Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will • Hacker News Board

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#21

Post by mirimir » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 8:24 AM UTC

millstone wrote: post #10

The article argues that "randomness" (by which it means essential unpredictability) is experimentally backed. This is an awkward constraint for a universe designer: isn't a totally deterministic universe much easier and simpler? Free will has no room to survive in a clockwork universe. But free will remains a viable position, despite the philosophical contortions, but supported by experimental evidence like what's di…

> This is an awkward constraint for a universe designer: isn't a totally deterministic universe much easier and simpler?

Huh? Maybe it's natural selection, all the way down, and all the way up. The results aren't at all "random", but they're also not at all designed.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#22

Post by dtujmer » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 8:26 AM UTC

I think Sam Harris put it like this: for free will, it doesn't even matter if reality is deterministic or random because the determinism or randomness are found at the quantum level, many levels "below" neurological free will.

Let's say we have Universe 1 (deterministic) and Universe 2 (random). You face a choice - raise your left hand or your right hand. In U1, if you went back in time several times, you would always pick the same hand because the configuration of matter in the universe would "require" that the next step, globally, is you raising that same hand. In U2, if you went back in time, there could be some variance - maybe you'd pick the other hand 50% of the time - but this variance would happen on a quantum level and only manifest neurologically/physically. I still see no possibility of the classical idea of free will there.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#23

Post by krzat » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 8:27 AM UTC

montenegrohugo wrote: post #2

I've always thought of free will as an absurdity. Here's my thought process: If I make a decision, there's 2 possibilities: 1. The decision is based upon prior information and states, therefore there is a deterministic causality 2. The decision is not based upon prior causality: E.g. I have a "soul" and that's what decides. However, if we look into 2, we arrive at the same problem: 1. Either the souls decision is det…

Not sure if it makes sense to use concept of soul in logical reasoning, maybe that's where absurdity comes from.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#24

Post by nnq » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 8:39 AM UTC

montenegrohugo wrote: post #2

I've always thought of free will as an absurdity. Here's my thought process: If I make a decision, there's 2 possibilities: 1. The decision is based upon prior information and states, therefore there is a deterministic causality 2. The decision is not based upon prior causality: E.g. I have a "soul" and that's what decides. However, if we look into 2, we arrive at the same problem: 1. Either the souls decision is det…

Sometimes you pick from a set of actions for each you have equal reasons/information to pick. And you pick technically randomly. But after you made the choice, you stick/commit to it, you identify with it. The other choices are no longer a possibility. You become fixed in this particular causality. And it defines "you" as "the one who [randomly] picked choice X and Y and ... and ended up on this particular causal path".

This is what exercising free will means and how it defines you.

And if you put it in this terms it also becomes obvious that any kind of mechanism can "exercise free will" if you choose to look at it from this perspective.

(The problem with defining "free will" I think is that people get stuck thinking in terms of it as a fixed concept that needs a "what is" type of definition, instead of a procedural/operational "how to" definition. You only care about processes and mutations to the state of reality... not fuzzy wozzy philosopondering. Replace "what is" kind of knowledge with "how to" kind of knowledge and concepts like "free will" become christal clear and obvious. Also it's pointless to bring in another undefined concept, eg. "soul" when defining other.)

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#25

Post by atq2119 » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 8:47 AM UTC

montenegrohugo wrote: post #2

I've always thought of free will as an absurdity. Here's my thought process: If I make a decision, there's 2 possibilities: 1. The decision is based upon prior information and states, therefore there is a deterministic causality 2. The decision is not based upon prior causality: E.g. I have a "soul" and that's what decides. However, if we look into 2, we arrive at the same problem: 1. Either the souls decision is det…

As usual, these kinds of discussions are really about what we mean by words.

What does "free will" mean? I think technically inclined people like us are easily led down the path you describe, but over the years I've become convinced that the kind of definition that leads you to "free will = random choice" is pretty pointless because it's so vacuous.

I like to take a step back and ask: why are we interested in free will in the first place?

In practice, what tends to be really relevant are questions like: are criminals responsible for their actions?

Free will is better defined as a shorthand for these kinds of questions. And in that context, it seems clear to me that even if our actions are purely deterministic, we can still have free will. What matters isn't whether our will is free of physics or determinism; what matters is whether or to what extent our will is free from the influence of other people and society.

