Free Will: You can choose to read this or not
Promoted by Brendan -- philosophical musings for a rainy Wednesday
Does free will exist, or is it merely an illusion? This is a question that has been debated for thousands of years. For most of this time, it was largely a philosophical question, but as human knowledge has advanced, it has become more and more a question of science as well. When Isaac Newton developed his equations that accurately predicted the behavior of physical systems, it seemed that science was heading in the direction of proving that the universe is indeed, completely deterministic. In other words, the current state of the universe leads inevitably to one and only one next state, and so on and so on. Given complete knowledge of the current state of the universe, one could predict the state at any given time on the future.
That works well for simple, macroscopic systems, like a billiard table. Given precise and accurate knowledge of the current positions and velocities of all the balls on the table, along with parameters such as friction coefficients and such, one could quite accurately predict where all the balls will be at any future moment. But what if we add into the picture a conscious, self-aware human being standing next to the table? Given our current level of scientific knowledge, we couldn't predict much. That person could, at any time, snatch up a billiard ball, bump the table, or even spill a pitcher of beer all over it. Our predictive knowledge is lost, and the universe doesn't seem so deterministic anymore.
But wait, what is causing this person to decide to take any of these actions? Is it simply another version of a billiard table, involving molecules, atoms and electron bouncing around inside the brain? If we had complete and accurate knowledge of the current state of that brain, a complete and accurate understanding of the physical laws that govern their motion, and a complete and accurate description of how that motion translated into human action, would we then be able to predict exactly when that person would snatch the eight ball from the table?
It doesn't matter, as far as the question of free will is concerned, that such knowledge is not even close to being achievable. All that matters is that, if human action is the result of purely physical processes (electrons bouncing around in the brain, etc.) which are governed by immutable laws (the future state of the system is absolutely determined by the present state), then free will does not exist.
Personally, I believe that both of those assumptions are wrong. First, that human action is the result of purely physical processes - there is so much that we do not know about how the brain even works. Nor is it by any means a given that "self" or "consciousness" is the same as "the brain". This is a somewhat metaphysical argument - the mind (or spirit, or soul, if you prefer) as a non-physical entity which controls the brain, or the brain as the physical manifestation of such a non-physical entity, or some such. I say "somewhat metaphysical" because these are things that are not yet understood in the realm of pure physics. There may very well be a "physical" explanation of consciousness. There have certainly been some very interesting studies regarding consciousness. One that I find especially fascinating is the Global Consciousness Project .
So, while it is certainly possible that we are nothing but machines made out of meat, I don't see any compelling reason to believe that it is so, especially since common sense and the experience of self-awareness tells me there is more to it than that.
Second, we have the assumption of the immutable laws of nature. Well, fortunately, it is now widely accepted that Newton was wrong. His laws work great for describing planets and billiard balls, but once you get down to the level of electrons, it all falls apart. That's where quantum theory comes in, and it opens up the strong possibility that future events are inherently unpredictable. There may be a time when digging deeper into the quantum universe will result in a theory that is in fact deterministic, but it is also possible that future research will lead to the conclusion that the universe is in fact not deterministic.
One such possibility is the "Many Worlds Interpretation" of quantum theory, in which all possible outcomes of a random quantum event happen, resulting in an ever-branching multiverse. At a macro-level, this would mean that when you come to a fork in the road, in one universe you take a left, and in another you take a right. So how does this apply to free will? If you are actually making every possible choice, than there is no real free will, is there? Well, if you consider the multiple universes to be "real" and persistent than that may be true. But if the multiverses that form tend to be short-lived and collapse back into the "real" universe, then the possibility of true choice exists. You get to decide which path the real universe takes, which path all the other paths collapse into. That is what self-awareness, what consciousness, allows.
