Determinism vs. Free will; the debate goes on.

As I have no free will it is pre determined that I will make a trite and sarcastic response...

Ah but I shall resist!

Or did I?

meowwww my small cat brain hurts.

Oh go ahead and take another peek at the nice kitty litter box.

As I said in an earlier thread, things are never the same as they were had you not looked in the first place. As I understand the article, 't Hooft is not suggesting that you can, or can't "make a trite and sarcastic response", but rather that you cannot do it instantaneously. Whether you resist, or do do not resist is based on all the events that influenced you previously. He says "What we lack is the freedom to instantaneously switch between which of these initial states we start from".

So, whether you resist or not would seem to be irrelevant wouldn't it?

, whether you resist or not would seem to be irrelevant wouldn't it?

Hmmm, I think not. Surely if I can instantaneously choose either A or B thay can hardl

He obviously isn't taking into account that there is no such thing as the "instantaneous now." All subatomic processes are smeared out over time - both in the past and in the future. It's the time wave equation of an event, as opposed to the spatial wave equation.

Hi vermin,

You said "It's the time wave equation of an event, as opposed to the spatial wave equation".

I'm not sure I follow that. How about some clarification.

I reckon that nicely illustrates the difference between engineers and scientists. At least one foot in the real world to be an engineer :) :) ? Sorry, it's just totally outside my comprehension.

Methinks "Deterministic Chaos" is the better understanding. It has a mugwump quality that won't leave you stranded.

Not sure if this is relevent, but too me it revolves about what one believes, which begs the question, what critera does one use to believe something? do we automatically believe everything and then discriminate by applying ones own experiances? which then follows, the need to measure something is the need to validate what we believe?

Hi jtretired,

According to 't Hooft your belief system "must have roots in brain processes that occurred in the past". On that point, I don't believe any of us can reasonably argue against, because our beliefs are based on the sum total of all our past experiences. The question is, were all those past experiences which we absorbed into our consciousness predetermined by some initial rest state of a bunch of quarks. IMHO it seems to me that that is what 't Hooft is arguing for. In defense of his position he downplays the aspect of free will which is what seems to bother so many people that disagree with him. He says "Why worry at all about a notion so flimsy as 'free will' in a theory of physics?"

You said "the need to measure something is the need to validate what we believe?" I don't think 't Hooft addresses one's need to do this or that, but, on measuring, he points out that "It's safe to assume that in this time, the particle you plan to measure will also be influenced by these environmental factors - a disruption that accounts for nature's ability to tweak what you are able to measure, he says". Now, is he saying that when you measure something you are just doing what you were bound to do anyway, or is he saying that nature will not allow you to discover that what you did was unavoidable?

It seems to me that it's almost intuitive that every subatomic particle had to have had an initial rest state at the big bang moment. As vemin has pointed out, (I think) such smearing of events has occurred since then that we can't prove, or disprove, an initial state.

I just made you say that!

I think the process of belief passes from generation to generation, When we are born and awareness developes, we believe what we are told. This could be seen as views inherited from or anceters, which could be seen as some process carried over from the big bang? generation after generation, this is not confined to the human state. So if this process can be altered, would you call it a act of free will? Our experiances allow us to discriminate, and dictates how different people react, possibly deep rooted servival insticts, predetermined by an inherited group of atoms? But then again what is awareness, if we can act outside the box, would one concider that to be predetermined? by some physics acting randomley since time began, or some process that has some chemical ability to give self awareness and hence free will?

Hi again jt,

"We must believe in free will, we have no choice," the novelist Isaac Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, "We must believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice".

I think the whole idea of belief, free will, and determinism will probably be debated until the end of the foreseeable future. However, the outline of the mathematics of determinism as presented by 't Hooft are quite fascinating.

"Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is full of apparent paradoxes, which made Einstein deeply uncomfortable and have never been resolved. For instance, you cannot ask what the spin of a particle was before you made an observation of it - quantum mechanics says the spin was undetermined. And you cannot predict the outcome of an experiment; you can only estimate the probability of getting a certain result.

