Free will & the Conservation Laws

[Alex K]

The way these conservation laws are implemented in ordinary Quantum Mechanics, still allows for quantum randomness and hence for a departure from physical determinism.

For example, momentum is in principle conserved, but a particle will in general end up in a quantum superposition of many different momentum states (it cannot have an absolutely sharp momentum because of the Heisenberg principle). When one then measures this momentum, it is a matter of chance which one of the possible values in the superposition one finds. In the Copenhagen interpretation, this choice is indeed not determined by anything.

My 2c -
Free will however is imho an illusion no matter whether the universe is deterministic or not. The introduction of undetermined (i.e. random) outcomes does not magically allow for free will. I don't even know how one would properly define free will and think that it is not a coherent notion.

[bennyboy]

I am a materialist and do not believe that humans, non-human animals, plants, etc., have souls, spirits or any other "non-material" substance.  If the Conservation Laws of Nature (Energy, Momentum, Angular Momentum, etc.) are immutable and without exception, then is not human (or animal) free will an illusion?  Granted that the brain is irreducibly complex, but given enough hypothetical (infinite?) computing power, is not the entire Universe deterministic?  Hence, free will is an illusion?

Yes to illusory free will, no to deterministic.  We don't know how QM events unfold and they seem pretty random.  Whether that's an error in observation or something built-in I don't think we know.  That being said, others here know more about physics than I do.

[Jehanne]

The way these conservation laws are implemented in ordinary Quantum Mechanics, still allows for quantum randomness and hence for a departure from physical determinism.

For example, momentum is in principle conserved, but a particle will in general end up in a quantum superposition of many different momentum states (it cannot have an absolutely sharp momentum because of the Heisenberg principle). When one then measures this momentum, it is a matter of chance which one of the possible values in the superposition one finds. In the Copenhagen interpretation, this choice is indeed not determined by anything.

My 2c -
Free will however is imho an illusion no matter whether the universe is deterministic or not. The introduction of undetermined (i.e. random) outcomes does not magically allow for free will. I don't even know how one would properly define free will and think that it is not a coherent notion.

Agreed; I don't know how some get "free will" from indeterminism.

[bennyboy]

Agreed; I don't know how some get "free will" from indeterminism.

Free will is the unfettered ability to act according to one's nature in a given circumstance.

[Jehanne]

Agreed; I don't know how some get "free will" from indeterminism.

Free will is the unfettered ability to act according to one's nature in a given circumstance.

I think that this is a good definition of free will, however, it means that your next choice is simply the end product of your brain structure, your nurturing before, during and after your birth (case in point, I think that breastfeeding is great; not only for the nutrients, but for the mom & baby bond), your upbringing (lots of love from mom, dad, siblings, extended relatives), your socioeconomic status, your intelligence and education, good and supportive friends, etc., etc., not to mention your current mental state (no brain injury, adverse drugs, etc., etc.)  And, add in a trivia amount of "randomness" for your deciding to order a quarter ponder versus a McRib.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I agree that free will is illusory (just because actions feel free doesn't mean they are), but wherever did you get the notion that the human brain is irreducibly complex?

Boru

The brain is irreducibly complex in that it is much more than 0s & 1s; after all, has anyone simulated a human or mammalian brain?  The answer, of course, is, "Yes," but such have all been very poor to poor simulations.  So far, consciousness exists only in brains and not in computers, and in my opinion, computers will never have consciousness.  For one, most of the human brain is fat, or myelin, which acts as an insulator but also as a messenger, but, I am not expert.  So, whatever makes up consciousness is likely to be found in wetware and not inorganic materials, which make-up computers.

But that's nothing to do with irreducible complexity. The term means that, if you have a system with multiple parts, removing any of those parts renders the whole system inoperable. In other words, you cannot reduce the complexity of the system without destroying it. Lots of people have lost bits of their brain (including your Humble Narrator) and are able to function as if nothing were missing. In some cases, brains have been observed to reroute functions to other parts of the brain to compensate for the missing bits.

Boru

[bennyboy]

I think that this is a good definition of free will, however, it means that your next choice is simply the end product of your brain structure, your nurturing before, during and after your birth (case in point, I think that breastfeeding is great; not only for the nutrients, but for the mom & baby bond), your upbringing (lots of love from mom, dad, siblings, extended relatives), your socioeconomic status, your intelligence and education, good and supportive friends, etc., etc., not to mention your current mental state (no brain injury, adverse drugs, etc., etc.)  And, add in a trivia amount of "randomness" for your deciding to order a quarter ponder versus a McRib.

Given that those are all the things which establish one's nature, you are right-- you couldn't really act other than you did. However, EVEN IF you add a spirit, or the laws of karma, or the randomness of QM, you still are in the same philosophical position-- you wil still be acting according to your nature.

[Jehanne]

The brain is irreducibly complex in that it is much more than 0s & 1s; after all, has anyone simulated a human or mammalian brain?  The answer, of course, is, "Yes," but such have all been very poor to poor simulations.  So far, consciousness exists only in brains and not in computers, and in my opinion, computers will never have consciousness.  For one, most of the human brain is fat, or myelin, which acts as an insulator but also as a messenger, but, I am not expert.  So, whatever makes up consciousness is likely to be found in wetware and not inorganic materials, which make-up computers.

But that's nothing to do with irreducible complexity.  The term means that, if you have a system with multiple parts, removing any of those parts renders the whole system inoperable.  In other words, you cannot reduce the complexity of the system without destroying it.  Lots of people have lost bits of their brain (including your Humble Narrator) and are able to function as if nothing were missing.  In some cases, brains have been observed to reroute functions to other parts of the brain to compensate for the missing bits.

Boru

And, it's a poor choice of words on my part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Consciousness is "irreducible" in the sense that there is no TOE ("theory of everything") that is going to explain it, and it is also something that is very "complex".  I should not, however, use the two terms together!

P.S. "Irreducible and complex" would be more true to what I was trying to convey.

[robvalue]

I'd say there's nothing "free" about a bunch of random quantum outcomes. It just produces an effect that seems like a choice.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Our brains function electrically and electrons are not 'deterministic', all you have is probabilities.

So, for me, there's where free will comes from.

Randomness is not the same as free will. No one who uses the term 'free will' can even define what they mean.

Free from what?