Is there free will?

[Duty]

The question is not whether or not there is choice, but whether or not their is choice free of external causes. The definition of freewill is "the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies." So external causes do negate the existence of free choice, and thus negate the existance of free will.

"Free will" is the decision making capacity of the human brain.
We take input, process it, and produce output.
There is nothing about it that isn't deterministic...

I've figured out why it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense because it seems you aren't answering this in the context that was asked for. "Free will" has a definition (one that is vague, but seemingly denotes a set of ideals exclusive from what you're addressing) already given in the thread.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Ok, ONE more post (caution: scientific content)

I agree with the cause and event to a certain extent, but we have to remember if we dive into the world of quantum mechanics, it is truly stochastic. Or at least you cannot predict anything with certainty

I am currently taking a course in quantum mechanics (physical chemistry), from what I have already learned, alot of it is confirming what I feel in a spiritual sense. It has also gotten me thinking A LOT about things.

Of course, it takes some leap of the imagination in order for it to work. For example the heisenberg uncertainty principal states that you can not simultaneously pin down the momentum and posistion of an object. This is because when you make an observation, you are using light to view it. This causes a bit of the photons (light) energy in the form of momentum from it's movement to be transferred to the object being viewed. There is no way to predict how much energy will be transferred. As such, the uncertianty arises. This only applies realisticly though to small objects such as an electron. The uncertainty equasion explains this:

ΔxΔp ≥ h

Δx is the change in posistion, Δp is the change in momentum, and h is planks constant, which is equal to 6.626x10^-34. If you solve problems for this, it becomes apparent that the uncertainty for a large object such as a penny, is rediciously small, and such doesn't apply really to our reality scale objects. For an electron though, it most definitely does.

As you can see, the uncertianty principal doesn't really apply to us. However, I still see it effecting reality in a intrinsic way. Although, I can't explain that using this theory.

 

[Duty]

I am currently taking a course in quantum mechanics (physical chemistry), from what I have already learned, alot of it is confirming what I feel in a spiritual sense. It has also gotten me thinking A LOT about things.

Of course, it takes some leap of the imagination in order for it to work. For example the heisenberg uncertainty principal states that you can not simultaneously pin down the momentum and posistion of an object. This is because when you make an observation, you are using light to view it. This causes a bit of the photons (light) energy in the form of momentum from it's movement to be transferred to the object being viewed. There is no way to predict how much energy will be transferred. As such, the uncertianty arises. This only applies realisticly though to small objects such as an electron. The uncertainty equasion explains this:

ΔxΔp ≥ h

Δx is the change in posistion, Δp is the change in momentum, and h is planks constant, which is equal to 6.626x10^-34. If you solve problems for this, it becomes apparent that the uncertainty for a large object such as a penny, is rediciously small, and such doesn't apply really to our reality scale objects. For an electron though, it most definitely does.

As you can see, the uncertianty principal doesn't really apply to us. However, I still see it effecting reality in a intrinsic way. Although, I can't explain that using this theory.

Basically, in "medium world" things are very predictable/determined, but never absolutely certain...there is still a (very) small degree of uncertainty. For "quantum world" there is a large degree of uncertainty, and so not so determined.

Now my question, as I only have a vague understanding of quantum mechanics, is if the quantum world is statistically predictable. As in, we can at least say: "There is a 34% chance a photon will do A, 21% it will do B, 5% it will do C, and a 40% chance it will do D."




Also, does that equation you gave also show that there must always be a change in position and momentum? Neither variable could be equal to 0 and satisfy the statement.

 

[Sithious]

I am currently taking a course in quantum mechanics (physical chemistry), from what I have already learned, alot of it is confirming what I feel in a spiritual sense. It has also gotten me thinking A LOT about things. Of course, it takes some leap of the imagination in order for it to work. For example the heisenberg uncertainty principal states that you can not simultaneously pin down the momentum and posistion of an object. This is because when you make an observation, you are using light to view it. This causes a bit of the photons (light) energy in the form of momentum from it's movement to be transferred to the object being viewed. There is no way to predict how much energy will be transferred. As such, the uncertianty arises. This only applies realisticly though to small objects such as an electron. The uncertainty equasion explains this: ΔxΔp ≥ h Δx is the change in posistion, Δp is the change in momentum, and h is planks constant, which is equal to 6.626x10^-34. If you solve problems for this, it becomes apparent that the uncertainty for a large object such as a penny, is rediciously small, and such doesn't apply really to our reality scale objects. For an electron though, it most definitely does. As you can see, the uncertianty principal doesn't really apply to us. However, I still see it effecting reality in a intrinsic way. Although, I can't explain that using this theory.