"Quantum mechanics works wonderfully well, but it's not complete," says Gerard 't Hooft of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, who won the Nobel prize for physics in 1999 for laying the mathematical foundations for the standard model of particle physics. One major reason why many physicists, including 't Hooft, yearn for a deeper view of reality than quantum mechanics can offer is their failure so far to unite quantum theory with general relativity and its description of gravity, despite enormous effort. "A radical change is needed," says 't Hooft.

For more than a decade now, 't Hooft has been working on the idea that there is a hidden layer of reality at scales smaller than the so-called Planck length of 10^-35 metres. 't Hooft has developed a mathematical model to support this notion. At this deeper level, he says, we cannot talk of particles or waves to describe reality, so he defines entities called "states" that have energy. In his model, these states behave predictably according to deterministic laws, so it is theoretically possible to keep tabs on them.

However, the calculations show that individual states can be tracked for only about 10^-43 seconds, after which many states coalesce into one final state, which is what creates the quantum mechanical uncertainty. Our measurements illuminate these final states, but because the prior information is lost, we can't recreate their precise history".

"Others are impressed. "This is a very beautiful theory that tells us about the world on the smallest scales," says physicist Willem de Muynck at Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands. "But these are scales that current experiments cannot reach, so if anything the theory is before its time."

I wonder how the "Big Bounce", (as presented by Jorrie), if it happened in place of the BB, will fit into 't Hooft's ideas? Would the possibility of a rest state be different in a Bounce as opposed to a Bang? In the case of a Bounce things got almost to the Planck scale before everything reversed. In the Bang, it seems that everything was still and infinitely small at the instant of expansion. Either way, there's a singularity involved that apparently 't Hooft thinks he has a valid model that punches through that veil. Perhaps I didn't quite state that correctly enough, so if you're listening Jorrie, please comment.

-John

where are all the snide remarks regarding universes existing in time frames we cant measure on particles only assumed to exist in order to support accepted quantum theory?

It would seem there are a hit or miss bunch out there.

cr3

"Johnjohn, you have been brought before this most holy inquisition to answer charges that you did knowingly and willingly commit the crime of blasphemy against the Church by questioning the holy doctrine of free will!"

"What? Are you sure? Really?! Hmmm..."

"Well it seems, Johnjohn, that we're about 500 years too late. Sorry about that. And, uh, sorry for all the torture and all that other nasty business."

"Let's get outta here!!!"

And you vermin, my friend, must answer to "The Brothers Karamazov".

erratum to post #19,

I meant to say you'll have to face The Grand Inquisitor from The Brothers Karamazov.

-John

Does the physical universe have a free will? Probabably not.

Do I, as a human, have free will? I don't know, I haven't decided yet.

But how can I make a decision without free will?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...................

Free will is predetermined. What's so complicated about that?

Everything that happens to us is our own fault... but that's not our fault.

I have predetermined to insert my free will and stop reading this post!

This is not exactly an unarguable question. However, the argument is probably more of a debate within philosophy rather than science.

For example, if you have had some experience that has convinced you completely that there is a Jewish or Christian God, then you have grounds for a complete acceptance of the existence of free will. It goes hand-in-hand with the existence of God. now, you can communicate this to others that have not had your experience, and they may or may not accept your conclusion. In other words, while the spiritual person may be certain that he and everyone else has free will. He indeed may be existing within a sea of individuals that believe the opposite. And is the difference between free will and no free will simply a matter of belief - you have that which you believe you have.

However, is it possible to construct an empirical experiment (real or imaginary) that can demonstrate whether our choices - or even natural events - actually do have alternative outcomes that can be freely chosen. Does the gambler believe that the outcome of a throw of the dice be affected before the throw. If the gambler believes his rabbit's foot will alter the outcome - is this evidence for his belief in free will or for determinism?

