free will vs natural determinism

[idav]

Then come up with a better one. Freewill is:_______________fill in the blank________________. We determinist would be delighted to see one that doesn't tap dance around the idea. One that actually challenges determinism. So far, nada.

So far the quantum mind ought to be a contender for freewill. Also Qm still casts reasonable doubt on hard determinism. Not even havimg to be random, preferably not, but many worlds theory makes it work while even still holding to the fact of cause and effect.

Edit: forgot the link
http://www.newswise.com/articles/new-study-favors-quantum-mind

 

[Sleeppy]

So far the quantum mind ought to be a contender for freewill. Also Qm still casts reasonable doubt on hard determinism. Not even havimg to be random, preferably not, but many worlds theory makes it work while even still holding to the fact of cause and effect.

I think these QM theorists who throw determinism out the window (despite Newton and Einstein's contributions), will be in for a surprise in the coming years.

Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time? | WIRED

 

[Sleeppy]

You think that if people have absolutely no control over what they do they should still be held accountable for their their actions, including sins? If so, salvation becomes a mere fiat of god, a flip of the coin.

Yes. People learn from their mistakes. This is present in all lifeforms when looking at evolution. If we took consequences out of the equation, we would lose the incentives to avoid offenses. -- What separates me from most Christians is that I believe vindication has more to do with Messianic salvation than anything else. When Jesus was being murdered, his words were "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." That's vindication. So in that frame of mind, I favor deterrents ("Lead us not into temptation"), and rehabilitation through medication and teaching, over that of outright damnation, or eternal damnation.

 

[Skwim]

So far the quantum mind ought to be a contender for freewill.

Is this really in answer to the comment of mine you quote?

The quantum mind might be a contender if it has any validity, which is still very much up in the air. And even if it did it wouldn't rescue the notion of freewill from is struggle.

Also Qm still casts reasonable doubt on hard determinism.

"Qm": quantum mind or quantum mechanics? In either case, in what way? Quantum mind is just a hypothesis, and quantum mechanics operations have no impact on neural functions. And again, it too wouldn't rescue the notion of freewill from is struggle.

 

[idav]

Is this really in answer to the comment of mine you quote?

The quantum mind might be a contender if it has any validity, which is still very much up in the air. And even if it did it wouldn't rescue the notion of freewill from is struggle.

"Qm": quantum mind or quantum mechanics? In either case, in what way? Quantum mind is just a hypothesis, and quantum mechanics operations have no impact on neural functions. And again, it too wouldn't rescue the notion of freewill from is struggle.

Yes an artcle from my link pointed to more recent studies showing microtubules can utilize quantum.

Well it can't rescue it if you think qm is producing random creationism events. In my view all causes and effect happen at the same time which leaves more than enough room for freedom of will, because in qm an effect precede its cause. Can you see how and effect preceding a cause would open up a can of worms. And that is just one trick with relativity, entanglement can be happening, and even our dna instructional utilize quantum tunneling which is short range teleportation.

Spontaneous mutation of DNA occurs when normal DNA replication takes place after a particularly significant proton has defied the odds in quantum tunnelling in what is called "proton tunnelling"
Quantum tunnelling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

False. There are still physical laws; they haven't gone anywhere.

Name some. Then show me how they govern both the movement of bodies & dynamics of systems at levels for which the special and/or general theories of relativity are required in place of classical physics AND the levels at which we know classical physics breaks down and quantum physics is required (I emphasize "know" because the actual boundary is fuzzy; in one experiment the researchers measured the superposition state of 430 atoms, which is far, far, beyond the level at which we would expect superposition states to exist).

Quantum mechanics is a statistical mechanics in structure (not in nature, as unlike actual "statistical mechanics" the use of statistical/probabilistic math isn't due to complexity of they system, unknowns, or other reasons for which statistical mechanics has traditionally been used). It is absolutely NOT deterministic. Also, it is absolutely NOT random. Were it random, we couldn't use it to make predictions or model physical systems or any of the things we use quantum physics for. Were it deterministic, it would be classical mechanics.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think these QM theorists who throw determinism out the window (despite Newton and Einstein's contributions), will be in for a surprise in the coming years.

