# Is the pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics valid? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462 "2016-11-02T17:19:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/61 "2016-11-06T23:16:07Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > For what it’s worth, there are certainly experiments (starting with Libet) that show that we make decisions well before we are consciously aware of them. That’s certainly thought-provoking, but the notion of free will does not hinge on these experiments, or the nature of consciousness. The relevance of consciousness is really only that it creates our strong internal illusion of conscious agency and free will, from which the widespread belief in free will derives. There is now a strong counter-attack developing denying that the experiments of pre-conscious decision making proving anything at all about will. They’ve been very trendy but we’re reaching the inevitable stage of debunking. I’m finding it interesting following your link to whyevolutionistrue to discussions that boil down to, yes, everybody believes they have free will, and we are constrained to talk as if we all have free will, and we can’t deny that we make choices all the time, and there’s no way to be precise about not having free will, but there’s no such thing as free will. That’s what I call incoherence. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/62 "2016-11-07T00:03:55Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I’m finding it interesting following your link to whyevolutionistrue to discussions that boil down to, yes, everybody believes they have free will, and we are constrained to talk as if we all have free will, and we can’t deny that we make choices all the time, and there’s no way to be precise about not having free will, but there’s no such thing as free will. That’s what I call incoherence. We need to be quite precise about terminology here, and I concede that sometimes people on that site (including Jerry) are not as clear as they could be. But conceptually it’s certainly not incoherent. We certainly make _choices_, or _decisions_ - it’s a semantic issue, but I think it would be silly to call what we quite obviously do all the time anything else. It’s just that “choices” or “decisions” are computation, data processing, entailing some combination of deterministic and stochastic processes - the only kinds of processes that there can possibly be, and neither of which comports with “free will”. So they are not “free” choices in the sense of free will, and sometimes people (including Jerry) express that by saying “we do not choose”, which I think is misleading. I’d prefer to say we do choose, but we choose in the same way that a thermostat chooses to turn on the heat, or a microorganism moves by chemotaxis: computation. Much more sophisticated computation, of course, but no magic. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/63 "2016-11-07T00:10:05Z")
Forgive me if this has already been stated in one fashion or another… Bad computer and little time for such things here at the moment… But let me throw this out. Lack of “free will” does NOT IMO mean the same decisions would always be reached given the same circumstances. At some point as you drill down, there will be IMO randomness injected into the decision making system. Maybe it is higher up in the subroutines, maybe it is do to random external variables. Maybe it is down low at the level of neutron x firing or not firing do to quantum physics effects. But IMO it is there somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/64 "2016-11-07T00:13:08Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > There is now a strong counter-attack developing denying that the experiments of pre-conscious decision making proving anything at all about will. They’ve been very trendy but we’re reaching the inevitable stage of debunking. Indeed, but I already said that. Free will does not hinge on these experiments in any way. Nothing is being “debunked”. Nobody who considered the issue carefully ever thought that these were experiments to test free will. But one value of the experiments is to show that our brains create incredibly strong illusions. If the reality is that we make decisions unconsciously, and _then_ perhaps seconds later our brain constructs a fictional narrative that our conscious self somehow controlled the decision, it’s quite a shocking discovery. If the incredibly strong sensation of conscious agency is shown to be an illusion, maybe that helps us to realize that we cannot trust the illusion of free will. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/65 "2016-11-07T00:23:00Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > At some point as you drill down, there will be IMO randomness injected into the decision making system. Maybe it is higher up in the subroutines, maybe it is do to random external variables. Maybe it is down low at the level of neutron x firing or not firing do to quantum physics effects. > > But IMO it is there somewhere. Nobody’s arguing for the kind of determinism (sometimes called pre-determinism I think) that excludes QM these days. We know QM is true, there is stochastic indeterminacy in the universe. And at the macro level, there are many pseudo-random effects. But do you think that stochastic indeterminacy - i.e. “rolling a dice” - comports with anyone’s notion of free will? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/66 "2016-11-07T04:21:40Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I don’t see how something supernatural makes any difference at all. Suppose a supernatural entity exists, beyond the ken of current science & knowledge. The supernatural entity is the source of our decisions. How does it make those decisions? It’s still true that the process must either be _random_, or for _reasons_. What else is there? Where is the free will? It does not lie in either randomness or determinism. An incoherent concept is not rescued by just saying “supernatural”. Contracausal free will cannot exist in any conceivable universe, because it’s simply nonsense. Just because something is incomprehensible to humanity doesn’t necessarily mean it cannot exist. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/67 "2016-11-07T04:25:38Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I find these varying positions the equivalent of axiom systems. Interesting things emerge when you choose free will and no determinism, determinism and no free will, both, or Other, which is a solid second on that PhilPapers page. > > It’s the application that gets wonky. Euclidian geometry does not describe the surface of the earth, yet describes small sections of it very well. We can force acceptance of those different axiom systems through empirical methods. > > I don’t see any way we can yet apply empirical methods to the problem of free will, especially without any comprehension of what consciousness is. We have a sense of self and assigning agency to that sense makes sense with our level of senses and computational ability. But in a purely deterministic universe I’d agree with Riemann. I don’t argue from a supernatural point of view often but if such stuff did exist I wouldn’t think it’d be constrained by our abilities to calculate. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/68 "2016-11-07T04:35:37Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Just because something is incomprehensible to humanity doesn’t necessarily mean it cannot exist. But this is an empty statement. We’re not talking about a well-formed empirical question, we’re not even talking about something that might be supernatural and beyond the ken of current scientific understanding. In “free will”, we’re talking about two words that are conceptually and logically incoherent and undefined, and that correspond to no observed phenomenon. What you’re saying is equivalent to saying “Just because smillagrybejnicezubflop is incomprehensible to humanity doesn’t necessarily mean it cannot exist”. It means literally nothing. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/69 "2016-11-07T10:49:48Z")
I would argue that the concept that free will and consciousness are illusory is incoherent. An illusion requires someone who is tricked, and that falls back to assuming a conscious entity. I argue that, since we all experience these phenomena and agree at least in broad strokes about it, that alone is enough to declare them factual. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/70 "2016-11-07T11:37:29Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I would argue that the concept that free will and consciousness are illusory is incoherent. An illusion requires someone who is tricked, and that falls back to assuming a conscious entity. > > I argue that, since we all experience these phenomena and agree at least in broad strokes about it, that alone is enough to declare them factual. I’m not claiming that the illusion of free will is unreal. Of course we experience the subjective feeling that we “could have done otherwise”. The feeling is real. But it is false, it is only an illusion. Since we only get to run history once, there is no actual event that we have experienced where we know that we _could have done otherwise under precisely identical conditions_, because we have never actually done so. And as for this: “An illusion requires someone who is tricked, and that falls back to assuming a conscious entity.” So what? You are a conscious entity. You are tricked. You are a conscious entity without free will. Where is the contradiction in that that you seem to imply? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/71 "2016-11-07T21:18:25Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > But this is an empty statement. We’re not talking about a well-formed empirical question, we’re not even talking about something that might be supernatural and beyond the ken of current scientific understanding. In “free will”, we’re talking about two words that are conceptually and logically incoherent and undefined, and that correspond to no observed phenomenon. What you’re saying is equivalent to saying “Just because smillagrybejnicezubflop is incomprehensible to humanity doesn’t necessarily mean it cannot exist”. It means literally nothing. How are they undefined? People understand what is meant by free will. The possible mechanism for such is what eludes them. That’s why the appeal to the supernatural. If the words weren’t defined how’d you be able to argue so eloquently against them? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/72 "2016-11-07T22:11:15Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > How are they undefined? People understand what is meant by free will. The possible mechanism for such is what eludes them. That’s why the appeal to the supernatural. If the words weren’t defined how’d you be able to argue so eloquently against them? Ok, at face value people understand free will to mean “could have done otherwise in precisely the same circumstances”. But you need to dig a little deeper than that. People _think_ that definition makes sense, because the strong illusion of free will in our minds makes them feel that have good intuition for what happens. But when that intuition is analyzed carefully, it actually makes no sense at all. If you disagree, please read my post #32, then come back and tell me in that context (a) how that definition of free will makes any sense at all, and (b) any observable event that corresponds to the operation of free will. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/73 "2016-11-07T22:24:28Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Ok, simplistically free will means “could have done otherwise in precisely the same circumstances”. > > But you need to dig a little deeper than that. People _think_ that definition makes sense, because the strong illusion of free will makes them feel that have a good intuition for it. But when that intuition is analyzed carefully, it makes no sense at all. > > If you disagree, please read my post #32, then come back and tell me in that contest (a) how that definition of free will makes any sense at all, and (b) any observable event that corresponds to it. I know what free will means. That’s why I don’t think it exists if we live in a deterministic or non deterministic universe devoid of supernatural influences. I’ve had this point of view for damn near 20 years now. Any form of decision making is governed by the laws of physics. What mechanism is there for actually making a choice? In a physical universe I can’t think of any. A choice is made by your brain and your sense of self contrives a reason for it sometimes. Thus the illusion. I understand all that. All that I am saying is that, at our current level of understanding, to have real free will you’d need supernatural influence to make it possible. That doesn’t mean the mechanism would be understandable by our brains though. I do find it fascinating that the simple laws that govern the universe have determistically generated a self-aware universe that can probe and analyze itself through biological agents. With regards to observable events that demonstrate true free will? How’d you know? Where’s the control universe to see what another copy would do? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/74 "2016-11-07T22:49:13Z")
