Free Will? Quantum Mechanics Clarified (Part 1)

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

[yamaha893]

people still think we have free will?

[safwan321]

"There are misunderstanding in Quantam mechanics." who the fuck are you. some pothead not knowing shit. And by the way stop dissing brian greene and michio kaku faggot

[ThisOneIsTaken]

Fair enough - I remember an interview with Dennet where he said that since subjective feelings were not examinable by a third party they were not the subject of science, therefore they could be ignored in explaining consciousness. I'm the first to admit logic does have epistemiological limits.

[rabradek]

The problem is ignorant people, no matter if they're "scientists" or "philosophers". A scientist ignorant in the field of philosophy is just as bad as a philosopher ignorant in the field of science. The funny thing about ignorant scientists talking about philosophy is that they think their cognition method is the viable way of thinking - which is just not true (our senses are limited, and even when they are not it may be impossible to measure their observations)

[ThisOneIsTaken]

Just lousy philosophers.

They are probably afraid of being called out on their bullshit.

[rabradek]

...dear god, scientists talking about philosophy. The single thing actual philosophers dread above all others.

[rabradek]

This is a very good video!

[rabradek]

you, on the other hand, seem to use some really good argumentation and know a whole lot. Point out the flaws in his thinking, otherwise you're just a bumbling idiot.

[thadroberts77]

One thing I might add in defense of Dr. Greene is that although he dumbs down one interpretation for his popular audience, he does mention in a footnote of The Elegant Universe that there are other interpretations and he even goes on to mention that he is drawn to Bohm's interpretation because of its ontological clarity. Your overall point (that drawing conclusions about the world without being clear about the assumptions those conclusions rely on is sloppy) is, however, quite accurate.

[thadroberts77]

Spectacular introduction to the current state of affairs in the world of quantum mechanics. By the negative comments people have left below it is clear you have struck a chord, or rubbed people wrong, which is strange given that you were simply giving a Philosophy of Physics 101 introduction (focused on the topic of quantum mechanics) and not really making any claims that aren't completely verifiable. I think you did an amazing job!!

[acuaman42]

The most basic question is WHO HAS FREE WILL? It is explained in the latest book by Stepehen Hawking, THE GRAND DESIGN, that there is no free will. The book is free on the net.

[JohananRaatz]

@elimisteve: I buy a split view about QM interpretations. I like Bohm for the space-dependent wave-function. It fits nicely into a holographic picture of the universe were all states are entangled by the same wave-function. But when it comes to time, the universe is constantly expanding. So new allowed states for ZPF fluctuations should be coming into existence at every new moment, and adding to the "quantum potential" (or universal wave-function), but the phases of these are not predetermined.