If God controlled quantum randomness...

[lucaspa]

To many, it might be meaningful and fulfilling enough in the way that watching a movie or reading a movie or even dreaming is fulfilling. And to some people, that might be enough.

Strict determinism allows no free will. This isn't about subjective individuals, but about objective universal. If all our actions are pre-ordained by strict determinism, then even reading a book or going to a movie isn't "meaningful". I choose to do these things for entertainment, relaxation, education, whatever. But now they are not choices. I'm constrained to do them by all the cause and effects back to the beginning of time.

So, if I choose to read a book instead of helping out at a soup kitchen, who cares? If I'm selfish instead of generous, it's not me doing that, it's the cause and effect chain.

 

[Naraoia]

Some of my observations on my own thought processes made me seriously doubt free will, irrespective of the determinism issue.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't see how a limited choice can render something meaningless.

Strict determinism is not "limited choice", it's no choice. Every effect is determined by a prior cause. There's no room to make any choice at all.

Now the question here is why the ability to do bad would be considered good rule from homophilic* (or perhaps homophobic**) God.

Are you a parent? Are you a control freak?

For a life to have meaning, people must be able to choose their actions. Those actions must have real consequences. Good choices, bad choice, good consequences, bad consequences.

If choices and consequences are constrained by someone else, i.e. a control freak parent, then there goes meaning. As parents, we control the lives of our children when they are little. But even then, a good parent will allow the child as much freedom as possible without a risk of physical harm.

As the child reaches adulthood, a good parent lets go and has the child make decisions for herself. It's part of love. A parent that rigidly controls his adult child's life -- picking the college, picking the friends and boyfriends, etc. -- is a control freak and we rightly say that such a parent doesn't really love their child. Similarly, a parent who always cleans up after a child's mistakes, making all the bad consequences go away, is not loving his children either. He's not making them take responsibility for their own actions.

For God to make sure that no one has choices to do bad, that would make God the ultimate Control Freak. If God really loves us, He (like parents) has to let His children make choices for themselves and live with the consequences. Like parents, He's not always happy with the choices.

 

[lucaspa]

I think the whole basis of the OP's argument is that they might not be uncaused...

In which case, the basis of the argument is faulty.

Quantum randomness appears random, but is could only be perceived as random just as the sun appeared to go around the Earth without sufficient maths, understanding and genius to figure out the real nature of the system.

I think we need to get past "random". As I said, quantum effects are regular. Do the particle in a box problem, and the position of the particle is not "random". The particle can't be at any random location in the box. There are probabilities involved. But there is no cause to put the particle at any particular position.

Perhaps there is some cause or reason as to why a laser's photons "know" when to reflect and when not to reflect in such an ordered way as to consistently give a 95%/5% split for the entire population of photons. Why are you so sure that it is uncaused?

Because the photon, which is like every other photon and doesn't have a brain, can't "know" when it is supposed to go thru and when it reflects. That photon went thru once. Then, by cause and effect, that same photon should go thru again. But it doesn't. There's no difference between photons that would provide the cause.

I'm not sure I understand why determinism is necessary in order to save cause and effect. Maybe I've just lost you...

Determinism is used 2 ways: as the result of cause and effect and as some difference between entities that would provide a cause. So, if we have cause and effect, the effect is determined by the cause. OTOH, the electron orbitals in hydrogen and water determine that we end up with H2O instead of H3O, HO2, H2O5, etc.

Is there some reason that we cannot have effects without causes? Is that not the whole premise the Big Bang: the uncaused effect?

One hypothesis for the cause of the Big Bang is that it is an uncaused quantum event. There are other hypotheses.

I see no reason we cannot have effects without causes. The benefit is that it makes the future open. Strict cause and effect has everything determined by a previous cause. There are no surprises and no choices. The rock must fall because of gravity. I must choose this sentence to type because of all the previous causes and effects in the universe.

 

[lucaspa]

Because the energy barrier for fusion is too great? But can't quantum tunneling go through an energy barrier? Or as someone else pointed out, there's lots of dirt and rock from which elements could be drawn.

Quantum tunneling won't change the number of protons in a nucleus. It refers to an electron going "thru" an energy barrier: Quantum Tunneling

Transmutation requires altering neutrons to protons and protons to neutrons.

It's not so much that I think quantum events are caused, more that I think it would be better if they were, and even more to the point that it is unacceptable for science to call them uncaused. In fact I'm pretty sure it is impossible for science to prove an effect has no cause even if that were the case.

Philosophically, I think it is much better that we have uncaused events. And, since quantum physicists all say that some quantum events are uncaused, it is acceptable for science. What science does is what it does in all other cases: falsifies all the alternatives for causes that we can think of. Strictly speaking, we can't "prove" that the earth is round. We can't "prove" gravity. We have falsified all the alternatives, so we accept the theories as (provisionally) true. Now, if you can come up with data to show a cause, then this changes. In the absence of new data, however, we go with what we have and don't let what we think would be "better" to have any say.

 

[lucaspa]

Some of my observations on my own thought processes made me seriously doubt free will, irrespective of the determinism issue.

