Quantum Mechanics And Free Will

[inquiringmind]

Henry Stapp is a physicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he works on the foundations of quantum mechanics and on explaining the nature and role of consciousness through quantum mechanics.

In this interview he discusses human free will.

http://www.closertot...enry-Stapp-/395

I found it interesting, and I thought some of you might like to post your thoughts and comments.

Edited April 8, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Stargazer]

I will try to view the video later. In the meantime, I want to mention that I myself have come to a provisional conclusion that human consciousness is actually centered outside this perceptible universe -- probably in the presence of God Himself -- and our bodies are all waldoes for our spirits, which communicate seamlessly by way of entrained particles, which is a quantum phenomenum in any event.

This is something I am not prepared to offer any mathematical proof for, regretably.

[Log]

The Matrix has you.

[inquiringmind]

I will try to view the video later. In the meantime, I want to mention that I myself have come to a provisional conclusion that human consciousness is actually centered outside this perceptible universe -- probably in the presence of God Himself -- and our bodies are all waldoes for our spirits, which communicate seamlessly by way of entrained particles, which is a quantum phenomenum in any event.

This is something I am not prepared to offer any mathematical proof for, regretably.

Why would you post a comment before you watched the video?

Stapp's point is that in a universe governed by pure cause and effect, nothing would be indeterminate (not even human choices.)

He says that quantum mechanics introduces real indeterminism into the universe (and human choice), so that we're not wholly the products of our backgrounds, heredity, and environments.

BTW: If our personalities were wholly the products of our backgrounds, heredity, and environments, and our choices were wholly the products of our personalities, wouldn't the term "agency" (as used by Latter Day Saints) be meaningless?

The interview is really quite interesting, and I would be interested in your thoughts on it if you ever find the time to actually watch it.

Edited April 8, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Stargazer]

Why would you post a comment before you watched the video.

Stapp's point is that in a universe governed by pure cause and effect, nothing would be indeterminate (not even human choices.)

He says that quantum mechanics introduces real indeterminism into the universe (and human choice), so that we're not wholly the products of our backgrounds, heredity, and environments.

(The interview is really quite interesting, and I would be interested in your thoughts on it if you ever find the time to actually watch it.)

Why would I post the comment before watching the video? Because I wanted to express my idea without contaminating it with the contents of the video. I will see if my viewpoint changes after seeing the good Professor's video.

[inquiringmind]

Why would I post the comment before watching the video? Because I wanted to express my idea without contaminating it with the contents of the video. I will see if my viewpoint changes after seeing the good Professor's video.

Then would you like to try to define what you really mean by "agency" before you watch the video?

As I said, the good Professor's point is that in a universe governed by pure cause and effect, nothing would be indeterminate (including human choices.)

In other words, if Newton were right (and every effect had to have a cause) our personalities would be wholly the products of our backgrounds, heredity, and environments; our choices would be wholly the products of our personalities, and the term "agency" (as used by Latter Day Saints) would be meaningless.

This is one of the reasons that Sigmund Freud was a strict determinist, who (like most of his colleagues today) denied the existence of human free will.

(Let me know what you think of the interview after you actually watch it.)

Edited April 8, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Stargazer]

Then would you like to try to define what you really mean by "agency" before you watch the video?

As I said, the good Professor's point is that in a universe governed by pure cause and effect, nothing would be indeterminate (including human choices.)

In other words, if Newton were right (and every effect had to have a cause) our personalities would be wholly the products of our backgrounds, heredity, and environments; our choices would be wholly the products of our personalities, and the term "agency" (as used by Latter Day Saints) would be meaningless.

Let me know what you think of the interview after you actually watch it.

BTW: You do realize that materialistic social scientists like Sigmund Freud and his followers are strict determinists (who deny the existence of human free will), don't you?

OK, but I am not sure I've ever commented on Sigmund Freud in any capacity, so...

Here is my take on free will/agency:

A human being has the capacity to choose between right and wrong. Having been taught what is right by his parents and by his society, he has the capability to make a choice that flies in the face of that teaching.

I don't know how there could be a doubt about this. We all know of people who make choices that directly oppose all of society's will, and all that we know about their personalities, backgrounds, heredity and environments. Or at least I do.

I personally think that Freud was a fraud and a charlatan.

[inquiringmind]

Here is my take on free will/agency:

A human being has the capacity to choose between right and wrong. Having been taught what is right by his parents and by his society, he has the capability to make a choice that flies in the face of that teaching.

