Question for any science/physicists here.

[Hir]

This is relevant to this forum, so please, bare with me.

La Place's demon.

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."

—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities

**********************************************************

This argument has been extended and refined by many schools of thought over the years, in Philosophy, Sociology, Physics. The newer form of this idea goes something like this.

Imagine we had some super computer, Douglas Adam's Deep Though perhaps, that could plot every single particle in the know universe. The machine knows all of the physics of the interactions of ALL of these particles. So this machine can calculate the future because each and every particle is known and their condition, so the rules and laws of physics allow us to calculate what the next moment will be.

(This is essential Determinism and is the position that Richard Dawkins would occupy.)

A newer addition/extension to the above, which is a modern interpretation of La Place's Demon, is used to show there is no freewill. With this huge mammoth computer imagine all of these particles rewound to the start of the universe and then released from their same starting points, with the same forces, then every single step of creation would unfold identically. Every mote of dust and wisp of smoke the same. It is an illusion that we have freewill, we would all do the same things, identically, because we are just complex organic machines but non the less still organized by the same laws of physics that rules everything else.

*************************************************************************

Right, sorry about all that! Here is my question.

Some people arguing against Determinism, that, if correct, shows we have no freewill, will use Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The argument being that some Quantum Mechanics is an expression of probability rather than certainty. We cannot know the state of all things, there is uncertainty and therefore a possibility of freewill.

But just because we can't measure with certainty the velocity and position of a subatomic particle at anyone time and have to express the answer as partly a probability does this mean the subatomic particle does know it's two vectors. There is the assumption that because WE cannot measure precisely that there is no ultimate precision. Which I personally want to believe, it means I might have genuine freewill.

But is this true.

Going back to Laplace's Demon. We couldn't run this machine because we, with our techniques, can't measure all of the parameters of a system at anyone moment. But just because we can't measure the system does that mean we are uncertain or that the system has probability. This I am finding very difficult to word correctly. In Laplace's Demon would it unwind the same would these particles that we cannot define exactly behave the same and the uncertainty is ours NOT the systems.

I need to lie down, shit, I am lying down.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Hir

[nop]

If we rewind the universe back to its starting point(if it has one), and let it play out to this current moment again...

I seriously doubt I would be replying to your post(again), and the internet would exist and dave cameron would still be pm ..and the rest of the world would be exactly the same( as it was before the rewind ) in every detail

there are too many randoms in the mix & over a time scale we cant even comprehend properly

not sure how any of this relates to free will though ..I've never understood that argument

Edited September 1, 2012 by nop

[Hir]

If we rewind the universe back to its starting point(if it has one), and let it play out to this current moment again...

I seriously doubt I would be replying to your post(again), and the internet would exist and dave cameron would still be pm ..and the rest of the world would be exactly the same( as it was before the rewind ) in every detail

there are too many randoms in the mix over a time scale we cant even comprehend properly

not sure how any of this relates to free will though ..I've never understood that argument

Where are these "too many randoms", that's the point. Physicists and Determinists say there is no randomness. A particle does not decide to react to another particle one day this way and the next day another way.

[ratdog]

Have you watched Adam Curtis`s series ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE, sorry about the caps, c&p, it talks about the free will bit quite well, i don`t believe in free will personally, but i don`t think i could argue my point very well atm

[Hir]

Have you watched Adam Curtis`s series ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE, sorry about the caps, c&p, it talks about the free will bit quite well, i don`t believe in free will personally, but i don`t think i could argue my point very well atm

Thanks for that, found a link here. Will give it a watch.

[Boojum]

I don't think the idea of a deterministic physical universe (physical as in pertaining to the laws of physics) necessarily means that there is no such thing as free will. I do think that in terms of the laws of physics the universe possibly is deterministic and that if it were rewound back to the beginning it would all happen exactly the same again (and so be predictable to an entity or machine with enough processing power) - right up until the emergence of sentient life. And then I think we step out of the realm of simple determinism and free will comes in to it. Sentient beings are something more than merely biological machines, in my opinion.

Edited to change probably to possibly.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Boojum

[Hir]

And then I think we step out of the realm of simple determinism and free will comes in to it. Sentient beings are something more than merely biological machines, in my opinion.

