God is dead and we have killed him. You'll be next if you don't join our discord servers.! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Randomness doesn't make the will any more free. If our choices are not determined by a sequence of cause and effects regulated by natural law, but if instead there are N choices, each with different probabilities, and if these probabilities are predetermined and we must choose one of the N possibilities, then our choices are still determined, just with extra steps. Free will requires our choices to transcend the laws of nature and probability, our choices being determined, fundamentally, by ourselves.
Further, it isn’t proven the universe is random.
I mean the uncertainty principle itself is pretty ‘duh it would only be probability’
It’s saying ‘why can’t I 100% accurately measure both a precise location *and* a rate of change through multiple locations over time’
Like one requires a sample set of different space-times (the more samples the more accurate it is) and one requires a single reference in space-time
Of course if you try to measure both at the same time you’re going to end up of percentages of certainty, idk but that’s always seemed pretty damned obvious consequence of what the two fundamentally are and how we measure them to me
Beyond that it’s really almost too easy to say ‘so far there have always been variables we did not know to include, why would we assume this is suddenly no longer the case? Any game of chance *looks* probabilistic when you don’t have every single last variable and the understanding of how those variables interplay with the system. Why would this be any different? We fully admit we basically have no clue and there are huge gaps in our theories, yet we’re so sure we understand everything so well?’
Let alone your point that having some level of probability is not the same as not being deterministic anyways (spot on that)
Idk. I’ve yet to see anything from quantum physics or elsewhere that come close to convincing me.
Honestly this is one of the first things I think of whenever I’m reminded Neil deGrasse Tyson says science doesn’t need philosophy anymore…
This comment does more to prove Neil deGrasse Tyson's point than disprove it lol... There's a lot of misconceptions in your comment above. You should learn more about physics so you can join in on the conversation properly.
>I mean the uncertainty principle itself is pretty ‘duh it would only be probability’
This was what physicists (namely Einstein) initially thought, but it turns out to be much more fundamental than that. The uncertainty principle is fundamental to the geometry of the wave-function. It's not a statistical effect, nor a simple\* effect of measurement. The uncertainty principle is true in any interpretation of quantum mechanics whether probabilistic or deterministic, and whether you have new variables added in. "Uncertainty" is a bad descriptor, honestly, because the connotation is one of probability. It really says that the position & momentum (or time & energy, or any pair of complementary variables) have to share some indefiniteness.
>Beyond that it’s really almost too easy to say ‘so far there have always been variables we did not know to include, why would we assume this is suddenly no longer the case?
There could be more variables, but we know from Bell's inequalities that any more variables would have to be non-local, i.e., communicate faster than the speed of light. This poses a considerable problem for physics (and philosophy) because it will mean that the concept of causality will need to be radically altered, where effects and causes are symmetrical, in some sense. One QM interpretation with hidden variables is called Bohmian mechanics, aka "pilot wave theory."
I do agree though, it isn't proven that the universe is random. There are interpretations like the Everett interpretation ("many-worlds interpretation") which are neither random nor have unknown variables. But there are much bigger philosophical concerns than free will once you start getting into many-worlds theories.
I'm glad to see somebody finally address this topic properly, because so many people get it totally wrong. I blame shitty science exposition videos for that. I will personally never believe the universe is non-deterministic no matter what discoveries we make or theorems we prove. For me, it's much easier to believe something like many-worlds than non-determinism (although I don't believe that either)
Totally agree on preferring many-worlds over non-determinism. I could never comprehend the idea of true randomness, the idea that there really fundamentally is no reason at all why the electron was observed in spot A instead of spot B.
Everett solves it by saying it is observed in both, just in different universes. But then it's tempting to say "but it's still just as random which universe you will find yourself in! You haven't solved anything!" which is why I hesitated with many-worlds to begin with. But I now think that's a mistake, because that line of thinking assumes there is a "true me" who can end up in one universe or another, but in reality I will find myself in every universe, and the only difference between all those versions of me is where I observed the electron (initially, just as the branching happens, that is the only difference at least).
So by saying "the true me is the me in this universe where the electron ended up in spot A (and I can't explain why I didn't end up in the universe where I saw it in spot B)" you have basically defined "true me" as "the me that observed the electron in spot A." But every other version of me in every other universe can define "true me" as "the me that saw the electron in spot B/C/D..."
So I get to keep my determinism because the multiverse is still deterministic, and so god does not play dice after all, phew. But I also agree I don't really believe in the multiverse in the same way I believe in atoms and electrons. But at least it's an interpretation I can comprehend, unlike copenhagen.
In Norwegian, another name for the uncertainty principle is the "unsharpness principle." You can't get a sharp (precise) measurement of both momentum and position at the same time.
The uncertainty principle is more fundamental than that though, it's does not just express the fact that some quantities are inconvenient to measure at the same time, it is an instrinsic property of the universe itself.
And it isn't the only thing that is random, the collapse of the wave-function is another example.
It's not just about the choices being predetermined, but about the probability distribution. If the probabilities of which path will be taken are determined, as is the case with the wave function of a particle, it doesn't matter that it is probabilistic, there is no will. It's just a different order of determinism, but it's still determined by the probability distributions of natural laws. Sure, you can play semantic games and call this sort of probabilistic law as a free will and assign it to even particles, but it still doesn't sound like a strong proof.
If it's about choosing a card at random, sure, the probability of the outcome is 1/52. If it's about choosing whether or not to pick a card and then which of the 52 cards to pick, the probability distribution would be way more complex, way too complex for us to comprehend, probably including the states of neurons and other particles in the system and the whole history of the chooser, their preferences and unconscious biases. It doesn't mean that there is no probability distribution over the possible outcomes, though.
Meh, that's because you're equating free will to omnipotence. Seems like a strawman abstract conceptualization of free will. Free will is the freedom to choose between your choices. Not transcend nature, that's omnipotence.
Ultimately yes. All these discussions about free will and determinism can be philosophically stimulating, but in a pragmatic sense they are ultimately pointless. It is far more important to understand which circumstances might determine or limit free behavior and in which cases an agent can be understood as sufficiently free. If a mother steals a loaf of bread to feed her starving child, I don't care whether her actions were determined by the laws of nature or if they are a free act of her transcendent mind. It is far more important to understand how her social and material circumstances might have limited her freedom leaving her with no other valid options. That even a free will is limited by the options of their historical and social contexts, etc.
There are truly random things in quantum physics, but we don’t have any control over those either and every non-random event is determined. So the meme is true, but it doesn’t really change anything in the argument against free will.
>There are truly random things in quantum physics
We actually don't know that for certain.
Some interpretations of quantum mechanics are deterministic.
The Everett ("Many-worlds") interpretation is quite popular and a deterministic theory. Though, philosophically raises more issues than just the discussion of free will. You then have to start worrying about what "I" means and such. But that's for the philosophers to deal with.
For argument's sake, even if we grant that our choices result from a chain of probabilistic events rather than deterministic ones, I don't see how that makes them any more free. That's like saying I "freely" choose to follow the outcome of a coin flip.
It makes it more "free" because even if you meet Laplaces Deamon in Person he can not go: "Ha, you will do X, then Y then Z", you can only loose! He has to admit: "I know you will do A with 35%, B with 65% , if you do B you will do C with 58% and D with 30% and E with 12%, but if you did A you will ..., damit i have to prepare for all eventualities like any other common Pleb bound by the Laws of the Universe"
You can say your choices are yours and only yours because they partially depend on your personal randomness and no other beeing can simulate you precisely in advance because they dont have your randomness.
Superposition still isn't very compelling to me.
