Free Will vs Determinism

[apop]

I was addressing chaos theory not quantum theory.

And I was expanding the discussion to include what we've learned in the last hundred years. "Scientific determinism" is no longer a supportable viewpoint.

Chaos theory, in its traditional form, is classical and therefore deterministic.

Mathematically, yes, but the uncertainty principle renders that point moot in practice.

Quantum theory (in its traditional interpretation, i.e. not many-worlds) is indeterministic.

If you can't tell which world you're going to end up in, it's not deterministic. If you're some kind of a supreme being who can sit back and observe all the possible worlds at once, I guess you could say is?

[michaeld]

I was addressing chaos theory not quantum theory.

And I was expanding the discussion to include what we've learned in the last hundred years. "Scientific determinism" is no longer a supportable viewpoint.

It's always important to keep context in mind. If one is explaining that a particular theory is deterministic, it's not on point to reply that a different (and superseding) theory is not deterministic, as if that contradicts the original statement.

Chaos theory, in its traditional form, is classical and therefore deterministic.

Mathematically, yes, but the uncertainty principle renders that point moot in practice.

No it's not "moot in practice": theories do not become moot just because another theory supersedes them in a particular domain. Physicists study classical (i.e. deterministic) theories all the time and it's really important to understand that they can be chaotic even if there is no inbuilt indeterminism. It's important to understand that even if the world is ultimately indeterministic because otherwise one is not likely to have a good grasp of why and how chaotic solutions arise.

Yes the world ultimately is quantum, and quantum theory (in its orthodox interpretation) is indeterministic. No argument there.

Quantum theory (in its traditional interpretation, i.e. not many-worlds) is indeterministic.

If you can't tell which world you're going to end up in, it's not deterministic. If you're some kind of a supreme being who can sit back and observe all the possible worlds at once, I guess you could say is?

The overall state of the universe evolves deterministically in MWI. It just looks indeterministic from the point of view of an observer inside it, who is constantly splitting. It's the same situation as if you were cloned lots of times while keeping your memories intact. There might not be anything unknown about the procedure but you still can't predict which clone you're going to end up as because it's true of all of them, and each one will think they are the continuation of your consciousness.

[apop]

Theories do not become moot just because another theory supersedes them in a particular domain. Physicists study classical (i.e. deterministic) theories all the time and it's really important to understand that they can be chaotic even if there is no inbuilt indeterminism.

Yes they do. Geocentric universe? Garbage. Not worth studying, except as an example of past folly. Physicists know that classical theories are wrong, but some of them are still useful if you're careful about how you apply them. Also, "classical" is not exchangeable with "deterministic" in general, though some classical theories are deterministic.

[michaeld]

Theories do not become moot just because another theory supersedes them in a particular domain. Physicists study classical (i.e. deterministic) theories all the time and it's really important to understand that they can be chaotic even if there is no inbuilt indeterminism.

Yes they do. Geocentric universe? Garbage. Not worth studying, except as an example of past folly.

One example doesn't show that theories become useless simply because they are superseded. Many don't. Newtonian mechanics is still used all the time. So is general relativity. Classical chaos theory is extremely far from dead - it's studied all the time by physicists and mathematicians.

And in fact the Ptolemaic universe is not complete garbage - it's just it has an extremely limited domain of validity. Also epicycles give an easy intuitive way of explaining Fourier series.

Physicists know that classical theories are wrong, but some of them are still useful if you're careful about how you apply them. Also, "classical" is not exchangeable with "deterministic" in general, though some classical theories are deterministic.

Actually all classical theories - in the technical sense[1] - are deterministic.

[1] i.e. the sense in which classical theories are ones in which the variables follow a path at which the action is a local extremum. This is how physicists generally use the term, rather than in an historical sense. For example General Relativity is considered a classical theory even though it was invented in the 20th century. In fact new classical theories are being invented all the time...

[apop]

Newtonian mechanics is still used all the time.

Because it's still useful, like I said. But if it contradicts QM or GR, it automatically loses.

Also epicycles give an easy intuitive way of explaining Fourier series.

If I ever travel back in time a thousand years and have to explain Fourier series to someone who's already familiar with epicycles, that might be good to know. Otherwise... not useful.

Your definition of "classical" seems bizarre and arbitrary to me, but w/e. FWIW, squickypedia points out that different definitions of the word "classical" are used in different contexts.

[michaeld]

Sorry for the delay - email notification fail...

Newtonian mechanics is still used all the time.

Because it's still useful, like I said. But if it contradicts QM or GR, it automatically loses.

Therefore it's not "moot". It "loses" to QM and GR in certain domains, but for many purposes it's just fine.

Your definition of "classical" seems bizarre and arbitrary to me, but w/e. FWIW, squickypedia points out that different definitions of the word "classical" are used in different contexts.

Of course. I made it clear which definition of classical I was following (and this is the definition modern physicists use IME). In the context of modern physics, it's not bizarre or arbitrary. With a few notable exceptions, modern theories are (special) relativistic from the outset, whereas "quantizing" is something that is often attempted only *after* defining a classical version of the theory. That is because making a theory quantum is much more mathematically difficult than making a theory relativistic - there are consistency conditions (renormalizability, lack of anomalies) that are extremely non-trivial in general. Therefore "classical" (= "non-quantum" more or less) v. quantum is the big distinction.

