determinism or indeterminism

[Eise]

I have no strong opinion if there is indeterminism in the world. Generally physics appears to function with cause and effect. However some processes look truly random. As a result I simply don't know if we have a free will or not.

 

In my opinion when indeterminism would be true, it would mean we have no (or less) free will. I really hope that I am determining my actions. If there would be no causal relationship between my thoughts, plans, desires etc on one side, and my actions on the other,, there would not be a way to be free at all.

 

Can such a thing be proven?

 

No. But one can answer the question if a meaningful concept of free will fits to determinism.

 

So in the end, still, I don't know why the OP thinks it is an important question (at least important enough to ask here for people's opinions if they are determinist or not.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Eise

[robinpike]

 

I have no strong opinion if there is indeterminism in the world. Generally physics appears to function with cause and effect. However some processes look truly random. As a result I simply don't know if we have a free will or not.

Can such a thing be proven?

 

Tim, even if some processes have random outputs, I don't think that will give us free will as we have no control over that output?

 

 

 

In my opinion when indeterminism would be true, it would mean we have no (or less) free will. I really hope that I am determining my actions. If there would be no causal relationship between my thoughts, plans, desires etc on one side, and my actions on the other,, there would not be a way to be free at all.

 

Eise, evolution means that our brains are constructed so as to produce rational thoughts but nonetheless we are constructed from atoms. So yes, atoms can produce rational reasoning but I don't see how atoms can produce free will?

Edited November 2, 2016 by robinpike

[Tim88]

[..]

I have no strong opinion if there is indeterminism in the world. Generally physics appears to function with cause and effect. However some processes look truly random. As a result I simply don't know if we have a free will or not.

 

 

Coming back to this thread, I was going to add that, regretfully, my opinion may be influenced by the fact that I very strongly like to think that I have a free will - despite my attempts to not fall in the trap of wishful thinking. However Else already answered:

 

In my opinion when indeterminism would be true, it would mean we have no (or less) free will. I really hope that I am determining my actions. If there would be no causal relationship between my thoughts, plans, desires etc on one side, and my actions on the other,, there would not be a way to be free at all.

 

 

Can such a thing be proven?

 

No. But one can answer the question if a meaningful concept of free will fits to determinism.

[..]

 

OK, so if I correctly understand your thinking, you assume that you do have a free will - that our will is not fully determined by "outside" factors (including the electrochemical processes in our body). That implies a certain amount of true "indeterminism" in our brains.

 

But I now wonder if there really can't be made a logical argument for determinism, to our personal disappointment.

 

We are familiar with chaotic processes which are fully determinate; only we humans cannot predict their outcome in practice, giving the illusion of pure randomness, that the results are in-determined (not sure if I used the correct definitions of those words, but no doubt you got the gist of it). In other words, we already have a satisfying explanation of apparent "true randomness" by means of determinate processes. The anthropocentric argument that we cannot determine (predict) what will happen is meaningless in this context.

 

Inversely, to my knowledge we have no logical model or explanation of how "truly" random or indeterminate results could be produced.

 

Theoretically it's reasonable to prefer an explanation over no explanation.

 

Tim, even if some processes have random outputs, I don't think that will give us free will as we have no control over that output?

[..]

 

Good one robin - I had not thought of that yet. Yes, I agree - and that adds rather well to my last post here above.

[Eise]

Eise, evolution means that our brains are constructed so as to produce rational thoughts but nonetheless we are constructed from atoms. So yes, atoms can produce rational reasoning but I don't see how atoms can produce free will?

 

You mean we are (for all practical purposes) determined. If one defines free will as 'being able to do what you want', where is the problem? Did you understand my 'slogan'? Just read it again, and see if there rally is a problem with determinism.

 

Or even better: prove that there is a contradiction between determinism and free will as I defined it. Do not smuggle in another meaning of free will.

OK, so if I correctly understand your thinking, you assume that you do have a free will - that our will is not fully determined by "outside" factors (including the electrochemical processes in our body). That implies a certain amount of true "indeterminism" in our brains.