Obviously, none of this is proof that free will exists. The question remains unanswered. The above is my opinion only. Make up your own mind - it basically does come down to a personal choice. :)
- Spiritual Lefty's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
And that is that
OK, so this was a bit longer than I had intended! I decided to just post it as is. Perhaps I could have used less of an intro, and concentrated more on my views, which tended to ramble there at the end. But that can get fleshed out in the comments, if anyone brings up thought-provoking points. Maybe the rambling nature of it all will help encourage others to post their own ideas, even if they are not fully formed or even coherent! There's no right answers here, so feel free to write anything that pops into your head!
And yes, Purpleface, I had the Rush song stuck in my head all day!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
As a former (amateur)
As a former (amateur) drummer, I'm a Rush fan, and love that song!
I think we have an abnormal amount
of Rush fans here. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
We must be "new world men"
We must be "new world men" (or possibly just folks seeking the "limelight", but hopefully not "fly by night").
Hey...
There's nothing abnormal about Rush fans.
...except that our IQs are, on average, 20 to 30 points higher than fans of other bands.
;-)
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Really? How do you convert IQ
to inches?
;-)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Prime!
Dude! Do you, like, EVER check your email?
;}
And of course I agree wholeheartedly with your comment.
EDIT: I am so sorry. I figured something was happening. My sincere condolences. We did have this conversation already, though, about just disappearing. I was worried.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Sorry, hon....
.... I honestly did not see the emails... I dont check my hotmail box very often.
You can send to the @comcast.net email address... same userid.
Dean
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
The fact that we have no
The fact that we have no free will in any meaninful sense of the term is so obvious it shouldn’t even be a matter of debate. Every decision we make (and every thought we have and emotion we feel) is a function of interaction between a physical structure (the brain) and external stimuli, and the decision that is made is a direct and unavoidable result of the specific phsyical state of the brain (components, chemical composition, electrical activity, etc.) and the specific external stimuli. And since the physical state of the brain plus external stimuli determines* the decision that is made, we need only trace back in time each decision, and the physical conditions (within and external to the brain) that produced each decision, and it’s quite evident that we had no control at any point. Yes, the phsysical state of my brain and some current external stimuli have been affected by previous decisions I’ve made, but those decisions, in turn were produced by the combination of a prior brain state and external stimuli at those times, and so on, all the way back to the womb. At no point is it possible for control to enter into the picture.
*As a note, it may be that a degree of randomness exists, per quantum physics, but randomness is, by definition, not an argument for free will.
Humans as a massive If-Then program
Except that I can consciously control the physical state of my brain. To which you'd say, my decision to do so is based on the state at that time... to which I'd say, I deliberately generated that state.
Put another way, even if you are correct it's meaningless in any physical context because you can't predict my actions in the immediate future even if you have full knowledge of my brain and full control of external stimuli. You might say this is just due to the inability to control for randomness, but the practical effect seems to me to be essentially the same as granting me at least limited free will.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
How is randomness an
How is randomness an argument that free will exists? I don't see how that makes sense. Aren't they mutually exclusive?
And yes, any decision you make to change the state of your brain was a decision you made based on states (within your brain and external to your brain) that existed immediately prior to that decision (perhaps with a dose of randomness per quantum theory), and so on, back in time all the way to the womb. As I said, free will never enters the picture. How could it?
It's an argument that you can't tell definitively whether you're
observing randomness or free will. Categorizing it as randomness is fine, but the practical consequence is that it's impossible to predict behavior in the same way that it would be [impossible to predict behavior] with free will.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
But you haven't answered my
But you haven't answered my questions. I think you're equating the possible inability to PREDICT (determinism), which could be due to either randomness or free will (if the latter existed), with the possibility of free will. Randomness apparently exists in physics/chemistry (per quantum theory), which means completely reliable prediction may not be possible, even in theory, but you haven't explained how randomness can possibly be an argument for the existence -- or even the possibility of existence -- of free will, and they seem mutually exclusive to me.
So randomness, and a lack of ability to predict reliably, are not arguments for even the possibility of free will. Now, back to my other question, if every decision you make was a product of prior states, perhaps with some randomness, and prior states go back, step-by-step, all the way to when you were just a twinkle in your dad's eye, when and how can free will possibly enter into the picture? At no point have you had control over the states that (again, perhaps with some element of randomness) led to any decision you've made.
