Free will and determinism: why quantum uncertainty and physical laws help

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

Look so I am on medication and I can concentrate briefly at the end of every fortnight, maybe that means nothing to you I don't know. The thing is I thought of something that helps the debate between free will and determinism and I wanted to share it while I had the chance. I may not be able to respond to every reply, but if you get the gist of what I am saying it may not be necessary anyway.

Free will and determinism are both considerations about the will, but the environment in which the will acts is as important as the will itself.

Allow me to explain why. Say I am determined but I exist at the level of quantum indeterminacy, that means that nothing I do is going to have a predictable outcome, no matter how determined I am. My motive may get stronger, or it may spontaneously become something else. Now suppose I am determined at the level of physical law, suddenly I can be motivated and act determinedly or I can check my motive for some time until I want to act on it at a later date - my ability to remain determined is expanded significantly.

Now consider what it means to be free; doesn't it mean having the capacity to control to what extent you are free? Isn't this something that is provided by the difference between quantum indeterminacy and physical law? Right, so you can be free at the level of physical law and be free for quite some time, but unable to change your mind about it, because you are at the level of physical law, whereas if you were free at the level of quantum indeterminacy, your sense of free will might surpisingly become something radically different, just because circumstances at the quantum indeterminant level change very quickly.

So it is entirely contingent, not on one thing: whether you are free or not, but on whether you are free and whether you exist freely at the level that freedom is prolonged or constrained. The same goes for determinism. If you are determined at the right level, you can stay determined for a very long time, otherwise it can be cut short. The thing is which you are and which level you are at, can change over time as well. So you might be determined now, but end up at the quantum level and change your mind or you might be determined to change to freedom at a certain point, wait at the level of physical law for the appropriate time and then switch.

It's like free will and quantum uncertainty, determinism and physical law, are base pairs in your ego's DNA. You can create free will then, simply by encoding it in an environment where you are responding to your surroundings with the appropriate expectations and emotions for the context you are in. Free will and determinism are not dichotomous then, but a complimentary pair, with levels at which they are more or less meaningful. It is the interaction of these different states and levels that contitutes our experience of free will and determinism,then.

The old way of looking at free will and/or determinism as contingent on one reality, is the problem then. As long as you are constraining free will and determinism to one state and one level, it will never make sense to agree with one or the other. This is how we arrive at choice. Conversely, if we say "I can be determined to be free no matter what level I am at" that is how we arrive at a decision, since it becomes encumbant on us to remain committed no matter how much our environment or our sense of self changes.

Personally I find this fascinating. It's like our thoughts are constantly being woven into our consciousness, unconsciously, by structures in our DNA that tell us "when you see the icecream truck be physically free, when you see the police van be physically determined, when you see your girlfriend be indeterminately physical". The possibilities are as endless as our DNA is able to be and as constrained as that same DNA would have us take advantage of. If we could see how it was being constructed, we could tell you exactly what the next choice was going to be and that is exactly what the science of brain scanning has been telling us. What they haven't told us is that if we respond with the same choice every time, when can be free as soon as we leave the scanner - that is Heaven!

Your thoughts are welcome.

 

[Paradoxum]

I've been drinking, so I don't really know what point you are making.

Either way, the laws of physics are either deterministic or random, and neither of those are compatible with free will.

 

[Gottservant]

I've been drinking, so I don't really know what point you are making.

Either way, the laws of physics are either deterministic or random, and neither of those are compatible with free will.

I draw a parallel with the four states of will, and DNA.

Whatever you have been drinking, I think you are taking law, determinism and quantum indeterminacy and opposing them to free will, which is a free choice, but you are doing it by determining yourself to be free, whether under the law or not. I think this is a mistake, if you expect me to believe there is only free will as a result.

The fact that you call quantum indeterminacy "random" does not get you off the hook: God knows.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Either way, the laws of physics are either deterministic or random, and neither of those are compatible with free will.

Unless that is a false dichotomy based on a false paradigm of causality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Unless that is a false dichotomy based on a false paradigm of causality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Not to correct you, necessarily, but I think what it is actually is a false contextualization of two compatible states in an environment of equilibrium, as opposed.

