Free Will? Quantum Mechanics Clarified (Part 2)

Quantum mechanics is not inherently indeterministic, but not even the Copenhagen interpretation suggests that we have free will.

Philosophy of QM:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/

Non-locality and action at a distance:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-action-distance/#ActDis

Thomas Kuhn:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

Copenhagen interpretation:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

Instrumentalism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/#3

Bohmian Mechanics (my favorite interpretation of QM):
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

(P.S. No matter what the mentioned-in-video author says, the universe itself is not a creative decision-maker!)

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• philosophy
• elimisteve
• qm
• quantum
• quantummechanics
• freewill

[ourben]

Non-locality has never been proven.

[elimisteve]

Non-locality is basically the only thing we can be certain of. Google for the experiments performed by Aspect that violate Bell's Inequality, thereby demonstrating non-locality.

[cnewq5]

can you say more on why a non-deterministic universe does not necessarily mean we have free will? for me, one problem is that whatever physics tells us about fundamental laws, we can't yet say what a mind is physically, much less how choice relates to physical processes.

[elimisteve]

If the universe is non-deterministic, it could just be the case that there are random events (which is how many people interpret QM), which has nothing to do with a human mind making a free choice. Just because it may be impossible to predict the long-term state of a physical system, that doesn't entail that we have free will, even if that system is a human brain. If they're random then we don't have any say over them either, and that appears to be what is going on, but we can't be sure.

[acr08807]

@elimisteve Bell's theorem can be satisfied by a local formulation of QM that does not require hidden variables (e.g., Heisenberg's Copenhagen) or in which the choice of the measurement to be made at each of the detectors is not independent (e.g., multiple worlds and any deterministic QM).

Anyway, do the different interpretations make different predictions that can be tested? If not, what's the harm of someone accepting an incorrect interpretation or rejecting a correct one?

[breaneainn]

The non-locality really is the crux of the issue here. Symmetries most often seem to be described as vectors in a..phase space?..and when something appears to violate or break that symmetry, like the string theory guys we introduce more elements to patch it up. Surely the truth is about describing complex things with simpler rules. Could indeterminacy turn out to be valid, but as an artifact of observation or investigation? headache now.

[zadeh79]

I suppose it depends what we mean by 'free will'. I think 'Free" as in, not predictable by the enviornment or our brain neuro-chemistry, is a good enough interpretation of 'free will' (And as in, uniquely 'me'). But it's more like 'indeterminate will', which I find equally important. Although I'm sure, that such a concept wouldn't have an effect on the way everyone understands the world, for a long time.

[zadeh79]

Quantum mechanics is amazing. Everyone deserves to understand and appreciate it's strangeness.

[robtherub]

your first sentence is quite shocking, are you saying the world itself DOES NOT in any way determine the way its going to be? so it all moves about via some leibnizian pre-established harmony? i'm fairly sure quantum mechanics says more or less the exact opposite of what you are saying there

[23discordians]

Thats not the only way to look at the copenhagen interpretation.

[trombone7]

Hey, funny you should start on that book. In the meantime since I mentioned it, I found a Lee Smolin TED talk. Do you watch TED talks ? Google it and "Lee Smolin" It's something about science and democracy. Seems like a cool guy, working in a cool project.