It's really that simple. I think the only reasons why this question has been discussed and debated so much for so long is because (1) the lack of free will is so disturbing to contemplate, even more so when one considers the implications for concepts like "guilt", judgments of people and actions as "good" or "evil", punishments people "deserve", etc., and (2) many people believe supernatural forces exist, which provides for both support (albeit completely unsubstantiated) for the existence of free will and a motive for clinging to the belief in free will, and once those beliefs and arguments enter the picture, all bets are off and a rational conversation is just about impossible.
Seems to me like you're assuming the answer a bit
if every decision you make was a product of prior states, perhaps with some randomness, and prior states go back, step-by-step, all the way to when you were just a twinkle in your dad's eye, when and how can free will possibly enter into the picture?
Granted. But it's not clear to me that we can definitely state (based on our observations) that this is in fact what occurs.
I'm not arguing that there has to be free will, just that we can't say there isn't. I took another stab at it below. This isn't really my field, so I'm muddling up the semantics, but hopefully it's more clear what I'm getting at.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Please see my reply to your
Please see my reply to your comment downthread.
Mind control
Well, I'll grant you that everything you have written is a reasonable interpretation of how the mind works, but nothing you have written is actually known to be true.
There is at least some evidence that the human mind can influence random events (the GCP referenced in the diary, also the experiments of Helmut Schmidt
). Now I realize this is "parapsychology" and may not score many points with you, but heck, Carl Sagan was at least willing to accept the possibility 
:
If that is possible, then surely it is possible for one's mind to influence one's brain. So, while I have no problem with you believing that there is no such thing as free will, I wholeheartedly disagree with your notion that it is a done deal and not even worthy of debate.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I'm not familiar with some
I'm not familiar with some of your citations (and I must confess, with apologies, that I haven't checked your links because this is THE one issue on which I feel comfortable being closed-minded -- I don't often say something is "not even worthy of debate"), but a couple of thoughts:
1) If there are supernatural/metaphysical forces at work, all bets are off and no one knows anything on this question or anything else for that matter.
2) I can't PROVE that there are no such forces, but I also have no reason to believe they could exists (I used the analogy downthread that I can't PROVE that my cat isn't secretly Superman, but I have no reason to believe he may be).
3) Remember that randomness is not only not an argument for the existence of free will (or the possibility thereof), but is mutually exclusive with free will.
4) Even IF -- BIG, BIG IF -- "by thought alone humans
can (barely) affect random number generators in computers", I don't see how that is an argument for free will, nor how it would translate into the possibility "for one's mind to influence one's brain". In a thought-computers experiment it is a thought (the result and manifestation of physical/chemical processes) affecting a machine, whereas a mind is a fictitious concept if by "mind" you mean some independent entity, as opposed to the functioning of the brain or some result of that functioning.
Supernatural
Well, I consider supernatural to mean things that are not yet understood or explainable (lightning used to be supernatural, after all), which is why I think all bets are off.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I think your concept of
I think your concept of "supernatural" is mistaken. Lightning was never supernatural, even if some THOUGHT it to be. Phenomena that are not yet understood or explainable with current knowledge are most certainly NOT the same as "supernatural".
Understood
I guess what I am trying to say is that since stuff that was thought to be supernatural before is now explainable, it is possible that stuff that is thought to be supernatural now will be explainable in the future. So, ESP for example, may either not exist at all, or be truly supernatural, or be real and explainable in the future. I tend to lean towards the last possibility. YMMV.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Are you saying that if ESP
Are you saying that if ESP is real it's existence represents free will or supports the possibility that free will exists? (I realize that might not have been your point)
Nope
Just going off on a tangent! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
no problem. Feel free :p
no problem. Feel free :p
Free will - sorry I missed the main discussion
Not too sorry mind you, Honeymoon is better than even philosophy.
The problem is that it is impossible to determine if the state-collapse is caused by randomness or by some exercise of universal 'free will'. Why does the electron go left rather than right at the spliter? It is a non-deterministic, non-repeatable scenario.