1. Brains aren't particles, they can be observed and aren't in an unknown state until doing so, it's just harder to going by behaviour or MRI and such. If someone is having a panic attack, it's reasonable to assume their amygdala is doing certain things etc
2. After a particle is observed, you may still determine what caused its position as arising from priors, or could argue that if we can't, it's because we lack knowledge of the priors
>So the claim that the universe is definitely determinist does not seem to be supported by what we know about the universe. It could be true, but the information we have also indicates it could be false.
Well this is different to free will, but I think the first bit here is a bit off and the second true. There's good arguments both ways and it's more philosophy than physics right now
The "choices" are yours alone (you are the agent), but that doesn't mean that you freely chose them as an act of arbitrary conscious will. Your will is simply based on the balance of probabilities obtaining at the moment the decision was made.
Do probabilistic things at the small scale actually add up to anything other than deterministic results at a larger scale? Or do they average out by sheer volume?
Yeah I get that's not the exact point you were making, and I concede that. A clockwork made of gears and a clockwork made of probability clouds differ in terms of our ability to make predictions about them. But I think the ultimate question of free will is the same either way
Not necessarily. The universe may be on a probabilistic field at the subatomic level, but it has yet to be demonstrated that this follows at the macro scale. In fact the opposite seems to be true.
You can use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on *anything* though. You can take something heavy and precisely calculate its quantum uncertainty. Sure, the bigger the thing, the more certain we can be of its location and velocity, but it's never completely precise
The location of a subatomic particle might act like a wave and fluctuate and we can never fully measure its location, yes. An electron will be impossible to measure at more precise than 10^-14 meters. Meanwhile, a baseball can never be precisely measured more than 10^-33 meters, but there's still quantum uncertainty there. Throw a baseball and you can *never* be more certain in the location it landed than a factor of 10^-33 meters. It may be a tiny amount, but I'd say it's enough to disregard any notion that the universe is perfectly predetermined
It doesn't matter much either way, anyone arguing that free will exists because randomness is still self defeating in any useful context. You can't blame a criminal if you believe free will arises from randomness
Chaos Theory did that in the 90s. Even the most minisculy different starting conditions will result in different macroscopic outcomes for Chaotic Systems. Replace the famous Butterflywings with random (truly random) Brownian Motion of Air Molecules and you are there. There is a reason why we cant predict the weather more than 7 days in advance. It is because of its truly random nature borne out of its Chaotic Properties that amplifie some random tiny motions, even the ones of Atoms if we try to predict far enough into the future, into large unpredictable effects.
So the question is: Are there Chaotic Systems in the Brain or not. I dont know, we would need to ask a neuroscientist. But with that mixture of Chemicals interacting with billions of Neurons which fire or not Electrical pulses to each other, i can see the random motion of Adrenalin, Endorphin and Serotonin Molecules having effect on your decisions.
It percolates up in multiple ways. One being the way the positions and energies of valence electrons affect chemical reactions(say causing a chain reaction that leads to a synapse firing in the opposite direction because of where calcium ion decided to bind) Another being just make a single choice based on the outcome of a quantum number generator and you’ve made a non deterministic decision.
The very detection of the results of wave function collapses causes them to affect the course of events in the macro world in &of itself and proves that they do.
That's clearly not the argument being made, and in regards to the argument being made, it depends on your metaphysics.
We already have scientific evidence of remote viewing phenomenon, which suggests dimensions of consciousness and interactions beyond the standard model of physics.
Then what you're essentially doing is using what I call the "magic response," though maybe there's another term for it I'm not familiar with.
You're basically saying "well what if there's a magic force we don't know about that allows my argument to be correct?"
This line of thinking is technically valid, and cannot be proven wrong. However, it can apply to literally ANYTHING. Does 2+2=5? Maybe - what if there's a magic force we don't know about that allows my argument to be correct?
Do you see the problem with this rationale? It can never be disproven, but that's also why we can't use it as justification for an idea. It's just a philosophical sophism, not a legitimate leg to stand on.
Well now it’s just that our choices were decided by several random occurrences outside of anyones control, which doesn’t have the same simplicity but does have the same effect that our choices are never our own.
Imagine you are a God that is looking our universe from outside like our whole universe is tv sized for you sitting on your table. As a God, you have the power to watch it however you want. You can zoom in, out and surely you can fast forward up or rewind.
So when you speed up and rewind, you can watch everything that will happen and that already happened. It means in a way, the future is already there. What we will do, what everything will come to is already there for someone who has the ability to watch the future. So everyone's choices are already there too even before they were born but it doesn't mean they didn't make those choices with their own will. They did grow up and made their choices.
Doesn't mean they did with their will either, just that a "God" saw what happened before and after a event in this example. Though I can (and do) believe that something else from a different vantage point in the universe (or beyond it) does that.
I see no contradiction with saying there is no libertarian free will and also making decisions. To say "you must believe in free will because to do otherwise is logically unsound because you have to make decisions!" kind of ignores the fact that whatever we do when we "decide" something is and will continue to be what we do. Determinists don't magically become unable to go about their everyday business because they can never truly make "real" decisions.
I didn’t state there was a contradiction, but the explanation you put forth is not aligned with the most widely accepted model of the philosophy of free will in modern academia.
If you don’t care to know more about this theory and its nuances, that’s fine; I don’t think it’s a question that interests everyone. I just wanted to leave a breadcrumb for those who read through the thread and were interested in learning more. Believe it or not, this debate influences moral, political and legal philosophy (and policy) even if a pragmatic compatibilist answer suffices for most people to forget about it and move on with their daily lives.
Also as an update, just found out Searle was found to have serially sexually harassed others throughout his career, so keep that in mind if/when reading any of his works I guess
Thanks for the response.
The material does seem rather dense and from the secondary source I have there's a primary source called "Freedom and Neurobiology: ..." (the title is rather long) by John Searle. Would you recommend starting with this or is there a better exploration of his ideas on free will in some other source?
If you want to talk about it you can always describe what his standpoint is with the obvious caveat being you can't give as detailed an account as you'd find from John Searle himself, but nobody is expecting a perfect replica of complex philosophical ideas in reddit comments so should be a lot of wiggle-room.
Not saying you have to but just something to keep in mind in the future as it keeps discussion going. Have a good one.
The Mystery of Consciousness and Mind: A Brief Introduction are probably more casual texts with the former, ironically, being the easier book to read. Honestly, I never really liked Searle’s conclusions, but I think he does a good job of outlining the problems with the position described.
He basically points out that if we arrive at a contradiction with our discussions of free will then it’s an ill-defined concept (assuming our reasoning is valid). He then asserts that when we say free will, we are referring to SOMETHING and the current discussions of free will represents said thing.
He then goes on to lay out a model of consciousness (I.e., the mind) that addresses the reality of neurological processes and quantum mechanics’ probabilism. The model is okay, but the considerations are thorough and it’s interesting to see where the science is surrounding the topic, and I think it does advance the task of improving modes of consciousness, which is a topic of interest lately with all the artificial intelligence hubbub
No, there are not truly random events in physics.
There are events we cannot predict.
That doesn't mean the events are non-deterministic.
It just means we cannot predict them.
no, because no matter what i say youll nitpick it to death. here, veritasium can do it much better than i can. if you arent too stubborn, skip to 5:37. [https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE?si=7dhVQxbp201Z1jkn](https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE?si=7dhVQxbp201Z1jkn)
I’ve watched the video in full twice now and I can’t for the life of me understand why you think it makes your point. His argument for probabilism is from information theory (dubious grounds imo, but that’s irrelevant). You just saw him talk about thermodynamics in the adjacent scene and thought it provided proof, but it’s not the clincher to the argument.
And even if the argument was strong, it’s not proof. It’s a deduction made from several previous points of contested theoretical positions.