[apop]

This seems like it has degenerated into boring definitional wrangling. To try and get things back on track, here's my point: science no longer supports a deterministic worldview. That's not to say it's incompatible with one. You can say, "in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe is deterministic," if you want. I'm just saying that's not a scientific statement, it's a philosophical/religious one.

[michaeld]

That sounds to me like definitional wrangling in itself...

[apop]

At least it's not boring :)

[michaeld]

All definitional wrangling is ultimately boring. So let's talk about something more interesting then! How about free will and determinism...? :P

[apop]

Some definitions are interesting (what is scientific and what isn't), and others aren't (what is classical and what isn't).

[michaeld]

Some definitions are interesting (what is scientific and what isn't), and others aren't (what is classical and what isn't).

Definitions are useful: I don't usually find them interesting. I find debates on what is scientific and what isn't scientific especially boring. I agree the definition of "classical" isn't interesting either. It just is how it's used in my experience in modern physics. Use a different term if you want but I'll stick with what I believe is standard terminology.

Anyway any more on the original topic? :P

[Ficulnean]

I'm going to throw this out there; determinism is often equated with there being rules pertaining to physics. Quantum mechanics is seen as disproving this. But, what I want to suggest is this; if there were no laws, we'd have no way by which to direct our actions. That is, the divide between strict determinism and free will may be false. A lack of physical determinism leads to questions of free willas muchas determinism does. I don't really feel like going into detail, but feel free to pm me, which will motivate me to do so.

[apop]

Physical laws and human laws are two completely different things.

[Frac]

Free will that defies cause and effect frightens me, actually. Determinism sounds more soothing because it just makes sense. I mean, if my will isn't a product of my personality and life experiences, then it has no context to be based on whatsoever. The only way a wholly independent will would make sense is if some kind of mind-body dualism is at play.

[DiamondStar]

We definitely have free will. But we also have habitual tendencies and instincts. And if we are not mindfull then we will continue to act out in terms of habits and instincts and that will become entrenched over time. And once that happens we act out according to those tendencies and that feels like determinism.

It’s like an addiction. The more you do something, the more you have a tendency to do something. And that creates a vicious circle. Pretty soon we’re “punch drunk” and then we take the road of least resistance. So it becomes a perpetual negative feedback loop, resembling determinism.

If we get caught up in labels like “free will” and “Determinism” then these labels take on a life of their own and we can lose sight of what’s really going on. If that happens then we start asking relativistic and self-limiting questions like “do we have free will or determinism” instead of realising that we have both and each has a nature of their own different from each other.

Then we can make a choice to change. And choosing means Free Will.

[jamorna]

Sorry for beeing late in the discussion, but its an interesting topic. Does not seem like anyone have raised the question about the aspect of "time". If time only is linear and everything moves foreward in one dimension the free will theory is most likely, unless there is a higher will behind us. But if there is several dimensions happening all the time, then determinism is a logical way to see how life happens or moves foreward. You have in a sense always existed and every moment of your life always happens all the time in separate dimensions. As I understand the multi-dimension theory your whole life have always existed and contimue to do so- a kind of determinism. I think the movie Interstellar picture the theory of multi-dimension theory well ^_^

[Karl Viktor]

Indeed a very interesting topic. Without having read all of the posts, I am going to throw my two cents in, so forgive me if I repeat some of the points that have already been discussed.

On this particular topic I identified with the stoics for a long time. I should probably point of for anyone unfamiliar with them, that the stoic school of thought spans several hundred years and is far from homogeneous, but the most common view, and the one that in posterity is the most strongly associated with Stoicism, is given great clarity through this example.

“What makes it the case that we won't have a sea battle tomorrow?”

The Chrysippean causal determinist can say, “the lack of wind” or perhaps even “our decision not to go out and fight” and these things could all have been different, if only things had been different at some earlier time. So, though the present state of affairs determines that the future will only be one way, nonetheless there is a sense in which other things are possible.

source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

Over the last year or so however, I have embraced a more Kantian view.

His views are similiar in their premise. They are also compatibilist, but the most central idea that Kant adds is the notion of a sort of "gap in causality" or "moment of will" between the antecedent and the consequent. To illustrate this - If you are given the options of having dinner now or in an hour, you can't just lean back and let "events unfold". You still have to act, and this is where human agency differs from "empirical phenomena" - where all other things are concerned, A leads directly to B.

As far as I understand it, there are two possible conclusions to this argument. One comes directly from Kant - a compatibilist approach which states that the gap in causality is where our free will exists, that there is a moment between the causes and the consequences of events where we have agency. The other side is that of the determinist, arguing for "a necessary illusion of agency", i.e. that we do not have agency, but that in order to function we must believe or at the very least pretend that we do. The reason for the latter goes back to philosophers such as Schopenhauer. "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants", meaning that regardless of whether you have dinner now or in an hour, you can only do that which you want, and what you want is not something you choose.

and that's pretty much where I am at currently...