So we are left with 3 options (that I'm aware of)
1) Both events occur and the universe splits. There is actually a creepy amount of evidence that supports this. Specifically the instantaneous transmission of (quantum) information.
2) Effect existing without cause. True randomness as opposed to pseudorandomness present in your random number generator algorithm implies that an effect occured without cause. Also a creepy amount of evidence to support quantum effects can predate cause. (Using special relativity, some experimenters were able to make entangled objects collapse in such a fashion that both particles would behave as if the other particle collapsed first. They both 'thought' thier collapse was the effect (this effect without cause is one of the reasons scientists often flee back to conjecture #1 above)
3) Some Variant of Hidden Variable Theory: i.e. Some force outside of the measurable universe is impacting or somehow "choosing" which way the collapse is occuring. In this case, just as a deterministic newtonian model would have the human mind acting as an emergent property of a bunch of brain cells firing, free will would be the emergent property of all them quantum effects 'choosing' left over right. This is pretty funky and hard to support as the human brain is a horrible location for quantum effects. Given the high temperature, I don't believe we have found anything in the physical brain that is small enough to remain in superposition long enough to affect neuron activity, which would be necessary to make the brain a quantum computer. But who knows?
The problem is that it is impossible to experimentally test between these 3 (at least with our current lack of cross dimensional transport (Some of us have such cross dimensional capabilities, but we get locked up in asylums when we talk about about the various alternate realities we visited, so we tend to stay quiet. ;-)
Since it can't be determined, and, as Brendan stated, the human brain demands that we act as if there were free will, my advice is to smile and not and go with it.
Is that why my girlfriend
Is that why my girlfriend stays mad at me every time I do something inconsiderate even after I explain to her that I had no free will? ;-)
I think people (I'm not saying you, but some people) confuse a lack of pure determinism (due to quantum physics) with the presence (or possible presence) of free will. If quantum physics actually means some randomness, then it is not an argument for free will, because randomness and free will are mutually exclusive. If, on the other hand, we are talking about seemingly random occurrences (within particular probabilities or whatever) that aren't really random but are actually caused by some as yet unidentified factor, then we are back to determinism, which again is mutually exclusive with free will (at least with "free will" in any meaningful sense, the sense in which we normally think of it, per the illusion). Other than if there are supernatural forces involved, I see no possible place where any meaningful free will can enter the picture.
Free will equal Supernatural?
Normally, I'd agree it could; however, my understanding is that in this case, we were classifying it anything whose affects are bereft (to some degree) from a cause that resides in the physical, deterministic universe.
If it is not completely and utterly random, one could argue that the particle 'chooses' to collapse one way or the other. Of course, it is going to collapse with a certain statistical liklihood. It can't ALWAYS go right, it has to go right approximately 50% of the time (Quantum Karma perhaps? ;-)
IF there is something outside the current physical state of the universe that impacts quantum collapse of particles (appears highly likely) and IF the aggregation of these collapses are able to impact your behavior (as opposed to being completely dampened out) (Less evidence, but not really disprovable at this point) then just as the brain is made up of a bunch of cells firing synapses together, the mind would be made up of a several orders of magnitutee more particles going through quantum fluctionations. That the "I" in Descarte's "I think, therefore I am" is an emergent property rather than an atomic unit is of interest, but not relevant to the question of whether "I" exist.
(IMO of course)
Determinism is incompatible
Determinism is incompatible with free will in any meaningful sense of the word (i.e., that we really have a choice to decide and act as we do, based on our personality, values, likes/dislikes, yadda, yadda). Randomness, too, is incompatible with free will. Whether particles behave randomly/probabilistically or in a deterministic, cause & effect manner, free will in that (meaningful) sense does not exist.
Agree and disagree, all at once.
You're right in everything you say here, and I'd still argue that you're wrong in terms of the implications: whether free will exists is arbitrary, because we nonetheless act like it does. We have no other choice, whether we like it or not. The system is too complex, and we can't view it objectively from outside: the end result is that can neither know nor control the millions of mechanisms that go into every decision-making process, so we - in essence - have free will.
