29 replies to this topic

[Luna]

Back From the Future
A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?

http://discovermagaz..._start:int=0&-C

Tbh, I hope it's all blurgh and wrong. Don't want to be affected by my future or to have it preset :/ Don't want my future to be anything I don't want it to be. damn.

[Elus]

Back From the Future
A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?

http://discovermagaz..._start:int=0&-C

Tbh, I hope it's all blurgh and wrong. Don't want to be affected by my future or to have it preset :/ Don't want my future to be anything I don't want it to be. damn.

Hehe, they mentioned my University :D. Anyway, the article also bothers me to some extent. I would like to have free will, but I am increasingly beginning to subscribe to the notion that it really doesn't exist.

Perhaps as we grow intelligent, and as we grow to realize how free will does not exist, we will in turn increase our decision making capacity and increase our own free will. If that made any sense....

[platypus]

Hehe, they mentioned my University :D. Anyway, the article also bothers me to some extent. I would like to have free will, but I am increasingly beginning to subscribe to the notion that it really doesn't exist.

Well, maybe "free will" is a side-effect of having consciousness. I see little point of being conscious if conscious experiences cannot affect my choices. If "consciousness" is a side-effect of something else as some people like to believe, why cannot "free will" be a side-effect of consciousness?

[Luna]

Well I am actually more worried about the idea of the future affecting the present and hoping it's incorrect.

Then again, if the future effects the present maybe the future can change? Hope so.

In truth, we don't know anything, we are stupid apes in a death timer :/

[platypus]

Well I am actually more worried about the idea of the future affecting the present and hoping it's incorrect.

Why?

Then again, if the future effects the present maybe the future can change? Hope so.

Of course future can change and we can change it - that's the whole point of consciousness!

In truth, we don't know anything, we are stupid apes in a death timer :/

Indeed. That's why I don't think arguments about "free will" or the nature of consciousness hold much water at our current level of understading.We need way better physics!

[e Volution]

In truth, we don't know anything, we are stupid apes in a death timer :/

Indeed. That's why I don't think arguments about "free will" or the nature of consciousness hold much water at our current level of understading.We need way better physics!

Haha Luna that's hilarious. I agree with you platypus, when you look at all the huge gaps in physics (probably our most robust scientific discipline) & quantum mechanics bizarre predictions and reliance on these high-level and abstract concepts like observation, it feels like almost anything could happen. There is just so much unknown that any discussion on these things like "free will" will turn out to be like Sigmund Freud's theories from the early 20th century, great at the time (and even influential) but really just too crude and simplistic, and not actually capable of capturing the complexity of the topic at hand due to fundamental limits in understanding of the information and technology.

I wonder what will deliver a universally satisfying answer to the question of free will, a Theory of Everything or a complete understanding of the mind. I'm starting to think it will require both, not in the sense of half-half, but in that the two are interlinked. Don't quote me on that

[maxwatt]

Don't worry about it; these quantum effects are just the subjunctive tense of physics.

FWIW, consciousness is also a quantum phenomena. And what you will have willed, is as affected by what you will, as what you will have willed you woud have willed.

[Luna]

I don't mind having free will or not. I never believed in free will.

I mind if the future is set in stone or not.

[platypus]

I don't mind having free will or not. I never believed in free will.

I mind if the future is set in stone or not.

How does is matter if you cannot chance anything, as you believe?

Edited by platypus, 01 September 2010 - 08:45 AM.

[maxwatt]

I don't mind having free will or not. I never believed in free will.

I mind if the future is set in stone or not.

How does is matter if you cannot chance anything, as you believe?

"Freewill" is an hypothesis that is not falsifiable. You cannot design an experiment where its existence would make a difference to the outcome of the experiment. From a scientific perspective, the question becomes meaningless.

The apparent effect of a future action on a past event is no different than the past event affecting the future.

[okok]

The apparent effect of a future action on a past event is no different than the past event affecting the future.

Pardon my ignorance, but these interesting questions occured to me:
Does this mean an extension of the uncertainty principle with regard to time?
And are we travelling on a 0-dimenional point (the moment) on a 1-dimensional line (time)? Could there be a 1-dimensional "moment" (in all of time at the same time) alone or possibly moving on a time-plane (representing alternate universes?) 

[platypus]

I don't mind having free will or not. I never believed in free will.

I mind if the future is set in stone or not.

How does is matter if you cannot chance anything, as you believe?

"Freewill" is an hypothesis that is not falsifiable. You cannot design an experiment where its existence would make a difference to the outcome of the experiment. From a scientific perspective, the question becomes meaningless.

Exactly the same holds true for "consciousness".

[maxwatt]

I don't mind having free will or not. I never believed in free will.

I mind if the future is set in stone or not.

How does is matter if you cannot chance anything, as you believe?