The point is they don't have to be opposites. Or put another way, opposites in a meaningful sequence are as compatible as consonants.

You don't compare apples with oranges, unless of course you are making fruit salad.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Not to correct you, necessarily, but I think what it is actually is a false contextualization of two compatible states in an environment of equilibrium, as opposed.

The point is they don't have to be opposites. Or put another way, opposites in a meaningful sequence are as compatible as consonants.

You don't compare apples with oranges, unless of course you are making fruit salad.

I take it that you are a compatibilist of some sort.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

I draw a parallel with the four states of will, and DNA.

Whatever you have been drinking, I think you are taking law, determinism and quantum indeterminacy and opposing them to free will, which is a free choice, but you are doing it by determining yourself to be free, whether under the law or not. I think this is a mistake, if you expect me to believe there is only free will as a result.

I don't understand why you think free will is possible. Our brains are physical, and we think with our brains. All the particles in the brain are either determined or random. So there's no space for free will.

Even if you think we have a soul, this soul must still act for reasons. If it doesn't have a reason for acting then it would be random, which isn't free. Thus, whatever psychological process that leads from one state of mind to the other, is the determining power.

The fact that you call quantum indeterminacy "random" does not get you off the hook: God knows.

Well it is either determined or random. If you don't think it is random, then it is determined, so that doesn't help free will.

Unless that is a false dichotomy based on a false paradigm of causality.

eudaimonia,

Mark

But I don't think I'm wrong, and I currently see no reason to think I am.

When I talk about free will, I mean that one could have chosen differently. I don't know if that makes any difference.

 

[mzungu]

everything, and I mean everything is based on probability. Nothing else matters!

 

[Eudaimonist]

When I talk about free will, I mean that one could have chosen differently.

That's what I mean by free will as well.

everything, and I mean everything is based on probability. Nothing else matters!

Nothing else? What are the odds on that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Clairvoyance]

When you try to put words like "QUANTUM", "free-will", "DNA", and "states of will" into the same sentence I start thinking...

 

[Gottservant]

I take it that you are a compatibilist of some sort.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I understand you are working from what you know, but it is definitely an oversimplification to say I am simply being a compatabilist. I am going one step further than that, I show that free will and determinism complete each other, in a completely balanced environment, where neither physical law nor quantum determinacy rule the day. I wonder if I am making myself clear... not compatabilist, completist.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't understand why you think free will is possible. Our brains are physical, and we think with our brains. All the particles in the brain are either determined or random. So there's no space for free will.

Yes but the brains are just a support structure, the laws they obey are not only constraints, but emergent principles for the action of the soul.

As long as you work with simple oppositions, you will not really be able to embrace the bigger picture.

Even if you think we have a soul, this soul must still act for reasons. If it doesn't have a reason for acting then it would be random, which isn't free. Thus, whatever psychological process that leads from one state of mind to the other, is the determining power.

Something emerging isn't both a reason and unconstrained? If its emerging then if you don't like it, you can let it keep emerging and then you might like it. At no part of that have you bound yourself to a law or cherry picked some randomness.

Well it is either determined or random. If you don't think it is random, then it is determined, so that doesn't help free will.



But I don't think I'm wrong, and I currently see no reason to think I am.

When I talk about free will, I mean that one could have chosen differently. I don't know if that makes any difference.

Free will is the exercise of a constraint for the purpose of causing something fruitful to emerge, it is not a lawless embrace of fate.

Here are some concepts that I think you need to consider when thinking about my account of free will:

1. Emergence
2. Constraint
3. Exercise
4. Determination

None of these things are strictly accounted for by the basic terms: free will, determinism, physical law and quantum indeterminacy. Yet because of these basic terms the other four emerge, can be sustained, can be added to and can be given a telos. That makes the lesser possibility of some free will, a much greater possibility and some determinism, a much greater determinism and so on and so forth. It is this that makes having a brain something powerful.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. Emergence

This helps me understand you a little. I too am an emergentist, and I see reductionism as one of the leading reasons while so many bright people lean against the idea that we have free will.

