Free will = randomness?

[Filip Sandor]

The debate over free will has pervaded many cultures since the dawn of human intelligence and philosophical thinking, but have we really figured anything out in all these years of investigatingthe subject? One might wonder, even if only briefly, why the question of free is still being raised in so many circles of philosophical debate by non-religious people. It's pretty clear where someone religious people might get there idea of free will from and the fact that their faith in it makes believing in free will very straight forward and easy, but what about the rest of us? What about physicists who's lives are devoted to studying the vast dynamics of order that govern the Universe? Why do even many physicists doubt determinism?

One thing is for sure, randomness is a weird thing, but does it actually exist?

Is it possible for randomness and orderliness to co-exist in a relative balance??

Is such a varying degree of "freedom or randomness vs. orderliness" observable in physics as it is in our daily choices?

I think it's normal to assume that all our choices are directed by more subtle forces (ie. our subconscious, which is determined by the ordered physics in our brain, etc.), but why do we feel at times as though we have more freedom of choice than others, if there is no 'freedom' of choice? For example, If take off my shoes on a hot day and start walking barefoot on the pavement in the city I'm quickly forced to jump onto the grass next to the pavement or put my shoes back on (if there's no grass there!), but if I summon my 'will' I can continue barefoot until my feet either get used to the pain or the pain is unbareable, at which point it wouldn't make sense any more to keep my shoes and keep walking on the pavement.

Compare the above situation to a cooler day that's slightly overcast where the pavement is only slightly warm and I can wear my shoes or take them off at my own 'will' with relatively no sensory 'pressure' to put them on. The example is very simple, but it illustrates the difference between being forced to do something and having more 'freedom' in a different circumstance.

I find this interesting... and I think it is the answer, at least in part, to why we raise the question. What are you thoughts?

 

[phildonnia]

An analogy may help to imagine a coexistence of randomness and orderliness as follows:

The movements of the molecules of a gas are, for all practical purposes random, in the sense that we cannot hope to know the precise speed and position of every one. Yet in the aggregate, the sum effect of their behavior produces effects which are highly predictable: Pressure, temperature, etc. are related by fairly simple mathematical relationships.

This analogy is not completely accurate; the motions of molecules are not really random, but can be fairly well described by the laws of mechanics. However it is currently believed that at its most fundamental levels, nature is random, but at large scales it averages out to something approximating the determinism of classical mechanics.

Some posters on these boards have hypothesized that "free will" derives from this random quantum physical level, however there is nothing currently known in the workings of the human brain that cannot be explained in terms of classical physics.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Some posters on these boards have hypothesized that "free will" derives from this random quantum physical level, however there is nothing currently known in the workings of the human brain that cannot be explained in terms of classical physics.

Apparently the physics of the mind are affected at the quantum mechanical level through certain cells called microtubules. I don't know much about this, but it might suggest that so called 'randomness' may actually be more pre-dominant in the brain than we suspect.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Is it possible for randomness and orderliness to co-exist in a relative balance??

I don't see much of a difference between randomness and orderliness, because to me randomness doesn't mean haphazard, but implies order, an overall order.

For example: http://www.rand.org/methodology/stat/applets/clt.html

There is both randomness (can't predict with 100% certainty where each individual ball will go) and orderliness (the randomness has a distribution, ie. structure, in this case a bell-curve).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Filip said:
Apparently the physics of the mind are affected at the quantum mechanical level through certain cells called microtubules. I don't know much about this, but it might suggest that so called 'randomness' may actually be more pre-dominant in the brain than we suspect.

I believe that is only a hypothesis at this point.

~~ Paul

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor

Apparently the physics of the mind are affected at the quantum mechanical level through certain cells called microtubules. I don't know much about this, but it might suggest that so called 'randomness' may actually be more pre-dominant in the brain than we suspect

Let's suppose for the moment that that's true. How does it make our wills any more free?

 

[Gestahl]

Let's suppose for the moment that that's true. How does it make our wills any more free?

While it may not make our "wills any more free", I want some true randomness involved, if only for purely emotional reasons of not being a strict automaton. However, what I want and what is are two different things...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I would be quite surprised if there isn't some randomness in brain function, quantum mechanical or otherwise.

~~ Paul

 

[jan]

Apparently the physics of the mind are affected at the quantum mechanical level through certain cells called microtubules.

I don't know anything about the Matti-Pitkänen-theory of microtubules, but it is obviously based on the ideas of Hameroff&Penrose, which are thoroughly critisized in this article: Gaps in Penrose's Toilings.