"Freewill" is an hypothesis that is not falsifiable. You cannot design an experiment where its existence would make a difference to the outcome of the experiment. From a scientific perspective, the question becomes meaningless.

Exactly the same holds true for "consciousness".

Not really. I am aware of my consciousness so I can disprove the falsified hypothesis to my own satisfaction. True, everyone else may be consciousless automatons, but in ligt of my owne self awareness, I fee justified in rejecting that notion (Occam's razor - it would be unnecessarily complex an explanation of the world.)

"I think, therefor I think I am."

-- Bertrand Russel

[maxwatt]

The apparent effect of a future action on a past event is no different than the past event affecting the future.

Pardon my ignorance, but these interesting questions occured to me:
Does this mean an extension of the uncertainty principle with regard to time?
And are we travelling on a 0-dimenional point (the moment) on a 1-dimensional line (time)? Could there be a 1-dimensional "moment" (in all of time at the same time) alone or possibly moving on a time-plane (representing alternate universes?) 

Yes, and yes.

[Luna]

Umm I decided it doesn't make sense philosophically.

It means it has a pre-set destiny according to him, ok, why? It fails to answer much.. Instead it makes some faith based assumptions and also, I am not sure if you can really attribute a result of an experiment for interference from the future, can you?

[platypus]

"Freewill" is an hypothesis that is not falsifiable. You cannot design an experiment where its existence would make a difference to the outcome of the experiment. From a scientific perspective, the question becomes meaningless.

Exactly the same holds true for "consciousness".

Not really. I am aware of my consciousness so I can disprove the falsified hypothesis to my own satisfaction. True, everyone else may be consciousless automatons, but in ligt of my owne self awareness, I fee justified in rejecting that notion (Occam's razor - it would be unnecessarily complex an explanation of the world.)

I agree that one's own consciousness undeniably exists. Still, you cannot design an experiment whose outcome depends on the existence of consciousness. On a naive level consciousness in others manifests in their apparent ability to make choices -> "free" will.

[Evolutionary]

And are we travelling on a 0-dimenional point (the moment) on a 1-dimensional line (time)?

I don't think so. A 0-dimensional point: Nothing. The subjective "present" is a duration. Eternalism.

Edited by MaxLife, 05 September 2010 - 08:05 AM.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

I can't understand how people can think 'free will' even means anything. Mechanistic determinism aside, the very fact that people have particular ideas and preferences means that we have to act on our highest valued preferences in the way we think best suited, given our relative valuations. It's not just physics, basic logic is deterministic. The law of identity entails determinism. Everything you experience is nothing but recursive patterns, there is no 'you' that exists to make decisions outside of your bare machinery. Nobody has or could experienced anything but strictly determined necessity

The time-invariant nature of physics has long been known, particles don't care about 'backward' or 'forward' in time; the difference on a macro scale is just entropy and matter/energy concentration. For those who hoped to find some kind of ghost in the machine from quantum indeterminacy, for one quantum indeterminacy is an epistemic/modeling problem and not some magical, reality defying ontological indeterminism. Secondly, quantum waveforms in no way provide any leeway for human beings to 'choose' things even within the model, since they always resolve into classical objects (like your brain) which behave in a perfectly deterministic 'marbles' fashion.

I can not understand this human tendency to want to use reality as a sop to protect its pathetic twinges of self-esteem. People are not special, we're unusual, but so are quasars. And, just like quasars, we are a machine whose past and future are welded together in an iron block from which there is no shadow of turning.

[mia22]

the very fact that people have particular ideas and preferences means that we have to act on our highest valued preferences in the way we think best suited, given our relative valuations. It's not just physics, basic logic is deterministic. The law of identity entails determinism.

My knowledge of logic at the present is limited to first order logic. Causality is easy enough to see in that such as in conditional statements. But could you elaborate a bit more on the relationship between the law of identity and determinism?

For those who hoped to find some kind of ghost in the machine from quantum indeterminacy, for one quantum indeterminacy is an epistemic/modeling problem and not some magical, reality defying ontological indeterminism. Secondly, quantum waveforms in no way provide any leeway for human beings to 'choose' things even within the model, since they always resolve into classical objects (like your brain) which behave in a perfectly deterministic 'marbles' fashion.

I guess it seems natural to call quantum indeterminacy a modeling problem, since at the end of the day, all of physics can be reduced to models of one sort or another. But it seems to me that it's a bit of a stretch to be so convinced that it's just a modeling problem given the fact that the nature of some of the problems and phenomena of qm, i.e. entanglement, wave function collapse, are not even understood. It seems a bit of a cop out to me to just claim it's a modeling problem. The ramifications of these problems rock the whole foundation of our understanding of Physics. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen of course didn't like QM very much and leaned towards hidden variables, restoring determinacy, but Bell proved that "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

So since locality is out the window, how can you be so sure of yourself?
Don't all deterministic viewpoints have their origin in locality? (I haven't thought much about this)
And if they do, then there are some logical inconsistencies in your assertions.

