Free Will

[FSTDT]

It is an assumption that in your hypothetical rewind the same choices would be made. I think it is an invalid assumption, but since we cannot test it we cannot know. I also think that even if your assumption proved to be correct it would not make us only computers; and it would not elimanate free will.

If presenting you with two alternatives and the same way to gauge the merit of each alternatives, doesnt it makes sense that you'll make the same choice every time? I suppose its possible that you dont have to if we assume that there was some unnaccounted for element of randomness (but obviously something being random and acausal means that you arent in control of that action either).

 

[Maxwell511]

Levi,

I'll give you the Wiki link as it discusses the philosophical consequences and the Bohr-Einstein debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_consequences

 

[levi501]

Levi,

I'll give you the Wiki link as it discusses the philosophical consequences and the Bohr-Einstein debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_consequences

Thanks.
This will take me a while to absorb. I'm reviewing Einstein's hidden variable theory versus the Bell theorem as that seems to be where the debate is.

 

[Maxwell511]

Thanks.
This will take me a while to absorb. I'm reviewing Einstein's hidden variable theory versus the Bell theorem as that seems to be where the debate is.

Here is a more indepth discussion of the whole thing if you like.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/

 

[levi501]

I haven't had much time to thoroughly read yet.

..but in the double-slit experiments where electrons are fired singly, QM is able to reliably predict the distribution but not where one will precisely hit? So when fired through this device(which I dont fully understand yet) there is an indeterministic event in it's placement?
I'm still reading, as I think I'm too the point of Einstein's logic where this begs the question as to an unknown underlying reality that brings this back in line with determinism. I can't help but notice that there is a lack of consensus on this topic amonst physicists though, but when is there ever a consensus...

*edit - havent checked the stanford link yet, but will.

 

[elman]

If presenting you with two alternatives and the same way to gauge the merit of each alternatives, doesnt it makes sense that you'll make the same choice every time? I suppose its possible that you dont have to if we assume that there was some unnaccounted for element of randomness (but obviously something being random and acausal means that you arent in control of that action either).

No I don't think it does make sense that we would chose the same way everytime. And that does mean it has to be random. Many choices we make are close calls and not clear cut. If it was played over and over I am not at all sure we would always make the same choice. And you cannot be sure of that either.

 

[Maxwell511]

..but in the double-slit experiments where electrons are fired singly, QM is able to reliably predict the distribution but not where one will precisely hit? So when fired through this device(which I dont fully understand yet) there is an indeterministic event in it's placement?

Yes there is an indeterminant placement of electron electron. Basically the same cause (firing an electron through the slits) produces different results.

 

[bob135]

The idea of causality seems confusing to me. When we say A causes B, what do we mean? Is cause anything more than the assumption that we live in a universe where events cause other events? Do we have any way of knowing if cause really exists? Does our ability to predict some things prove cause? How do we prove anything is cause and not correlation?

I am unsure as to what exaclty free will is. If it really is the denial of causality, and we assume cause, then it obviously doesn't exist (Law of Non-Contradiction).

I think a more useful definition of free will would be the ability to act conciously. Thus, we have free will, along with many primates and other concious beings. It doesn't really matter if the choice is determined or random or whatever, because we conciously made it.

Similarly, I find the idea of responsibility incoherent. When we say someone is responsible for something else, is responsibility a property of that person or simply something that we have attributed to them? What is responsibility?

 

[FSTDT]

The idea of causality seems confusing to me. When we say A causes B, what do we mean?

Definition of causality provided by Philosophical Dictionary:

[Causality is the] Distinction between the events involved in a causal relationship, where the occurrence of one (the cause) is supposed to bring about or produce an occurrence of the other (the effect).

...Contemporary philosophers often suppose that a causal relationship is best expressed in the counterfactual statement that if the cause had not occured, then the effect would not have occured either.

Is cause anything more than the assumption that we live in a universe where events cause other events? Do we have any way of knowing if cause really exists? Does our ability to predict some things prove cause? How do we prove anything is cause and not correlation?

Your question probably deserves a thread of its own, but we can reasonably say that there exists some true cause and effect relationships in the universe. After all, by removing the element of causality, we get a bizarre conceptions of the universe: it appears to be one in which no objects are contribute the movement or actions of any other object, but every object behaves as if it did. (Some philosophers might ask "but how would you really know for certain", and to that I'd lose interest in those philosophers in favor of talking to people who care to further reasonable discussion.)

