I read an interesting article in Science News on the topic via Slashdot and I’m having some major cognitive dissonance issues on the subject.
On the one hand, i simply can’t get myself to shake my deterministic view of physics (even the un-understandable quantum physics that make my head ache). on the other, I can’t find any real flaw with the reasoning.
Does free will even make sense for subatomic particles? I just don’t know anymore.
Unconfuse me, Internet!
That’s a longish article to cover during a lunchtime visit, but throughout some brief scanning I retain the notion that “free will” is such a vague concept on the physical level that it seems obvious determinism either covers everything or it doesn’t really cover anything.
Do humans and particles have free will? I dunno. Sure, depending on your definitions. I think the specifics melt and slip through your fingers like quicksilver. Humans are thoughtful, in the way that we understand thoughtfulness, and particles aren’t. Is free will something exercised in a thought process? Then, well, no, particles don’t have it.
FWIW I think the hardest things to grasp in physics are hard to grasp because we subtly already believe competing explanations without realizing that we do. Great example - Einstein was able to realize that “now” was meaningless when his predecessors didn’t even realize that they believed in “now”. LaPlace’s brand of determinism seems hard to refute, and quantum mechanics seems loaded with paradoxes, because of what we don’t even think we’re thinking.
Based on skimming the article, they seem to be conflating free will and indeterminism, and assuming that deterministic = unfree. Did I misread it?
I’ve just been reading some The Fabric of the Cosmos, so this is an interesting article, and a slightly different experiment than is in the book.
No, subatomic particles do not have free will. When something indetermined happens in the quantum world there is no reason that it should have happened that way, it just occurs with the liklihood set out by the mathematics. Until the particles can justify their decisions with some morally-significant thought they do not have free will.
No, Sophistry and Illusion, you didn’t misread the article. For the OP, there is a school of thought called Compatibilism that states (correctly ;)) that free will and determinism are compatible.
For awhile now, I’ve had the exact opposite opinion…
There is no such thing as free will…yet things are NOT deterministic…
Blll
Care to elaborate on your reasoning? It doesn’t make much sense to me.
A thing cannot have ‘free will’ unless it has will, volition, etc. in the first place.
As the age-old question goes, “What do sub-atomic particles want??”
I’ll go with “Nothing.”
He didn’t offer any reasoning, he expressed a view. Were you having trouble understanding what the view amounts to, or did you want to know how he arrived at the view?
-FrL-
Busy…will try to reply later
But I was/am serious about it.
It makes enough sense to me that it honestly creeps me out.
The end result is that free will only means something/exists if you either start invoking vodoo feel good spirituality or that “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts” business that somehow creates free will.
Actually, the example I will try to give later basically boils down human thought down the same level as those subatomic particles…you (and they?) don’t know what they are going to do next (quantum uncertainty)…so they ARE non-deterministic…but to say that they (or we) have free will in the grander sense is baloney…
try to get back later
Blll
Spinning quarks at great distances, shooting electrode through a hole and then watch the change when another hole is made, etc.
Just a thought to keep in the back of your mind, and no I can’t prove it.
Everything is consciousness.
Ok, I am leaving, no need to yell.
I think the short version is “randomity is not volition”.
Meanwhile, we can’t even prove that quantum mechanics is non-deterministic. It’s just that, if it is deterministic, we have to instead give up something else that we’d like to be true, such as the notion of locality. If you can accept instantaneous transmission of information, then you can construct a fully-deterministic model of quantum mechanics.
Most physicists just avoid the question altogether. Whatever the underlying “reality” is, we can use the theory to accurately predict the results of observations. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody’s around to hear it, does it even matter if it makes a sound?
Isnt’ the existence or nonexistence of instantaenous transmission an empirical question?
-FrL-
Steak?
IIRC, part of the problem is that the information in question would be/is by principle inaccessible to us, so we can’t prove if it is or isn’t true.
But aren’t WE particles, pieces?
You could say that bio-organically, particles govern time and space.
I’m not going to go all the way to the subatomic, but I’ll go pretty small here.
Enzymes and Proteins in Cells.
In the splitting and reproduction of a piece of DNA in a cell, how do the individual enzymes doing the work know what they’re doing? How do they acquire or create each individual base protein and put it in exactly the right place?
How do they MOVE?
What tells them to do this?
The answer, of course, is “we don’t know”. But given the complexity of the task and the precision with which it is carried out, it would be possible to speculate on their level of intelligence.
Saying “there’s no proof of this”, while technically correct, is roughly similar to the people of old who claimed that animals don’t think, feel emotions or experience pain.
They don’t know what they are doing. The even more remarkable thing is that, before a centurary or so ago, nothing knew what the enzymes were doing.
The same way that other molecules move? I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, but if you want a lecture on molecular physics I’m not the one to give it to you.
Nothing? As far as I’m aware, molecules (enzymes etc.) move in that way because doing so causes more molecules to move in that way, i.e., it reproduces itself. The enzymes themselves aren’t being “told” anything.
Apropos of not much: I recall an old SF short story in which a scientist figured out how to rewrite the laws of physics by psychologically intimidating a subatomic particle. He set up an experiment in which a single photon was fired toward a mirrored prism, with an absolutely precise 50% chance that it would either pass through or be reflected. Since both alternatives were equally likely, the photon could not resolve a course of action, got confused, and slowed down. At that point, since it wasn’t traveling at light speed anymore, it couldn’t remain a photon, and became logically impossible. This awkward situation allowed the fundamental properties of the universe to unravel.
I think the moral of the story was to avoid tampering in God’s domain. But it’s probably also sound advice not to heedlessly promote subatomic particles into positions of managerial authority.
Just to help me out here: what is free will?