Free will?

[Esquilax]

You can't get scientifically get any freewill from deterministic physical natural processes as you would be everything your brain is and does and we can explain it all. Though the idea is that science can't account for everything therefore you can have freewill just fine. Therefore atheism must be mistaken, or you must at any rate believe to be mistaken in order to believe that you have freewill and a rational mind.

Hey Sword, could you do me a solid and actually research what you're talking about sufficient to understand it before you comment, rather than just deciding you know more about it than the people who have studied it?

[FreeTony]

Firstly, no computer can give actual random numbers. All random number generators that I'm aware of are pseudo-random. And you're equating randomness with at least the folk notion of free will. That makes it more like random will.

But more importantly, you missed Julia's point. Rerunning a function is not the same as how she suggested to see if we have free will in the libertarian sense, i.e the ability to have done otherwise than you in fact did. What she said to do is to actually go back so that EVERYTHING was the exact same and see if the agent can actually change what they had done.

Yep, you're correct. You tend to do something like pi multiplied by present time in milliseconds.

I'm pretty sure I didn't miss Julias point. The crux of it actually comes down to the way in which the random time is generated. In the computer example you wouldn't generate a different output if you reset the universe, because of the way the random number is generated (it isn't random). However I'm not sure that with Quantum Mechanics that the same is true. I should have qualified that in my example the random number generator was a perfect one, rather than a real one.


The point I'm trying to make is that just because you do something different in the reset universe, it doesn't mean you have actually actively had any influence on the fact a different outcome has occured.

Is free will just the ability to do something different, or does it imply some sort of choice in this?

[ThePinsir]

"We must believe in free will — we have no choice."
- Isaac Bashevis

[JuliaL]

In the computer example you wouldn't generate a different output if you reset the universe, because of the way the random number is generated (it isn't random). However I'm not sure that with Quantum Mechanics that the same is true. I should have qualified that in my example the random number generator was a perfect one, rather than a real one.

I am not a quantum mechanic nor do I play one on television.
OTOH, your quest for a 'perfect' random number generator is likely futile as you could not know when you found it. Quantum Mechanics apparent randomness has this problem as it may not be random in a way we cannot (currently and maybe forever) measure. Think for a moment of a room of constant temperature, still air. Sweep a detector plane through this and note every point on that plane onto which a molecule of that gas impinges. You'd get an apparently random result though with better knowledge of the micro-mechanics of the gas kinetics that outcome would be predictable (nod here to Heisenberg.) See hidden variable theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
Unfortunately you can't know what the hidden variables are because they're hidden (or non-existant) unknown unknowns.

Is free will just the ability to do something different, or does it imply some sort of choice in this?

I think the word 'will' actually does imply some sort of choice here.

[FreeTony]

I think you can test for randomness, but it was meant as a hypothetical example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_ra...properties

In QM the wavefunction will propagate in accordance with the Schroedinger eqn and this is deterministic. However in terms of actually measuring physical quantities in regards momentum/position etc, this is not deterministic.


In reality, this probably isn't a question we can answer without a better understanding of how thoughts actually come about in the brain. If I had to bet I'd go for free will as just an illusion, but really I have no idea.

[bennyboy]

Randomness might show that things are not inevitable-- however that has nothing to do with will. For will to matter, it has to be able to randomly access that randomness. Circles fail.

[Whateverist]

I think the word "will" itself is the part most in need of defining. I don't think anyone can quite say how exactly they will anything. We're able to move as we 'will' while plants cannot. We raise our arm but can we provide instructions to someone else to do the same? Weird idea.

[bennyboy]

I think the word "will" itself is the part most in need of defining. I don't think anyone can quite say how exactly they will anything. We're able to move as we 'will' while plants cannot. We raise our arm but can we provide instructions to someone else to do the same? Weird idea.

To me, "will" is better defined by the ability NOT to do things when the unconscious or instinct parts of the mind are strongly motivated to do them.

For example, if I'm freezing, every part of my instinct will tell me how nice and warm that snowbank looks, and how I should just take a comfy nap for a second. I'm only really aware of my mortality on an intellectual level-- no adrenaline or fight/flight or anything like that is triggering. Later, I'd probably refer to that as a "will to live."

Another example is with exercise. In trying to set a mile time, my legs will be rubber, and my lungs will be on fire, and I so very much want to just slow down a little. But despite all the pain, I just keep those legs moving anyway. I'd definitely say that's will-- I can't imagine that any other animal than people would be able to do that.

[Whateverist]

Those certainly seem like good cases of when you've exercised a great deal of will. But notice we are no wiser how you do it. It might seem like situations like those when you must make a strong effort to resist the instinctual tendency are what we most mean by will. Some would say it is more an instance of your invoking your free won't, than free will. I won't slow down to ease the aching in my lungs. I won't lie down in the snow for just a second. But whether it is a positive action or the prevention of an action, in both cases some intention is formed and acted upon. Who does the choosing and how exactly do they put these actions (or non-actions) into play? There is something squiggly about these concepts and the way we're mashing them up. Lots of unspoken assumptions. I find it a pretty murky topic.

[FreeTony]

From a simplified physics standpoint:

a) With deterministic physical laws we can determine the state of any system from: 1. Starting parameters and 2. The physicals laws. So everything that happens is as a result of the starting conditions of the big bag, and therefore everything that happens has already been pre-determined. This would imply no free will, as well as the ability to predict the future perfectly.

b) However it is though that QM means that we cannot deduce the state of a system from the starting parameters and the physical laws (though we can determine probabilities). Slight quantum fluctuations just after the big bang led to the structures we see today in the universe. This implies that free will is not ruled out due to a), but it still doesn't mean it actually exists.

It all boils down to whether we can choose to do something different, or whether we are just doing something different due to the fact we are say 1% likely to do option A, and 99% likely to do option B (non deterministic probabilities). All this is why I gave the computer example. I could change the question slightly to:

"Could I theoretically program a computer with free will?"

My answer would be yes if humans have free will, since I could theoretically perfectly model a human brain.