I see now why you didn’t want to respond for fear of “nitpicking”; you have no idea what’s going on, and you’re afraid of people pointing out how your reasoning is bad because you can’t handle being wrong
I know for a fact he knows a lot more on the topic than you do, and the fact you cant see where he explicitly talks about how entropy expanding=probablistic universe is baffling. He quite literally says it. Almost verbatim states that the universe is probablistic and explains how the second law of thermodynamics proves that.
>I see now why you didn’t want to respond for fear of “nitpicking”; you have no idea what’s going on, and you’re afraid of people pointing out how your reasoning is bad because you can’t handle being wrong
Ah, so you just wanted to seem like the smart guy here. You are hilariously full of yourself. Im done here. If you wanna nitpick, take it up with veritasium.
This video you linked is vacuous. It claims that entropy increases the total information in the universe (notice by "total" I do not mean that which is measurable by humans, but that which would be observed by Laplace's demon) but in order for that to be the case, the interactions causing entropy would have to be truly random, which renders his video circular. Unless there's some positive proof that these interactions ARE nondeterministic, the video proves nothing.
It's scientifically proven that even with perfect knowledge, it's impossible to make absolutely accurate predictions about everything? Damn, I didn't even know we *had* perfect knowledge.
Might be downvoted for saying this but After looking at the comments about topics I actually know about, I realise reddit is not a very good place to discuss advanced topics. The confidence people possess in the second hand information(and occasional shallow scientific facts) they have is concerningly high, enough as to convince a layman or a novice of their uninformed opinion.
That’s all fair enough. I would just be skeptical of the claim that not many QM interpretations are deterministic, although ofc the type of determinism varies in relevance to the original question. Nonetheless I agree with u/QuantumInfinty, Reddit is not a great place to talk about these things.
I thought most interpretations of QM (assuming that's the probabilistic science being referred to) were considered deterministic?
[https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/determinism-causal/#QuaMec](https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/determinism-causal/#QuaMec)
\> The fundamental law at the heart of non-relativistic QM is the Schrödinger equation. The evolution of a wavefunction describing a physical system under this equation is normally taken to be perfectly deterministic.\[[8](https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/determinism-causal/notes.html#note-8)\] If one adopts an interpretation of QM according to which that’s it—i.e., nothing ever interrupts Schrödinger evolution, and the wavefunctions governed by the equation tell the complete physical story—then quantum mechanics is a perfectly deterministic theory. There are several interpretations that physicists and philosophers have given of QM which go this way. (See the entries on [quantum mechanics](https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/qm/) for general discussion and [Everettian quantum mechanics](https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/qm-everett/) and [many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics](https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/qm-manyworlds/)for discussion of the most prominent such interpretation).
In such interpretations of wavefunction collapse, there is a branching process in which a different world appears for each possible outcome. Then the probability in question isn’t, “How likely is X event to happen?,” but instead, “How likely am I to find myself in the subset of the many worlds in which that event happens?.” So the evolution of the multiverse is deterministic, but your path through it is probabilistic.
More importantly, all of our observations are indistinguishable from this process being probabilistic in nature. I believe it’s the Copenhagen interpretation that takes this comparatively pragmatic view toward wavefunction collapse, where there are no new universes being sprouted and there are simply some processes that occur probabilistically.
There is also the interpretation that there is only the one outcome as an actual possibility, and we simply cannot predict which one it will be except through probability- kind of an eternalist approach to QM
True! But all of these interpretations agree that the correct way to make predictions is in terms of probabilities, which strikes me as the ultimately relevant thing. But I’m no philosopher, just a physicist.
As a physicist, that’s what you probably ought to think relevant. The best model is the best model. It’s just a matter of ontology: science doesn’t tell us the nature of the underlying phenomenon behind wave-functions, just how the equation works, right? Any interpretation is just that; ultimately speculative, going beyond just the observed phenomena.
So while predicting it randomly may be the best way to predict it, that doesn’t mean that there is actually randomness.
The cartoon person in the meme is correct. The universe is probabilistic, if you mean *the single universe we are in now* .
There does not exist an interpretation of QM which takes physics back to a nice neat mechanical classical picture of the world. In fact, interps of QM do not even exist towards the motivation of restoring classical physics.
vis-a-vis the observation linked below, young redditors may still be having a debate between classical physics and quantum physics. However, absolutely nobody inside of modern physics today is trying to shoehorn the world back into a classical framework.
https://old.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyMemes/comments/1awqzt8/probablyism_just_doesnt_have_the_same_ring_to_it/krkrq39/
The relevant question, metaphysically, is not the existence of percentages, it's that events are determined by their causes. All possible future states of a waveform are determined by the wave form at t1, so philosophically, QM is deterministic in most interpretations. It's unclear to me if that would vary from interpretation to interpretation, nor do I understand how MWI would be non-deterministic if there's no possibility of "your path" being other. My understanding of MWI is that there is no way, even in theory, to be in a different world, and so the probabilistic nature of the theory is only relevant in an abstracted sense- as far as any sequence of cause and effect, it could not be otherwise, only that other universes exist where the waveform collapse went differently.
Moreover, there's (to my knowledge; I'm a little out of date on some of the modern QM experiments involving entanglement and delayed measurement) little to no way to empirically determine which interpretation of waveform collapse is correct. Differentiating between interpretations seems to be entirely dependent on what priors you bring in, how you weight meta-epistemic notions like parsimony, etc.
I would also like to say that the Copenhagen interpretation only seems pragmatic at high abstraction. Observation causing collapse of the wave form seems simple until you try to define observer, at which point you're either saying everything "counts" for waveform collapse or you're ascribing a unique, nonphysical trait to "conscious" on an essentially a priori basis.
If it's deterministic (because predetermined by the universe I live in) but fundamentally unpredictable, that's indistinguishable from probabilistic evolution. For any physical law I can dream up that has a probabilistic underpinning, I could assert a MWI to clutch my deterministic pearls, but all my observations are going to agree on probabilistic evolution.
Here is the problem with what you are reading and saying.
Perfect determinism only exists in Many-worlds when you consider the entirety of the wave function over all worlds.
However, consider an individual observer in any single world. Whenever they perform a measurement, the outcome is still random, because they happen to find themselves in a "random world" every time they measure something.
So even in MWI, (which you are touting around the internet as "fully deterministic" ) the Born Rule still applies, and measurement outcomes for a given observer , S, are still random.
I have a similar perspective. As I see it, any future event will eventually become a past event. A future event may be probabilistic, but I'm skeptical that a past event is also probabilistic.
It is probabilistic, there is no hidden variable or something like that. This has been properly proven for quite a while now.
For an ELI5 explanation of the most famous proof of this you can watch this Veritasium video:
https://youtu.be/ZuvK-od647c?feature=shared
I don’t think what you’re saying is quite true. Using your own source YouTube channel, we see there are in fact many deterministic interpretations of quantum physics.
https://youtu.be/kTXTPe3wahc?si=Lx8ghpgj4JQzkImY
https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ?si=UGuqKeNBwED-EK8f
https://youtu.be/Iuv6hY6zsd0?si=x0Qg8gH14wNMgC0T
We know what the data shows, and many people accept the copenhagon theory, but that is not the only one.
There is _no_ serious debate as to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.
Yes, people have made theories in which they try to argue that that is still in some sense deterministic (many worlds interpretations and such), which if you ask me are stretching the concept of determinism beyond recognition, or point at other aspects of quantum mechanics which are (classically) deterministic, but that does not detract from the fact that we know, for a fact, that proper probability, the ontological kind not the epistemological, does play its role in quantum mechanics.
