Thread: Free will and determinism

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

I believe the universe is determined, everything is predictable. But the universe is infinite and the human mind is finite. We can only see so far, leading to confusion, which leads to free will.

1) The universe is not predictable according to modern quantum mechanics. It's more "random".

2) That argument would not be enough to ensure a free will - only the illusion of it.

My argument was totally circular It's really embarrassing. It's much easier to write them in math.


I really like the first order and second order desires (causes?) matching up as a criterion for free will. I don't have time to read the link but it could be extended to third order, fourth order, etc. This would give a measure of "how much" free will a system has.

Yeah, guess so

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

[...] it could be extended to third order, fourth order, etc. This would give a measure of "how much" free will a system has.

Oh yeah, I just remembered. The theory also says that amongst factors that can influence the "desires" and the actual action is also the agents power/ability to do what he wants. Lacking the power to do what higher order desires "wants" => the action isn't free.

Originally Posted by VirtualReality

1) The universe is not predictable according to modern quantum mechanics. It's more "random".

If the universe were random at such a basic level, then how could anything form? Everything would just be blind noise. Where can I read some QM papers that say the universe has been proven to be random?

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

If the universe were random at such a basic level, then how could anything form? Everything would just be blind noise. Where can I read some QM papers that say the universe has been proven to be random?

It's the illogical conclusion of the Heisenberg Principle. Particles behave in more than one possible way in what appears to scientists to be exactly the same situation. Because scientists can't tell what causes the differences, they assume nothing does. It is going to be laughed at by future scientists.

I don't find it laughable. Why should we have intuition about the submicroscopic nature of the universe? We never experience it. We only experience the macroscopic, which is for all intents and purposes deterministic. Our brains have evolved genetically and environmentally to adhere strictly to such a reality, and we are programmed to reject any other kind of reality. We still have a gut instinct to reject phenomena such as time dilation, but empirical evidence has confirmed those unequivocally.

This kind of science is about reductionism, and when it comes down to it, I don't think the existence of

(x,y,z) = (0,0,0) + t(1,1,1)

is any less bizarre than the existence of

P((x,y,z) = (0,0,0) + t(1,1,1)) = 1/2

If the universe were random at such a basic level, then how could anything form? Everything would just be blind noise. Where can I read some QM papers that say the universe has been proven to be random?

Really now, that argument is so hideously qualitative about a purely quantitative matter that it reaches a degree of equivocation I've only seen elsewhere from apologists.

It wouldn't be 'blind noise' and nowhere does QM predict 'noise'. QM predicts, for instance, the formation of electron clouds around atomic nuclei (hence matter as we know it). Classical mechanics predicts that the electron would spiral into the nucleus and collide with it. So I hardly think determinism is the more viable of the two.

Originally Posted by Xei

Really now, that argument is so hideously qualitative about a purely quantitative matter that it reaches a degree of equivocation I've only seen elsewhere from apologists.

It wouldn't be 'blind noise' and nowhere does QM predict 'noise'. QM predicts, for instance, the formation of electron clouds around atomic nuclei (hence matter as we know it). Classical mechanics predicts that the electron would spiral into the nucleus and collide with it. So I hardly think determinism is the more viable of the two.

I asked three questions.

That means nothing to me btw ;_;

You asked two. And I answered the first very specifically. I didn't answer the second but the answer is no; there is no such proof, and I don't think it is possible to find proof. But, what is definitely known, is that quantum interactions appear totally random. So, to readdress the incorrectness in your whole 'noise' argument for a second; it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference if it is random or not, the same thing would happen.

Most physicists believe that quantum mechanics simply is totally random, but others think that it could be deterministic if there are so called 'hidden variables' which we cannot detect but make QM appear random when it is actually not. Occam's razor fails here because on one hand you could argue that you should cut out non-deterministic behaviour but on the other you could argue that you should cut out totally unproven hidden variables.

But if it was random, then you have, what, an infinite amount of possibilities for a single circumstance? How could anything happen if at the very base, nothing was ever certain, and was random? That's what blind noise is, you just have shit doing everything and nothing being subject to any sort of basic interactions or laws. Nothing ever comes out of plain old noise.

Why does this not happen if everything is random?

Also, "Everything would just be blind noise." was meant as a question. ;_;