I think you are looking at the small picture here, it may not affect the penny as you can observe, but overtime the penny will rust, deteriorate etc. This is due to atomic and sub atomic events. Now I have never taken quantum physics or read much about it, so I'm open for debate here, but everything that happens in this universe is due to atomic and sub atomic movements, and if we assume the premise that quantum mechanics is truly stochastic, well then yes...

And in case my post doesn't hold water, you have a lot of spelling errors

 

[IndigoSensor]

Basically, in "medium world" things are very predictable/determined, but never absolutely certain...there is still a (very) small degree of uncertainty. For "quantum world" there is a large degree of uncertainty, and so not so determined.

Now my question, as I only have a vague understanding of quantum mechanics, is if the quantum world is statistically predictable. As in, we can at least say: "There is a 34% chance a photon will do A, 21% it will do B, 5% it will do C, and a 40% chance it will do D."

I haven't gotten that far into it yet. However, from what I know already, I am inclined to say yes.

And yes, there is still a small degree of uncertianty. But it's rediciously small. Like, for a baseball moving at 90mph, the uncertianty in it's posistion is around 2x10^-26m, that is trillions of times smaller then the radius of an atom. Like I said, stupidly small :tongue1:

 

[Duty]

I haven't gotten that far into it yet. However, from what I know already, I am inclined to say yes.

And yes, there is still a small degree of uncertianty. But it's rediciously small. Like, for a baseball moving at 90mph, the uncertianty in it's posistion is around 2x10^-26m, that is trillions of times smaller then the radius of an atom. Like I said, stupidly small :tongue1:

So blaming my batting average on quantum physics won't work then?

"I'm sure the ball was right where I swung! Damned uncertainty principles!"


Check out my edit too, I'm curious what the answer is to it.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I think you are looking at the small picture here, it may not affect the penny as you can observe, but overtime the penny will rust, deteriorate etc. This is due to atomic and sub atomic events. Now I have never taken quantum physics or read much about it, so I'm open for debate here, but everything that happens in this universe is due to atomic and sub atomic movements, and if we assume the premise that quantum mechanics is truly stochastic, well then yes...

And in case my post doesn't hold water, you have a lot of spelling errors

Do I EVER spell correctly, lol. Yes, but a rusting penny is simply a chemical scale and just happens due to thermodynamic principals. While this is governed by quantum principals, the chemicals principals override this by a large ammount.

I am understanding what you are trying to say, and I agree. However, theories explain otherwise (mostly).

 

[Duty]

I think you are looking at the small picture here, it may not affect the penny as you can observe, but overtime the penny will rust, deteriorate etc. This is due to atomic and sub atomic events. Now I have never taken quantum physics or read much about it, so I'm open for debate here, but everything that happens in this universe is due to atomic and sub atomic movements, and if we assume the premise that quantum mechanics is truly stochastic, well then yes...

And in case my post doesn't hold water, you have a lot of spelling errors

Well, the universe is made up of a LOT of atoms and particles. It (usually) takes a lot of them to make a significant difference (although there is a tremendous potential amount of energy in each particle...it just doesn't get used). When a few are not "where they are supposed to be" it's not going to make the universe suddenly "free and unpredicatable."

And that's not how it exactly works, but it gives the general idea I think.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Also, does that equation you gave also show that there must always be a change in position and momentum? Neither variable could be equal to 0 and satisfy the statement.

If an object is moving, it must have momentum (even a massless partical such as a photon, although I cant explain how, my professer wouldnt answer me...). So it always applies.

 

[Sithious]

I forgot what we were initially discussing, but I still stand by my first post, free will does not exist.

 

[AUM]

Funny, I was just discussing this issue with my psychology teacher stating that we have no free will actually. Most of behaviorist say that most of our behavior and of how we make decisions are influenced by operant conditioning. Depending on the type of reward or punishment that we receive in a situation it will depend greatly in whether or not we take action on such occasion so therefore we are being controlled by external(social or environmental) factors not by our own free will necessarily.

 

[Duty]

If an object is moving, it must have momentum (even a massless partical such as a photon, although I cant explain how, my professer wouldnt answer me...). So it always applies.

I mean to ask: "Does that equation show that particles are always in motion? Is it impossible for a particle to remain completely stagnant?"

Maybe you answered that and we're just having an INTP/INFJ communication moment. >.>



If this above statement is true (that they're not ever stagnant) then it is absolutely impossible for anything in the world to remain completely the same at any point in time in any place ever.