For the record, I also reject Newtonian-style event-event causality, in favor of entity-action causality, and accept a form of dual-aspect theory regarding the mind-body relation. I believe that this combination of positions removes much of the intuitive plausibility of determinism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[mzungu]

Free will is the exercise of a constraint for the purpose of causing something fruitful to emerge, it is not a lawless embrace of fate.

Pray tell me; what of the mentally handicapped? What free will do they posses when their brain is dysfunctional and also where do we draw the line?

 

[Clairvoyance]

^ This.
Where exactly is the soul located and how does it interact with the body? Does it pull tiny invisible strings on each limb in order to move the body?

Or does it push around each cell in the body? Or does it send signals to each neuron in the brain? Or does it have little hands that individually help each DNA molecule fold each protein? Or does it guide the quantum vibrations of each atom in body? If so, which atoms does it influence? Just the ones in the brain or the whole body? Do I lose some of my soul when I scratch my nose and skin cells fall off?

Where in the body is the link between body and soul? Do humans with damaged brains or bodies still have complete souls?

Are there two souls or just one in this video:
Manar Maged's Short Life - YouTube

 

[Paradoxum]

Yes but the brains are just a support structure, the laws they obey are not only constraints, but emergent principles for the action of the soul.

As long as you work with simple oppositions, you will not really be able to embrace the bigger picture.

Well I don't really have much to say to this, other than that I disagree.

Something emerging isn't both a reason and unconstrained? If its emerging then if you don't like it, you can let it keep emerging and then you might like it. At no part of that have you bound yourself to a law or cherry picked some randomness.

I don't really understand how you are trying to explain how decisions come about.

Even if you are a soul, the soul will have to make decisions for reasons. For example, I will pick up a pen so that I can type that I did so here. The considerations that come to mind when I have to make a decision are based on my previous state of mind, and current stimuli. I can't control what I think of. I can't consider something that I don't consider to consider.

Free will is the exercise of a constraint for the purpose of causing something fruitful to emerge, it is not a lawless embrace of fate.

I don't know what that means.

Here are some concepts that I think you need to consider when thinking about my account of free will:

1. Emergence
2. Constraint
3. Exercise
4. Determination

None of these things are strictly accounted for by the basic terms: free will, determinism, physical law and quantum indeterminacy. Yet because of these basic terms the other four emerge, can be sustained, can be added to and can be given a telos. That makes the lesser possibility of some free will, a much greater possibility and some determinism, a much greater determinism and so on and so forth. It is this that makes having a brain something powerful.

Do you think that if I pick up a pen, I could have chosen not to? If I concluded that I wanted to pick up the pen, why would I have chosen differently?

This helps me understand you a little. I too am an emergentist, and I see reductionism as one of the leading reasons while so many bright people lean against the idea that we have free will.

For the record, I also reject Newtonian-style event-event causality, in favor of entity-action causality, and accept a form of dual-aspect theory regarding the mind-body relation. I believe that this combination of positions removes much of the intuitive plausibility of determinism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I rejected free will while I still believed in an emergent soul. I don't see why something non-physical would be any more free than a physical thing. There must be reasons why something acts as it does.

Lets say I need to decide if I want chocolate or vanilla ice cream. If I actually choose chocolate, how would it ever have been possible to have chosen vanilla? If all things that I considered lead me to choose chocolate, then the only way I could have chosen differently would be if I considered something else that would override the other considerations (or didn't think of something that I did in fact think of). But the fact is that I did think of what I thought of, and I didn't think of what I didn't think of. It's not possible for me to consider something that I didn't consider to consider.

I never could have chosen vanilla since that would require that my state of mind was different from what it actually was.

 

[drjean]

I believe that the observer effect is stronger than anything environmental. The will can alter the environment. God's Word assures it; I've done it (as have thousands of other believers.)

 

[Gottservant]

This helps me understand you a little. I too am an emergentist, and I see reductionism as one of the leading reasons while so many bright people lean against the idea that we have free will.

For the record, I also reject Newtonian-style event-event causality, in favor of entity-action causality, and accept a form of dual-aspect theory regarding the mind-body relation. I believe that this combination of positions removes much of the intuitive plausibility of determinism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your reasoning is very close to a complete circuit, but you diminish the practicality of determinism. When not extreme determinism, determinism explains why people stick to certain beliefs, even when it is not clear that it makes them free. By the same token, it shows how we come to accomplish great goals, even when it is not immediately clear that living like the Amish would not be enough.