We have it, even though we don't have it. Does that make sense?
Our conscious mind is not self-conscious. Whatever millions of mechanisms go into my "decision" to hit the post comment button when I finish typing this, I cannot be aware of them. Practically speaking, I am "choosing" to hit that button.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
It sounds to me (if I'm
It sounds to me (if I'm understanding you correctly) like you are simply agreeing, not disagreeing, and pointing out that there is the appearance -- the illusion -- of free will, even though none actually exists. Right?
With one important distinction:
I don't think it's an illusion per se. It's a practical reality. We cannot function as if we don't have free will. Even something as basic as picking up a pencil would be impossible without that "illusory" mechanism - which is why I don't like thinking of it as an illusion, but a practical reality. As far as our actions are concerned, we do have free will.
It's interesting when we watch this play out in everyday interaction and social policy. Consider: what is the justification of penalizing criminals if the objective reality shows that they cannot 'choose' what they do? There's an argument to be made for practicality, but then look what happens when we discuss criminal code re: the mentally insane. The practical justifications for a criminal code usually apply 100% to the mentally insane as well - but legally we make a distinction that they're 'not in control' of their actions. Uh-oh, there goes our argument! (provided, of course, that you feel the mentally insane should be treated differently under law).
So we maintain an 'illusion' of free will (if you prefer), but I'd argue more forcefully that it's no illusion: it is the only reality we can function under.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I totally agree that, for
I totally agree that, for the most part, as a practical matter (and for our emotional well-being), we have to put the truth aside and pretend that free will exists. But that doesn't mean that it really does exist.
Neither the sane nor the insane criminal had free will. Therefore neither one truly "deserves" punishment. We punish the sane one differently for a number of reasons: deterrence, to make us feel better as a society by providing the illusion of "justice" (an illusion only becaue free will is an illusion), etc.
So, bottom line: It is indeed an illusion. It doesn't really exist. But we are better off pretending that it does (or not realizing that it doesn't).
I think this is where we (sorta) disagree:
I'm saying it is cognitively impossible to live as though it doesn't exist - our brains are incapable of it. So for all intents and purposes, it really does exist, if only because of our natural inability to function otherwise. In other words, it's an illusion only if you can get outside your consciousness, which you can't. It may still be an illusion in the hard science sense, but in a way which has no bearing on our choice-making processes or even our perceptual reality. We have no choice but to choose our actions, which are chosen freely even if they aren't (determinate indeterminateness!)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I feel odd insisting to
I feel odd insisting to someone that he/she already agrees with me while he/she is saying otherwise, but I still see pure agreement that free will does not exist, and that it is merely an illusion.
Is there a difference between something not existing "in the hard science sense" and something not existing, period?
I agree that the illusion is there. I agree that it's impractical to live life individually or as a society without assuming (incorrectly) that it exists. That doesn't mean it exists.
Is it "cognitively impossible to live as though it doesn't exist", well if you mean is it impossible to be aware that it doesn't exist, the answer is no, and I'm evidence of that (and perhaps you are, too). If you mean would it suck to live life continuously cognizant that free will is an illusion, you betcha. Again, doesn't make it real.
And if we have no choice but to choose the particular actions we take, we have no free will, by definition (or at least by any meaningful definition).
ok, so you agree with me, damnit : p
That link is freaky
Are they [the Global Consciousness Project] for real? I mean, it looks legit coming from Princeton, I guess, but that's some wild stuff they're exploring. I just skimmed briefly -- how can they control against the tendency to just find a "meaningful" event somewhere in the world whenever the data randomly deviate from the norm?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Global Consciousness Project
Freaky indeed. I just discovered it myself when I was surfing around for ideas for this diary. It appears to be legit. Not sure what kind of controls they have though, as I haven't explored the entire site. I do believe, however, that the events are chosen before the randomness (or lack thereof) of the data is examined.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Imagine a bunch of programs
that have the ability to modify themselves. Their initial structure is randomly determined within a specified framework and it includes a bunch of attributes that control how likely they are to modify themselves and in what fashion, but everything is random rather than deterministic. Interactions with other programs and with the "environment" would be recorded and would not only influence immediate behavior (moderated by their individual structure, of course) but could also trigger self-modification.
