciate the difference between a pure 'observer' (a meditative Buddha who has no causal link with body-mind) versus a pure 'doer' (when the self is assumed to be the body-mind complex -- an unconscious animal like person) . Most of us are more or less 'doers' and hence we are bound to causal chain. But Buddha is not a doer. So, difference in degree of self-determination arises here.

2. Our thoughts may not be utterly random. But nature may impart the randomness. Will you score exactly same if you solved a same question paper 100 times with same degree of preparation? I do not think so.

Irrelevant. And just to be clear:

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function.
source
.​

Tegmark is irrelevant here. I am talking of quantum indeterminacy in nature and not necessarily in brain.

 

[Skwim]

1. I agree. In an earlier post, I had said that Free will is an oxymoron. Once a will is exercised, cause-effect change will kick in. Please refer to my earlier post where I said that a) one can be as bound as an instinctive animal is or b) one can be as free as a meditative Buddha is.

Probably, you are not equipped to appreciate the difference between a pure 'observer' (a meditative Buddha who has no causal link with body-mind) versus a pure 'doer' (when the self is assumed to be the body-mind complex -- an unconscious animal like person) . Most of us are more or less 'doers' and hence we are bound to causal chain. But Buddha is not a doer. So, difference in degree of self-determination arises here.

Guess not.