Once you look at it this way it's also clear that there are no absolutes. We all influence each other, which puts limits on our free will, but we aren't just puppets, either.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#26

Post by reitanqild » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 8:51 AM UTC

montenegrohugo wrote: post #2

I've always thought of free will as an absurdity. Here's my thought process: If I make a decision, there's 2 possibilities: 1. The decision is based upon prior information and states, therefore there is a deterministic causality 2. The decision is not based upon prior causality: E.g. I have a "soul" and that's what decides. However, if we look into 2, we arrive at the same problem: 1. Either the souls decision is det…

Well. People argue against free will.

I've learned to embrace it and it makes my and my kids and my neighbours and my colleagues (and so on) lives a tiny bit better everytime I take advantage of it. (Yes, I've made a decision to use my life for good.)

I've lived like this more and more for 20 years now and my life has become increasingly better.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#27

Post by atq2119 » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 8:56 AM UTC

intralizee wrote: post #12

I’m a person who acknowledges everything is deterministic and free will is a facade. The two types of people I’ve encountered who desire the notion of free will: 1) Person with ego who needs to have a belief in free will. 2) Persons who has ego, gets annoyed by free will being a facade and refuses to think about it because “it doesn’t matter” to this person. I’m perplexed if the problem is singular between the two ty…

The real question with free will is: free of what?

Free of physics? Obviously not, but that conclusion is pretty vacuous because almost by definition anything that can affect our actions is a potential object of study for physics once you break it down sufficiently.

For actual applications of the notion of free will in moral reasoning, this line of argument is also pretty irrelevant. What matters more is whether our will is free from influence by other moral actors and society at large. And obviously it's not totally free of such influence, but we can enjoy a pretty significant degree of freedom there.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#28

Post by jf- » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 9:02 AM UTC

montenegrohugo wrote: post #2

I've always thought of free will as an absurdity. Here's my thought process: If I make a decision, there's 2 possibilities: 1. The decision is based upon prior information and states, therefore there is a deterministic causality 2. The decision is not based upon prior causality: E.g. I have a "soul" and that's what decides. However, if we look into 2, we arrive at the same problem: 1. Either the souls decision is det…

The question doesn’t really have significance in an everyday sense. To have free will means to be able to choose between options. To ask questions about determinism may be intellectually interesting but is of little practical consequence.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#29

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 9:05 AM UTC

EventH- wrote: post #8

montenegrohugo wrote: post #2

I've always thought of free will as an absurdity. Here's my thought process: If I make a decision, there's 2 possibilities: 1. The decision is based upon prior information and states, therefore there is a deterministic causality 2. The decision is not based upon prior causality: E.g. I have a "soul" and that's what decides. However, if we look into 2, we arrive at the same problem: 1. Either the souls decision is det…

A decision can be based on prior information (in the sense of being informed by it) while not being deterministic. This is how Aristotle and Aquinas handle the relationship between the Intellect and the Will, where the will chooses between goods which are known by the intellect. It is precisely in this choosing between different goods that we are classically understood to have free will. So, our decisions are determi…

Absolutely no human has ever operated like this.

We experience choice and decision as subjective processes controlled by a subjective experience of self. But all of those experiences are subjective, and delusional to varying degrees.

I recently had a fascinating experience with a lawyer while buying a house. The vendors and the agent did various things annoy my lawyer, and she set up a situation where the agent was - apparently as a free choice - compelled to pay the lawyer a sum of money to close the sale.

I'm sure the agent made what she considers a free choice, albeit not a comfortable one. But in fact the lawyer was always in control of the situation, and knew exactly where to push, and how hard, to get the result she wanted.

If you have good psychological insight, humans can be ridiculously predictable and easy to manipulate. And said humans will still insist their decisions are made with full awareness and agency - even when they aren't.

So in what sense is will free at all? You really don't need to resort to quantum physics to understand there are serious problems with the concept. Marketing, politics, and law provide plenty of evidence that free will is a convenient fiction, not a psychological ground truth.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#30

Post by bambataa » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 9:06 AM UTC

praptak wrote: post #16

millstone wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the soul has free will, then it cannot have a second-soul to dictate to it. What is the problem with the first-level soul that can freely choose, perhaps incorporating that metaphysical information into its decision?

The problems arise when you start to think what influences the soul's decisions. Does it make decisions solely based on its state? Then you have determinism. Not only state? Than what is this not-state that creates the free will? Adding some dice throwing into this mix does not sound like free will either.

That applies if you think of a soul as ‘just another mind’, but my understanding is that souls are usually seen as different. What I find problematic with them is that they can be defined to be whatever you need to get out of a logical fix eg “souls use state but are non-deterministic”.

Ultimately you’re asking what defines a soul, which is unknown as far as I can tell.