They'd mimic free will; they'd act in semi-unpredictable fashion, change based on experience, have unique "personalities" and characteristics. But they wouldn't be "deciding" how to act.
Now imagine that each program is controlled by someone who really does have free will (that is, drop your argument for a moment that people don't have free will for the purpose of this thought experiment). This controller can modify the program and it's not random, it's based on the desires and conscious decisions of the controller.
How would someone observing the programs interact be able to tell the difference?
Is it possible that we each have "controllers" (our minds) that are distinct from our physical structure (brains) and that they possess free will that we then express?
Impossible to tell, I would say. And yes, it's a messy metaphysical argument that assumes we can't see the whole picture, just like someone watching the programs interact can't see the controllers (if there are any). But we can't really ever definitely say that we see the whole picture...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The key there, as you've
The key there, as you've acknowledged, is that yours is a metaphysical argument (which, by the way, shouldn't be equated with not "seeing the whole picture", since there obviously can be phsyical phenomena that we don't see, but that doesn't mean that metaphysical forces are at play).
If you accept my premise (and it appears you do not) that our decisions (actually broadly-defined to include all brain functions/activity) result from physical/chemical processes, and that those processes are the result of prior states (again, probably with some randomness), then you are inescapably led back in time, prior state to prior state, to the beginning of your existence, and it becomes clear that free will simply has no chance to enter the picture.
If you reject that premise, we are getting into metaphysics, the supernatural, whatever, and as I said, that's kind of a conversation stopper. And I see no reason to make any such assumptions regarding the possibility of such metaphysical/supernatural forces. Sure, I can't PROVE that they don't exist, just like I can't prove that my cat is not secretly Superman, but I have no reason to go there.
Fair enough
I enjoyed the discussion... hopefully other people will chime in later, I know we have some philosophy types lurking around.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
We'll see if they do. It's
We'll see if they do. It's out of our hands...and theirs.
Oh no it's not...
it's.....D'oh!
Augustine would be proud
This is the 21st century version of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".
Ah well. Can't resist any diary referencing Rush. Here goes nothin' ;}
Even knowing all the physicality behind all biological processes, does that knowledge really preclude the idea of freewill? I don't think so. We are biological beings in constant interaction with others.
At the most basic of the physical states, the Heisenberg principle applies. Waves and particles exist simultaneously. The act of measurement, which one might loosely extrapolate as the equivalent to a (presumably freewill) reaction to an external environmental factor, forces a particle to choose a state. Freewill, then, in a physical sense (if one must define it in those terms), is the act of choosing a state in response to an external measurement.
I'd rather not define it like that. It's a weak definition and not very meaningful. The idea of freewill is much more useful when describing the human condition, not its underlying biology. It's kind of like love or sex: who wants to think of those feelings as being simple products of cascading chemical reactions? Takes all the fun out of it.
I don't generally think this deep; philosophy is not my strong suit. But I can borrow some lyrics. . . .
energy is contagious
enthusiasm spreads
tides respond to lunar gravitation
everything turns in synchronous relation
laughter is infectious
excitement goes to my head
winds are stirred by planets in rotation
sparks ignite and spread new information
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Whoa...
...the subject is "Free Will"... which leads one to an obvious Rush song ("Free Will") with lyrics apt to the discussion......
... and you pull a fast one and quote a different Rush song... "Chain Lightning"
You never cease to amaze... ;-)
ps.
By the way... sorry for my absence. My mother-in-law died a few weeks ago and my wife is an only child, so there has been way too much to do and I haven't had time to be online.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
I'm new here so you don't
I'm new here so you don't know me (even in a blogging sense), but sorry for your loss.
As for the wild liberties taken in quoting Rush lyrics, well that just "shatters the illusion of integrity."