How so?

 

[Naraoia]

I think we need to get past "random". As I said, quantum effects are regular. Do the particle in a box problem, and the position of the particle is not "random". The particle can't be at any random location in the box. There are probabilities involved. But there is no cause to put the particle at any particular position.

Which means its position is random. Randomness does not equal a uniform distribution.

How so?

The particular case that really made me wonder happened years ago, so I might not remember all the details, but the gist of it is this:

Every time I went to my lectures in the morning, I used the same route. This route involves a number of zebra crossings that make these beeping sounds for the blind. I automatically count the number of beeps in my head when there's nothing distracting me. At that time, I was also trying to determine whether each beeper always beeped the same number of times (I know, I know, I have strange pastimes ). One day, I noticed that for about the third time, I'd (1) mis-counted the beeps at one of the crossings in the exact same way, (2) mentally corrected my count with the exact same reasoning, and pretty much the exact same words, and I couldn't stop the routine from completing itself even after I noticed I was doing it*. Like I was just a computer executing a function with the same input. It was an eerie experience.

*Thankfully, it did stop happening eventually, but then again, the circumstances have changed a lot since. For one thing, I answered my original question to my satisfaction

 

[Naraoia]

Quantum tunneling won't change the number of protons in a nucleus. It refers to an electron going "thru" an energy barrier: Quantum Tunneling

Transmutation requires altering neutrons to protons and protons to neutrons.

And how do protons change into neutrons? Isn't tunneling involved in electron capture?

 

[lucaspa]

Which means its position is random. Randomness does not equal a uniform distribution.

Random generally means equal probability. When we say tossing a coin is random, we mean equal probability of getting heads or tails. When we do random numbers, we mean an equal probability that any number will come up. The particle does not have an equal probability of being anywhere in the box.

The word we want is what Heisenberg used: indeterminancy. The postion is indeterminant.

The particular case that really made me wonder happened years ago, so I might not remember all the details, but the gist of it is this:

I would call this "habit" instead of a lack of free will. You may also call it repeated firing in that neural net.

 

[lucaspa]

And how do protons change into neutrons? Isn't tunneling involved in electron capture?

Could be. The article doesn't say. However, isn't electron capture limited to the total changes in the nucleus it can make?

 

[chris4243]

Philosophically, I think it is much better that we have uncaused events. And, since quantum physicists all say that some quantum events are uncaused, it is acceptable for science. What science does is what it does in all other cases: falsifies all the alternatives for causes that we can think of. Strictly speaking, we can't "prove" that the earth is round. We can't "prove" gravity. We have falsified all the alternatives, so we accept the theories as (provisionally) true. Now, if you can come up with data to show a cause, then this changes. In the absence of new data, however, we go with what we have and don't let what we think would be "better" to have any say.

Of course. But wouldn't I have been justified 1000 years ago to claim weather was uncaused? Using the standard scientific method (not!), after several attempts to disprove the hypothesis it becomes accepted. And if scientists had accepted weather as uncaused, random, then we wouldn't have the science of meteorology.

However, there's a key difference here... unlike any scientific theory, claiming something is uncaused provides no predictive power. There's no hypothesis to test, no predictions to confirm. At most it could be shown to appear consistently random, but then so will any well-made deterministic random number generator.

 

[chris4243]

I see no reason we cannot have effects without causes. The benefit is that it makes the future open. Strict cause and effect has everything determined by a previous cause. There are no surprises and no choices. The rock must fall because of gravity. I must choose this sentence to type because of all the previous causes and effects in the universe.

I agree that it is also nice to have the future open. However, the future is already effectively open. Deterministic chaos makes even a simple thing like three bodies under an inverse square law of attraction, impossible to predict far in the future. The uncertaintly principle means you can't measure the starting conditions exactly anyways. And things like Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, or Turing's Halting Problem, show you can't really know everything. In particular, you can't perfectly know yourself. Deterministic or no, the future is still closed to our prying eyes, and just as uncertain as if it were non-deterministic.

Furthermore, for those who want non-determinism to rescue "free will", events are either deterministic or not. If they are deterministic, they have a cause, a reason. If they are non-deterministic, they have no cause and no reason. Neither will give you "free will" as some would like it to be -- a predictable choice appears not to be "free", and a random choice appears not to be "will". Put them together and they seem indistinguishable from what we call "free will", but then the same would be true if the random component were replaced with a pseudorandom component.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

In which case, the basis of the argument is faulty.

I feel like this is an exercise in missing the point. The OP's whole idea is that quantum events aren't actually random but simply appear random to us.

Its a hypothetical philosophical idea. If God controlled quantum events then they aren't random/regular, right? Why is this flawed to you?

I think we need to get past "random". As I said, quantum effects are regular. Do the particle in a box problem, and the position of the particle is not "random". The particle can't be at any random location in the box. There are probabilities involved. But there is no cause to put the particle at any particular position.

How are you so sure that there is no cause to put the particle at any position in the box? I don't understand how you make these absolute statements.

Also, my box idea isn't an example of quantum regularity or quantum randomness, its an example of entropy.