I wish I could explain what I mean by it being in your DNA. I mean that if you are hardwired to switch between vantage points and perspectives, you are likely to arrive at a very coherent way of relating to reality, without committing to any one particular approach at all. I mean, why think that because you have decided that you are free or not, that that is how it will always be? Surely people will see that life is much more complicated than that?

 

[Gottservant]

Pray tell me; what of the mentally handicapped? What free will do they posses when their brain is dysfunctional and also where do we draw the line?

A disabled person may scream, at times; or bang violently against a wall, at others.

This is not a reflection of free will for all of us, just for them (that's why they do it); neither is it a reflection of determinism, that it's limited (you can only work with what you have, even if you are banging on a wall).

Believers and unbelievers draw the line differently at first, but I think the agreement is generally going to be that just writing off the free will of a disabled person is narrow minded and presuming them to have no capacity of their own is ill will, not becoming of any human being. It is certain that the blessing of serving the disabled is far greater, than the simple convenience of shutting them out.

I suppose that is further the problem that I describe: do you have to draw the line? Is it not enough to think that though bound their whole lives by disability, they may be the greatest possible blessing in Heaven? Do you know that they have no effect on your soul, for the sheer love of life that they express?

If we were not busy trying to determine one thing more right than others, we might find we were more capable ourselves.

 

[Gottservant]

^ This.
Where exactly is the soul located and how does it interact with the body? Does it pull tiny invisible strings on each limb in order to move the body?

The soul is like a snowflake, it is different for every body. But at the same time, like a snowflake, there are certain things it does: it charges a particular interpretation to grow, it causes a certain piece of DNA to die, it potentiates a certain chemical to resonate a certain way, it mutes a certain sound or sight.

You may find that you are in a bad mood one day, but then you have a fantastic dream that night: that is your soul. You may find that you like someone, but then suddenly you say something that is offensive to them: that is your soul. You may desire to purchase something over and over again, then one day you forget about it altogether: that is your soul. Your soul is what guides you from one choice to the next, from one decision back to the same decision.

Or does it push around each cell in the body? Or does it send signals to each neuron in the brain? Or does it have little hands that individually help each DNA molecule fold each protein? Or does it guide the quantum vibrations of each atom in body? If so, which atoms does it influence? Just the ones in the brain or the whole body? Do I lose some of my soul when I scratch my nose and skin cells fall off?

If I pretended to know the answers to all these questions, doubtless I would not inspire you. Suffice it to say that the energy of your soul, does not compromise the soul when it goes missing: the signature of that energy is the last thing to go. You may find that you are suddenly less interested in doing something that you were going to do, if you lose your soul, but at the same time, you will know and be able to do something about it. Moreover, the soul affects everything, just quantifying this or that effect isn't going to describe how completely it affects everything in your body.

The easiest way to describe it, is by comparing it to your favourite movie. When you first heard about it, it might have been a friend, then you started to see advertizing for it around the shopping mall and hear about it on the radio, then you saw a trailer for it on the internet, then you saw it, then you started to remember your favourite parts, then certain parts came back to your memory at different times, then you saw it again. That's your soul.

Where in the body is the link between body and soul? Do humans with damaged brains or bodies still have complete souls?

The body links with the soul the second the first energy of the soul activates the personality of the body with respect to faith in some particular work. The more damaged you are, the more faith you need for your soul to affect you. That is why people who have been injured move very little, they want to gather up faith in their soul for the healing.

Are there two souls or just one in this video:

There is one soul, fighting with itself, through two bodies. Severing the connection would result in two lives, because one life is able to cease to fight (over the identity). Energy can be divided and signatures can change.

The point is once you keep energy and signature constant, you can build up a cumulative effect, that gives you self control of your body, through the action of your soul.

You will naturally have more questions, I am not attempting to answer everything. But rest assured the soul is real, even after a soul dies there is a mesh of interconnected energy that persists in Heaven, through which the individual continues to enjoy having existed, as they fade from memory.