Yet you cite an article referring to a phenomenon in which classical systems behave like quantum systems (i.e., we see quantum "weirdness" in the classical realm), which indicates that if there is a "surprise" it will be that classical physics isn't deterministic either:

"A material particle dynamically coupled to a wave packet at macroscopic scale has been discovered recently and has been shown to have intriguing quantum-like properties (1–4). The particle is a droplet bouncing on the surface of a vibrated liquid bath, and the wave is the surface wave it excites. Together they are self-propelled on the interface and form a symbiotic object. Recent investigations have shown that this “walker” exhibits a form of wave-particle duality, a unique feature in a classical system. This appears because the localized and discrete droplet has a common dynamics with the continuous and spatially extended wave. Various situations [diffraction and interference (3) and tunneling (4)], where the wave is either bounded or split, have been examined. The surprising result is that for each realization of an experiment of this type the droplet has an unpredictable individual response. However, a statistical behavior is recovered when the experiment is repeated. The truncation of the wave was thus shown to generate an uncertainty in the droplet’s motion. This “uncertainty”, though unrelated to Planck constant, has an analogy with the statistical behavior observed in the corresponding quantum-mechanical experiments.
Path-memory induced quantization of classical orbits (emphases added)

One co-author of the above PNAS study, Yves Couder, is quoted in the article you linked to and the phenomenon in question is the one investigated in the study.

For the simplest article on the general phenomenon (studied for years) that I could find within a few minutes, see:
Couder, Y., Boudaoud, A., Protière, S., & Fort, E. (2010). Walking droplets, a form of wave-particle duality at macroscopic scale?. Europhysics News, 41(1), 14-18.

For more nuanced treatments and studies see the PNAS study cited above and e.g.,

Couder, Y., & Fort, E. (2012, May). Probabilities and trajectories in a classical wave-particle duality. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 361, No. 1, p. 012001). IOP Publishing.

 

[Sleeppy]

Name some. Then show me how they govern both the movement of bodies & dynamics of systems at levels for which the special and/or general theories of relativity are required in place of classical physics AND the levels at which we know classical physics breaks down and quantum physics is required (I emphasize "know" because the actual boundary is fuzzy; in one experiment the researchers measured the superposition state of 430 atoms, which is far, far, beyond the level at which we would expect superposition states to exist).

Quantum mechanics is a statistical mechanics in structure (not in nature, as unlike actual "statistical mechanics" the use of statistical/probabilistic math isn't due to complexity of they system, unknowns, or other reasons for which statistical mechanics has traditionally been used). It is absolutely NOT deterministic. Also, it is absolutely NOT random. Were it random, we couldn't use it to make predictions or model physical systems or any of the things we use quantum physics for. Were it deterministic, it would be classical mechanics.

I'm not a science scholar.. It doesn't make sense for either of us (unless you are a scholar) to get into the specifics of something the scholars haven't even quite figured out yet.

…the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions and not some agency that exists outside those laws…so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion (Hawking and Mlodinow, 2010).

According to quantum physics, no matter how much information we obtain or how powerful our computing abilities, the outcomes of physical processes cannot be predicted with certainty because they are not determined with certainty. Instead, given the initial state of a system, nature determines its future state through a process that is fundamentally uncertain. In other words, nature does not dictate the outcome of any process or experiment, even in the simplest of situations (Hawking and Mlodinow, 2010, p. 72)

Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty (Hawking and Mlodinow, 2010, p. 72).

I'm fine with waiting a few years, until more experiments are done.

 

[Sleeppy]

Yet you cite an article referring to a phenomenon in which classical systems behave like quantum systems (i.e., we see quantum "weirdness" in the classical realm), which indicates that if there is a "surprise" it will be that classical physics isn't deterministic either:

"A material particle dynamically coupled to a wave packet at macroscopic scale has been discovered recently and has been shown to have intriguing quantum-like properties (1–4). The particle is a droplet bouncing on the surface of a vibrated liquid bath, and the wave is the surface wave it excites. Together they are self-propelled on the interface and form a symbiotic object. Recent investigations have shown that this “walker” exhibits a form of wave-particle duality, a unique feature in a classical system. This appears because the localized and discrete droplet has a common dynamics with the continuous and spatially extended wave. Various situations [diffraction and interference (3) and tunneling (4)], where the wave is either bounded or split, have been examined. The surprising result is that for each realization of an experiment of this type the droplet has an unpredictable individual response. However, a statistical behavior is recovered when the experiment is repeated. The truncation of the wave was thus shown to generate an uncertainty in the droplet’s motion. This “uncertainty”, though unrelated to Planck constant, has an analogy with the statistical behavior observed in the corresponding quantum-mechanical experiments.
Path-memory induced quantization of classical orbits (emphases added)

One co-author of the above PNAS study, Yves Couder, is quoted in the article you linked to and the phenomenon in question is the one investigated in the study.

For the simplest article on the general phenomenon (studied for years) that I could find within a few minutes, see:
Couder, Y., Boudaoud, A., Protière, S., & Fort, E. (2010). Walking droplets, a form of wave-particle duality at macroscopic scale?. Europhysics News, 41(1), 14-18.

For more nuanced treatments and studies see the PNAS study cited above and e.g.,

Couder, Y., & Fort, E. (2012, May). Probabilities and trajectories in a classical wave-particle duality. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 361, No. 1, p. 012001). IOP Publishing.

There has to be some determinism present, period. If there isn't for example, we couldn't expect that the words we're typing would ever appear or form sentences. We couldn't expect anything whatsoever. But, the opposite is true, we have physical laws which are reliable. We have periodic table of elements. We conduct experiments and create formulas. It's simply nonsensical to state determinism is "absolutely" not present, even in QM observations.


What is a "statistical behavior?" -- I could make a guess, but I don't know. It certainly seems to imply some deterministic values are being observed.

What does the "truncation of the wave" have to do with the particles "path memory" and it's uncertain motion? -- It seems to me as if the article is saying the "path memory" is aiding the impression that the particle is moving with uncertainty, when in fact "truncation of the wave" is in part caused by its previous path(s)..

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm not a science scholar.. It doesn't make sense for either of us (unless you are a scholar)

I'm a graduate researcher in the mathematics & physics of neuroscience and complex systems (and a research consultant). Scientific research is my life, but in particular quantum physics and complex systems and the application of methods, concepts, interpretations, and approaches of these to the neurosciences.

There has to be some determinism present

Determinism isn't a thing you can have "some" of. It is the view that everything is determined by external forces (usually physics).

If there isn't for example, we couldn't expect that the words we're typing would ever appear or form sentences.

There is a difference between deterministic laws of physics and determinism. The fact that there are regularities (many of them) among phenomena and governing systems doesn't entail determinism unless this is all that there is.

It's simply nonsensical to state determinism is "absolutely" not present, even in QM observations.

Probabilistic isn't deterministic. We can never be certain what our measurements will yield but it is never random.

What is a "statistical behavior?"

Behavior that isn't determined but isn't random. Experiments in particle physics and quantum mechanics are necessarily uncertain as QM is a kind of statistical mechanics (except that instead of modelling a deterministic system that is too complex it is irreducibly statistical). However, they are certainly not random as we are able to make predictions. They are probabilistic.

What does the "truncation of the wave" have to do with the particles "path memory" and it's uncertain motion?

Are you familiar with path integrals and/or hysteresis?

It seems to me as if the article is saying the "path memory" is aiding the impression that the particle is moving with uncertainty

Simplistically, "path memory" is the ability of certain systems (investigated primarily by Couder) to be governed by a wave-function despite being a "particle". The "memory" is the wave-function's capacity to govern the droplet's/particle's trajectory.

You can find Morgan Freeman narrating what is, I'm sure, some sensationalist version of this phenomenon here:
[youtube]W9yWv5dqSKk[/youtube]

For a vastly superior explanation by Couder himself, see the embedded video here:
A Macroscopic-scale Wave-particle Duality : the Role of a Wave Mediated Path Memory

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm a graduate researcher in the mathematics & physics of neuroscience and complex systems (and a research consultant). Scientific research is my life, but in particular quantum physics and complex systems and the application of methods, concepts, interpretations, and approaches of these to the neurosciences.