Well, these days
I've been radiating more heat than light. . . .and philosophy is not my best topic. Pico said what I wanted to say in much more effective language.
I did consider an entire response of assorted applicable Rush lyrics, but I like too many of the folks here to cause such pain.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I've heard that Neil Peart
I've heard that Neil Peart writes the lyrics. True? If so, he's doubly (amazingly) talented.
He does
and is one of the best rock drummers around.
He's a poet, actually, working within the restrictive structure of a rock song. And as he's gotten older and gone through his tragedies (unexpected loss of both wife and daughter), his work has gotten more complex and layered. But he's not lost that optimism that keeps Rush from being just another flavor of modern angst.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
He's my favorite rock
He's my favorite rock drummer. I play drums (as an amateur, and very rarely over the past decade plus) and I've always loved Peart.
Another guy who's great is whoever is the drummer for King Crimson in 21st Century Schizoid Man. Holy Schmoly!
King Crimson, 21st Century
King Crimson, 21st Century Schizoid Man. This guy is one hell of a drummer. Great overall tune, too (unless ya' hate it, and I could see some people hating it...dumb, evil, worthless people, but nevertheless).
Michael Giles
According to Wikipedia.
Drummers. Guitar players. Man, I am in heaven ;}
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Sorry to hear that (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
sorry to hear that bud :(
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Prime
See my response upthread.
My heart goes out to you. . . .
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Parallel, branching Universes are not transient...
I would say Parallel Universes are almost a certainty and that the Everett Interpretation(Many Worlds) is the correct interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Only MWI preserves realism and locality, the only one where the Wave Function has an observer-independent objective existence. Most theoretical physicists today ascribe to the MWI interpretation.
As far as free will is concerned, i cut away all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo baggage and adhere to a rather staright forward definition that defines such as simply the ability to reliably predict the consequences of one's actions or decisions.
Even in the traditional understanding of quantum mechanics, where an obervable is a random variable, certain outcomes are far more likely than others. In our universe, where matter is relatively stable and predictable(which is not the case in other universes), I think the notion of free will is preserved. Indeed, it is this reliability in the first place that even gives rise to this notion of "free will." And this is where the Anthropic Principle kicks in, that our universe is as it is because it has to be in order for us to exist. In light of M-Theory, the Anthropic Principle--once a minority view among physicists--has now become a majority view.
One thing to point out, in the MWI interpretation, Quantum Mechanics is quite deterministic. That is there is a Universal Wave Function that contains all possible outcomes/embedded worlds of a measurement or interaction, but each observer, split by each observation, is only aware of single outcomes due to the linearity of the wave equation. However, since the Universal Wave Function objectively exists, it is still an open question in physics if it is possible for the Universal Wave Function to be knowable, that is to make inferences about all the embedded worlds.
If I'm understanding you
If I'm understanding you correctly, that's the first time I've seen predictability used as an argument for the existence of free will. I don't get it.
Predictability of Measurement and Outcomes...
is essential to any notion of free will and the ability to make moral judgements. There is no free will in an insane world(doing the same over and over again and getting different results).
The types of arguments you are making are boiling down to the role of gentics and environment on the neural physiology of the brain, which are valid considerations, but nevertheless taking the matter down to a couple of notches below the more general philosophical question in terms of objective physical reality. I'm not going to dispute that there is variation in the "neurological wiring" of people's brains, but that doesn' prevent one from predicting the consequences of one's actions, even if a given person is predisposed toward making bad decisons in certain areas.
Transient Universes
I thought this was how quantum computers are supposed to theoretically work? A bunch of universes split off and then reconverge with the results of the problem that was input. If there is no reconvergence, how do we ever get a result? Am I wrong?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No, there is no collapse or convergence in MWI
of universes or of the Wavefunction. In MWI, measurement is interpreted as Quantum decoherence, not Wave Function Collapse. The solution of a quauntum computation is obtained by looking at the interference of the results.
I live in a "transient
I live in a "transient universe". It's called Manhattan.
My conclusion: While free
My conclusion: While free will does not exist, inexpensive will does...at www.LegalZoom.com