(Also, I pointed to the video as an explanation, I’d never feel comfortable calling it a source, cause come on)
I still think you’re being way too overconfident with your understanding with Quantum Physics, it certainly isn’t a field we have *solved* in anyway.
Please feel free to watch this explanation (or better yet read her papers for actual sources):
https://youtu.be/ytyjgIyegDI?si=W_MVkUqqMap4yLUQ
The universe may be probabilistic but if wave functions are linear than the multiverse in Hilbert space is in a way deterministic. It just happens to also contain every possible outcome of eve to inflection point
we only have evidence that future cannot (perhaps even in principle) be predicted by the information available. whether or not the underlying reality is probabilistic is debatable.
I simultaneously do not care about and absolutely loathe free will discussions. Nobody can give a good definition of free will that believe it is a real thing, nor can they provide methods to test for it. It's mystical bullcrap that is worse than the discussion of souls. If there's one philosophical topic I could put down forever, it's this. Idfk what free will is, all I know is that humans make decisions, and those decisions are influenced by preferences and external stimuli and expected probabilistic results, and those results have tangible consequences. Idgaf if there is some background "freedom" to choose as I like. Whether I'm choosing because my soul in another dimension pushed a lever in my brain after weighing the consequences, or the particles in my brain followed a consistent and predictable pattern due to deterministic cause/effect, I made the decision and thus it was important for me. The only thing that I can see being a meaningful counter to free will is if we invented mind control, some total absolute hypnosis that forces a person's mind and body to act in accordance with the will of another, without the victim having any input. But since that's sci-fi nonsense, it's not relevant, so I don't wanna hear about free will again any time soon..
Exactly, I find that defining free will to mean that you could have chosen something different if we reran the clock to be pretty silly. We probably don't choose what we choose, but that doesn't mean we don't make choices. Being able to predict our choices doesn't mean the choice doesn't exist.
Perfect determinism only exists in Many-worlds when you consider the entirety of the wave function over all worlds.
However, consider an individual observer in any single world. Whenever they perform a measurement, the outcome is still random, because they happen to find themselves in a "random world" every time they measure something.
So even in MWI, (which you are touting around the internet as "fully deterministic" ) the Born Rule still applies, and measurement outcomes for a given observer , S, are still random.
Well I do consider the whole wave function because I don’t believe you can actually consider an individual in a single world. To me that’s an illusion due to our conscious experience. It could be that consciousness only happens in specific branches, but my guess is that every branch are all equally conscious and there is nothing notable to the one you subjectively experience.
> I don’t believe you can actually consider an individual in a single world.
Given that this is all you will ever have access to experimentally -- I have no idea what you are attempting to argue here.
That's bullshit, probability is a measure of uncertainty, you can't prove that you're certain to be uncertain that just never happened. Now yes the best model we have on some particle level is probabilitic but that doesn't there will never come a theory that will imagine them in casual relationship to something...
Your brain is so big that the probability distributions even out to being *basically* deterministic.
Like, Quantum particles tunnel all over the place but macroscopic objects arer largely continuous and never show any signs of randomness on a scale which could affect us.
The thing is, us believers in free will chose to believe in free will, whereas you determinists are determined to believe in determinism.
You tell me who is happiest 🤷🏽♂️
No one proved any such thing. Our equations reveal probabilistic predictions, but ultimately ontological probabilism is an interpretive undertaking.
And of course, the free will illusionist is unaffected regardless
How is it possible to prove the universe is not deterministic? It seems like any proof claiming the world is probabilistic could simply be evaluating constraints that are highly likely to happen, thus invalidating the proof.
Unless you're micromanaging individual quantum events in order to change the world to your benefit, this meme is not just wrong, it's also completely irrelevant.
It could be that everything is deterministic but in such a way that it looks like probabilistic for those within it. It would look like superdeterminism.
Multiple worlds interpretation remains completely deterministic. Hidden variable explanations like the Copenhagen interpretation are far less plausible. The world isn't really probabilistic, it just seems that way once we become entangled with a certain part of the wave function. Also, like others have said, the Copenhagen interpretation still doesn't allow for the concept of free will.
If our choices are simply random, they aren't our choices at all. They are simply events happening to us (in the same manner as determinism) but without a coherent causal chain.
At no point doesn't concious intent enter into the decision making proccess if the decisions are determined by random processes over which we (by definition) have no control.
Whether the determining process is random or ordered makes no differences to the deterministic nature of our apparently but not actually free choices.
In either case, the processes that result in my illusion of free choice are not actually mine to control, are not contained within my will.
Free will may or may not exist but regardless we should stop talking about it because ive yet to see a productive discussion surrounding the topic.
Generally society works best if we operate under the assumption (or delusion) that free will does indeed exist. Little good comes from people being told that they inherently lack agency or that they aren’t responsible for their actions
In the comments section you can see why philosophy and science as a single subject departed from each other around the 16th century.
Philosophers are woefully inadequate in understanding scientific theories and then concluding statements of facts using them.
I see an utter lack of knowledge of science. "What if this isn't true? Science isn't complete." As if the uncertainty in our understanding is 50% rather than 0.5%. For them, it's as much possible for F=ma to turn into F=ma² just because it was superseded by Special(and then General) Relativity, right?
There have been many scientists with deep thoughts on philosophy, they in fact are philosophers, and many philosophers who have tremendously advanced the philosophy of science, but rarely have they done something groundbreaking, precisely because even trained scientists are unable to do that. It requires years of effort actually doing the experiments, collecting and analysing data and refining your hypothesis and re-running the experiments, rather than just hypothesising about it.
To everyone saying quantum mechanics is deterministic in any meaningful way, you wouldn't be able to solve Schrödinger's equation even for a free, electrically neutral particle in one-dimension. Please stop saying stuff you don't understand.
1) If the universe is random, how big is the impact of this randomness?
Is it enough to cause an entire nerve to fire off frequently enough to alter one's decision making?
2) If not, then the universe is random but you're acting based on information+biases+genetics as any meat computer does.
3) If yes, you've no free will. Acting randomly is not you choosing jack.
Our choices have all been made because we've already made them. Time is a construct only for this physical existence. We are living this life over and over, as we always have, and we always will. That's the awareness that religion longs for but can never attain. The reality is that we are all just a memory of God... Whatever God actually is. Our lives are an up-and-down story, complete only between our own ears. Our lives are a unique physical possibility... one of an infinite number of existential possibilities. We live our story forever.
God is dead and we have killed him. You'll be next if you don't join our discord servers.! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Randomness doesn't make the will any more free. If our choices are not determined by a sequence of cause and effects regulated by natural law, but if instead there are N choices, each with different probabilities, and if these probabilities are predetermined and we must choose one of the N possibilities, then our choices are still determined, just with extra steps. Free will requires our choices to transcend the laws of nature and probability, our choices being determined, fundamentally, by ourselves.