Since the discussion has left physics for philosophy, let’s move this over to Great Debates. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/75 "2016-11-07T22:59:41Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > …All that I am saying is that, at our current level of understanding, to have real free will you’d need supernatural influence to make it possible. That doesn’t mean the mechanism would be understandable by our brains though… But I just don’t buy this. It doesn’t make any difference whether the proposed decision-making entity is just our physical brain or some supernatural entity. It still has to interact, process data (or ignore data) and generate output. What other _kind_ of interaction and decision-making process is there for _any_ type of entity in any conceivable universe other than deterministic or stochastic? > [@octopus](#): > > …With regards to observable events that demonstrate true free will? How’d you know? Where’s the control universe to see what another copy would do? But there is simply no observation that corresponds to free will occurring. You don’t need a control when there is no observation to explain. Essentially, you’re saying: “Something supernatural might exist to explain a phenomenon that I have not defined cohrerently, and which corresponds to no observable.” It’s like proposing a supernatural mechanism for homeopathy. You don’t need an explanatory mechanism when there’s no observable. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/76 "2016-11-08T00:19:53Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > But I just don’t buy this. It doesn’t make any difference whether the proposed decision-making entity is just our physical brain or some supernatural entity. It still has to interact, process data (or ignore data) and generate output. What other _kind_ of interaction and decision-making process is there for _any_ type of entity in any conceivable universe other than deterministic or stochastic? > > But there is simply no observation that corresponds to free will occurring. You don’t need a control when there is no observation to explain. > > Essentially, you’re saying: > > “Something supernatural might exist to explain a phenomenon that I have not defined cohrerently, and which corresponds to no observable.” > > It’s like proposing a supernatural mechanism for homeopathy. You don’t need an explanatory mechanism when there’s no observable. You are doing a poor job of reading and paraphrasing if that’s your interpretation. Not that you had any choice of course.😛 ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/77 "2016-11-08T00:37:12Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > You are doing a poor job of reading and paraphrasing if that’s your interpretation. Not that you had any choice of course.😛 Well, ok. My assertion is: “The claimed phenomenon of free will is not defined coherently and does not correspond to any observation. We do not require explanations, supernatural or otherwise, for non-existent phenomena.” If you bring up the possibility of a supernatural explanation, please first tell me what exactly it is an explanation _for_? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/78 "2016-11-08T02:13:28Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Well, ok. My assertion is: > “The claimed phenomenon of free will is not defined coherently and does not correspond to any observation. We do not require explanations, supernatural or otherwise, for non-existent phenomena.” > > If you bring up the possibility of a supernatural explanation, please first tell me what exactly it is an explanation _for_? It’s strictly hypothetical. I agree with your point of view as I mentioned above. Aside from the concept of free will being undefined or incoherent. The hypothetical is that to have what is understood as free will would require supernatural influence in a manner that would quite possibly be incomprehensible to our brain. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/79 "2016-11-08T02:56:16Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > …I agree with your point of view as I mentioned above. Aside from the concept of free will being undefined or incoherent… Ok, so let’s go back to my post #32. Do you agree that free will does not inhere in deterministic processes, making choices for _reasons_? Do you agree that free will does not inhere in stochastic indeterminism, it is not rolling dice? Do you agree that there is no actual observation in our experience that corresponds to our intuition of _the capacity to choose otherwise under precisely the same circumstances_? If you agree with me as you say, yet still claim that there is a coherent definition of what contracausal free will means, please state it. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462/80 "2016-11-08T03:55:16Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Ok, so let’s go back to my post #32. > > Do you agree that free will does not inhere in deterministic processes, making choices for _reasons_? > Do you agree that free will does not inhere in stochastic indeterminism, it is not rolling dice? > Do you agree that there is no actual observation in our experience that corresponds to our intuition of _the capacity to choose otherwise under precisely the same circumstances_? > > If you agree with me as you say, yet still claim that there is a coherent definition of what contracausal free will means, please state it. It’s the ability for some agent to make real choices unconstrained by the physical laws of the universe. Anyone I’ve talked to about free will who has thought about the subject and has a bit of education knows for real free will you can’t be constrained by anything we know of physics. It’s not as if the concept of a clockwork universe is hard to grasp nor are the ramifications. If I am not mistaken even ancient philosophers had to appeal to the divine or other supernatural influences to explain decision making that was, as you say, contracausal. And how can you argue against the concept of what you call contracausal free will if it’s impossible to define coherently? Furthermore definitions and existence are not necessarily correlated. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pilot-wave-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-valid/770462.md?page=5)