tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post110146965132802928..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: The Physics of Free WillRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-30654557383818170522010-06-02T20:29:46.421-04:002010-06-02T20:29:46.421-04:00(Aside: your characterization of quantum physics d...(Aside: your characterization of quantum physics doesn't sound right to me. It's supposed to involve ongoing indeterminacy. But, as noted in an earlier comment, <a href="http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/05/indeterminist-innuendo.html" rel="nofollow">indeterminism doesn't make us any more free</a>.)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-74231303390544339442010-06-02T20:24:40.397-04:002010-06-02T20:24:40.397-04:00Stephen - neither allows for the incoherent notion...Stephen - neither allows for the incoherent notion of <a href="http://www.philosophyetc.net/2008/12/ultimate-responsibility.html" rel="nofollow">ultimate responsibility</a>, but either seems compatible with the more modest understanding of free will as merely a matter of exercising agency (acting on your own beliefs and desires).Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-28040994662715672002010-06-02T18:56:07.674-04:002010-06-02T18:56:07.674-04:00I am a physics illiterate so please bear with me. ...I am a physics illiterate so please bear with me. From my limited understanding, there are two main theories of the universe and a everything in it. Firstly, there is the classical theory which states that all material conditions in the universe have prior material causes. Thus, if you had a God's eye view at the beginning of the universe you could predict the eventual position, velocity and trajectory of every single particle that will ever exist until the end of the universe. A bit like you could predict when and where every single domino in a domino rally will fall if you knew when and where the first domino was pushed over.<br /><br />The second theory is quantum. This seems to me to be essentially following the same rules of causality except that the first cause can be completely random. From then on upwards, though, it's classical all the way. <br /><br />To summarise, classical theory states that the universe is both determined and is, in principle, predictable. Quantum theory states that the universe is deterministic but is also, in principle, non-predictable.<br /><br />However, neither of the above two ways of conceptualising the universe and everything in it seems to allow for any kind of free will on the part of humans does it...<br /><br />Or am I missing something?Stephen cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11503080107490614353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1163475375124327172006-11-13T22:36:00.000-05:002006-11-13T22:36:00.000-05:00It is a very important theorem. I would have prefe...It is a very important theorem. I would have preferred to see something based on aves, but they chose a particle type of explanation.<BR/><BR/>Basically, determinism is finished. The universe cannot be deterministic, not the way Newton envisioned it. This is known to be impossible. Disorder does exist, but so does order.<BR/><BR/>We now know that the negation of freewill is false. It remains to be proved whether freewill does in fact exist.<BR/><BR/>Even Hawking's work on blackholes explicitly indicates that the universe cannot be completely deterministic, in fact paving the way for the very real possibility of freewill by disproving it's negation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1103156763866643762004-12-15T19:26:00.000-05:002004-12-15T19:26:00.000-05:00Erm, conscious robot, I think you're missing the p...Erm, conscious robot, I think <I>you're</I> missing the point of this post. I was simply talking about an unremarkable theorem that was being passed off as some great breakthrough. For my posts which actually tackle free will itself, see <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F06%2Fcategory-mind.html">here</A>.<br /><br />(Also, you're making the mistake of conflating 'free will' with the libertarian conception. But most philosophers are instead compatibilists, and there's nothing at all unscientific about <I>that</I> position.) <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1103156010636549432004-12-15T19:13:00.000-05:002004-12-15T19:13:00.000-05:00You've all missed the point. We are creations of e...You've all missed the point. We are creations of evolution, hence everything we do must be programmed into us by natural selection. Therefore, the only sensible free will question is 'how come we think we're making our own choices when we're really just doing what we're told to do by natural selection?' To answer this we need to take a closer look at 'how we make a decision'. you can try this at home. As Matt Ridley says “I am quite capable of jumping in my car and driving to Edinburgh right now and for no other reason than that I want to.... I am a free agent, equipped with free will.” Matt Ridley, Genome <br /><br />But as Dr Ridley points out, we don’t just do things ‘for no reason’ - we do them because we ‘want to’… which is the big clue. Take a close look at how you make a decision and you'll see that everything you do is an attempt to make yourself 'feel good'. <br /><br />Which is the mechanism by which evolution controls our conscious choices: our conscious minds are programmed to attempt to maximise how good we feel. Hence the free will confusion is resolved - we're not really free, we've just been fooled into thinking that we are. <br /><br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?www.consciousrobots.co.uk" TITLE="info at consciousrobots dot co dot uk">The Conscious Robot</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1101618391233053352004-11-28T00:06:00.000-05:002004-11-28T00:06:00.000-05:00The principle of indeterminatism is a principle th...The principle of indeterminatism is a principle that applies to everythign in the universe if htat is the thing they were relying upon to create free will then they are right it does extend to everything or nothing fopr a physisist the leap from explaining one example to explainig the whole universe in the same way is a natural one that barely needs explaining. I hardly think their analysis brings up anything new though.<br />However I am with you on the compatabilism thing (i think) it is all a matter of what you hold constant which is realy an arbitrary philosophical decision not a fundimental aspect of the universe. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F11%2Fphysics-of-free-will.html" TITLE="spat012 at hotmail dot com">geniusNZ</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1101530555647103512004-11-26T23:42:00.000-05:002004-11-26T23:42:00.000-05:00I don't think you've missed anything, and they def...I don't think you've missed anything, and they definately have.<br /><br />For example, that free will (i.e. indeterminacy of future action) might be a property of a group, rather than an individual. i.e. a bunch of particles acting as a mind, where the group behaviour might influence each member in a way you wouldn't be able to predict from the properties of the member alone. Quantum Physics might lack the ability to describe the group behaviour.<br /><br />They've also mistakenly called their theorem "new", which might just be bad reporting. People have suggested this kind of thing before.<br /><br />Randomness doesn't make anything more free - indeterminacy does. Randomness is just the same as determinism, except that sometimes things happen for no reason. Indeterminacy (in a different sense to quantum indeterminacy) is about the nature of the arrow of time, and whether the future already exists. If the future already exists, it is harder to see how we have free will except in a compatibilist sense.<br /><br />What "proof"? Until physics can derive consciousness from particles, I don't see how they can make any claim about the nature of the will.<br /><br />Personally I suspect that the errors of thought are mostly on the part of the journalist rather than the mathematicians. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?melbournephilosophy.com" TITLE="tennessee at tennessee dot id dot au">Tennessee Leeuwenburg</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1101517079857740142004-11-26T19:57:00.000-05:002004-11-26T19:57:00.000-05:00Jason - I entirely agree. I've always suspected t...Jason - I entirely agree. I've always suspected that (lay)people turn to randomness because they confuse determinism with fatalism. But of course that is a mistake, as I discuss <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F05%2Fdestiny-determinism.html">here</A>. <br /><br />(But note that Robert Kane <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F05%2Findeterminist-innuendo.html">convincingly argues</A> that some degree of randomness is at least <I>consistent</I> with freedom.) <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1101481457054144412004-11-26T10:04:00.000-05:002004-11-26T10:04:00.000-05:00I've never understood how randomness makes anythin...I've never understood how randomness makes anything more free. Freedom is about conscious evaluation of different possibilities, plus deliberate action based on those evaluations. What, in any of this, is random at all? <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.positiveliberty.com" TITLE="jason at positiveliberty dot com">Jason Kuznicki</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com