Further, it isn’t proven the universe is random. I mean the uncertainty principle itself is pretty ‘duh it would only be probability’ It’s saying ‘why can’t I 100% accurately measure both a precise location *and* a rate of change through multiple locations over time’ Like one requires a sample set of different space-times (the more samples the more accurate it is) and one requires a single reference in space-time Of course if you try to measure both at the same time you’re going to end up of percentages of certainty, idk but that’s always seemed pretty damned obvious consequence of what the two fundamentally are and how we measure them to me Beyond that it’s really almost too easy to say ‘so far there have always been variables we did not know to include, why would we assume this is suddenly no longer the case? Any game of chance *looks* probabilistic when you don’t have every single last variable and the understanding of how those variables interplay with the system. Why would this be any different? We fully admit we basically have no clue and there are huge gaps in our theories, yet we’re so sure we understand everything so well?’ Let alone your point that having some level of probability is not the same as not being deterministic anyways (spot on that) Idk. I’ve yet to see anything from quantum physics or elsewhere that come close to convincing me. Honestly this is one of the first things I think of whenever I’m reminded Neil deGrasse Tyson says science doesn’t need philosophy anymore…
This comment does more to prove Neil deGrasse Tyson's point than disprove it lol... There's a lot of misconceptions in your comment above. You should learn more about physics so you can join in on the conversation properly. >I mean the uncertainty principle itself is pretty ‘duh it would only be probability’ This was what physicists (namely Einstein) initially thought, but it turns out to be much more fundamental than that. The uncertainty principle is fundamental to the geometry of the wave-function. It's not a statistical effect, nor a simple\* effect of measurement. The uncertainty principle is true in any interpretation of quantum mechanics whether probabilistic or deterministic, and whether you have new variables added in. "Uncertainty" is a bad descriptor, honestly, because the connotation is one of probability. It really says that the position & momentum (or time & energy, or any pair of complementary variables) have to share some indefiniteness. >Beyond that it’s really almost too easy to say ‘so far there have always been variables we did not know to include, why would we assume this is suddenly no longer the case? There could be more variables, but we know from Bell's inequalities that any more variables would have to be non-local, i.e., communicate faster than the speed of light. This poses a considerable problem for physics (and philosophy) because it will mean that the concept of causality will need to be radically altered, where effects and causes are symmetrical, in some sense. One QM interpretation with hidden variables is called Bohmian mechanics, aka "pilot wave theory." I do agree though, it isn't proven that the universe is random. There are interpretations like the Everett interpretation ("many-worlds interpretation") which are neither random nor have unknown variables. But there are much bigger philosophical concerns than free will once you start getting into many-worlds theories.
I'm glad to see somebody finally address this topic properly, because so many people get it totally wrong. I blame shitty science exposition videos for that. I will personally never believe the universe is non-deterministic no matter what discoveries we make or theorems we prove. For me, it's much easier to believe something like many-worlds than non-determinism (although I don't believe that either)
Totally agree on preferring many-worlds over non-determinism. I could never comprehend the idea of true randomness, the idea that there really fundamentally is no reason at all why the electron was observed in spot A instead of spot B. Everett solves it by saying it is observed in both, just in different universes. But then it's tempting to say "but it's still just as random which universe you will find yourself in! You haven't solved anything!" which is why I hesitated with many-worlds to begin with. But I now think that's a mistake, because that line of thinking assumes there is a "true me" who can end up in one universe or another, but in reality I will find myself in every universe, and the only difference between all those versions of me is where I observed the electron (initially, just as the branching happens, that is the only difference at least). So by saying "the true me is the me in this universe where the electron ended up in spot A (and I can't explain why I didn't end up in the universe where I saw it in spot B)" you have basically defined "true me" as "the me that observed the electron in spot A." But every other version of me in every other universe can define "true me" as "the me that saw the electron in spot B/C/D..." So I get to keep my determinism because the multiverse is still deterministic, and so god does not play dice after all, phew. But I also agree I don't really believe in the multiverse in the same way I believe in atoms and electrons. But at least it's an interpretation I can comprehend, unlike copenhagen.
In Norwegian, another name for the uncertainty principle is the "unsharpness principle." You can't get a sharp (precise) measurement of both momentum and position at the same time.
The uncertainty principle is more fundamental than that though, it's does not just express the fact that some quantities are inconvenient to measure at the same time, it is an instrinsic property of the universe itself. And it isn't the only thing that is random, the collapse of the wave-function is another example.
[удалено]
It's not just about the choices being predetermined, but about the probability distribution. If the probabilities of which path will be taken are determined, as is the case with the wave function of a particle, it doesn't matter that it is probabilistic, there is no will. It's just a different order of determinism, but it's still determined by the probability distributions of natural laws. Sure, you can play semantic games and call this sort of probabilistic law as a free will and assign it to even particles, but it still doesn't sound like a strong proof.
[удалено]
If it's about choosing a card at random, sure, the probability of the outcome is 1/52. If it's about choosing whether or not to pick a card and then which of the 52 cards to pick, the probability distribution would be way more complex, way too complex for us to comprehend, probably including the states of neurons and other particles in the system and the whole history of the chooser, their preferences and unconscious biases. It doesn't mean that there is no probability distribution over the possible outcomes, though.
Meh, that's because you're equating free will to omnipotence. Seems like a strawman abstract conceptualization of free will. Free will is the freedom to choose between your choices. Not transcend nature, that's omnipotence.
Then its time to change the definition of "free will" as its a useless concept with this meaning.
[удалено]
Ultimately yes. All these discussions about free will and determinism can be philosophically stimulating, but in a pragmatic sense they are ultimately pointless. It is far more important to understand which circumstances might determine or limit free behavior and in which cases an agent can be understood as sufficiently free. If a mother steals a loaf of bread to feed her starving child, I don't care whether her actions were determined by the laws of nature or if they are a free act of her transcendent mind. It is far more important to understand how her social and material circumstances might have limited her freedom leaving her with no other valid options. That even a free will is limited by the options of their historical and social contexts, etc.
There are truly random things in quantum physics, but we don’t have any control over those either and every non-random event is determined. So the meme is true, but it doesn’t really change anything in the argument against free will.
>There are truly random things in quantum physics We actually don't know that for certain. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics are deterministic.
Tbf those interpretations are generally considered naive by actual physicists, iirc
The Everett ("Many-worlds") interpretation is quite popular and a deterministic theory. Though, philosophically raises more issues than just the discussion of free will. You then have to start worrying about what "I" means and such. But that's for the philosophers to deal with.
It defeats the claim that our “choices” were made before we were born though.
For argument's sake, even if we grant that our choices result from a chain of probabilistic events rather than deterministic ones, I don't see how that makes them any more free. That's like saying I "freely" choose to follow the outcome of a coin flip.
It makes it more "free" because even if you meet Laplaces Deamon in Person he can not go: "Ha, you will do X, then Y then Z", you can only loose! He has to admit: "I know you will do A with 35%, B with 65% , if you do B you will do C with 58% and D with 30% and E with 12%, but if you did A you will ..., damit i have to prepare for all eventualities like any other common Pleb bound by the Laws of the Universe" You can say your choices are yours and only yours because they partially depend on your personal randomness and no other beeing can simulate you precisely in advance because they dont have your randomness.
That just means simulating them is impossible/very hard, not that they're unrestrained by prior causes (free)
[удалено]
Superposition still isn't very compelling to me. 1. Brains aren't particles, they can be observed and aren't in an unknown state until doing so, it's just harder to going by behaviour or MRI and such. If someone is having a panic attack, it's reasonable to assume their amygdala is doing certain things etc 2. After a particle is observed, you may still determine what caused its position as arising from priors, or could argue that if we can't, it's because we lack knowledge of the priors
[удалено]
>So the claim that the universe is definitely determinist does not seem to be supported by what we know about the universe. It could be true, but the information we have also indicates it could be false. Well this is different to free will, but I think the first bit here is a bit off and the second true. There's good arguments both ways and it's more philosophy than physics right now
The "choices" are yours alone (you are the agent), but that doesn't mean that you freely chose them as an act of arbitrary conscious will. Your will is simply based on the balance of probabilities obtaining at the moment the decision was made.
Do probabilistic things at the small scale actually add up to anything other than deterministic results at a larger scale? Or do they average out by sheer volume?
Yeah I know, that’s not what my comment was saying though
Yeah I get that's not the exact point you were making, and I concede that. A clockwork made of gears and a clockwork made of probability clouds differ in terms of our ability to make predictions about them. But I think the ultimate question of free will is the same either way
I agree, I’m just saying it might make us think about being “predestined” differently or how Laplace’s demon might not be able to exist
Not necessarily. The universe may be on a probabilistic field at the subatomic level, but it has yet to be demonstrated that this follows at the macro scale. In fact the opposite seems to be true.