Would the ability, for instance, to time travel allow one to determine the existence free will. What would the nature of an experiment to determine free will look like. Any ideas?

Hi vermin,

Perhaps I misnamed this thread? I think the argument against free will really may just be a byproduct of what happens if 't Hooft's theory has any validity. Being a renowned physicist and mathematician he is simply probing the, as yet, unexplored mathematics of the mysteries that underlie quantum mechanics. He is certainly not arguing anything religious about his research. Far from it, 't Hooft is probing the boundaries of known physics, and then, let the chips fall (free will included) where they may, which is as it should be for any scientist worth their salt. As we all know, mathematics does not take sides! I'll re-post what I quoted earlier to emphasize that 't Hooft's research (as I understand it) is scientific in scope, and not philosophical as you suggested.

"For more than a decade now, 't Hooft has been working on the idea that there is a hidden layer of reality at scales smaller than the so-called Planck length of 10^-35 metres. 't Hooft has developed a mathematical model to support this notion. At this deeper level, he says, we cannot talk of particles or waves to describe reality, so he defines entities called "states" that have energy. In his model, these states behave predictably according to deterministic laws, so it is theoretically possible to keep tabs on them".

"One major reason why many physicists, including 't Hooft, yearn for a deeper view of reality than quantum mechanics can offer is their failure so far to unite quantum theory with general relativity and its description of gravity, despite enormous effort. 'A radical change is needed," says 't Hooft'".

Concerning your last question, you said "Would the ability, for instance, to time travel allow one to determine the existence free will. What would the nature of an experiment to determine free will look like. Any ideas"?

The Grandfather Paradox comes to mind here. Do I have the free will to go back in time and kill my grandfather such that "I" was never born? It's am interesting question, and I think it has been debated at length. If I can't kill him then I don't have free will, right? Actually, I know how to kill him and resolve the paradox. I'll post that one later.

Regards...

It takes faith to believe in the course of history for which we did not experience ourselves. So whom should we have faith in, ourselves?; I have failed myself enough time to know that this is not a good idea. Faith in politicians?; only faith in the fact that they will invariably look to themselves first. Faith in scientific academia?; it is only a house of sticks loosely fashioned on the past observations and musings of other people who just are guessing, and depending on themselves (see first question)? Besides that, how many times has the foundation under the sticks been pulled from beneath? I like the foundation of the Bible, prophesy proven correct by later facts (Men can't do this), supported by facts (Taught things like running water for cleaning/Scientists didn't pick up on this till the 1860's), and as such can only have it's source from something more reliable and knowledgeable than ourselves.

The systems in place are just to exact, to well organized, to complex not to have an author, an author who has explained his creation in detail in His book. He did give us free will, even though he already knows what we are going to do with it. You can either accept or reject this, but either way you make a choice. And you have to deal with the consequences. If you don't believe in the bus coming at you down main street, it will still do what buses do, regardless. That is the freewill.

johnjohn:

When I used the concept of belief, I was referring to an individuals approach to the problem of arriving at what is reality. Why one accepts some things while dismissing others. This was not meant to be a religious approach, but rather, a look at free will, and how we use it to modify what we are told and experience, thereby arrive at something which we believe to be reality. I am looking closer at the points you have raised, and some day give more constructive comments.

JD.

Hi JD,

My response (#24) was mainly a reply to vermin's post (#22) since it was getting into the realm of a philosophical discussion and not necessarily to your post (#10). Also, I was trying to redirect the thread toward the scientific research that 't Hooft is doing because it seemed the thread was heading, hell bent, toward religion and philosophy. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you. It's just that the research mentioned ('t Hooft's) is worth evaluating on its own merit.

One of the greatest enigmas facing the physics/mathematics world today is the inability to resolve quantum mechanics with Einstein's physics; the super small with the super large. Personally, I think whenever a renowned physicist such as 't Hooft takes research at the cutting edge of known physics in a totally new direction, it bears paying attention to. Even if his theories turn out to be provably wrong, you've gotta give him credit for thinking outside the elitist's box.