I don't know how there could be a doubt about this.

But you haven't shown that that choice wasn't caused by something in his background, heredity, or environment (and almost all social scientists would say that it is.)

Psychic Determinism. Freud believed strongly in determinism. He did not believe that any important act "just happened" or was "due to free will" In his view every act or thought or emotion has sufficient causes to determine it, though they may be complex and hard to disentangle

http://www.sonoma.ed...reud_notes.html

This scientific rejection of free will is based on a Newtonian view of the world (there's a cause for every effect, and for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, etc), and this is why Stapp (and others) believe quantum mechanics may give us a reason to reconsider the question.

(And why I was interested in some of your views here--have you watched the interview yet?)

Edited April 8, 2012 by inquiringmind

[TAO]

Then would you like to try to define what you really mean by "agency" before you watch the video?

As I said, the good Professor's point is that in a universe governed by pure cause and effect, nothing would be indeterminate (including human choices.)

In other words, if Newton were right (and every effect had to have a cause) our personalities would be wholly the products of our backgrounds, heredity, and environments; our choices would be wholly the products of our personalities, and the term "agency" (as used by Latter Day Saints) would be meaningless.

This is one of the reasons that Sigmund Freud was a strict determinist, who (like most of his colleagues today) denied the existence of human free will.

(Let me know what you think of the interview after you actually watch it.)

Yeah, it's pretty much a deterministic v. non-deterministic universe.

There are alot of good debates on this.

My main approach to the question is, "Is it worth living in a universe without free will?". My answer would be no. Thus, regardless of the actual case of the universe (which we can't determine), it is more practical for me to believe in free will. This would be an 'argument by pragmaticism'. You can see it in this article under 'compatiblism'.

Some say free will comes through chance; I have a bit of a problem with that (chance isn't any more free than determinism is). There are a few more things that could possibly allow free will to exist. For one, it would be for the agents that make the choices of free will to exist eternally. If this would the case, they would have free will inherently, despite being effected by things. Another way is simply by re-defining free will. Perhaps free will isn't the capability to be not affected by variables, but to instead, make the decision and have it seem reasonable to your own self. And I think there are a few other ways to make free will exist, even in a deterministic universe. It's just a bit difficult, and you have to throw things out of the blue in there.

And then there's the whole possibility of the non-deterministic universe as well.

Technichally, also, if the universe is deterministic, it should be able to run backwards as well as it does forwards. This, is a bit of an enigma, of course.

[TAO]

But you haven't shown that that choice wasn't caused by something in his background, heredity, or environment (and almost all social scientists would say that it is.)

Who needs to? What does it matter if it's effected by other things. It's still our choice, which is what makes it free will.

[inquiringmind]

For one, it would be for the agents that make the choices of free will to exist eternally. If this would the case, they would have free will inherently, despite being effected by things.

But doesn't it say somewhere (in the book of Moses, I think) that God gave man his agency?

[inquiringmind]

Who needs to? What does it matter if it's effected by other things. It's still our choice, which is what makes it free will.

That's called compatibilism, and I tend to agree with you.

Edited April 8, 2012 by inquiringmind

[TAO]

But doesn't it say somewhere (in the book of Moses, I think) that God gave man his agency?

That brings up the marvelous question though... what is agency? Is it free will, or the ability to utilize your free will. I think it's the second, though I could be horribly wrong.

Either way, I don't see it makes much of a difference. Even if the universe is deterministic, it isn't utilitarianism deterministic, which is what really matters =). What is of value for us in free will? It is that we choose the things to consider, and we choose which of those things is the best, I think.

But then again, I could be wrong XD.

Edited April 8, 2012 by TAO

[Stargazer]

OK, having now watched the video, I will comment on it.

The idea that free will can exist because of quantum mechanics, but it cannot if we live in a deterministic universe, has its charms. But I don't think Prof. Stapp has presented a compelling case.

I chose my screen name because of a strong interest in astronomy. So, when I listened to what the prof has to say I immediately thought of the star Eta Carinae. This star (which is not visible in the Northern Hemisphere, unfortunately) is surrounded by what is called the Homunculus Nebula, and it lies about 8,000 light years from us. It is a high-mass, high-luminosity blue star that is expected to explode as a supernova very soon. "Soon" in this case means any time from right now to several thousand years from now. It is cooking right along, and recent changes in its characteristics suggest its explosion will come rather sooner than later.

Does Eta Carinae have free will? Can it decide to blow tomorrow, as opposed to next year? Can it decide that it just doesn't want to blow at all, and it likes how it looks right now? Does it have any kind of conscousness? I have no idea.