 

Exactly what I wrote to robinpike: you smuggled in something I did not say. I did not say anything about outside factors. I said, that free will means that I can do what I want. Full stop. Think about it.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Eise

[Itoero]

I have no strong opinion if there is indeterminism in the world. Generally physics appears to function with cause and effect. However some processes look truly random. As a result I simply don't know if we have a free will or not.

Can such a thing be proven?

I don't think there is indeterminism in the physical universe. I don't know if this makes any sense but if quantum effects are not causal determined then there wouldn't be order and matter in the universe.

It depends how you define free will.

[Eise]

I don't know if this makes any sense but if quantum effects are not causal determined then there wouldn't be order and matter in the universe.

 

So a tiny bit of indeterminism on the level of events involving tiny particles precludes the existence of order and matter in the universe? QM's predictions are empirically proven to be be very precise, but its predictions have statistical character: where QM can predict how millions of particles behave, it cannot predict single events exactly. QM explains atomic spectra very precisely, it explains chemical bonding of atoms, it explains interference patterns of all kind of particles, including light, it explains how light diffracts through lenses etc etc. Isn't that order? But it does not exactly predict when the beta decay of a nucleus occurs, nor the exact place a single photon will arrive, or the excited atom will return to its ground state.

 

Concerning the brain: there are estimations that, with the number and kinds of particles involved, we do not need exact predictions of single particle events even in the case of synapses. That means, that for all practical purposes, we can consider the brain as determined.

 

It depends how you define free will.

 

Of course. I gave my (short version) definition. There is no contradiction between this definition and determinism. Only when people add non-empirical assumptions to this definition (e.g. not caused by 'outside' factors) , they conclude that determinism and free will are incompatible.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Eise

[Itoero]

OK, the methodological hammer: you cannot prove there is a cause, especially because Bohm and Copenhagen are empirically equivalent.

True but a cause is imo a 100%necessity. An effect or event which is not caused by anything is not adjusted/adapted to the properties of its environment since its not caused by anything.

 

That kind of correlation is only present between entangled particles which means it's caused by something. If correlation is not caused by something, then it would not be present specifically between entangled particles.

Ah, you are a well known QM-physicist! Can you explain to the specialist here why QM is incomplete? Einstein thought so too, so you are in good company. Pity enough, the practical experiment based on his EPR idea showed he was not right.

The idea that the most usual interpretation of QM says that the world is not determined is based on the absence of evidence for the cause of quantum effects.

 

The absence of evidence points to the incompleteness of QM.

Yes. But that is not what I think free will is. To give my idea in one single slogan: we are free to do what we want, but not to want what we want. So there is no conflict with determinism. Look up compatibilism if you want to know more.

I definitely agree with that definition of free will.

 

So I assume you wanted to know if people here in the forum are determinists, i.e.believe that determinism is true.

Yes, I often heard and read things which makes it clear that people have different ideas, often concerning free will.

[Eise]

True but a cause is imo a 100%necessity. An effect or event which is not caused by anything is not adjusted/adapted to the properties of its environment since its not caused by anything.

 

I more or less reacted on this in my previous posting. You seem to think that a bit of indeterminism means 'no determinism at all'. A photon arriving at a screen in a double split experiment is determined to arrive at certain places: but not exactly at which place. Take many billions of photons, and on repeated doing the experiment, you will always get the same interference pattern.

 

That kind of correlation is only present between entangled particles which means it's caused by something. If correlation is not caused by something, then it would not be present specifically between entangled particles.

 

No idea what you are talking about. You did not mention 'correlation' before.

 

The idea that the most usual interpretation of QM says that the world is not determined is based on the absence of evidence for the cause of quantum effects.

 

Not quite. It is also based on the experimental proof that local causes are ruled out. Non-local causes are, well, spooky. And I do not see that even with spooky, non-local, causes an experiment can be done that proves that there are non-local causes. I have no idea what such an experiment would look like.

