Free Will and Quantum Indeterminacy

For Robert Kane's take on this skip to frame 38:00 of this video:

http://vimeo.com/10010835

It's really worth watching the whole thing if you have the time.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• free
• will
• robert
• kane
• quantum

[fresheyeball]

Check out the Google Tech Talk on Quantum Computing. You do need a basic understanding of Quantum mechanics before diving in. Watch from start to finish, the last video contains information you are looking for.

[2bsirius]

@fresheyeball

I have checked out quantum computing. I've researched a lot of the implications of it...It is NOT a reality yet, of course and there are a lot of reasons for that...Not the least being some of the drawbacks of stability in parallel computing when applied to the quantum.

I don' know if I've watched the exact Google Tech talk you're referring to...I'll try a search under the key words you mention, but it would help us all if you could just post a link to the video here "/watch..."

[HedgehogRebellion]

why are we still talking about Free Will? We know our decisions reflect our genetically endowed instincts. You dont need a degree in Physics to disproe Free WIll, only a Degree in Neuropsychology and a minor in Philosophy.

[Hanahleia]

You should read up on Michael Hoffman's ego death theory which he expounds at his website EgoDeath(dot)com. It concerns the issue of free will vs. determinism. You know, it's the insight of Hinduism that there is no self or no doer. This idea is referred to as nondoership or akarma. Fatalism is condtradictorily viewed as a liberation in eastern philosophies and religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

[Israe5l]

I seem to have a basic disagreement with empirical science. Tho, I think only a philosopher will agree with me, there is something very bothersome about empirical science and its subject/object divide of theory. For example speed of light is c. But there is no reason why this constant will be absolute. We have an observer looking at the light c. But it soon turns out that if you don't believe in the division of subject/object then the light c doesn't seem all that set in stone.

[neoaeonian]

@Israe5l The speed of electricity is light speed, but electrons are much slower than that, as they have mass. The speed of light in a vacuum (C) is constant, but going through mediums (water, air) it slows down, slightly. Some quantum experiments have produced faster speed over short distance.. However, astronical results, and the results of nuclear decays indicate that the speed of light has not varied noticeably since the big bang. Brain function has no known relationship to C.

[Israe5l]

@neoaeonian So the speed of electrons can be light speed at least in the vacume. And 300 mph is only an empirical measurement. Can change. I am ocupied now is to what are constants? Speed of light? Which is a little bit different from the speed of electrons. Its a theoretical constant. But perhaps light speed can change. Then along with that alot of things will change. Brain function is one.

[IridescentEye]

How can you possibly get a link between quantum Indeterminacy (quantum level) and the workings of the human mind (biochemical level), umless you have a unifying theory (the holy grail)?

But yes, a most important question ... the most important question! Do we think and therefore we are or are there thoughts with no thinker. I'd love to know the answer to that one ...... or am I just a running program that exhibits the desire to know the answer with no "real" desire at all?

[Israe5l]

@neoaeonian very cool

[neoaeonian]

@Israe5l OK, I follow.

I'm a hardcore science believer, so I disagree, but I follow what you were saying now.

I agree that there is skepticism that the Copenhagen interpretation is the right one. But there are at least 7 other interpretations that would match the experimental data. I prefer many-worlds.

If you're skeptical of Copenhagen, you're in good company. If you're skeptical of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, then you're in a small group, with no experimental confirmation.

[Israe5l]

@neoaeonian Correction. A "is as tentative as" B. Just means that A "is as likely as" B...

[Israe5l]

@neoaeonian A "tentative as" B. Just means that A "is likely as" B. So if you are a hard-core science believer the two A and B are very likely. But to me there is an equal bit of a skepticism with both Quantum Mechanics and Set Theory.