If you compare belief in determinism to religion, then belief in free must be like outright cult worship... — VagabondSpectre

Check out Calvinism. I believe you will find it quite appealing.

Why? I'm not religious.

I believe in the pervasiveness of causality because everything I experience seems to have an imminent cause. We experience causality everyday, and so it's actually quite easy to maintain belief in it.

I cannot recall encountering an un-caused event though, such as you suppose free will to be...

Causal is not equivalent to deterministic. Bohm's quantum equations are causal and non-deterministic. They have to be, always, because quantum theory it's probabilistic. There is no definite outcome until the system is observed, and this is inherent in quantum theory. Whatever interpretation you choose to use, quantum stays that in the world we live in and experience, quantum events are probabilistic. This destroys determinism.

The choices our minds are making and the will it is generating to action its choices are causing tons of casual non-deterministic events every day. There is no need to appeal to a supernatural God (Calvinism) or the equivalent supernatural Laws of Nature (Determinism) that are making the choices for us. If you believe your life is fated by either of these undefinable, unknowable forces, that is a matter of faith and religious in nature.

Causal is not equivalent to deterministic. Bohm's quantum equations are causal and non-deterministic. They have to be, always, because quantum theory it's probabilistic. There is no definite outcome until the system is observed, and this is inherent in quantum theory. Whatever interpretation you choose to use, quantum stays that in the world we live in and experience, quantum events are probabilistic. This destroys determinism. — Rich

As I stated initially some sort of non-local hidden variable theory might be the case, which can explain the chance element in the spin and position of quantum particles, and it can also frame the collapsing wave function as a determined event in regards to double slit tests. Again, we are unable to know the orientation of the electromagnetic field of a quantum particle until we check it; prior to measurement all we know are the probabilities of finding various magnitudes of deviation from it's prepared state. This doesn't however mean that the results we get when we check for them are not subject to determinism, it could be we're just unable to know prior to checking.

If we suppose that unobserved quantum events are themselves a predetermined range of states, (i.e, in double slit tests the electron interacts with itself in a predictable manner when the particle wave is un-collapsed (unmeasured)) it's possible to view the particle-wave behavior as itself another causal aspect in a pre-determined universe. Which particle-waves collapse, due to some kind of measurement, could be pre-determined, and what they collapse to could also be predetermined (again, thanks to some sort of non-local hidden variable theory).

Unfortunately determinism cannot be destroyed. It cannot be destroyed because we cannot rewind time to conduct perfectly controlled experiments (i.e: negate hidden variables) and because we don't have enough data or understanding to test bona fide deterministic predictions. You would suggest that determinism is like a god of the gaps argument, but in reality free will is much more aptly so named. Everyone used to believe in hard free will (and god) as really nobody knew better or could present a sensical alternative. With the advent of neuroscience and psychology we've learned that what we think and how we think is actually due to how genes, hormones, and the environment impacts neural networks in our brains. What we used to ascribe to an impulse of free will now can be described to a spike in blood-sugar (for example). The more physics and science we discover the more we're able to predict; determinism grows and in-determinism shrinks back into any remaining gaps in knowledge. The more we understand about evolution and human behavior the smaller free will becomes, shrinking, like god and indeterminism, back into some darkened crevasse where it's naked absurdity cannot be shamed by the laughing masses.

You seem like you really want to believe in free will... Why else would you say "The choices our minds are making and the will it is generating to action its choices are causing tons of casual non-deterministic events every day" as if particle-wave behavior of individual quantum particles in your brain somehow constitutes your your free will...

You have recommended Calvinism, now allow me to recommend "compatibilism". You don't need to believe in indeterminism in order to make sense of things...

Everything you write is purely a matter of faith. Faith that someday, somewhere, somehow the robotic nature of the universe and yourself will be confirmed. You even have faith that evidence of determinism is growing while it had been shot to pieces by physics over a century ago. Absolutely amazing. It gives some insight into how deeply dogma have has crept into so many belief systems. Why you embrace such a faith? Who knows? But others do also and it is not for me to say otherwise. I have learned to respect faith and not to argue it.

