Time paradox

There are two variants of 'non-free will'.

(1) Because the entire is totally deterministic á la Newton. It isn't we know now, but does the quantom randomness has an impact on our free will? How?

(2) Our free will is the result of the quantum fluctuation, the randomness in the microcosm, and therefore our free will is not really ours.

Comments?

Okay, either we have a free will or not.

Can you propose an experiment and how to carry it out, in order to decide the existance of a true free will, or a proof of the lack thereof?

Or is it impossible to experiment upon this? If so - is this discussion scientific in its essence?

Let's suppose that I have a free will.
Does that mean that even a chimpanzee has a free will? A cat? A fish? An ant? A bacteria? Anything non-living thing?

Originally posted by twhitehead

I repeat, the 'observer' in quantum mechanics has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. You are welcome to try and show otherwise. Vague references to 'many discussions' wont cut it. You could start with a single reputable source.

Here is your desired "vague" source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann.2FWigner_interpretation:_consciousness_causes_the_collapse

I cite from this:

von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse

In his monumental treatise The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann deeply analyzed the so-called measurement problem. He concluded that the entire physical universe could be made subject to the Schrödinger equation (the universal wave function). Since something "outside the calculation" was needed to collapse the wave function, von Neumann concluded that the collapse was caused by the consciousness of the experimenter.[21] This point of view was later more prominently expanded on by Eugene Wigner (see Quantum mind/body problem).
Variations of the von Neumann interpretation include:
Subjective reduction research
This principle, that consciousness causes the collapse, is the point of intersection between quantum mechanics and the mind/body problem; and researchers are working to detect conscious events correlated with physical events that, according to quantum theory, should involve a wave function collapse; but, thus far, results are inconclusive.[22][23]
Participatory anthropic principle (PAP)
Main article: Anthropic principle
John Archibald Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle claims that consciousness plays some role in bringing the universe into existence.[24]
Other physicists have elaborated their own variations of the von Neumann interpretation; including:

Henry P. Stapp (Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer)
Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats simply illogical. You are claiming that because of determinism, you are forced to act in one specific way (ie act as if free will exists).
TitusvE on the other hand believe you are forced to act as if determinism is true and further forced to give up.
Both are totally illogical and not in any way predicted by determinism.

No, I'm saying that either free will exists, or it doesn't.

If it does, then great, I can choose to do what I want. And it would be sensible to act as if free will exists, since that is the case.

If it doesn't (regardless of whether the lack of free will is deterministic or random), then I have no choice in the matter, by definition, do it? I will do what I do.

The only way in which I can be making an avoidable mistake is if free will does exist but I act as if it doesn't.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Let's suppose that I have a free will.
Does that mean that even a chimpanzee has a free will? A cat? A fish? An ant? A bacteria? Anything non-living thing?

I assume 'free will' means active sentience, consciousness as we know it in human terms. I think some of the higher animals, primates, dolphins, Orca's, etc., have enough of that essence to exhibit 'free will' also. Insects don't have enough brain matter to be capable of free will, although social insects appear to gain intelligence by the actions of thousands of units inside the colony, some sort of group mind thing.
But free will is an attribute of individuals not group intelligence I would think.
By that definition, non-living matter is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, quantum physics and so forth and therefore only reactive to the environment so by definition just the opposite of free will. I think in terms of thermodynamics, free will could be thought of as entropy killers at least in a local sense whereas non-living matter is subject to ordinary entropy.

Originally posted by mtthw
The only way in which I can be making an avoidable mistake is if free will does exist but I act as if it doesn't.

But choosing the only option that has no avoidable mistake is not necessarily the logical option.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But choosing the only option that has no avoidable mistake is not necessarily the logical option.