 

The absence of evidence points to the incompleteness of QM.

 

That is what Einstein thought. He turned out to be wrong.

 

The absence of evidence points to the incompleteness of QM.

I definitely agree with that definition of free will.

 

Yes, I often heard and read things which makes it clear that people have different ideas, often concerning free will.

 

So is your interest in if we are determinists or not really fed by thoughts about free will?

Edited November 4, 2016 by Eise

[Itoero]

I more or less reacted on this in my previous posting. You seem to think that a bit of indeterminism means 'no determinism at all'. A photon arriving at a screen in a double split experiment is determined to arrive at certain places: but not exactly at which place. Take many billions of photons, and on repeated doing the experiment, you will always get the same interference pattern.

There is something that causes a photon to arrive at a precise place, we just don't know what. The fact that we see the interference pattern every time proves this. If the exact position of a photon is not caused by anything then we shouldn't see interference because the interference pattern is an interpretation of many exact positions...therefor the exact positions must be determined.

 

 

No idea what you are talking about. You did not mention 'correlation' before.

Entanglement is quantum correlation between particles or objects. If no hidden variables cause this correlation then the correlation should not be a property of entanglement. If there is no cause for an event then the event can be present everywhere.

They also found entanglement in DNA. If it's true that entanglement holds DNA together then that proves hidden variables.

it seems like there is a kind of correlation energy.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053

Not quite. It is also based on the experimental proof that local causes are ruled out. Non-local causes are, well, spooky. And I do not see that even with spooky, non-local, causes an experiment can be done that proves that there are non-local causes. I have no idea what such an experiment would look like.

Isn't another way of explaining this that our knowledge and technology shoots short to find a local cause?

 

 

So is your interest in if we are determinists or not really fed by thoughts about free will?

I think everything is determined and only believe in the free will the way compatibilists describe it.

[Eise]

There is something that causes a photon to arrive at a precise place, we just don't know what.

 

We can't know what. I propose you open a thread in the QT forum under physics to see why is this. I am not a professional physicist.

 

There is something that causes a photon to arrive at a precise place, we just don't know what. The fact that we see the interference pattern every time proves this.

 

No, of course this is not proven. It is only proven that the statistical distribution is always the same.

 

Entanglement is quantum correlation between particles or objects. If no hidden variables cause this correlation then the correlation should not be a property of entanglement.

 

I also propose to discuss this in the QT forum. I think you have some real problems understanding (or accepting...) QT.

 

If there is no cause for an event then the event can be present everywhere.

 

No!! Why doesn't this go into your head? If QT predicts that the chance of a photon arriving is close to 100% in a certain area, then why do you say simply it can arrive anywhere. And in the double split experiment, a photon simply does not arrive at the dark stripes: QT predicts a statistical chance of zero. So what is this with an 'event can be present everywhere'?

 

Isn't another way of explaining this that our knowledge and technology shoots short to find a local cause?

 

No. Bohm's theory, while conceptually possible, can impossibly be empirically proven: we cannot observe the complete universe, adding up the influence of all particles in the universe. Relativity already makes this impossible. And you forget: it is proven there are no local causes.

 

I think everything is determined and only believe in the free will the way compatibilists describe it.

 

That's great, at least something we agree upon. But then, still, why are you interested in knowing if people believe in determinism or not?

Edited November 6, 2016 by Eise

[Itoero]

We can't know what. I propose you open a thread in the QT forum under physics to see why is this. I am not a professional physicist.

No, of course this is not proven. It is only proven that the statistical distribution is always the same.

I also propose to discuss this in the QT forum. I think you have some real problems understanding (or accepting...) QT.

Ok, I'll do that.

 

No!! Why doesn't this go into your head? If QT predicts that the chance of a photon arriving is close to 100% in a certain area, then why do you say simply it can arrive anywhere. And in the double split experiment, a photon simply does not arrive at the dark stripes: QT predicts a statistical chance of zero. So what is this with an 'event can be present everywhere'?