Similarly, I find the idea of responsibility incoherent. When we say someone is responsible for something else, is responsibility a property of that person or simply something that we have attributed to them? What is responsibility?

Responsibility means someone is the proper subject of praise or blame for their actions. It isnt a property of people in the same sense that height or hair color is a property, and I dont think it would make sense to think of it that way.

 

[elman]

The idea of causality seems confusing to me. When we say A causes B, what do we mean? Is cause anything more than the assumption that we live in a universe where events cause other events? Do we have any way of knowing if cause really exists? Does our ability to predict some things prove cause? How do we prove anything is cause and not correlation?

I am unsure as to what exaclty free will is. If it really is the denial of causality, and we assume cause, then it obviously doesn't exist (Law of Non-Contradiction).

I think a more useful definition of free will would be the ability to act conciously. Thus, we have free will, along with many primates and other concious beings. It doesn't really matter if the choice is determined or random or whatever, because we conciously made it.

Similarly, I find the idea of responsibility incoherent. When we say someone is responsible for something else, is responsibility a property of that person or simply something that we have attributed to them? What is responsibility?

Free will is not the denial of causality. You are kidding that you don't know it when you cause someone to suffer? That is cause and responsiblity. Don't tell me you cannot tell when you hurt someone. You do. Lawsuits are going on all over this country where cause and responsiblity are determined by a jury and the defendants is ordered to pay for the damages he or she are responsible for.

 

[levi501]

Yes there is an indeterminant placement of electron electron. Basically the same cause (firing an electron through the slits) produces different results.

still reading.. (thoughts and questions)

So if we went back in time and that same electron was fired it could possibly land elsewhere? I understand that the range is determinate although I've read of some anomalies in experiments.

Also from what I'm reading the hidden variable theory is still possible although nothing in the QM realm has suggested this?

I'm still trying to understand the slit experiments... more precisely how are they sure the particles didn't react with each other or deflect in some way through the slit?

Although QM shouldn't be a popularity contest are there any statistics to show amongst the physicist population how many are skeptical of this indeterminate event?

Logically it still doesn't make sense... that something can happen without reason.

 

[Maxwell511]

So if we went back in time and that same electron was fired it could possibly land elsewhere? I understand that the range is determinate although I've read of some anomalies in experiments.

That's what they think unless there is an unknown hidden variable.

Also from what I'm reading the hidden variable theory is still possible although nothing in the QM realm has suggested this?

Of course it is still possible but none so have been able to explain everything as well as quantum theory. The idea of hidden variables is mostly based on an idea of a deterministic universe and what is seen as an incompleteness in the theory (i.e. it's not deterministic). There is no reason to believe this based on experiments.

I'm still trying to understand the slit experiments... more precisely how are they sure the particles didn't react with each other or deflect in some way through the slit?

The can "shoot" one photon at a time so it can only react with itself. If the experiment is continued for alot of photons the pattern exactly match those the would be expected from a interference pattern of a wave. Deflections wouldn't do this.

Although QM shouldn't be a popularity contest are there any statistics to show amongst the physicist population how many are skeptical of this indeterminate event?

I honestly don't know but I believe that the Copenhagen (Bohr's) model is the most generally accepted. There are other interpretations which you probably have read such as the multiple world theory (this one I think is the strangest of the lot of them).

Logically it still doesn't make sense... that something can happen without reason.

Someone told me that sometimes if something seems illogical there are two options.

1. It is false.
2. Our premises are false.

 

[bob135]

Your question probably deserves a thread of its own, but we can reasonably say that there exists some true cause and effect relationships in the universe. After all, by removing the element of causality, we get a bizarre conceptions of the universe: it appears to be one in which no objects are contribute the movement or actions of any other object, but every object behaves as if it did. (Some philosophers might ask "but how would you really know for certain", and to that I'd lose interest in those philosophers in favor of talking to people who care to further reasonable discussion.)

You can still have a relatively ordered universe using only correlation to explain it. It seems correlation is what logically follows from induction. Assuming induction works, you can say if event X and event Y occured together in the past a certain number of times, you can establish that there is a certain correlation between them. With some things, like gravity, there is a very high correlation (between one event - objects being together and another - objects moving closer to each other), which approaches, and maybe is, one, so you get somethign very similar to causality.