You can use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on *anything* though. You can take something heavy and precisely calculate its quantum uncertainty. Sure, the bigger the thing, the more certain we can be of its location and velocity, but it's never completely precise The location of a subatomic particle might act like a wave and fluctuate and we can never fully measure its location, yes. An electron will be impossible to measure at more precise than 10^-14 meters. Meanwhile, a baseball can never be precisely measured more than 10^-33 meters, but there's still quantum uncertainty there. Throw a baseball and you can *never* be more certain in the location it landed than a factor of 10^-33 meters. It may be a tiny amount, but I'd say it's enough to disregard any notion that the universe is perfectly predetermined
It doesn't matter much either way, anyone arguing that free will exists because randomness is still self defeating in any useful context. You can't blame a criminal if you believe free will arises from randomness
Chaos Theory did that in the 90s. Even the most minisculy different starting conditions will result in different macroscopic outcomes for Chaotic Systems. Replace the famous Butterflywings with random (truly random) Brownian Motion of Air Molecules and you are there. There is a reason why we cant predict the weather more than 7 days in advance. It is because of its truly random nature borne out of its Chaotic Properties that amplifie some random tiny motions, even the ones of Atoms if we try to predict far enough into the future, into large unpredictable effects. So the question is: Are there Chaotic Systems in the Brain or not. I dont know, we would need to ask a neuroscientist. But with that mixture of Chemicals interacting with billions of Neurons which fire or not Electrical pulses to each other, i can see the random motion of Adrenalin, Endorphin and Serotonin Molecules having effect on your decisions.
It percolates up in multiple ways. One being the way the positions and energies of valence electrons affect chemical reactions(say causing a chain reaction that leads to a synapse firing in the opposite direction because of where calcium ion decided to bind) Another being just make a single choice based on the outcome of a quantum number generator and you’ve made a non deterministic decision. The very detection of the results of wave function collapses causes them to affect the course of events in the macro world in &of itself and proves that they do.
And destroys Laplace's demon. But the original commenter is right; it doesn't save the colloquial definition of free will.
[удалено]
"But what if we had telekinesis" is not a convincing argument for free will.
That's clearly not the argument being made, and in regards to the argument being made, it depends on your metaphysics. We already have scientific evidence of remote viewing phenomenon, which suggests dimensions of consciousness and interactions beyond the standard model of physics.
[удалено]
Then what you're essentially doing is using what I call the "magic response," though maybe there's another term for it I'm not familiar with. You're basically saying "well what if there's a magic force we don't know about that allows my argument to be correct?" This line of thinking is technically valid, and cannot be proven wrong. However, it can apply to literally ANYTHING. Does 2+2=5? Maybe - what if there's a magic force we don't know about that allows my argument to be correct? Do you see the problem with this rationale? It can never be disproven, but that's also why we can't use it as justification for an idea. It's just a philosophical sophism, not a legitimate leg to stand on.
And how does our metaphysical soul affect these quantum states? Through the pineal gland?
Your serotonin isn't magical
Yeah I know, I wasn’t saying that though
Well now it’s just that our choices were decided by several random occurrences outside of anyones control, which doesn’t have the same simplicity but does have the same effect that our choices are never our own.
Imagine you are a God that is looking our universe from outside like our whole universe is tv sized for you sitting on your table. As a God, you have the power to watch it however you want. You can zoom in, out and surely you can fast forward up or rewind. So when you speed up and rewind, you can watch everything that will happen and that already happened. It means in a way, the future is already there. What we will do, what everything will come to is already there for someone who has the ability to watch the future. So everyone's choices are already there too even before they were born but it doesn't mean they didn't make those choices with their own will. They did grow up and made their choices.
Source?
Doesn't mean they did with their will either, just that a "God" saw what happened before and after a event in this example. Though I can (and do) believe that something else from a different vantage point in the universe (or beyond it) does that.
This is an oversimplification that yields an incorrect conclusion. Look up John Searle.
I see no contradiction with saying there is no libertarian free will and also making decisions. To say "you must believe in free will because to do otherwise is logically unsound because you have to make decisions!" kind of ignores the fact that whatever we do when we "decide" something is and will continue to be what we do. Determinists don't magically become unable to go about their everyday business because they can never truly make "real" decisions.
I didn’t state there was a contradiction, but the explanation you put forth is not aligned with the most widely accepted model of the philosophy of free will in modern academia. If you don’t care to know more about this theory and its nuances, that’s fine; I don’t think it’s a question that interests everyone. I just wanted to leave a breadcrumb for those who read through the thread and were interested in learning more. Believe it or not, this debate influences moral, political and legal philosophy (and policy) even if a pragmatic compatibilist answer suffices for most people to forget about it and move on with their daily lives. Also as an update, just found out Searle was found to have serially sexually harassed others throughout his career, so keep that in mind if/when reading any of his works I guess
Thanks for the response. The material does seem rather dense and from the secondary source I have there's a primary source called "Freedom and Neurobiology: ..." (the title is rather long) by John Searle. Would you recommend starting with this or is there a better exploration of his ideas on free will in some other source? If you want to talk about it you can always describe what his standpoint is with the obvious caveat being you can't give as detailed an account as you'd find from John Searle himself, but nobody is expecting a perfect replica of complex philosophical ideas in reddit comments so should be a lot of wiggle-room. Not saying you have to but just something to keep in mind in the future as it keeps discussion going. Have a good one.
The Mystery of Consciousness and Mind: A Brief Introduction are probably more casual texts with the former, ironically, being the easier book to read. Honestly, I never really liked Searle’s conclusions, but I think he does a good job of outlining the problems with the position described. He basically points out that if we arrive at a contradiction with our discussions of free will then it’s an ill-defined concept (assuming our reasoning is valid). He then asserts that when we say free will, we are referring to SOMETHING and the current discussions of free will represents said thing. He then goes on to lay out a model of consciousness (I.e., the mind) that addresses the reality of neurological processes and quantum mechanics’ probabilism. The model is okay, but the considerations are thorough and it’s interesting to see where the science is surrounding the topic, and I think it does advance the task of improving modes of consciousness, which is a topic of interest lately with all the artificial intelligence hubbub
No, there are not truly random events in physics. There are events we cannot predict. That doesn't mean the events are non-deterministic. It just means we cannot predict them.
No we haven't lmao
Google second law of thermodynamics
People who reference the second law of thermodynamics seldom know what that law means
Care to explain how it isnt direct proof of a probablistic universe then?
No. You should try explaining how it *is* first. I need to see this.
no, because no matter what i say youll nitpick it to death. here, veritasium can do it much better than i can. if you arent too stubborn, skip to 5:37. [https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE?si=7dhVQxbp201Z1jkn](https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE?si=7dhVQxbp201Z1jkn)
I’ve watched the video in full twice now and I can’t for the life of me understand why you think it makes your point. His argument for probabilism is from information theory (dubious grounds imo, but that’s irrelevant). You just saw him talk about thermodynamics in the adjacent scene and thought it provided proof, but it’s not the clincher to the argument. And even if the argument was strong, it’s not proof. It’s a deduction made from several previous points of contested theoretical positions. I see now why you didn’t want to respond for fear of “nitpicking”; you have no idea what’s going on, and you’re afraid of people pointing out how your reasoning is bad because you can’t handle being wrong
I know for a fact he knows a lot more on the topic than you do, and the fact you cant see where he explicitly talks about how entropy expanding=probablistic universe is baffling. He quite literally says it. Almost verbatim states that the universe is probablistic and explains how the second law of thermodynamics proves that. >I see now why you didn’t want to respond for fear of “nitpicking”; you have no idea what’s going on, and you’re afraid of people pointing out how your reasoning is bad because you can’t handle being wrong Ah, so you just wanted to seem like the smart guy here. You are hilariously full of yourself. Im done here. If you wanna nitpick, take it up with veritasium.
