# 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:** 4
**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 26, 2005, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/61 "2005-11-26T11:30:35Z")
> [@antechinus](#): > > Dont think SM needs to prove it. It has already been proved by others. Cite? ---
**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, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/62 "2005-11-26T11:48:07Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Cite? [Cite.](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0105061) ---
**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 26, 2005, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/63 "2005-11-26T11:54:07Z")
> [@antechinus](#): > > [Cite.](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0105061) Huh? That doesn’t answer the ontological vs. epistemological debate. ---
**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, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/64 "2005-11-26T12:26:00Z")
Free will certainly does not exist. ---
**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 27, 2005, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/65 "2005-11-27T09:11:27Z")
> [@contentless](#): > > Free will certainly does not exist. That seems to be the consensus around here (although I argued on the previous page that even a community which denies free will will have to have some concept sufficiently analogous to free will that you might as well call it that. \*\*SentientMeat \*\* seemed to be the only person particularly sympathetic to that line of reasoning, though). ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/66 "2005-11-27T09:35:15Z")
> [@Sophistry and Illusion](#): > > That seems to be the consensus around here (although I argued on the previous page that even a community which denies free will will have to have some concept sufficiently analogous to free will that you might as well call it that. \*\*SentientMeat \*\* seemed to be the only person particularly sympathetic to that line of reasoning, though). Well, I said : > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Now my personal belief is, there is no free will; it’s a useful illusion. We believe in free will because it’s so hard to function believing otherwise. IMHO, we are simply ignorant of most of our thought processes, and call the resulting blindness to our own motives/reasoning “free will”. > > Mind you, while I don’t believe in it, I talk and act like I do all the time; anything else is far too awkward. Short of somehow achieving total self awareness I think we’re stuck with _treating_ free will as if it’s real, whether or not it _is_ real. That sounds fairly close to what you said. ---
**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 27, 2005, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/67 "2005-11-27T09:55:33Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > We believe in free will because it’s so hard to function believing otherwise If we don’t indeed have free will, then we aren’t “functioning” at all, just appearing to. There’s no ‘agency’ in our hands to be hampered by the lack of illusion. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/68 "2005-11-27T09:58:51Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > If we don’t indeed have free will, then we aren’t “functioning” at all, just appearing to. There’s no ‘agency’ in our hands to be hampered by the lack of illusion. Lack of free means lack of free will; it doesn’t mean we don’t exist. We most certainly “function”; we walk, we talk, we build things and argue about free will on the internet. ---
**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 27, 2005, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/69 "2005-11-27T11:08:04Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Lack of free means lack of free will; it doesn’t mean we don’t exist. We most certainly “function”; we walk, we talk, we build things and argue about free will on the internet. Reread my post again. I haven’t claimed we don’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/70 "2005-11-28T14:19:09Z")
> [@Gyan](#): > > 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. If I may ask, what is _your_ understanding of what the EPR experiments involving Bell’s Inequality shows us? The physicist’s consensus is that they clearly demonstrate that it is **not** just a deficiency in “human knowledge” (_ie._ that the variables are somehow _hidden_ from us) but that the [uncertainty](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/) is as fundamental as anything _can_ be. Or, even more simply, how do you **explain** the results of the [two slit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment) experiment? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/71 "2005-11-28T14:34:34Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Short of somehow achieving total self awareness I think we’re stuck with _treating_ free will as if it’s real, whether or not it _is_ real. We really do make choices, they really do have consequences. There’s no need to swallow any metaphysical nonsense in order to live life. ---
**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 28, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/72 "2005-11-28T19:25:57Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > The physicist’s consensus is that they clearly demonstrate that it is **not** just a deficiency in “human knowledge” (_ie._ that the variables are somehow _hidden_ from us) but that the [uncertainty](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/) is as fundamental as anything _can_ be. My question to you, is how would one ever ascertain that the uncertainty is fundamental to the universe? We understand the universe solely through the knowledge we acquire. And I thought only local hidden variables were ruled out. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/73 "2005-11-29T09:53:00Z")
[quote=Gyan] My question to you, is how would one ever ascertain that the uncertainty is fundamental to the universe?[/qupte]Whoa - I asked you **first**. How does one ascertain that _anything_ is “fundamental”, if EPR is not one such example? > [@](#): > > We understand the universe solely through the knowledge we acquire. And I thought only local hidden variables were ruled out. Well, what is the _difference_, in your opinion, between a **non-local** universe and one in which uncertainty was as fundamental as something could be? ---
**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 29, 2005, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/74 "2005-11-29T10:22:13Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > How does one ascertain that _anything_ is “fundamental”, if EPR is not one such example? Good question. How does one? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/75 "2005-11-29T11:22:00Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Good question. How does one? I asked you **first**. What do the EPR experiments show **if not** that uncertainty is **as** fundamental **as** anything _can be_? ---
**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 29, 2005, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/76 "2005-11-29T23:05:40Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > What do the EPR experiments show **if not** that uncertainty is **as** fundamental **as** anything _can be_? They show a counterintuitive result & which our reasoning within a ‘realist’/local framework, leads to contradictions. The only fundamental thing I can say is I am conscious. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/77 "2005-11-30T13:01:11Z")
> [@Gyan](#): > > They show a counterintuitive result & which our reasoning within a ‘realist’/local framework, leads to contradictions. The counterintuitive result being that uncertainty is not merely a temporary deficiency in human knowledge (_ie._ in which variables are _hidden_), but that uncertainty is … ? ---
**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 30, 2005, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/78 "2005-11-30T13:42:49Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > The counterintuitive result being that uncertainty is not merely a temporary deficiency in human knowledge (_ie._ in which variables are _hidden_), but that uncertainty is … ? fundamental. But you have consistently missed the point. Fundamental to what: 1)human’s ability to achieve knowledge, only? 2)nature of the universe? A simple thought experiment that appropriates Einstein’s sentiment: You & I, seated opposite to each other, are playing some dice-based game. I interrupt our game & pick up a (regular) dice and palm it, so that I’m hiding its view from you. I juggle it a bit, and then ask you to tell me which face is on top, then _immediately_ juggle it again. You can NEVER know which face was on top. You can’t rely on my answers; I might be lying. As is recently publicized in political rhetoric, torture might not work either. But could you conclude that the uncertainty is fundamental to Being? Was no face on top? Were all six faces on top??? Assume I wasn’t looking at the dice. So how does EPR prove that uncertainty is fundamental to the universe rather than a _fundamental limit_ to our knowledge of it? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/79 "2005-11-30T14:30:52Z")
> [@Gyan](#): > > Assume I wasn’t looking at the dice. So how does EPR prove that uncertainty is fundamental to the universe rather than a _fundamental limit_ to our knowledge of it? The consensus of physicists is the former rather than the latter: that the dice is _uncertain_ when you do not look at it. The point of the EPR experiment is that the universe is wise to the tricks you might employ to sneak some kind of peek at the dice face - if it were merely a limit to human knowledge, then such a limit could not act **retroactivley** as it clearly does in the experiment (imagine the detectors being light years apart and the choice of measurement axis being made _while the particles were in mid flight!_). ---
**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 30, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/80 "2005-11-30T15:19:48Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > if it were merely a limit to human knowledge, then such a limit could not act **retroactivley** And human knowledge is certain on this inference? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162.md?page=5)