Because the photon, which is like every other photon and doesn't have a brain, can't "know" when it is supposed to go thru and when it reflects. That photon went thru once. Then, by cause and effect, that same photon should go thru again. But it doesn't. There's no difference between photons that would provide the cause.

So you're saying there is no cause at all that drives this photon behavior. And the whole point of this thread is to say, "What if there is?". You're just saying, "Nope, there isn't because there isn't."

If you asked someone several hundred years ago why things fall towards the Earth they may have said, "There's no cause, it just is that way. Chairs and rocks don't have brains so they can't "know" to fall towards the Earth."

But now, there's a more complete theory which says that the warping of spacetime is the true cause as to why things fall towards the Earth. So, who knows? Perhaps there is some sort of warping of the 5th, 6th or 7th dimension that causes photons to "know" when to reflect. Why is this such an utter impossibility?

I see no reason we cannot have effects without causes. The benefit is that it makes the future open. Strict cause and effect has everything determined by a previous cause. There are no surprises and no choices. The rock must fall because of gravity. I must choose this sentence to type because of all the previous causes and effects in the universe.

Isn't cause and effect one of the central bases for Einstein's General Theory of Relativity? The entire reason that the speed of light, c, must be constant is to preserve cause and effect. Without this speed of light constant, you can have things occurring in Minkowski spacetime that are effects of future causes. The whole premise of having hyperbolic spacetime curves that approach the line y=x is to not violate the demands of causality.

Axiom of Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quantum mechanics "appears" to violate this but it doesn't seem the least bit settled. The uncaused effects of quantum mechanics could still turn out be caused by something if Einstein's theories and QM can be merged.

 

[Naraoia]

Random generally means equal probability.

It may generally mean that in the same way "theory" generally means "guess", but in mathematics, that's simply not true. Random variables - such as the position of our particle - can have any number of non-uniform probability distributions (Poisson, normal, gamma, sound familiar?). I don't care what Heisenberg called it, if it walks and quacks like a duck...

I would call this "habit" instead of a lack of free will. You may also call it repeated firing in that neural net.

If a neural net can't help but fire in the same way given the same input, what does that mean for free will?

Could be. The article doesn't say. However, isn't electron capture limited to the total changes in the nucleus it can make?

I'm sure in the real world it is, but one, there's a diversity of nuclei out there, two, very unlikely transformations wouldn't be a problem for an omnipotent god again.

And, with or without limits, QM allows for the transmutation of elements, which was the original issue countless posts back.

 

[Naraoia]

Furthermore, for those who want non-determinism to rescue "free will", events are either deterministic or not. If they are deterministic, they have a cause, a reason. If they are non-deterministic, they have no cause and no reason. Neither will give you "free will" as some would like it to be -- a predictable choice appears not to be "free", and a random choice appears not to be "will". Put them together and they seem indistinguishable from what we call "free will", but then the same would be true if the random component were replaced with a pseudorandom component.

That. I've been trying to put that into words since the free will issue came up, but you did it better than I could.

 

[Upisoft]

If a neural net can't help but fire in the same way given the same input, what does that mean for free will?

Which never happens in real world. The input is always different. The input changes the neural net. And neural net has neurons that die all of the time.

The input and neural net always change. That is what people call "free will".

So, it is not even testable. You can't possibly make 2 experiments with the same neural net in a single moment of time, and compare the results to see if these will give different outcome.

The same is valid for the quantum events. If you measure the spin of an electron you will find it is either "up" or "down", despite you know the it has 50/50 chance to be one or the other. Once you've done the experiment, you can't repeat it. It either has to happen at different time or with different particle. So, you have no way to prove that the measurement could have been "up" instead of "down" or vice versa.

 

[sandwiches]

So, you have no way to prove that the measurement could have been "up" instead of "down" or vice versa.

You're right and I think that is the key point when it comes to free will: Was there even a possibility that things could have turned out differently?

People like to think they have free will because they chose Coke instead of Pepsi or they brushed their teeh first before fixing their hair. But did we have choice or did we simply follow the inevitable path of causality from the beginning of this universe as actors reading from a script we don't even know we're following?

 

[Upisoft]

You're right and I think that is the key point when it comes to free will: Was there even a possibility that things could have turned out differently?

Hard question. I don't think we will know the answer for quite some time, if ever. The answer implies knowledge that is not available within the universe itself. So, if we want an answer to that question we have to exit the universe. The problem is that such place may not exist or "knowledge"* may not exist there.

*Meaning any entity capable of obtaining and storing knowledge.

People like to think they have free will because they chose Coke instead of Pepsi or they brushed their teeh first before fixing their hair. But did we have choice or did we simply follow the inevitable path of causality from the beginning of this universe as actors reading from a script we don't even know we're following?

Every outcome is either deterministic or not. If it is deterministic then it is causal and therefore not free. So only non-deterministic outcomes could be free. One of the questions is if we are deterministic or not. We certainly don't feel deterministic, but that could be false given that we are very complex dynamic systems and chaos theory shows that such systems may appear to be non-deterministic (while they are deterministic in fact).