Do people have Free Will?

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by Phobos *
If our random future is akin to a fractal where a particular path is unpredictable but the overall possibilities are determined, then are we able to choose our own path within the confines of the fractal possibilites?

But what if what you consider “choice” is only another fractal path sliding along the possibilities of the first, mathematically certain?

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
If I were to start a new post, “Other people can cause things to happen to you that are out of your control” no one would even respond, except perhaps to laugh at my grasp of the obvious. And yet, in that circumstance, you have no free will, you are a recipient of determinism (i.e.-given A, B follows, which is what I’ve been saying all along). Because we all affect each other (and forget quantum physics here) then we are all sort of bound up in a deterministic process. The best outcome of this is the “First Mover” being the first one with free will…the first excercize of which caused everyone else to fall into determinism. The only way to believe in free will is the following:

1. The past is not absolute; and,
2. Isolation from all external influences is possible; and,
3. Any predictive theory is, at its core, flat-out wrong, even if it uses probability in its predictions.

If any of those are false, then I feel determinism follows.
…
Honestly, guys, I want to believe in a free will, but I have never found a satisfactory justification for it.

Well, the past is not absolute as far as Quantum mechanics is concerned.
Here is a section from The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by John G. Cramer:

To put this another way, Schrödinger’s question is: When can a quantum event be considered finished? Is it when the gamma ray leaves the radioactive nucleus? Is it when it interacts with the Geiger counter?
When the flask is smashed? When the cat dies? When the observer looks in the box? When he tells a colleague what he observed? When he publishes his observations in the Physical Review? When … ? A
billiard shot is over when the billiard balls stop colliding and come to rest. But the atomic “billiard balls” of a quantum billiard shot continue to collide forever, never coming to rest so that the shot can be
considered finished.

The source of confusion here is that the wrong question is being asked. The CI [Copenhagen Interpretation] has lead us to ask when the SV [state vector] collapses instead of how it collapses. But there is not a “when”, not a point in time at which the
quantum event is finished. The event is finished when the transaction forms, which happens along a set of world lines which include all of the event listed above, treating none of them as the special conclusion
of the event. If there is one particular link in this event chain which is special, it is not the one which ends the chain. It is the link at the beginning of the chain when the emitter, having received various CW’s
from its OW, reinforces one of them in such a way that it brings that particular CW into reality as a completed transaction. The atemporal transaction does not have a “when” at the end.

The past is definite if unobserved objects are not in a state of flux, but then people definitely have no free will at least in aynrandlover’s schema. Despite jab1’s characterizations of my points on that other thread, I do maintain macro-physical laws being violated (quantum tunneling for example) is a very rare event.

[erislover]

The past, I’m afraid, is absolute even for quantum mechanics. It just depends on what we asked.
The double-split experiment shows us that, when we aren’t monitoring the holes electrons interfere with themselves; they path through both holes. When we are monitoring the holes, they pass through one or the other (yes, I know this is really crystal diffraction and the double slit is with light not electrons). In either case, we still know the past, we still know what happened. The quote you give discusses what we can consider an event to be, and though the event may eventually collapse another waveform, we will not have noticed and the past will always be absolute.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
The quote you give discusses what we can consider an event to be, and though the event may eventually collapse another waveform, we will not have noticed and the past will always be absolute.

I get what you are saying. Once I read in the journal that the cat died (let’s not get into trusted source issues) then in my reality (world line) the particle decayed, and that is now an absolute. But until I read that tidbit (or gather the info somehow else), I live in a world were the cat is both alive and dead. So in that sense the past is not absolute. If we have free will there has to be a process whereby we can select the reality of the state vector even if on a limited (sub neural) level. As the human observer is in the unique position already of collapsing observed vectors constantly, that may be the case. No way to know though.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by jmullaney *
If we have free will there has to be a process whereby we can select the reality of the state vector even if on a limited (sub neural) level.

That was why I said earlier, “If we have free will, it is in this gap” the gap afforded by uncertainty. I do not feel that the brain in not inconcievably a quantum collapsing device, as well. Obviously, we devised the theory and devised experiments which do just that. So it is not unthinkable that we, as humans, are just probability waveform collapsing fiends.

I still feel like I have free will (note keyword feel!), though when I see a nice steak dinner, nothing on EARTH will stop me from chowing down! :rolleyes:

[MissBHaven]

It is predetermined that I think that I have free will!

Unless I want to be a giraffe… bummer!

[Phobos]

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *

*Originally posted by Phobos *
If our random future is akin to a fractal where a particular path is unpredictable but the overall possibilities are determined, then are we able to choose our own path within the confines of the fractal possibilites?

Total weak determinism here.

Actually I was thinking about how in chaos theory, individual possibilities seem random but the overall system follows certain “Strange Attractors”.

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *

*Originally posted by Phobos *
There doesn’t seem to be any concrete evidence to hang your hat on because our speculations themselves could be predetermined response to the question and available evidence.

Argh! I have only heard this “argument” from people arguing free will so far. This “argument” begs the question, and I know few people who would seriously use that (at least in so holy a place as this ).

Tee hee. Sorry to upset objective thinking. You’re right, I did “beg the question” (bad Phobos!). But I was mainly thinking out loud at that point and that is why I had the disclaimer that I wasn’t helping the discussion at that point.

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
Honestly, guys, I want to believe in a free will, but I have never found a satisfactory justification for it.

I too would like to have proof that free will is real, but it seems to be one of those things that cannot be proven/disproven and may come down to belief. Or, more objectively, perhaps it’s “close enough” for all practical purposes in living our lives. Unsatisfying perhaps, but many things remain scientifically unknown at this time.