Your viewpoint seems very reductionist, which is not surprising, but then what of things like emergent properties, don't they present a problem in your world view?

Are you saying determinism is the end all be all?

BTW, I was just reading the other thread you started, and I do share your feelings about all the multiverse bologna being shoved down our throats these days.

Edited by mia22, 22 October 2010 - 09:45 AM.

[SloMoSandy]

After reading that and then a discussion I don't have much to contribute. But maybe a quote from "Mr.Nobody" would fit the context: "Before he was unable to make a choice because he didn't know what would happen. Now that he knows what will happen, he is unable to make a choice.",

All these self-help books about "success in life" are about one thing basically - KNOWING the result in advance. (Some call it - having a goal..). Cheers

Edited by VidX, 28 October 2010 - 12:23 AM.

[nowayout]

Back From the Future
A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?

That is hogwash.  Don't believe everything (or anything) you read about quantum mechanics in the popular press.


I am a Theoretical Physicist working in Quantum Field Theory.  At the most basic level, the theory that describes all quantum-mechanical experiments that have been done is called the Standard Model, and it is strictly causal in a very precise and well understood sense.  No influences, information, or objects can be transmitted into the present from the future, or from the present to the past.  

This does not prevent someone every few years from claiming to have found some kind of acausal phenomenon in quantum Mechanics.  Every single time, the claim is based on a misunderstanding of what they are actually doing in the experiment.  This is no exception.

[Elus]

Back From the Future
A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?

That is hogwash. Don't believe everything (or anything) you read about quantum mechanics in the popular press.


I am a Theoretical Physicist working in Quantum Field Theory. At the most basic level, the theory that describes all quantum-mechanical experiments that have been done is called the Standard Model, and it is strictly causal in a very precise and well understood sense. No influences, information, or objects can be transmitted into the present from the future, or from the present to the past.

This does not prevent someone every few years from claiming to have found some kind of acausal phenomenon in quantum Mechanics. Every single time, the claim is based on a misunderstanding of what they are actually doing in the experiment. This is no exception.

Man, we have a Theoretical Physicist here? That's freaking awesome! So what area of QM does your work involve if I may ask (And if you could explain in layman's terms )

[mia22]

Couple more thoughts.

After thinking about it a little, it is not clear to me that conditional statements, the if/then types of statements that one might find in logic, are always strictly causal or are actually correlated. It seems situational to me.

Nonetheless, the idea that determinism/causality rule all is compelling in many regards, but imo not totally convincing. I remain agnostic.

Here's a fun one for instance(I know I'm straying into philosophy but Physics and Philosophy ultimately butt up against each other)- If everything is causal, what was the first(ultimate) cause? The concept itself strangely seems self defeating to me.
Turtles all the way down......

Viveutvivas,
A few questions if I may since you are a professional even though I know a lot of you guys don't really like to talk about these things.LOL
What do you make of 1) Quantum entanglement and 2) wave function collapse, wrt causality. Because they can't be explained by any current physical causal mechanism as far as I know.
Given that fact, how can one say as you do about QFT that "all quantum-mechanical experiments...[are] strictly causal in a very precise and well understood sense"? Isn't that statement false given that 1) and 2) as well as other phenomena aren't understood?

Also,in GR gravity is not a force, and masses cause space-time fabric to warp etc.
This would imply that there shouldn't be a force carrying particle i.e. graviton.
Do you believe gravity is a "force" and consequently has an accompanying boson?
Finally, do I have this straight- Basically, Higgs gives rise to mass, mass gives rise to gravity?

Edited by mia22, 28 October 2010 - 05:13 AM.

[Reno]

I can't understand how people can think 'free will' even means anything. Mechanistic determinism aside, the very fact that people have particular ideas and preferences means that we have to act on our highest valued preferences in the way we think best suited, given our relative valuations. It's not just physics, basic logic is deterministic. The law of identity entails determinism. Everything you experience is nothing but recursive patterns, there is no 'you' that exists to make decisions outside of your bare machinery. Nobody has or could experienced anything but strictly determined necessity

The time-invariant nature of physics has long been known, particles don't care about 'backward' or 'forward' in time; the difference on a macro scale is just entropy and matter/energy concentration. For those who hoped to find some kind of ghost in the machine from quantum indeterminacy, for one quantum indeterminacy is an epistemic/modeling problem and not some magical, reality defying ontological indeterminism. Secondly, quantum waveforms in no way provide any leeway for human beings to 'choose' things even within the model, since they always resolve into classical objects (like your brain) which behave in a perfectly deterministic 'marbles' fashion.

