Physics and Free will

[Avi1001]

Can you please show us why the math suggests that observations do not predict branching universes ?

If I missed that derivation, in the last 120 posts, I apologize.

Not really. I've unfortunately confused things, I think, by presenting the orthodox interpretation and not making clear that I don't buy it. I believe that quantum systems are fundamentally indeterministic and their states/properties completely non-classical in that they lack definition (their states are not precisely defined the way systems are in classical physics). I don't believe that the math suggests that observations somehow spawn branching universes, particular as the math doesn't define observation, doesn't indicate how observations result in particular branches, or even what observations are. I consider the decoherence program far more likely.



That's pretty close to what I think, but its is vastly different from the many-worlds interpretation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can you please show us why the math suggests that observations do not predict branching universes ?

If that were possible (and I wish it were, or something similar) it would be settled. The equations and formulae which dictate the evolution of a quantum system are deterministic. However, quantum mechanics (and quantum physics) is not. The reason it is deterministic is because the mathematical representation of quantum systems are probability distributions (state-vectors or wavefunctions) that have a statistical structure related to the ways in which the system is prepared. Any property of the system that is measurable is called an observable, but the values associated with the properties are not actually values obtained by measurement but by the application of Hermitian operators. A system is prepared in a specified way such that the mathematical representation doesn't correspond in any known way to the system but incorporates the methods of preparation. The system is then allowed to "run" in whatever context the experiment dictates until we end it with one or more interactions (in recent years we have created technology such as ion traps which allow us to interact with the system with minimal disturbance such that we are able to measure/observe more than once per experiment). The information obtained by this (final) interaction is meaningless in and of itself. It requires the use of operators applied to the mathematical transcriptions of the system and the way in which it was prepared as well as the experimental procedure and the measurement process such that the use of these operators can tell us not the state that the system is in but that given that it was in X state, the application of the operator would yield Y value for Z observable. In the simplest form, it is a statistical mechanics. The problem, though, is that the statistical structure isn't produced via complexity or too many variables to specify and track initial conditions, but is intrinsic to the system. The MWI seeks to restore a direct, one-to-one correspondence with the system by relating every possible outcome to an actual outcome even though we never observe more than one.

 

[Avi1001]

It seems that the focus is moving toward the interface of physics and consciousness.

See Tegmark (2014): [1401.1219] Consciousness as a State of Matter

If that were possible (and I wish it were, or something similar) it would be settled. The equations and formulae which dictate the evolution of a quantum system are deterministic. However, quantum mechanics (and quantum physics) is not. The reason it is deterministic is because the mathematical representation of quantum systems are probability distributions (state-vectors or wavefunctions) that have a statistical structure related to the ways in which the system is prepared. Any property of the system that is measurable is called an observable, but the values associated with the properties are not actually values obtained by measurement but by the application of Hermitian operators. A system is prepared in a specified way such that the mathematical representation doesn't correspond in any known way to the system but incorporates the methods of preparation. The system is then allowed to "run" in whatever context the experiment dictates until we end it with one or more interactions (in recent years we have created technology such as ion traps which allow us to interact with the system with minimal disturbance such that we are able to measure/observe more than once per experiment). The information obtained by this (final) interaction is meaningless in and of itself. It requires the use of operators applied to the mathematical transcriptions of the system and the way in which it was prepared as well as the experimental procedure and the measurement process such that the use of these operators can tell us not the state that the system is in but that given that it was in X state, the application of the operator would yield Y value for Z observable. In the simplest form, it is a statistical mechanics. The problem, though, is that the statistical structure isn't produced via complexity or too many variables to specify and track initial conditions, but is intrinsic to the system. The MWI seeks to restore a direct, one-to-one correspondence with the system by relating every possible outcome to an actual outcome even though we never observe more than one.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It seems that the focus is moving toward the interface of physics and consciousness.

See Tegmark (2014): [1401.1219] Consciousness as a State of Matter

That's actually a pretty old interpretation and comes in multiple flavors (from the free will theorem to the many-minds interpretation). The problem is that as we can't define consciousness formally we can't really incorporate it into formal models. This doesn't make the role of the conscious observer irrelevant, of course, just impossible (as yet) to really support. There are also models of consciousness which depend upon quantum mechanics in a kind of reverse dynamics: rather than the mind of the observer determining the result of a measurement, quantum mechanics allows the mind to self-determine (the most popular models are those by Penrose & Hameroff and Stapp, although there are others (e.g., Eccles).

 

[Avi1001]

There are some new breakthroughs here. Here is the full article: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf

This brand new article (Feb. 2014) has implications which tie Quantum Darwinism and the emergence of consciousness / time.

That's actually a pretty old interpretation and comes in multiple flavors (from the free will theorem to the many-minds interpretation). The problem is that as we can't define consciousness formally we can't really incorporate it into formal models. This doesn't make the role of the conscious observer irrelevant, of course, just impossible (as yet) to really support. There are also models of consciousness which depend upon quantum mechanics in a kind of reverse dynamics: rather than the mind of the observer determining the result of a measurement, quantum mechanics allows the mind to self-determine (the most popular models are those by Penrose & Hameroff and Stapp, although there are others (e.g., Eccles).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There are some new breakthroughs here. Here is the full article: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v2.pdf

This brand new article (Feb. 2014) has implications which tie Quantum Darwinism and the emergence of consciousness / time.

The article may be new, but there isn't anything new in it (which may be part of the reason it's on arXiv). Tegmark's the one put forward the most cited paper on the irrelevancy of quantum physics to consciousness, the paper doesn't really connect with the brain but rather with artificial intelligence research & paradigms (the Hopfield model is practically as old as it gets), and the approach is less a matter of combining quantum physics than the application of information theory as it has been adopted and adapted within quantum & particle physics to the same kind of information-theoretic models of "strong AI" from almost 50 years ago. The main difference, besides the changes in terminology, is that at least the claims 50 years ago could be put to the test, whereas quantum-mechanical, information-theoretic consciousness theories concern the application of a statistical framework which nobody is able to relate to the world we experience to a concept that is impossible to formally define framed in a mathematical way that makes the understanding of the former impossible from an ontological viewpoint and the realization of the latter a paradox.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

In the Catholic Faith, we say that God foresaw all that would happen at the beginning of Creation but also that this does not interfere with the free-will of individuals. He foresaw but He did not determine their wills.

This seems a bit related to what you are writing about in this thread.

I am not sure whether different frames of reference (in relation to the theory of relativity) affects the reality of free-will. What I have the written in the first paragraph here seems to mirror the free-will problems supposedly deriving from the theory of relativity. However, in the Catholic Faith there is no problem.