There is no "logical" option. Do you find a deterministic system consisting of organic robots that start of philosophical discussion about whether they have free will or not logical?? It just like other theories that cannot be proven nor disproven, but in the end are not useful as a life philosophy.
Maybe I am (or you from your point of view) the only conscious being in the universe and everything else, even you and other people around me, are just imagination, electric signals is my brain and nothing else. Such a theory can also not be proven nor disproven. However, it might not be so nice for the people around me if I live my life believing in this egocentric theory. As there is a "small" chance that other around me people actually do exist, just like myself, I decid not to believe in such a theory. For determinism it just the same thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But choosing the only option that has no avoidable mistake is not necessarily the logical option.

If I don't have free will, there is no "choosing".

Originally posted by mtthw
If I don't have free will, there is no "choosing".

I choose not to have free will.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I choose not to have free will.

You choose not, because you cannot choose.
Weather or not you have free will is not for you to choose in the first place.

Originally posted by mtthw
If I don't have free will, there is no "choosing".

Well that depends on your definition of 'free will' and your definition of 'choosing'. I believe my decisions are largely deterministic, but I still 'choose'.
If my decisions were not deterministic then I could even claim not to be 'choosing' but rather leaving it up to chance.
Its all a matter of perspective.

Anyway, what I am arguing against here is the claim that someone who believes the universe is deterministic, would then 'give up' or 'do nothing' etc as implied by TitusvE.

Originally posted by Palynka
From a information theory perspective, there is no information travelling back in time. The information about the future must be available today for someone to act on it.

To think about it, think of entropy as the number of possible states of nature in the future given all the information available in the universe.

So if someone knows the future with ...[text shortened]... interval of time do the possible states of nature increase (given all the info in the universe).

Sorry for not responding to this post.

I don't really have much comment yet as I need to think further about it. I certainly don't disagree with anything you have said.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well that depends on your definition of 'free will' and your definition of 'choosing'. I believe my decisions are largely deterministic, but I still 'choose'.
If my decisions were not deterministic then I could even claim not to be 'choosing' but rather leaving it up to chance.
Its all a matter of perspective.

Anyway, what I am arguing against here i ...[text shortened]... se is deterministic, would then 'give up' or 'do nothing' etc as implied by TitusvE.

If you say "largely deterministic". Then I might agree. I might have an aggressive character, but my brain can still decide not too hit someone even if I instinctively would wanted to. I object to the theory that everything is deterministic in an absolute sense, i.e. even our thinking process can be reduced to deterministic laws of electrons, atoms, photons etc. If you believe that, than everything you do, in retrospect, you could not have done otherwise. Moreover, what you will do now, or what you do within an hour, everything is already "written out". If somebody believes too much in such a theory it can lead to strange behavior (to some people).

Originally posted by TitusvE
If you say "largely deterministic". Then I might agree. I might have an aggressive character, but my brain can still decide not too hit someone even if I instinctively would wanted to.

Why does everyone equate determinism with instinctive or emotional behavior. They are not equivalent in the slightest.

I object to the theory that everything is deterministic in an absolute sense, i.e. even our thinking process can be reduced to deterministic laws of electrons, atoms, photons etc.
But you have not given valid reasons for your objections. It seems that it just doesn't feel right to you. Whats worse is you don't even seem to have thought seriously about what it is you object so strongly too.

If you believe that, than everything you do, in retrospect, you could not have done otherwise.
Well that partly depends on what you mean by 'you'.

Moreover, what you will do now, or what you do within an hour, everything is already "written out". If somebody believes too much in such a theory it can lead to strange behavior (to some people).
And you seem to believe too much in your theory that it is leading to very strange behavior. You are objecting to something that you cannot explain and cant seem to grasp.

Let me simplify it for you:
There are two possible mechanisms in the universe:
1. Random events.
2. Caused events.
Can you suggest any others?

So if the above are exhaustive then either events are a result of purely random events, purely caused (deterministic) events or a combination of both (which ultimately makes the outcome random).

Your problem is you don't like either possibility so you try to hold onto an extra option, but cant seem to find it. Don't worry, you are not the first person to run into this dilemma. But a dilemma it is.