Responsibility means someone is the proper subject of praise or blame for their actions. It isnt a property of people in the same sense that height or hair color is a property, and I dont think it would make sense to think of it that way.

If responsibility was a property, then it would be more of an objective truth, I guess. I don't really know where I was going with that. Anyway, how do we determine what is "proper?"

Free will is not the denial of causality. You are kidding that you don't know it when you cause someone to suffer? That is cause and responsiblity. Don't tell me you cannot tell when you hurt someone. You do. Lawsuits are going on all over this country where cause and responsiblity are determined by a jury and the defendants is ordered to pay for the damages he or she are responsible for.

You keep saying what free will isn't. Please say what it is. And if you say it is "making choices," say what choices are. Just make sure you define any terms that not everyone might define the same way.

What is the relationship between cause and responsibility? If I cause something, am I also responsible for something? What if I help cause something?
I can tell when someone is hurt, but I do not know that I caused this. Is it my fault for hurting them, or their fault for being weak or putting themselves in a situation where I could hurt them?
Yes, they determine liability in lawsuits, but thats more legal than philosophical.

Someone told me that sometimes if something seems illogical there are two options.

1. It is false.
2. Our premises are false.

I would add...
3. It is invalid.
4. You are irrational.

 

[Shane Roach]

I haven't had much time to thoroughly read yet.

..but in the double-slit experiments where electrons are fired singly, QM is able to reliably predict the distribution but not where one will precisely hit? So when fired through this device(which I dont fully understand yet) there is an indeterministic event in it's placement?
I'm still reading, as I think I'm too the point of Einstein's logic where this begs the question as to an unknown underlying reality that brings this back in line with determinism. I can't help but notice that there is a lack of consensus on this topic amonst physicists though, but when is there ever a consensus...

*edit - havent checked the stanford link yet, but will.

And once you're utterly and completely mystified with QED, you can try to wrap your head around Godel's "On Formally Undecideable Principles of Principia Mathematic and Other Related Systems".

In other words, you can prove that certain things simply cannot be proven either true or false.

Mathematicians have been knowing this since the 1940's, but strangely this debate continues to rage.

We simply are never going to know everything.

 

[TeddyKGB]

And once you're utterly and completely mystified with QED, you can try to wrap your head around Godel's "On Formally Undecideable Principles of Principia Mathematic and Other Related Systems".

In other words, you can prove that certain things simply cannot be proven either true or false.

Not exactly. Try this: For any consistent formal theory in which basic arithmetical facts are provable, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement which is true but neither provable nor refutable in the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem

 

[Shane Roach]

Not exactly. Try this: For any consistent formal theory in which basic arithmetical facts are provable, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement which is true but neither provable nor refutable in the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem

"If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent."

"In principle, Gödel's theorems still leave some hope: it might be possible to produce a general algorithm that for a given statement determines whether it is undecidable or not, thus allowing mathematicians to bypass the undecidable statements altogether. However, the negative answer to the Entscheidungsproblem shows that no such algorithm exists."

You seem to be arguing that the formally undecideable is formally decideable. The point is that we live in a world where things must be proven by recourse to things outside themselves. These things then must be proven by even higher order things, and so on and on. This simply does not work out to be the sort of reality in which there will ever be a bottom to knowledge. There will always be that next thing.

 

[TeddyKGB]

You seem to be arguing that the formally undecideable is formally decideable. The point is that we live in a world where things must be proven by recourse to things outside themselves. These things then must be proven by even higher order things, and so on and on. This simply does not work out to be the sort of reality in which there will ever be a bottom to knowledge. There will always be that next thing.

It depends. If our reality can be entirely described by an axiomatic system, then the problem outlined by Godel can be handed off to the "meta-reality" in which our reality exists.

 

[Shane Roach]

It depends. If our reality can be entirely described by an axiomatic system, then the problem outlined by Godel can be handed off to the "meta-reality" in which our reality exists.

Which would in its turn require explaining.....

 

[TeddyKGB]

Which would in its turn require explaining.....

But not necessarily by us.

 

[Shane Roach]

It seems to hardly matter at all who does the explaining. The point is that there exists an endless string of dependant explanations. There is no possible bottom to it.