Is free will really an illusion?

[Skwim]

The reason given by the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics is that we chose to examine the system in the way that we did. Thus "choice" is indeed (depending upon a legion of nuances) intrinsic to quantum physics itself, and therefore "free will" is written into the fabric of the cosmos.

I assume your "choice" here refers to your "chose to examine," which I fail to see leading to your "therefore "free will" is written into the fabric of the cosmos." And even if it doesn't refer back to to your "chose," I fail to see the connection.

I prefer a decoherence approach to the cause behind the quantum "collapse".

Not interested in the cause of the collapse, but its direction

However, there is always clearly and obviously a reason as well as a cause.

Okay, then why does the collapse of particle's superposition take one state rather than another?

 

[Skwim]

What's the difference?

Predictability implies causation. And as I understand the resultant state of a quantum collapse, it has no cause.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I assume your "choice" here refers to your "chose to examine,"

It's neither "my" definition nor is this exactly accurate regardless (although I believe that you are right in that this aspect of quantum theory DOESN'T give us free will, or at least shouldn't). Rather, that it is ONLY free choice that can give us quantum mechanics (and extensions thereof).

which I fail to see leading to your "therefore "free will" is written into the fabric of the cosmos." And even if it doesn't refer back to to your "chose," I fail to see the connection.

There is no reality if we cannot determine the manner in which we decide or choose to examine reality.

Not interested in the cause of the collapse, but its direction

If there is a cause, then by your definition it can't be "utter randomness". There is always and everywhere (regardless of interpretation) a cause, and never is any effect a "total lack of causation". This is contrary to the entirety of physics and renders physics impossible.

Okay, then why does the collapse of particle's superposition take one state rather than another?

GOOD question! But you are now asking "why is the caused outcome the value that it is rather than one of those it is possible to be?" The cause doesn't change: the outcome is caused regardless of the actual outcome out of the set of possible outcomes. If it were a matter of "utter randomness" (using your definition) then quantum mechanics (and QED, QCD, particle physics, and other extensions) would be absolutely useless. We couldn't predict anything, and quantum physics DEPENDS upon our ability to predict. It absolutely, fundamentally depends upon our ability to say that given cause X, we can expect cause Y with Z probability. There is nothing remotely like "utter lack of causation".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And as I understand the resultant state of a quantum collapse, it has no cause.

If this were true, then nothing we could even in principle do would cause quantum collapse. Yet, in reality, basically EVERYTHING we do causes this (it is extremely difficult to cause quantum processes to cohere).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What if "choice" were the function?

Try and explain that.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Your "random" thought is still determined. There is something in your brain that creates it, and the reason it creates it rather than something else is because . . . . . . . . . .


.

Ok, you didn't fall for that one. So, are not the terms free will and free thought oxymorons?

Now, can randomness cause a thought?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Let me rephrase. Do you think that your will is not caused by something reducible to simple physics?

Let me make an example.

Consider the Universe at time t. At that time that ball is stationary in front of me.
At time t + 1 minute, I choose, or express the will, to kick that ball.
At time t + 2 minutes, the ball is somewhere else because of my kick.

Between t and t + 2 minutes the physical state of the Universe changed also because of that ball not being here anymore but somewhere else.

Do you think that the chain of causality that brought that physical ball to change position includes not physical causes?

Ciao

- viole

Help me understand here. Why does the cause have to have a cause?

 

[viole]

Help me understand here. Why does the cause have to have a cause?

It does not. But if you really cannot deduce, deterministically or in terms of wave functions, the physical state of the Universe at time t + 2 minutes from its state at time t, then you have a problem. If balls kicking will is not reducible to prior physical states, then you can throw all we know about physics in the garbage bin. You would basically introduce new physical information out of nothing. And that violates the unitarity of our laws.

Maybe we should thow it away, but metaphysical considerations, religious beliefs or psychological/subjective illusions of free will won't suffice, I am afraid.

So, you think that my will of changing the state of the Universe by kicking that ball is an uncaused cause?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Do you think that the chain of causality that brought that physical ball to change position includes not physical causes?

Yes, the motivation of the will.

 

[viole]

Yes, the motivation of the will.

So, your will, or the motivation thereof, began to exist without a cause?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So, your will, or the motivation thereof, began to exist without a cause?

Ciao

- viole

It must be so, at least a non-physical cause.

 

[viole]

It must be so, at least a non-physical cause.

So, things can begin to exist without a cause. Right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So, things can begin to exist without a cause. Right?

Ciao

- viole

"Things" being physical, not that I'm aware of.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, things can begin to exist without a cause. Right?

..without an apparent physical cause..

I think that we have to take the middle course, and believe that while we have some effect on our environment, that it's limited, and we are not necessarily responsible for 'our plight'.
We can but try to exercise our free-will and fight back the apparent randomness

 

[viole]

"Things" being physical, not that I'm aware of.

Well, my kicking the ball looked pretty physical. Has that been originated by an uncaused cause?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, my kicking the ball looked pretty physical. Has that been originated by an uncaused cause?

Ciao

- viole

Well, I think your foot hitting it caused it. I think that the original motivation came from non-physical means.

 

[viole]

Well, I think your foot hitting it caused it. I think that the original motivation came from non-physical means.

And what means were they? Did they exist eternally, or they just began to exist?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nous]

As I've said so many times already, There is NO choosing.

Again, you prove quite well your inability to choose between truth and falsity, such as your inability to correctly choose between (a) and (b):

(a)

P → Q.
¬ Q.
Therefore ¬ P.

(b)

P → Q.
¬ Q.
Therefore R.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And what means were they? Did they exist eternally, or they just began to exist?

Ciao

- viole

They exist externally. What the causes, if any, were I do not know, nor do I think I can know. How I perceive my reality is based on physical perceptions. By the time I'm aware of them the events which seem to be happening in real time are already over and what I perceive are the results, not the motivations.

 

[Nous]

What you do prove quite well is that you are unable to choose between truth and falsehood.

Among other things, that is his point.

Anyone here who has posted a series of words for the purpose of “making a point” has acted willfully, intentionally, purposefully.

There is always the remote possibility that a monkey who somehow finds himself sitting at a typewriter will type out the word “legion”. But the monkey hasn’t done so with the intention of expressing a truth or “making a point” for a reader to understand and assimilate.