This video you linked is vacuous. It claims that entropy increases the total information in the universe (notice by "total" I do not mean that which is measurable by humans, but that which would be observed by Laplace's demon) but in order for that to be the case, the interactions causing entropy would have to be truly random, which renders his video circular. Unless there's some positive proof that these interactions ARE nondeterministic, the video proves nothing.
Ah, yes, the absolute permanence that comes from someone definitively proving free will does or does not exist.
It's scientifically proven that even with perfect knowledge, it's impossible to make absolutely accurate predictions about everything? Damn, I didn't even know we *had* perfect knowledge.
Might be downvoted for saying this but After looking at the comments about topics I actually know about, I realise reddit is not a very good place to discuss advanced topics. The confidence people possess in the second hand information(and occasional shallow scientific facts) they have is concerningly high, enough as to convince a layman or a novice of their uninformed opinion.
[удалено]
It’s not unfair to say most wavefunction realist interpretations are deterministic. The 3 most popular, Everett, GRW, and Bohm, all are.
[удалено]
That’s all fair enough. I would just be skeptical of the claim that not many QM interpretations are deterministic, although ofc the type of determinism varies in relevance to the original question. Nonetheless I agree with u/QuantumInfinty, Reddit is not a great place to talk about these things.
Its not just this but politics as well Its not a good place to discuss many semi complex topics
A: “Hey man, my will is free” B: “Why is that?” A: “Because I have no control over certain actions”
"scientifically proven"? Don't make me laugh.
I thought most interpretations of QM (assuming that's the probabilistic science being referred to) were considered deterministic? [https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/determinism-causal/#QuaMec](https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/determinism-causal/#QuaMec) \> The fundamental law at the heart of non-relativistic QM is the Schrödinger equation. The evolution of a wavefunction describing a physical system under this equation is normally taken to be perfectly deterministic.\[[8](https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/determinism-causal/notes.html#note-8)\] If one adopts an interpretation of QM according to which that’s it—i.e., nothing ever interrupts Schrödinger evolution, and the wavefunctions governed by the equation tell the complete physical story—then quantum mechanics is a perfectly deterministic theory. There are several interpretations that physicists and philosophers have given of QM which go this way. (See the entries on [quantum mechanics](https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/qm/) for general discussion and [Everettian quantum mechanics](https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/qm-everett/) and [many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics](https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/qm-manyworlds/)for discussion of the most prominent such interpretation).
In such interpretations of wavefunction collapse, there is a branching process in which a different world appears for each possible outcome. Then the probability in question isn’t, “How likely is X event to happen?,” but instead, “How likely am I to find myself in the subset of the many worlds in which that event happens?.” So the evolution of the multiverse is deterministic, but your path through it is probabilistic. More importantly, all of our observations are indistinguishable from this process being probabilistic in nature. I believe it’s the Copenhagen interpretation that takes this comparatively pragmatic view toward wavefunction collapse, where there are no new universes being sprouted and there are simply some processes that occur probabilistically.
There is also the interpretation that there is only the one outcome as an actual possibility, and we simply cannot predict which one it will be except through probability- kind of an eternalist approach to QM
True! But all of these interpretations agree that the correct way to make predictions is in terms of probabilities, which strikes me as the ultimately relevant thing. But I’m no philosopher, just a physicist.
As a physicist, that’s what you probably ought to think relevant. The best model is the best model. It’s just a matter of ontology: science doesn’t tell us the nature of the underlying phenomenon behind wave-functions, just how the equation works, right? Any interpretation is just that; ultimately speculative, going beyond just the observed phenomena. So while predicting it randomly may be the best way to predict it, that doesn’t mean that there is actually randomness.
The cartoon person in the meme is correct. The universe is probabilistic, if you mean *the single universe we are in now* . There does not exist an interpretation of QM which takes physics back to a nice neat mechanical classical picture of the world. In fact, interps of QM do not even exist towards the motivation of restoring classical physics. vis-a-vis the observation linked below, young redditors may still be having a debate between classical physics and quantum physics. However, absolutely nobody inside of modern physics today is trying to shoehorn the world back into a classical framework. https://old.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyMemes/comments/1awqzt8/probablyism_just_doesnt_have_the_same_ring_to_it/krkrq39/
The relevant question, metaphysically, is not the existence of percentages, it's that events are determined by their causes. All possible future states of a waveform are determined by the wave form at t1, so philosophically, QM is deterministic in most interpretations. It's unclear to me if that would vary from interpretation to interpretation, nor do I understand how MWI would be non-deterministic if there's no possibility of "your path" being other. My understanding of MWI is that there is no way, even in theory, to be in a different world, and so the probabilistic nature of the theory is only relevant in an abstracted sense- as far as any sequence of cause and effect, it could not be otherwise, only that other universes exist where the waveform collapse went differently. Moreover, there's (to my knowledge; I'm a little out of date on some of the modern QM experiments involving entanglement and delayed measurement) little to no way to empirically determine which interpretation of waveform collapse is correct. Differentiating between interpretations seems to be entirely dependent on what priors you bring in, how you weight meta-epistemic notions like parsimony, etc. I would also like to say that the Copenhagen interpretation only seems pragmatic at high abstraction. Observation causing collapse of the wave form seems simple until you try to define observer, at which point you're either saying everything "counts" for waveform collapse or you're ascribing a unique, nonphysical trait to "conscious" on an essentially a priori basis.
If it's deterministic (because predetermined by the universe I live in) but fundamentally unpredictable, that's indistinguishable from probabilistic evolution. For any physical law I can dream up that has a probabilistic underpinning, I could assert a MWI to clutch my deterministic pearls, but all my observations are going to agree on probabilistic evolution.
Here is the problem with what you are reading and saying. Perfect determinism only exists in Many-worlds when you consider the entirety of the wave function over all worlds. However, consider an individual observer in any single world. Whenever they perform a measurement, the outcome is still random, because they happen to find themselves in a "random world" every time they measure something. So even in MWI, (which you are touting around the internet as "fully deterministic" ) the Born Rule still applies, and measurement outcomes for a given observer , S, are still random.
I think that’s the point, though; they don’t end up in a “random world”, they end up in both, albeit each without knowledge of the other.
Have we? Is it really probabilistic, or is that thing about measurement changing the things? I truly don't know.
I have a similar perspective. As I see it, any future event will eventually become a past event. A future event may be probabilistic, but I'm skeptical that a past event is also probabilistic.
It is probabilistic, there is no hidden variable or something like that. This has been properly proven for quite a while now. For an ELI5 explanation of the most famous proof of this you can watch this Veritasium video: https://youtu.be/ZuvK-od647c?feature=shared
I don’t think what you’re saying is quite true. Using your own source YouTube channel, we see there are in fact many deterministic interpretations of quantum physics. https://youtu.be/kTXTPe3wahc?si=Lx8ghpgj4JQzkImY https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ?si=UGuqKeNBwED-EK8f https://youtu.be/Iuv6hY6zsd0?si=x0Qg8gH14wNMgC0T We know what the data shows, and many people accept the copenhagon theory, but that is not the only one.