But I am pretty sure it is going to explode at a determinant time, and if we knew all the science behind luminous blue variable stars of 100 solar masses which are orbited by Wolf-Rayet stars, we might be able to calculate its exact moment of explosion.

Why should we be any different, just because we exist in a universe that has quantum mechanics? I don't know, but I do know I can decide right now that I will go out, get in my car, and drive it off a cliff, if I want. It happens that I don't want to, but I know I can decide to do it, and I know that I could do it. Eta Carinae cannot make any similar decision, for all that it is also subject to the laws of quantum mechanics.

For this reason, I don't think that Professor Stapp's argument holds water, even if it is attractive.

My first response above, about our spirits being located elsewhere and that they operate our bodies via entrained particles in a "waldo" arrangement, makes more sense to me, as it permits our physical environment to be purely mechanistic and deterministic, yet allows for free will.

[TAO]

Woops, forgot to post the article when I said, 'this article'. In any case, it was the Wikipedia article title Free Will =p.

Sorry about that =D.

[inquiringmind]

Why should we be any different, just because we exist in a universe that has quantum mechanics? I don't know, but I do know I can decide right now that I will go out, get in my car, and drive it off a cliff, if I want. It happens that I don't want to, but I know I can decide to do it, and I know that I could do it.

Could you really decide to do that (and do it), without wanting to????

If all is going well in your life right now, and you have everything to live for, do you really believe you could just decide to get in your car and drive off a cliff (for no reason)????

I think it would be psychologically impossible for you to do that, and I don't think saying you "could" really means anything.

Edited April 8, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Stargazer]

Could you really decide to do that (and do it), without wanting to????

If all is going well in your life right now, and you have everything to live for, do you really believe you could just decide to get in your car and drive off a cliff (for no reason)????

Does saying you could really mean anything (or is it just a meaningless statement)????

Yes, it means something. I'm surprised you think it could be meaningless. I could decide to open a browser tab and navigate to a porn site. I could go downstairs jump up and down on the kitchen floor and come up here, just because I wanted to, with no other reason. In fact, I just did it, just to prove I could really do it. My wife, who heard the thump, asked me what I was doing. I told her that I just jumped up and down on the floor. She asked "Why?" and I told her I did it because I wanted to. She rolled her eyes, and I came back upstairs and finished writing this.

I am quite capable of making any decision I want to make, and am quite capable of at least trying to carry it out. I admit it would be hard for me to actually carry out driving off a cliff, but I tell you in all seriousness that I could if I wanted to.

Fortunately, I don't want to.

Now, could I do it without wanting to? Not hardly. I won't even pretend to understand what the heck you mean by that.

[inquiringmind]

Yes, it means something. I'm surprised you think it could be meaningless. I could decide to open a browser tab and navigate to a porn site.

But you wouldn't if you had no interest in sex.

I could go downstairs jump up and down on the kitchen floor and come up here, just because I wanted to, with no other reason. In fact, I just did it, just to prove I could really do it. My wife, who heard the thump, asked me what I was doing. I told her that I just jumped up and down on the floor. She asked "Why?" and I told her I did it because I wanted to. She rolled her eyes, and I came back upstairs and finished writing this.

Just because you wanted to, and for no other reason?

I'll bet your wife knew you had some reason you didn't want to tell her (that's why she rolled her eyes.)

You wanted to prove your libertarian free will, but all you proved was that someone on some forum (however unintentionally) got you to do something a little silly.

I am quite capable of making any decision I want to make, and am quite capable of at least trying to carry it out. I admit it would be hard for me to actually carry out driving off a cliff, but I tell you in all seriousness that I could if I wanted to.

Please don't drive off a cliff.

My only point is that it would be psychologically impossible for you to do such a thing for no reason, when you don't want to.

You would need some motive (just as you needed some motive for going downstairs and jumping up and down on the kitchen floor--you didn't just decide to do that for no reason, and people don't just get in their cars and drive off of cliffs for no reason.)

Whatever the proper definition of "agency" is, it seems to me that it has to be more than saying that people are free to do whatever they do.

Now, could I do it without wanting to? Not hardly. I won't even pretend to understand what the heck you mean by that

And I don't understand what you meant when you said you could just decide to get in your car and drive off a cliff, because you have free will.

You couldn't just do that because you have free will--something or someone would have to give you some reason for wanting to do that, and it would have to be strong enough to over ride any reasons you had for not doing it.