Determinism isn't a thing you can have "some" of. It is the view that everything is determined by external forces (usually physics).



There is a difference between deterministic laws of physics and determinism. The fact that there are regularities (many of them) among phenomena and governing systems doesn't entail determinism unless this is all that there is.




Probabilistic isn't deterministic. We can never be certain what our measurements will yield but it is never random.





Behavior that isn't determined but isn't random. Experiments in particle physics and quantum mechanics are necessarily uncertain as QM is a kind of statistical mechanics (except that instead of modelling a deterministic system that is too complex it is irreducibly statistical). However, they are certainly not random as we are able to make predictions. They are probabilistic.

Why do we have Hawking and Mlodinow favoring a limited form of determinism?

Are you familiar with path integrals and/or hysteresis?

No. I can look them up.

Simplistically, "path memory" is the ability of certain systems (investigated primarily by Couder) to be governed by a wave-function despite being a "particle". The "memory" is the wave-function's capacity to govern the droplet's/particle's trajectory.

You can find Morgan Freeman narrating what is, I'm sure, some sensationalist version of this phenomenon here:
[youtube]W9yWv5dqSKk[/youtube]

For a vastly superior explanation by Couder himself, see the embedded video here:
A Macroscopic-scale Wave-particle Duality : the Role of a Wave Mediated Path Memory

I'll take a look. Thanks.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why do we have Hawking and Mlodinow favoring a limited form of determinism?

Probably due to simplification for general audiences which necessitates inaccuracy. You'd have to be more specific about the sources for me to know for sure, though.

 

[1robin]

You think that if people have absolutely no control over what they do they should still be held accountable for their their actions, including sins? If so, salvation becomes a mere fiat of god, a flip of the coin.

We are going to be stuck with this issue regardless. Legality mirrors the moral system Christianity grounds. You do not get out of any dilemma by dismissing God. IN fact you only increase the dilemma exponentially.

 

[idav]

We are going to be stuck with this issue regardless. Legality mirrors the moral system Christianity grounds. You do not get out of any dilemma by dismissing God. IN fact you only increase the dilemma exponentially.

Let me get this straight. A judge who has ultimate control over everything is going to tell some lowly creature that they willed against him and deserve lots of punishment? Am I missing something here?

 

[1robin]

Let me get this straight. A judge who has ultimate control over everything is going to tell some lowly creature that they willed against him and deserve lots of punishment? Am I missing something here?

Kind of but that had nothing to do with the point you responded to.

Willingly rejecting God is plenty to estrange us from him but our sins go infinitely deeper than that.

However my point was that our entire legal system would collapse if determinism was true. You cannot fault God by assuming determinism, then approve of legality under determinism.

 

[idav]

Kind of but that had nothing to do with the point you responded to.

Willingly rejecting God is plenty to estrange us from him but our sins go infinitely deeper than that.

However my point was that our entire legal system would collapse if determinism was true. You cannot fault God by assuming determinism, then approve of legality under determinism.

A Calvinist God is deterministic, and yes, makes legality rather awkward.

 

[idav]

I have had similar discussions I think with Skwim but I don't agree with the theology that god would be deterministic or not have freedom to choose.

 

[1robin]

A Calvinist God is deterministic, and yes, makes legality rather awkward.

I not only reject but resent the Calvinist doctrine of election. I think it one of the most damaging interpretations ever made. I see you at least understood what I intended. My point was that determinism is not a God problem, it is lethal to the very fabric of society. Thanks goodness it is disprovable.

 

[1robin]

I have had similar discussions I think with Skwim but I don't agree with the theology that god would be deterministic or not have freedom to choose.

I do not either. God can choose to do any logical possibility and we have freewill to the extent we require it. I deny determinism as either a reality or a doctrine. BTW I mean a general determinism not a sporadic or locally determined event.

 

[Slorri]

Free will the ability to act of ones own violation with out out side forces acting upon you.

Where as determinism is an out side force acting upon your ability to make decisions.

Ergo contradiction.

Do you think it matters if we know the causes that made us "act of our own volition"?

The free will proponents ignores the causes that aren't obvious to them, and the determinists assumes there are causes even if they are not all known.