I really want to believe this is true, if there is a metaphysical component to existence, if we have a soul, if everything is greater than the sum of it's parts. Determinism scares me, I want to have freewill!

[nop]

Where are these "too many randoms", that's the point. Physicists and Determinists say there is no randomness. A particle does not decide to react to another particle one day this way and the next day another way.

I don't see how they can be so sure, seeing as particle physics is pretty much in its infancy ..currently I would say we have more questions than answers

its what happens when trillions of particles are joined together to form something sophisticated like a human being ...things then get way less predictable

we share an identical environment with million of other species but we are the only one to have almost completely transcended our evolution ..we can fly ..live and breathe underwater ..visit other planets ..even physically see beyond the solar system

I would go even further and say without randomness there would be no Evolution

[Boojum]

I really want to believe this is true, if there is a metaphysical component to existence, if we have a soul, if everything is greater than the sum of it's parts. Determinism scares me, I want to have freewill!

Aye, me too. Dunno if I'd even go so far as the soul or owt like that, not being much of a spiritual sort, I just think that like you say we are greater than the sum of our parts. I don't believe (nor want to believe) that every decision I have made and will make is simply a result of my DNA and the proteins that make up my brain, that they were never really decisions because it was always hard coded into me which way I'd go. To me that's the worst thing imaginable

E2A A deterministic view of sentient life is worse than hell to me. It makes a lie of the very idea of sentience.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Boojum

[Hir]

Strawberry, your reading this, do you know if Physics says we are uncertain or that the system is uncertain. Or don't we know the answer to that question!

[nop]

Where are these "too many randoms", that's the point.

let me try to answer this again with another example

when the Atari ST computer came out, all around the edge of the screen there was a permanent thick border that could not be used, meaning all graphics were contained inside but not on this border, there was no mechanism within the machine that could write graphics to the edge of the screen( the border ) ..as confirmed in the manual

now this computer is a self-contained system with strictly controlled and limited inputs and uses a finite amount controls/code ..so you might think this border was mandatory ..as it was designed this way

because this border took up so much of the screen it was bit of pain in the arse, ...enter some random hacker who discovered that if you swapped the screen resolution really quickly between 50-60hz the top and bottom part of the border disappeared and there wasn't any flicker because the switching was happening faster than the eye can see ...not only that but you could now write graphics into this area where before you couldn't ...a year later some other hackers discovered how to remove the border from the left and right side of the screen ..so now the whole screen was free to use ..I don't remember how they did this, I only remember it was way more complex than the 50-60hz switching

the point being even in a small, simple, completely man-made technologically abstract system there are elements of randomness and unpredictability ..that even the designer cannot predict

Edited September 1, 2012 by nop

[Hir]

nop, these things you mention aren't examples of randomness. It wasn't that there was a 95% chance the border could be removed, there was a process which was discovered. That isn't randomness.

(It was 100%, else it would work sometimes and not another,)

Edited September 1, 2012 by Hir

[nop]

nop, these things you mention aren't examples of randomness. It wasn't that there was a 95% chance the border could be removed, there was a process which was discovered. That isn't randomness.

the discovery was random ...probably a typo or wrong code caused the border to disappear and someone thought hmmn

I'm not sure where the 95% comes in

Edited September 1, 2012 by nop

[strawberry]

Strawberry, your reading this, do you know if Physics says we are uncertain or that the system is uncertain. Or don't we know the answer to that question!

I'm just wrapping up some work Hir. Give me some time to finish, skin up and I'll try to find the words....

[tico cervantes]

When talking purely about the particle world then yes it's all pre determined as to were it will all end up but that's just the particles that make up the majority of the universe. The particles of you and me have no free will of thier own but they are guided by us and we are random.

I may chose to go to work by the same route every day but one, and on that day free will has stepped in. The particles that make up the atoms of a car have no free will so will stay exactly were they are until other particles come along and move them or I chose to. If an object is not scentient then it can have no free will but a living being is scentient as it has an awareness of it's free will. Once self awareness comes into play then by default free will becomes a reality as they are one and the same.

Reality is our brains interpretation of external stimulus through the scenses. That means life is what you persieve it to be.

So Hir you can chose to believe in free will or can chose to not believe in it. That's free will for you.

Cheers tico.