# Randomness and free will......... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2005, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162 "2005-11-21T23:09:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/41 "2005-11-22T19:01:14Z")
> [@contentless](#): > > Therein lies the paradox. There cannot be causes to the uncaused - there is no first event, thus no chain. Determinism implies a chain of events, but that is only because of our absolute freedom. The conception of unfreedom can only arise when so-called wrong is interpreted. Chaos cannot be wrong until it is divided. Absolutely there is no division, so the perception of victim and victimizer has no reality. Free is the essence of it. ??? ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/42 "2005-11-23T00:50:24Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > No, what (& more importantly, how) is ‘free will’ exercised by? Like I said, ‘free will’ is an illusion. It is thus not exercised at all. Since ‘will’ is an outcome of the ‘self’ and the ‘self’ is an illusion, then in turn ‘will’ and ‘free will’ are also illusions. ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/43 "2005-11-23T00:55:11Z")
> [@contentless](#): > > Therein lies the paradox. There cannot be causes to the uncaused - there is no first event, thus no chain. Determinism implies a chain of events, but that is only because of our absolute freedom. The conception of unfreedom can only arise when so-called wrong is interpreted. Chaos cannot be wrong until it is divided. Absolutely there is no division, so the perception of victim and victimizer has no reality. Free is the essence of it. I wonder if it is possible to write a board-bot that cruises message boards and uses a [Dada Engine](http://dev.null.org/dadaengine/) to generate random replies. Would this board-bot have free will if it were truly random? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/44 "2005-11-23T01:54:13Z")
> [@antechinus](#): > > Like I said, ‘free will’ is an illusion. It is thus not exercised at all. Since ‘will’ is an outcome of the ‘self’ and the ‘self’ is an illusion, then in turn ‘will’ and ‘free will’ are also illusions. Sorry, I misread you what wrote. ---
**Author:** ![contentless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@contentless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/contentless)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/45 "2005-11-23T09:52:13Z")
> [@antechinus](#): > > I wonder if it is possible to write a board-bot that cruises message boards and uses a [Dada Engine](http://dev.null.org/dadaengine/) to generate random replies. > > Would this board-bot have free will if it were truly random? That which is all has all. Unfree and Free are perceptions, thus equally correct and incorrect. Consciousness is not limited to one or the other, those things don’t make sense. It can perceive itself as having free will because it does. It is a slave to its will. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/46 "2005-11-23T10:23:58Z")
> [@contentless](#): > > Unfree and Free are perceptions, thus equally correct and incorrect. If you are going to insist on asserting “P and not P,” you will have to understand that people round here aren’t going to line up to congratulate you on the cogency of your reasoning. Pretty please, in the future, stop trying to say vague, muddled things in order to sound important; I get enough of this from my freshman philosophy students. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/47 "2005-11-23T10:59:06Z")
I congratulate the programmers of **contentless** on a fine effort at building a Turing machine which sounds _almost_ like it understands what you say to it. ---
**Author:** ![wayward](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a87d85/32.png) [@wayward](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wayward)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/48 "2005-11-23T13:48:15Z")
Side question(s) that have inevitably arisen/I have chosen to ask because of some of the posts in this thread: Do we know if Quantum effects are in fact truly random, or is it just that we can’t detect the very small differences in initial states that lead to different results? Do we even know the answer to that question? If not, will it ever be possible to know? Is there actually any difference between something being truly random and it being impossible to know if it’s truly random or not? Did that last sentence even make any sense? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/49 "2005-11-23T14:11:50Z")
> [@wayward](#): > > Do we know if Quantum effects are in fact truly random, or is it just that we can’t detect the very small differences in initial states that lead to different results? They are as random as the word ‘random’ can possibly mean. Uncertainty is a fundamental feature of the universe. For example, the [EPR experiment(s)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox) demonstrate that if we measure a particle’s spin along one axis, its spin along another axis is _absolutely_ random: it is not even the case that it _has_ such a spin which we just don’t happen to know about (a ‘hidden variable’). > [@](#): > > Do we even know the answer to that question? The verified experiments of Aspect and others support such knowledge as strongly as any in science. > [@](#): > > Is there actually any difference between something being truly random and it being impossible to know if it’s truly random or not? Did that last sentence even make any sense? You must examine what is meant by the word ‘random’. The spin along an axis has a 50% probability of being positive and 50% of being negative, rather like a coin toss. Unlike a coin toss, however, there is no means _even in principle_ whereby we could predict the outcome. If there _were_ some hidden mechanism, Bell’s inequality and Aspect’s experiments would have shown so in the statistics. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/50 "2005-11-23T19:52:59Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > there is no means _even in principle_ whereby we could predict the outcome. If there _were_ some hidden mechanism, Bell’s inequality and Aspect’s experiments would have shown so in the statistics. How are you so sure of this? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2005, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/51 "2005-11-24T10:11:14Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > How are you so sure of this? If Einstein was right, and the variables are “there all along” but somehow _hidden_, then the detectors in the 3-variable (usually 3 axes of polarisation) experiment would agree [50% or more of the time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments). They consistenly agree **less** than 50% of the time: Einstein’s hidden variables must be **wrong**. The universe **must** be non-local (or some equally bizarre alternative formulation - see “possible loopholes”). ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2005, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/52 "2005-11-24T11:07:52Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > The universe **must** be non-local (or some equally bizarre alternative formulation - see “possible loopholes”). OK, but that’s a far cry from “_Uncertainty is a fundamental feature of the universe. … it is not even the case that it has such a spin which we just don’t happen to know about (a ‘hidden variable’)._”. How do you get that? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2005, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/53 "2005-11-24T11:30:24Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > OK, but that’s a far cry from “_Uncertainty is a fundamental feature of the universe. … it is not even the case that it has such a spin which we just don’t happen to know about (a ‘hidden variable’)._”. How do you get that? Because the experiments show the “realistic” local hidden variable hypothesis being [violated](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory): the realist curve is **not** observed, the “quantum weird” curve **is**. Uncertainty **is** a fundamental feature of the universe, according to any experiment ever verified. ---
**Author:** ![wayward](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a87d85/32.png) [@wayward](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wayward)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2005, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/54 "2005-11-24T13:27:37Z")
OK, thanks for that. So essentially what you’re saying is that we know for sure the universe is not deterministic in the way that most people would mean it. (If the exact same Big Bang happened again, with the exact same starting conditions, it would be massively unlikely that the universe would end up the same as it is now, right?) So that leaves us with two choices. Either the underlying randomness is completely random and an illusion of free will somehow emerges from it **OR** the randomness isn’t actually random and is in fact somehow controlled by something else, whether you call that something God, the Soul, Narrativium, or whatever else you fancy. I’m not really sure where I’m going with this, just trying to get things straight in my head more than anything… ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2005, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/55 "2005-11-24T13:43:25Z")
> [@wayward](#): > > So essentially what you’re saying is that we know for sure the universe is not deterministic in the way that most people would mean it. Yes, but most people use the word incorrectly. Something can still be _determin **istic** _ (_ie_ having no ‘will’ element) without being _determin **able** , ie._ predictable. Not being able to predict next year’s weather does not give it a ‘will’. > [@](#): > > (If the exact same Big Bang happened again, with the exact same starting conditions, it would be massively unlikely that the universe would end up the same as it is now, right?) Well, I don’t think the Big Bang _happened_ so much as it **exists and we’re living in it _now_** , but yes: quantum events are not predictable _even in theory_. It is not that we don’t _happen_ to know enough decimal places of accuracy, but that we [cannot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle). quote]Either the underlying randomness is completely random and an illusion of free will somehow emerges from it [/quote] Yes, it really is as ‘random’ as the word can possibly mean, and the illusion of free will (_ie._ the output of decisions having **both** a _calculated_ element and a _random_ element) arises from the fact that our everyday world tends towards predictability, which an organism must be “clever” enough to compute and predict but _flexible_ enough (via the random element) not to enter some infinite loop because it can’t do anything else. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/56 "2005-11-24T18:53:46Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Because the experiments show the “realistic” local hidden variable hypothesis being [violated](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory): the realist curve is **not** observed “Realist” is an arrogant way of saying ‘expected’. This does not lead to _uncertainty as fundamental_. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/57 "2005-11-25T10:33:07Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > “Realist” is an arrogant way of saying ‘expected’. This does not lead to _uncertainty as fundamental_. Well, I can only direct you towards the overwhelming evidence which supports [Heisenberg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)’s **fundamental** principle, and assure you that I’d be the loudest applauder at the Nobel award ceremony which recognised your achievement in showing that uncertainty is _not_ so fundamental. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/58 "2005-11-25T21:21:44Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Well, I can only direct you towards the overwhelming evidence which supports [Heisenberg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)’s **fundamental** principle. Again, there’s a difference between a human unable to ever know with certainty and the universe being fundamentally uncertain. If there isn’t, you’ll need to prove that. ---
**Author:** ![contentless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@contentless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/contentless)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/59 "2005-11-26T09:08:51Z")
> [@Sophistry and Illusion](#): > > If you are going to insist on asserting “P and not P,” you will have to understand that people round here aren’t going to line up to congratulate you on the cogency of your reasoning. Pretty please, in the future, stop trying to say vague, muddled things in order to sound important; I get enough of this from my freshman philosophy students. Ok, sorry. ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/60 "2005-11-26T11:24:40Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Again, there’s a difference between a human unable to ever know with certainty and the universe being fundamentally uncertain. If there isn’t, you’ll need to prove that. Dont think SM needs to prove it. It has already been proved by others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162.md?page=4)