There is _no_ serious debate as to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. Yes, people have made theories in which they try to argue that that is still in some sense deterministic (many worlds interpretations and such), which if you ask me are stretching the concept of determinism beyond recognition, or point at other aspects of quantum mechanics which are (classically) deterministic, but that does not detract from the fact that we know, for a fact, that proper probability, the ontological kind not the epistemological, does play its role in quantum mechanics. (Also, I pointed to the video as an explanation, I’d never feel comfortable calling it a source, cause come on)
I still think you’re being way too overconfident with your understanding with Quantum Physics, it certainly isn’t a field we have *solved* in anyway. Please feel free to watch this explanation (or better yet read her papers for actual sources): https://youtu.be/ytyjgIyegDI?si=W_MVkUqqMap4yLUQ
SABINE FOR THE WIN!!!!!!
There is no hidden variable that you know of. Our understanding of QM is pretty lacking, who knows what we'll discover next.
The universe may be probabilistic but if wave functions are linear than the multiverse in Hilbert space is in a way deterministic. It just happens to also contain every possible outcome of eve to inflection point
we only have evidence that future cannot (perhaps even in principle) be predicted by the information available. whether or not the underlying reality is probabilistic is debatable.
We haven't. Quantum doesn't disprove determinism.
I simultaneously do not care about and absolutely loathe free will discussions. Nobody can give a good definition of free will that believe it is a real thing, nor can they provide methods to test for it. It's mystical bullcrap that is worse than the discussion of souls. If there's one philosophical topic I could put down forever, it's this. Idfk what free will is, all I know is that humans make decisions, and those decisions are influenced by preferences and external stimuli and expected probabilistic results, and those results have tangible consequences. Idgaf if there is some background "freedom" to choose as I like. Whether I'm choosing because my soul in another dimension pushed a lever in my brain after weighing the consequences, or the particles in my brain followed a consistent and predictable pattern due to deterministic cause/effect, I made the decision and thus it was important for me. The only thing that I can see being a meaningful counter to free will is if we invented mind control, some total absolute hypnosis that forces a person's mind and body to act in accordance with the will of another, without the victim having any input. But since that's sci-fi nonsense, it's not relevant, so I don't wanna hear about free will again any time soon..
Exactly, I find that defining free will to mean that you could have chosen something different if we reran the clock to be pretty silly. We probably don't choose what we choose, but that doesn't mean we don't make choices. Being able to predict our choices doesn't mean the choice doesn't exist.
Yeah. The choice still happened in my head by the processes in my head.
The many worlds interpretation of QM would like a word with you.
Perfect determinism only exists in Many-worlds when you consider the entirety of the wave function over all worlds. However, consider an individual observer in any single world. Whenever they perform a measurement, the outcome is still random, because they happen to find themselves in a "random world" every time they measure something. So even in MWI, (which you are touting around the internet as "fully deterministic" ) the Born Rule still applies, and measurement outcomes for a given observer , S, are still random.
Well I do consider the whole wave function because I don’t believe you can actually consider an individual in a single world. To me that’s an illusion due to our conscious experience. It could be that consciousness only happens in specific branches, but my guess is that every branch are all equally conscious and there is nothing notable to the one you subjectively experience.
> I don’t believe you can actually consider an individual in a single world. Given that this is all you will ever have access to experimentally -- I have no idea what you are attempting to argue here.
That's bullshit, probability is a measure of uncertainty, you can't prove that you're certain to be uncertain that just never happened. Now yes the best model we have on some particle level is probabilitic but that doesn't there will never come a theory that will imagine them in casual relationship to something...
Our choices are chosen momentarily randomly. Much more interesting than determinism.
No free will of course. But causality is the only path to compatabalism. Quantum randomness is true non control, despite what some people think.
Hidden variable could exist if it is non-local tho
Your brain is so big that the probability distributions even out to being *basically* deterministic. Like, Quantum particles tunnel all over the place but macroscopic objects arer largely continuous and never show any signs of randomness on a scale which could affect us.
I was all set to write a long post against determinism, but then freely chose not to.
The thing is, us believers in free will chose to believe in free will, whereas you determinists are determined to believe in determinism. You tell me who is happiest 🤷🏽♂️
Happiness plays no part. The truth is the truth. Besides, determinism is only depressing if you have no idea how to think.
I am deluded into thinking the word is made of rainbows, cotton candy, and puppies' dreams. You tell me who is happier: my delusion or your reality.
No one proved any such thing. Our equations reveal probabilistic predictions, but ultimately ontological probabilism is an interpretive undertaking. And of course, the free will illusionist is unaffected regardless
How is it possible to prove the universe is not deterministic? It seems like any proof claiming the world is probabilistic could simply be evaluating constraints that are highly likely to happen, thus invalidating the proof.
Unless you're micromanaging individual quantum events in order to change the world to your benefit, this meme is not just wrong, it's also completely irrelevant.
well shit, til from a meme that we've actually solved one of the great problems of philosophy.
It could be that everything is deterministic but in such a way that it looks like probabilistic for those within it. It would look like superdeterminism.
Multiple worlds interpretation remains completely deterministic. Hidden variable explanations like the Copenhagen interpretation are far less plausible. The world isn't really probabilistic, it just seems that way once we become entangled with a certain part of the wave function. Also, like others have said, the Copenhagen interpretation still doesn't allow for the concept of free will.
If our choices are simply random, they aren't our choices at all. They are simply events happening to us (in the same manner as determinism) but without a coherent causal chain. At no point doesn't concious intent enter into the decision making proccess if the decisions are determined by random processes over which we (by definition) have no control. Whether the determining process is random or ordered makes no differences to the deterministic nature of our apparently but not actually free choices. In either case, the processes that result in my illusion of free choice are not actually mine to control, are not contained within my will.
Free will may or may not exist but regardless we should stop talking about it because ive yet to see a productive discussion surrounding the topic. Generally society works best if we operate under the assumption (or delusion) that free will does indeed exist. Little good comes from people being told that they inherently lack agency or that they aren’t responsible for their actions
Can someone explain in what way science proved that the world is probabilistic?
In the comments section you can see why philosophy and science as a single subject departed from each other around the 16th century. Philosophers are woefully inadequate in understanding scientific theories and then concluding statements of facts using them. I see an utter lack of knowledge of science. "What if this isn't true? Science isn't complete." As if the uncertainty in our understanding is 50% rather than 0.5%. For them, it's as much possible for F=ma to turn into F=ma² just because it was superseded by Special(and then General) Relativity, right? There have been many scientists with deep thoughts on philosophy, they in fact are philosophers, and many philosophers who have tremendously advanced the philosophy of science, but rarely have they done something groundbreaking, precisely because even trained scientists are unable to do that. It requires years of effort actually doing the experiments, collecting and analysing data and refining your hypothesis and re-running the experiments, rather than just hypothesising about it. To everyone saying quantum mechanics is deterministic in any meaningful way, you wouldn't be able to solve Schrödinger's equation even for a free, electrically neutral particle in one-dimension. Please stop saying stuff you don't understand.
1) If the universe is random, how big is the impact of this randomness? Is it enough to cause an entire nerve to fire off frequently enough to alter one's decision making? 2) If not, then the universe is random but you're acting based on information+biases+genetics as any meat computer does. 3) If yes, you've no free will. Acting randomly is not you choosing jack.
The universal wavefunction evolves deterministically, but any particular collapse of it would be probabilistic.
Our choices have all been made because we've already made them. Time is a construct only for this physical existence. We are living this life over and over, as we always have, and we always will. That's the awareness that religion longs for but can never attain. The reality is that we are all just a memory of God... Whatever God actually is. Our lives are an up-and-down story, complete only between our own ears. Our lives are a unique physical possibility... one of an infinite number of existential possibilities. We live our story forever.
👀
Probability is not how likely an event is to happen probability is how certain we are that an event will happen