 

[Sithious]

Funny, I was just discussing this issue with my psychology teacher stating that we have no free will actually. Most of behaviorist say that most of our behavior and of how we make decisions are influenced by operant conditioning. Depending on the type of reward or punishment that we receive in a situation it will depend greatly in whether or not we take action on such occasion so therefore we are being controlled by external(social or environmental) factors not by our own free will necessarily.

Necessarily is the key word here. You can't argue that free will doesn't exist, by looking at behavior patterns, social status, what is expected of you etc. You can argue based on this that your free will is limited, and most people probably don't have free will as humans are group animals, and it has been scientifically proven that as few as three people can dictate where an entire group of 100 people go.

However, you can break free of this and one day dress up as a clown and piss on the groom in your sisters wedding

 

[IndigoSensor]

I mean to ask: "Does that equation show that particles are always in motion? Is it impossible for a particle to remain completely stagnant?"

Maybe you answered that and we're just having an INTP/INFJ communication moment. >.>



If this above statement is true (that they're not ever stagnant) then it is absolutely impossible for anything in the world to remain completely the same at any point in time in any place ever.

Haha, it's possible :tongue1:

An electron is never still, because it has an intrinsic "spin" to it. The only way to hault the movement of a subatomic particle is to bring it down to absoulte zero. If there is ANY kind of energy flowing around, an object will absorb it, and almost always begin to move in some way.

The equasion doesn't show that something isn't always moving. Really, it is just meaningless for a still object. I mean think about it, haha.

 

[Duty]

Haha, it's possible :tongue1:

An electron is never still, because it has an intrinsic "spin" to it. The only way to hault the movement of a subatomic particle is to bring it down to absoulte zero. If there is ANY kind of energy flowing around, an object will absorb it, and almost always begin to move in some way.

The equasion doesn't show that something isn't always moving. Really, it is just meaningless for a still object. I mean think about it, haha.

Well, I just see that it is impossible for either variable in the equation to be 0, as it would then be less then the Planck constant. If neither variable can be 0, then there must always be a change in momentum and a change in position occuring.

So nothing could ever stay still, and nothing could ever move at a truly constant speed.

 

[AUM]

Necessarily is the key word here. You can't argue that free will doesn't exist, by looking at behavior patterns, social status, what is expected of you etc. You can argue based on this that your free will is limited, and most people probably don't have free will as humans are group animals, and it has been scientifically proven that as few as three people can dictate where an entire group of 100 people go.

However, you can break free of this and one day dress up as a clown and piss on the groom in your sisters wedding

In this example, would you be dressing as a clown and pissing on the groom in your sisters wedding to get an impression from others who wouldn't expect someone to do something like this? Well, if you say "yes" you are still being controlled by outer influences because you still care how others are viewing you in despite that you are doing something not "normal" in this situation. However, if you do something like this because you actually wanted to do it with nothing external influencing on your decision to piss off your sister than I would agree with you that this would be an example of free will.

 

[Satya]

In this example, would you be dressing as a clown and pissing on the groom in your sisters wedding to get an impression from others who wouldn't expect someone to do something like this? Well, if you say "yes" you are still being controlled by outer influences because you still care how others are viewing you in despite that you are doing something not "normal" in this situation. However, if you do something like this because you actually wanted to do it with nothing external influencing on your decision to piss off your sister than I would agree with you that this would be an example of free will.

Actually, if he is doing it to prove to himself that he has free will, then the argument could be made that the concept of free will has become an attitude which is influencing his behavior.

 

[Duty]

Actually, if he is doing it to prove to himself that he has free will, then the argument could be made that the concept of free will has become an attitude which is influencing his behavior.

Thus making the statement unfalsifiable and therefore unknowable.

 

[AUM]

Thus making the statement unfalsifiable and therefore unknowable.

Yes, so back where we started from....so....is there free will?

 

[IndigoSensor]

Well, I just see that it is impossible for either variable in the equation to be 0, as it would then be less then the Planck constant. If neither variable can be 0, then there must always be a change in momentum and a change in position occuring.

So nothing could ever stay still, and nothing could ever move at a truly constant speed.

Yes, that is true. But as I said if one of the values is zero, then the equation doesn't really have any meaning to it anymore. It isn't needed for a stationary particle, you simply know it is there (with the exception of particle duality, which I haven't learned yet). I mean, of course there are objects that have no momentum, or net displacement. It's like trying to ask the question, "how many decibles is a 300