I would say the Hameroff/Penrose-theory is at least very, very hypothetical.

 

[phildonnia]

Let's suppose for the moment that that's true. How does it make our wills any more free?

It doesn't; it only allows that free will may exist at all.

Free will is essentially incompatible with determinism. The existence of non-determinism at least makes free will a possibility.

 

[phildonnia]

I would be quite surprised if there isn't some randomness in brain function, quantum mechanical or otherwise.

~~ Paul

Current physical theories do not admit any "randomness" in nature other than the quantum-mechanical variety. It is important not to confuse "intractable complexity" with "randomness":

For example, consider a flipping coin, whose outcome is widely believed to be random. It has the appearance of randomness only because the initial conditions of finger muscles, air molecules, etc. are too complex to be analyzed by current techniques. However, the flipping coin is understood to be governed entirely by deterministic laws (to the extent that no half-dead cats are involved).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I was thinking of randomness relative to the brain itself. For example, the incidence of photons on the brain is random relative to the brain. But I was being sloppy.

Isn't Brownian motion random? Is it quantum mechanical?

~~ Paul

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by phildonnia

Free will is essentially incompatible with determinism. The existence of non-determinism at least makes free will a possibility

I still don't see how it does that. If free will itself is postulated as something not subject to deterministic laws, how is it made any more powerful by allowing it to be subject to randomness? If it is postulated that free will is something not caused (either deterministically or randomly), why should it need randomness to implement its effects, and how would randomness help?

 

[jan]

If it is postulated that free will is something not caused (either deterministically or randomly), why should it need randomness to implement its effects, and how would randomness help?

I suspect (but could be wrong) the basic idea, at least behind Penrose's theory, is this: what we consider to be quantum mechanical randomness is in fact just some kind of portal to some kind of transcendental woo-woo land.

The only two possibilities I can think of are either determinism or randomness. Could be, of course, my limited imagination. But perhaps the hope is that this dilemma determinism/randomness doesn't hold in the transcendental woo-woo land, and that it's possible for the immortal soul to communicate with the brain via those microtubules, by somehow affecting the outcome of quantum encounters, without being forced to create miracles at odds with the laws of physics.

That doesn't apply, of course, to those people like Gestahl who, for whatever reason, prefer randomness to determinism.

 

[Filip Sandor]

It seems no form of physics explains our apparent ability to have varrying degrees of control over different situations..

 

[jan]

It's a pity you just nuked your rather long post by re-editing it to a single sentence - the first version raised some interesting points. Now it's just a very tame claim.

 

[Filip Sandor]

It's a pity you just nuked your rather long post by re-editing it to a single sentence - the first version raised some interesting points. Now it's just a very tame claim.

Jan,

I like to get answers to things, but my long post didn't lead to any concrete answers.

Regarding my long post, even "circular physics" would be a good basis for understanding nature, but as soon as you bring the human element into play you either have to discard all purpose in life to mathematical calculations or you have to treat the human experience as something non-physical at some level, which is most people here don't like.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Jan said:
The only two possibilities I can think of are either determinism or randomness. Could be, of course, my limited imagination. But perhaps the hope is that this dilemma determinism/randomness doesn't hold in the transcendental woo-woo land, and that it's possible for the immortal soul to communicate with the brain via those microtubules, by somehow affecting the outcome of quantum encounters, without being forced to create miracles at odds with the laws of physics.

Now this is an interesting idea. Is it possible that there could be an unobservable nexus between the supernatural and the natural by means of subtle skewing of quantum mechanical probabilities? Is this the trapdoor that lets in the supernatural, yet keeps it hidden from us?

Edited to add: Of course, that makes the supernatural natural, because we do observe the resulting effects on the macroscopic level. However, it could hide all the interesting workings of that corner of the (super)natural under a veil of apparent randomness.


~~ Paul

 

[c4ts]

What is randomness anyway?

 

[Filip Sandor]

Now this is an interesting idea. Is it possible that there could be an unobservable nexus between the supernatural and the natural by means of subtle skewing of quantum mechanical probabilities? Is this the trapdoor that lets in the supernatural, yet keeps it hidden from us?

~~ Paul

Paul,

In order not to lose yourself in 'woo-woo land' as Jan puts it, just consider that we are simply limited in our choices, by the fact that order does exist as well as the randomness that allows for choice. This is my view on the matter.

Simply put, things can only be the way they are as a consequence of order and the choices we make, but that does not limit possible future outcomes of anything. If there is a Soul, then maybe this would make more sense than boogie monsters and things that contradict "physical laws".