Mike Flynn said:
A little history:
Back in the days when classical physics ruled the scientific landscape, logical reasoning would say that there is absolutely no possiblility of free will.
Here's why:
The motion of all particles can be exactly determined based on previously existing conditions. So once the universe was set into motion by some event, everything that happened to every particle after this event could be determined exactly in theory. So you, as a collection of these particles, wave your hand 'goodbye' at someone not because you willed it...but because of particle interactions that had taken place long before you were born. Your 'fate was sealed' so to speak and your entire future was predetermined. Does this make sense?
Enter quantum physics. About 100 years ago it became clear that we could not precisely predict the fate of all particles in the universe. We found that every particle has an intrinsic random character to it. So no matter how exacting we are with our measurements, the particle defies absolute determinism...random chance is an inherent part of its character.
I think I've found part of your communication problem. Your description of the relationship of classical physics and free will is perfect. Your use of QM is good but you use the word "random". What you wanted was "
indeterminate". The posters are getting sidetracked on what is pure random, but QM doesn't say the actions are random, but that they cannot be
determined from a previous state nor
predicted or known accurately.
The classic example is hooking a computer mouse to the decay of a sample of radioisotopes. Each individual decay would send an input the the controls of the mouse. The movement of the mouse is completely
indeterminate. That is, it is not determined by any previous movements of the mouse, because the decay of any
individual atom is not tied to any previous state and is itself unpredictable.
At first one might conclude "great, free will is now possible", but this analysis is flawed. The fate of any particle is now simply determined by a combination of determinsm and random chance. If you apply these principles to the matter in your body, it precludes any possibility of some kind of intrisic force of 'will' that would grant you with some ability to choose among arbitrary options.
I think the communication problem here is "arbitrary options". The whole range of possibilities is not open to you, do to previous input. But a single option among the myriad options available within that range is not pre-determined. Just like the probability is fixed that half the atoms in the sample of isotope will decay in the half-life and therefore the "arbitrary option" of 95% of the atoms decaying is forbidden, still the option of
which particular atoms will decay is open.
Now lets add in quantum randomness. Now we measure everything in your brain and we find that we can't precisely predict what happens...we can only assign probablilities to what you might do. But the brain itself has no possible way of exerting any kind of control over the random character of its constituents...so a signal reaches a fork in the neural network...and chooses its path randomly, then preset systems in your brain react accordingly. There is no possibility of any kind of 'free choice' here. It just implies a degree of unpredictability that you yourself could not possibly control.
However, if you had several such systems operating, they would throw up several indeterminant options. And "you" as in "your will" get to pick from among them. There's your free will. It's not just
one path. I think that's the flaw. Instead, there are many neural networks working in parallel and each throws up an indeterminate option. The "choice" comes in choosing among the options.