Yes but the exact path a photon goes is very different then the possibility of local hidden variable in entanglement. The path of a photon is determined, the exact location is not. You can measure the exact location/path by placing detectors but I doubt Heisenberg will like that. You destroy the wave-behavior when you do that.

If there are no hidden variables which cause the quantum correlation then the absence of hidden variables enables correlation. Then correlation, or correlation energy, can be present in all systems without variables that cause correlation...this is very illogical. Quantum superposition and entanglement would be the same if nothing causes the correlation.

 

 

No. Bohm's theory, while conceptually possible, can impossible empirically proven: we cannot observe the complete universe, adding up the influence of all particles in the universe. Relativity already makes this impossible. And you forget: it is proven there are no local causes.

Hidden variables are basically hidden realities. Your can't disprove that, it's like disproving another dimension.

The idea that there are no hidden variables is not a scientific fact, there is no scientific theory about it.

That's great, at least something we agree upon. But then, still, why are you interested in knowing if people believe in determinism or not?

When I talk with people or in discussions on fora I've often noticed people having indeterministic beliefs.

Since I think determinism is 'normal' I don't really notice deterministic ideas.

I just like to know what people believe, mostly because I think my belief is the scientific one:p

[Eise]

Yes but the exact path a photon goes is very different then the possibility of local hidden variable in entanglement. The path of a photon is determined, the exact location is not. You can measure the exact location/path by placing detectors but I doubt Heisenberg will like that. You destroy the wave-behavior when you do that.

If there are no hidden variables which cause the quantum correlation then the absence of hidden variables enables correlation. Then correlation, or correlation energy, can be present in all systems without variables that cause correlation...this is very illogical. Quantum superposition and entanglement would be the same if nothing causes the correlation.

 

It is not illogical. The only thing is that if you try to picture what happens with objects and movements as you know them from daily life, you fail. It is not logical to think about light as a wave, spread out over a certain area, but then is only measured at one point. But that is only because you think about classical waves. The mathematics of QM is consistent, so why call it illogical?

 

Hidden variables are basically hidden realities. Your can't disprove that, it's like disproving another dimension.

The idea that there are no hidden variables is not a scientific fact, there is no scientific theory about it.

 

Well, it is a scientific fact that QM makes predictions that do not allow for local hidden variables. Until now these predictions are confirmed. This is a stronger statement than 'we are not able to detect potential local hidden variables'; it says 'we have proven there are none'.

 

When I talk with people or in discussions on fora I've often noticed people having indeterministic beliefs.

Since I think determinism is 'normal' I don't really notice deterministic ideas.

I just like to know what people believe, mostly because I think my belief is the scientific one:p

Well, you can tell them that indeterminism does not help. If people think that their free will lies in the disconnectedness of their action actions and thoughts, or the random character of their thoughts, they clearly have not thought deep enough.

 

[Itoero]

It is not illogical. The only thing is that if you try to picture what happens with objects and movements as you know them from daily life, you fail. It is not logical to think about light as a wave, spread out over a certain area, but then is only measured at one point. But that is only because you think about classical waves. The mathematics of QM is consistent, so why call it illogical?

I'm not calling the mathematics of QM illogical, I find your ideas illogical.

I'll try to explain it in a different way.

When the correlation is not caused by anything then it's not necessary linked to entangled particles. Then you should see correlation between all particles.

 

Well, it is a scientific fact that QM makes predictions that do not allow for local hidden variables. Until now these predictions are confirmed. This is a stronger statement than 'we are not able to detect potential local hidden variables'; it says 'we have proven there are none'.

That's not a fact, it's an interpretation of experiments.

[Itoero]

It is not illogical. The only thing is that if you try to picture what happens with objects and movements as you know them from daily life, you fail. It is not logical to think about light as a wave, spread out over a certain area, but then is only measured at one point. But that is only because you think about classical waves. The mathematics of QM is consistent, so why call it illogical?