That's my point.

Now if you had several equally strong reasons for driving off a cliff, or not driving off a cliff, maybe some quantum randomizer could make the difference--and maybe many of our minor choices are indeterminate, I don't know.

I really don't know what to make of the quantum things, and I'm still interested in comments here.

Edited April 8, 2012 by inquiringmind

[DavidC]

Henry Stapp is a physicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he works on the foundations of quantum mechanics and on explaining the nature and role of consciousness through quantum mechanics.

In this interview he discusses human free will.

http://www.closertot...enry-Stapp-/395

I found it interesting, and I thought some of you might like to post your thoughts and comments.

Thanks for the link. I'm interested in the subject and look forward to watching the video after Easter.

[Robert F. Smith]

But you haven't shown that that choice wasn't caused by something in his background, heredity, or environment (and almost all social scientists would say that it is.)

http://www.sonoma.ed...reud_notes.html

This scientific rejection of free will is based on a Newtonian view of the world (there's a cause for every effect, and for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, etc), and this is why Stapp (and others) believe quantum mechanics may give us a reason to reconsider the question.

Einstein rendered Newton old hat over a century ago, and Quantum theory has rendered Einstein old hat -- even though we still use Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics for discrete and limited purposes. The real problem is that normative 20th century physics has collapsed and that paradox, randomness, asymmetry, uncertainty, simultaneity, illogic, subjectivity, spontaneity, and infinity are the real “laws” of astrophysics in an open, nonquantifiable, indeterminate (capricious) and “conscious” multiverse. Whether at the point of collapse any reformulation of physics is even possible is unknown, what with suggestions of Foam, String theory, etc. As Nobel laureates Sheldon Glashow and Glenn Seaborg stated over 20 years ago, not only do we not know the rules of physics, but we do not even know whether there are rules!!

[Stargazer]

Einstein rendered Newton old hat over a century ago, and Quantum theory has rendered Einstein old hat -- even though we still use Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics for discrete and limited purposes. The real problem is that normative 20th century physics has collapsed and that paradox, randomness, asymmetry, uncertainty, simultaneity, illogic, subjectivity, spontaneity, and infinity are the real “laws” of astrophysics in an open, nonquantifiable, indeterminate (capricious) and “conscious” multiverse. Whether at the point of collapse any reformulation of physics is even possible is unknown, what with suggestions of Foam, String theory, etc. As Nobel laureates Sheldon Glashow and Glenn Seaborg stated over 20 years ago, not only do we not know the rules of physics, but we do not even know whether there are rules!!

And I say that we should all get together and kill Schroedinger's Cat before Schroedinger's Cat gets us first.

[Stargazer]

And I say that we should all get together and kill Schroedinger's Cat before Schroedinger's Cat gets us first.

One of my favorite science jokes is:

Schroedinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.

[Mariner]

inquiringmind,

Thanks for posting the link to the video. I found it interesting and a bit puzzling as well. I do not understand why someone who recognizes and understands the basics of quantum mechanics would thereafter take a rather dogmatic (it seems to me) philosophical position that has the potential to be undermined by quantum mechanics, at least at some dimensional scale.

[tana]

Yes, it means something. I'm surprised you think it could be meaningless. I could decide to open a browser tab and navigate to a porn site. I could go downstairs jump up and down on the kitchen floor and come up here, just because I wanted to, with no other reason. In fact, I just did it, just to prove I could really do it. My wife, who heard the thump, asked me what I was doing. I told her that I just jumped up and down on the floor. She asked "Why?" and I told her I did it because I wanted to. She rolled her eyes, and I came back upstairs and finished writing this.

I am quite capable of making any decision I want to make, and am quite capable of at least trying to carry it out. I admit it would be hard for me to actually carry out driving off a cliff, but I tell you in all seriousness that I could if I wanted to.

Fortunately, I don't want to.

Now, could I do it without wanting to? Not hardly. I won't even pretend to understand what the heck you mean by that.

You drove off a cliff *because* you chose to. You chose to because you were testing free will, You were testing free will because you were challenged to on a discussion forum. You were on a discussion forum because you are interested in Mormonism, because your a Mormon, because your parents were?, because they were converted, because missionaries were sent, because J.S. restored it, because God ordered it, because god is steward of this system, because he earned it....by not driving off of cliffs to test god....er not.

[thesometimesaint]

Schroedinger was right.

From practical experience we say that a single object can not occupy two places at the same time. But that has been recently proven to be false.