-John

Johnjohn,

The more thought I give the nature of your posts and 't Hooft's work. I think, perhaps that this thread is misnamed. Perhaps "Determinism VS Chaos" or "Determinism VS Pure Chance."

Seems the real point here is: Are we destine to never know certain properties of matter and energy, and have to play it by the probabilities like a gambler in Vegas OR will we find concrete "almost Newtonian" properties of matter and energy that lay behind the fuzzy probabilities of Quantum Physics.

I don't really see anything within your posts that particularly question the existence of free-will.

At last, some sanity!

Hi vermin,

Personally, I don't lose any sleep wondering whether or not I have free will. It's just not one of those things I worry about. Some people though apparently get really uptight about it.

Vlatko Vedral says "Say you decide to prove your free will by acting out of character: having an introverted personality, you decide to start a conversation with a complete stranger on the street, for instance. The very fact that you have decided to act contrary to your usual predisposition seems itself to be fully predetermined by the fact that you wanted to act out of character to prove your free will. The very act of trying to prove free will adds to the evidence that you have none".

When I posted 't Hooft's article I should have realized I would open a philosophical can-of-worms. Mea Culpa to all.

Nevertheless, for those interested, the link below provides a slide show by Gerard 't Hooft showing his position on the matter. The math he presents is a little beyond me but perhaps you, and others, can follow it. If the slide show makes sense, I'd be interested in a response (from you too Yuval).

unconstrained initial conditions postulate

Newtonian properties have served me quite well. I can catch a falling apple but I've yet to grab hold of a falling quark.

-John

I think QM is such a hype, it frightens many inquisitive minds who take it to be some divine gospel, in which you have to accept everything in advance, to be able to 'ride' it successfully.

Unfortunately, it's not all that, but nevertheless, it's the most accurate and dependable mathematical description, of the natural behaviour of the molecular and atomic level.

- It's not meant to explain the atomic world, only to describe it accurately.

- It only measures particle interaction to an amazing accuracy.

- It's not meant to describe the workings of galaxies or clusters in the cosmos. Some cosmological events and physics are indeed explained (and very well so) taking into account, known quantum particle interaction, for example P-P reaction, fusing hydrogen into helium (on the micro-scale), or for instance the, C-N-O element-transmutation chain (on the macro-scale), both "allowing" the sun (or stars in general) to progress, as it actually does, meaning smoothly describing star evolution, as we can observe in a myriad of stations and states, around us.

- It's definitely not meant to describe spirituality in any form or level, as many new-age authors tried to capitalise on, and prey upon peoples fear of not being able to grasp it's so called "magic" or peculiarities, typical of the sub-atomic scale, which do not conform with out intuitive understanding known to our "Macro-Scale" experience, and accordingly, our intuitive perception.

Yes free will was the point I picked up on, as I'm not that well acquainted with the essence of the post, quantum mechanics. But would like to put foreword a point of view on the subject. There is a stated belief that in the beginning there was a void without shape or form, after which came creation or the big bang or bounce depending on your beliefs. So to address the essence, I would propose that the belief of a beginning is a humanised concept, and that infinity in all its facets should be looked at? infinitely large, infinitely small, infinite time, infinite void, and infinite mass etc. If infinity is the starting point, then some rules can be considered:

1/ Infinity cannot be expanded as its already at max?

2/ Infinity cannot be contracted, as the size of any facet of infinity cant be altered?

3/ Infinity cannot have a designated centre?

From there it then follows any centre must be a point of expansion or contraction, it also raises the point, can a facet of infinity be altered without a balancing adjustment, is anything that occurs in infinity a balance of opposites? If you now follow this strain of thought it leads into different dimensions of realty?

Just some home grown thoughts on the essence of the post, hope its not too far of beam. Without a beginning can ones behaviour be predetermined???

JD

Here's what I think - I think it's turtles, all the way down.