tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post1035082654220208206..comments2023-06-19T04:35:06.263-07:00Comments on Skeptic's Play: Free will and Quantum mechanicsmillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-75452087953650737952008-12-18T18:52:00.000-08:002008-12-18T18:52:00.000-08:00I read SMBC, and I'm aware of QC and Daylight Athe...I read SMBC, and I'm aware of QC and Daylight Atheism.<BR/><BR/>I basically agree about point 1, though I think classical uncertainty already provides the necessary random seed.<BR/><BR/>If someone asked me if I believed free will existed, my answer would be yes, in the sense that our actions are not completely determined by our environment, and in the sense that we can be held responsible for those actions.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-11520215913521340042008-12-18T12:21:00.000-08:002008-12-18T12:21:00.000-08:00P.S.2 DA has a series defending Ebonmuse's version...P.S.2 <BR/><BR/>DA has a series defending Ebonmuse's version of free will with an essay on "Outsmarting the Prediction Machine," which essentially shows that determinism does <I>not</I> imply predictability.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04512583908112030134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-46011435057797469012008-12-18T12:18:00.000-08:002008-12-18T12:18:00.000-08:00Of course, I wasn't actually giving any argume...Of course, I wasn't actually giving any argument, I was only remarking that the certainty of yours isn't quite that of a mathematical proof. Just like, there could be smurf-leprechauns celebrating inside my skull, but I've never been inside so I can't know for "sure."<BR/><BR/>Some other points:<BR/><BR/>1) Even if human will was based on quantum randomness, it doesn't mean human will is random in the same sense. Suppose, for example, that the human brain functions as a sort of near-deterministic computer that takes a small amount of randomness from quantum scale events and uses them in its computation. (This is essentially Orchestrated Objective Reduction Theory as promoted by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.) The 'randomness' would only be the seed. The output, in the form of human thought and/or behavior, could be patterned (we could have roughly structured personalities) and still be somewhat random-based.<BR/><BR/>2) Following from the apparent identity/essence of consciousness, the question is begged, "Why am 'I' in this cross-section of the multiverse and not another?" This leads me to believe that if the MW interpretation is true, then consciousness has no 'essence.' In other words, it is a phenomenon in which one manifestation has no distinct qualities from another. Existence precedes essence because there is no essence! This makes some sense, after all, because consciousness is just a happening...<BR/><BR/>P.S. I don't actually have an active blog. What I meant was, my top-of-firefox bookmarks were nearly the same. Let me also introduce Ebon Musings / Daylight Atheism (from which I hail), as well as the webcomics SMBC & QC.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04512583908112030134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-56261135297051810732008-12-17T12:23:00.000-08:002008-12-17T12:23:00.000-08:00Hello, Brad! Your blogger profile is hidden, so I...Hello, Brad! Your blogger profile is hidden, so I can't see your blog.<BR/><BR/>While the gap argument is strictly speaking a possibility, I think it sort of defeats the point of trying to support one's previous philosophical views with science. First, we say, "Quantum Mechanics means free will is possible after all!" and then we say, "Okay, but free will is still possible if QM breaks down when we aren't paying attention." It's still possible, but no longer compelling.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I accept that there are several loopholes in my arguments, but for each hoop we must jump, the less compelling our argument becomes.<BR/><BR/>The first argument, I believe, reduces more or less to the gap argument. If there exists a coherent will which determines wavefunction collapse, then there must exist an experiment which looks at the combined total wavefn collapses in the universe, and determines that they are much more likely to have been caused by said coherent will rather than quantum mechanics. Obviously, such an experiment is practically impossible, but then we're back to saying that quantum mechanics is only true when it is practical to test it, when we're paying attention.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-25299675525865340902008-12-17T08:46:00.000-08:002008-12-17T08:46:00.000-08:00Just found this blog via Googling "free will mecha...Just found this blog via Googling "free will mechanics." Ironically, your blogroll is nearly the same as mine! Wonder I haven't found this site before now. For the sake of honest criticism, I'll point out one thing ...<BR/><BR/><I>So this whole concept of "quantum free will"--a cosmic force capable of subtly influencing the results of wavefunction collapse--is in fact contradictory to quantum mechanics.</I><BR/><BR/>I think this is inadvertently a tiny bit off. Theoretically, if these cosmic forces directly decide/determine the collapses themselves, while at the same time conforming to probability distributions afforded by quantum mechanics, then "will" with some degree of freedom is still possible. Essentially, a cosmic force could choose a set of w-f collapses that conform to probability on some basis of will. <BR/><BR/>Plus there's always the gap argument that w-f collapses only follow probability when we're directly observing it, and when we turn away the sneaky gods go back to puppeteering the strings behind the microscale events.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04512583908112030134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-21246371762021807612008-08-12T06:22:00.000-07:002008-08-12T06:22:00.000-07:00Someone said, "I believe in free will, because I h...Someone said, "I believe in free will, because I have no other choice."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-59289413929194867172008-07-30T17:58:00.000-07:002008-07-30T17:58:00.000-07:00"Objectively (ie what God sees), you have no free ..."Objectively (ie what God sees), you have no free will."<BR/><BR/>Yes, there are plenty of things wrong with this particular idea. Believe it or not, I heard this idea from someone else; I didn't make it up. I brought up this example to show how easy it is to find some superficial reasoning that backs up whatever idea you like.<BR/><BR/>"Also, I'm a little confused on how determinism doesn't contradict free will or moral responsibility."<BR/><BR/>Determinism <I>may</I> contradict free will and moral responsibility, depending your definition of free will and what kind of moral philosophy you have. In my preferred definition of free will, there is no distinction between free will and the illusion of free will. In my preferred moral philosophy, it's simply pragmatic to hold people morally responsible, regardless of whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or nondeterministic. So in my view, there is no contradiction.<BR/><BR/>But there's no particular reason that we must stick to these definitions. Would you like to explain how you think determinism contradicts free will or moral responsibility?millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-47700016385173168132008-07-29T21:46:00.000-07:002008-07-29T21:46:00.000-07:00Objectively (ie what God sees), you have no free w...<I>Objectively (ie what God sees), you have no free will.</I><BR/><BR/>"On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?"-Romans 9:20<BR/><BR/>Isn't there still a problem for religion here? Suppose, for example, a religion says that God will send a person to hell if he/she doesn't "choose" to believe in him. Shouldn't the blame rest on the creator rather than the created?<BR/><BR/>Also, I'm a little confused on how determinism doesn't contradict free will or moral responsibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com