I'm not calling the mathematics of QM illogical, I find your ideas illogical.

I'll try to explain it in a different way.

When the correlation is not caused by anything then it's not necessary linked to entangled particles. Then you should see correlation between all particles.

 

Well, it is a scientific fact that QM makes predictions that do not allow for local hidden variables. Until now these predictions are confirmed. This is a stronger statement than 'we are not able to detect potential local hidden variables'; it says 'we have proven there are none'.

That's not a fact, it's an interpretation of experiments.

[Eise]

I'm not calling the mathematics of QM illogical, I find your ideas illogical.

I'll try to explain it in a different way.

When the correlation is not caused by anything then it's not necessary linked to entangled particles. Then you should see correlation between all particles.

 

I am a bit in a dangerous area here, because I am not a physicist. But I think the established interpretation is this: particles are correlated with all particles in their light cones, or better all particles they ever interacted with. But if a particle is entangled with trillions of other particles, there is no way that you can see this.

But please, raise your question in the QT forum, where more professional physicists are around.

 

That's not a fact, it's an interpretation of experiments.

 

That's a hard one. But you can say this of any experiment.

 

I can only say that Bell's theorem is generally accepted, and given that the predictions of QM in EPR-like experiments turn out to be correct, there cannot be local causes. If you doubt this fact, please also open a thread in the QT forum.

 

Late Night edit: Maybe you can chime in here?

Edited November 7, 2016 by Eise

[Itoero]

But please, raise your question in the QT forum, where more professional physicists are around.

Done:)

[Eise]

Done:)

 

Well, what do you think of the reactions in that thread? No physicist supported your view, I think on good grounds. Do you still hold to the view that the world is determined, with local causes?

[Itoero]

Well, what do you think of the reactions in that thread? No physicist supported your view, I think on good grounds. Do you still hold to the view that the world is determined, with local causes?

Yes I do

There are imo local and nonlocal causes.

[Eise]

Yes I do

There are imo local and nonlocal causes.

 

Of course. But you have no argument anymore that for typical QM processes every event is locally caused. If you still think so, you are denying established, empirically proven science. Repeating the arguments you already have given will not help.

[Itoero]

Of course. But you have no argument anymore that for typical QM processes every event is locally caused. If you still think so, you are denying established, empirically proven science. Repeating the arguments you already have given will not help.

I have several arguments but why should I keep repeating them?

That's not true. It's empirically proven that local hidden variable theories can't explain quantum mechanics. The absence of hidden variables can never be proven. Thinking you can is imo a logical fallacy.

[Eise]

It's empirically proven that local hidden variable theories can't explain quantum mechanics.

 

It is mathematically proven that the predictions of QM are inconsistent with theories with local variables. It is empirically proven that QM's predictions are correct. You behave like a creationist who cannot accept scientifically proven facts.

 

The absence of hidden variables can never be proven. Thinking you can is imo a logical fallacy.

 

So you did not learn anything. Your opinion is against established science.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Eise

[Itoero]

It is mathematically proven that the predictions of QM are inconsistent with theories with local variables. It is empirically proven that QM's predictions are correct. You behave like a creationist who cannot accept scientifically proven facts.

Thanks for the compliment. Do you know what a scientifically proven fact is?

 

So you did not learn anything. Your opinion is against established science.

It's not established science, it's an established interpretation. Edited November 20, 2016 by Itoero

[Eise]

Do you know what a scientifically proven fact is?

 

Yes.

 

It's not established science, it's an established interpretation.

 

No.

[Itoero]

Because we are not knowledgeable enough to create correct local hidden variable theories, there are no local hidden variables?

[Eise]

Because we are not knowledgeable enough to create correct local hidden variable theories, there are no local hidden variables?

 

No, because we have empirical proof that local hidden variable theories impossibly can reproduce the predictions of QM. You simply do not understand Bell's inequalities and the fact that QM violates them.