Determinism!

[MigL]

OK, so should this thread, then, try to define 'free will', before getting too far ahead of ourselves ?

[Eise]

I gave already a two formulations of the same idea:

 

The basic idea is that all is needed is that people can act according their own wishes and believes, i.e. that their own wishes and believes are part of the causal fabric of the universe.

 

that what happens depends on your choice

 

Now you tell me how randomness is necessary for free will?

[MigL]

Not necessarily randomness, it is the probabilistic nature that defines QM ( the two are different ).

If I can change the chances of an event happening by observing, i.e. interacting, then I can affect the outcome according to my will.

Is that not you second formulation ?

 

Or are we going around in circles ?

[Eise]

If I can change the chances of an event happening by observing, i.e. interacting, then I can affect the outcome according to my will.

Is that not you second formulation ?

 

Sorry but that does not work. In QM you cannot affect the outcome according to your will. You can decide what you measure, but you have no influence on what the exact outcome will be.

 

So then explain why the addition of probabilities makes for responsibility. How can you guarantee that some action of you was not just a probabilistic twitch of one of your neurons?

[MigL]

The fact that your observation/interaction changes the probability distribution means you CAN affect change. The fact that this change is also probabilistic is of no importance. You have still affected change and removed determinism.

 

Notice that this is my definition of determinism ( which we agreed was not the philosophical definition ). And that is ALL I claimed QM does. Removes determinism.

I made no mention of responsibility, nor did I differentiate between intended or spontaneous ( random ) change, as in a neuron 'twitch'.

Edited September 21, 2014 by MigL

[Eise]

The fact that your observation/interaction changes the probability distribution means you CAN affect change. The fact that this change is also probabilistic is of no importance. You have still affected change and removed determinism.

 

In the context of free will it is important: you cannot decide e.g. that you measure polarisation vertically and that it will be down.

 

Notice that this is my definition of determinism ( which we agreed was not the philosophical definition ). And that is ALL I claimed QM does. Removes determinism.

I made no mention of responsibility, nor did I differentiate between intended or spontaneous ( random ) change, as in a neuron 'twitch'.

 

Yes, but that is an open door. We know that determinism is not true for Q-processes. But that is simply not enough for free will. You still have the burden to show how this indeterminism could support free will.

 

I assume we agree that in QM chance distributions are determined, right? But then where, when or what event takes place, is not further influenced at all. We know that if we do enough measurements we will get the determined chance distribution, but there is no known process that determines the single event in this chance distribution. And it is my understanding that with the EPR like experiments it is proven that there are no such (local) processes at all. Now, how do you want to build free will on that, on pure probability?

[MigL]

I don't know Eise.

I have commented on how QM removes the notion of determinism from classical ( Newtonian clockwork) Physics.

It will take a better mind than mine to relate free will to probability.

[Eise]

I don't know Eise.

I have commented on how QM removes the notion of determinism from classical ( Newtonian clockwork) Physics.

It will take a better mind than mine to relate free will to probability.

 

Yes, QM is not fully deterministic. But it is you who saw room for free will in that. In previous posts I have argued that indeterminism (of any kind) is in contradiction with free will. If you do not agree then please react on these arguments. I don't want to rehash all these arguments again.