I can not understand this human tendency to want to use reality as a sop to protect its pathetic twinges of self-esteem. People are not special, we're unusual, but so are quasars. And, just like quasars, we are a machine whose past and future are welded together in an iron block from which there is no shadow of turning.

Say that to a child, or someone who has had a stroke. There are no working patterns. They forget some things and remember others. What they say is a completely random mod podge of half remembered memories, and current emotions and opinions. They are examples of freewill in its purest form.

Edited by Reno, 31 October 2010 - 07:31 AM.

[the thing]

I can't understand how people can think 'free will' even means anything. Mechanistic determinism aside, the very fact that people have particular ideas and preferences means that we have to act on our highest valued preferences in the way we think best suited, given our relative valuations. It's not just physics, basic logic is deterministic. The law of identity entails determinism. Everything you experience is nothing but recursive patterns, there is no 'you' that exists to make decisions outside of your bare machinery. Nobody has or could experienced anything but strictly determined necessity

The time-invariant nature of physics has long been known, particles don't care about 'backward' or 'forward' in time; the difference on a macro scale is just entropy and matter/energy concentration. For those who hoped to find some kind of ghost in the machine from quantum indeterminacy, for one quantum indeterminacy is an epistemic/modeling problem and not some magical, reality defying ontological indeterminism. Secondly, quantum waveforms in no way provide any leeway for human beings to 'choose' things even within the model, since they always resolve into classical objects (like your brain) which behave in a perfectly deterministic 'marbles' fashion.

I can not understand this human tendency to want to use reality as a sop to protect its pathetic twinges of self-esteem. People are not special, we're unusual, but so are quasars. And, just like quasars, we are a machine whose past and future are welded together in an iron block from which there is no shadow of turning.

Say that to a child, or someone who has had a stroke. There are no working patterns. They forget some things and remember others. What they say is a completely random mod podge of half remembered memories, and current emotions and opinions. They are examples of freewill in its purest form.

Most likely you just dont understand the patterns.

Quantum indeterminacy is not just a modeling problem and is the real thing (well except if universal wavefunction exists or something), but it doesnt really matter when talking about free will. Randomness is just randomness and doesnt give any room for will. Free will as a metaphysical concept is pretty useless imo. If we define free will as doing what you want regardless of why you want to do it, then free will exists if the subjective experience exists, no matter if it is deterministic, random or magical.

Edited by the thing, 01 November 2010 - 08:14 PM.

[Reno]

Quantum indeterminacy is not just a modeling problem and is the real thing (well except if universal wavefunction exists or something), but it doesnt really matter when talking about free will. Randomness is just randomness and doesnt give any room for will. Free will as a metaphysical concept is pretty useless imo. If we define free will as doing what you want regardless of why you want to do it, then free will exists if the subjective experience exists, no matter if it is deterministic, random or magical.

If I'm reading that right it looks like your saying you believe in free will now.... Is that what your trying to say?

[the thing]

Quantum indeterminacy is not just a modeling problem and is the real thing (well except if universal wavefunction exists or something), but it doesnt really matter when talking about free will. Randomness is just randomness and doesnt give any room for will. Free will as a metaphysical concept is pretty useless imo. If we define free will as doing what you want regardless of why you want to do it, then free will exists if the subjective experience exists, no matter if it is deterministic, random or magical.

If I'm reading that right it looks like your saying you believe in free will now.... Is that what your trying to say?

No, not if you mean by free will some magical will that is somehow able to act outside of this world. If by free will we mean acting like you want to act (=experience of free will), then sure, but then it is philosophically a fairly meaningless phrase and is utterly irrelevant to the determinism/indeterminism argument.

[Reno]

No, not if you mean by free will some magical will that is somehow able to act outside of this world. If by free will we mean acting like you want to act (=experience of free will), then sure, but then it is philosophically a fairly meaningless phrase and is utterly irrelevant to the determinism/indeterminism argument.

I can't say I understand what "magical" free will is. I don't understand the idea of acting outside this world either. I am not describing a divine hand.

From a practical perspective, when I say free will I am alluding to acting without any consideration for the past or future. I'd define free will as acting in the present by indulging in the random inclinations most people tend to ignore.

At any moment you have millions of synapses firing off at the same time. Together they form a mob of reactions inside your head. It's because of these reactions that we have the gift of creative thought. We are controlled chaos.

Edited by Reno, 02 November 2010 - 11:32 PM.

[Lovetolearn]

In my view free will is an illusion. We have already made all the choices we are going to make in life, they just haven't been presented to us yet. If someone were able to study a persons genetics and life experiences and create some kind of equation from it, one could predict with a high probability what reaction that person would have to any given stimulus. Kind of like I know my wife well enough to know how she's going to answer certain things or respond to certain situations.

[nowayout]

They show no such thing. That kind of article written by people who do not understand quantum mechanics do a lot of harm.