As for me, my beliefs stem from everyday experiences. I am choosing and outcomes are always unpredictable. And there is no mystical Laws if Nature that have revealed themselves to me or to anyone else. I choose to believe in the universe I am observing and not one that I desire. To buy into your view of the universe would be tantamount to embracing Calvinism and I have no interest in such religions.

Forgive me, but is pontificating about faith and experience the best way to conduct this debate? If I have faith in determinism, then you have faith in in-determinism. So what? I've brought up some fairly specific points which I'd like you to address directly. If you don't want to continue this argument, that's fine. If you're unable to continue this argument, that's also fine.

If you wish to actually defend your notion of free will against my criticisms, please do so! Your argument that probabilistic collapse of the wave-function of quantum particles in your brain gives you free will is extremely weak given that you cannot show how this collapse leads to changes in brain states, and even if you could all you would be demonstrating is random/probabilistic will which you are not yourself in control of, which is the kind of free will that everyone seems to care most deeply about. Everything that science can demonstrate about the predictability of human behavior is not exactly a faith based argument, but the quantum bits of freedom you're grasping at in order to justify free will seems downright faith based to me...

Forgive me, but is pontificating about faith and experience the best way to conduct this debate? If I have faith in determinism, then you have faith in in-determinism. So what? I've brought up some fairly specific points which I'd like you to address directly. — VagabondSpectre

Wrong. I have everyday experience to support my views and there is nothing in science that stands in opposition to free choice. Any interpretation of quantum physics is non-deterministic which means there is nothing that is determined. Nothing.

So determinists come in with this story that I am not making choices but some Laws of Nature are doing it all. Where did this come from?? Determinism has zero evidence. There is absolutely nothing to support the notion that everything is determined or anything it's determined and the choices we make are either governed by some supernatural God or Laws of Nature which in turn are mystically creating the illusion of choice.

Why do people embrace such faith in a fated universe? Why do people wish to transfer their lives to God or to the Laws of Nature? This is the key question. I believe it has most to do with hope, which is the business of those who sell faith. Do such people have faith that science or God will fix everything? Faith is interesting.

I have everyday experience to support my views — Rich

Alack, alas. How could i ever compete with the ultimate standard of "your everyday experience".

If you wish to hold faith in the idea that your brain is exempt from causation, so be it. Until you put forward some evidence for your claims or address my criticisms, there's nothing left to say...

Of course we make choices. ...choices that are mostly, almost entirely, or entirely determined by our prior inclinations and predispositions, and events and conditions in our surroundings. — Michael Ossipoff

I agree. Events are not pre-determined - they unfold according to a multitude of causal factors, including choices made by living things. We make choices according to desired outcomes, the expected probability of which is based on previous experience. Previous experience is built on past choices and outcomes. At the root though, are all factors over which you had no control - genetic make-up, parenting, societal influences. So while it feels like you have created yourself and your will to choose, you really had no control over the initial inputs that formed the basis of your first choice.

In 1920's 'they' found out that the idea of determinism is not right due to the discovery of quantum physics. So how do quantum physics give the Universe 'free will'? Or is quantum physics just an other thing we have yet to fully understand and is determinism still right? — FMRovers

Not necessarily true. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM says that there is indeterminism, but there also exist other interpretations as well that say there are hidden variables which support a causal view of nature, such as the Bohm interpretation. In fact, there are plenty of interpretations, some of which are deterministic but some aren't, and there doesn't seem to be any consensus agreement that any one is true, so the question of determinism is up for grabs.

As for the implications of this quantum indeterminism on free will if such indeterminism does exist, whether or not this grants us "free will" depends on what you want to get out of the idea. If by "free" you are just looking for us to make decisions that are unhinged by any sort of deterministic influence (simply making choices that are uncaused), then we can technically have free will if we can draw a clear line linking the decision making processes in our minds and the quantum process of the subatomic world. In theory, this seems possible, as the former is reducible to the latter, but it seems like a very rare occurrence even if it does occur. Of course, if you're looking for anything more substantial than that (or somehow less "chaotic") than that, then I don't think you can get that from QM.

The fact is, QM isn't really the best theory we have, since it doesn't mesh well with GR, and vice versa for GR. We are still looking for a theory of Quantum Gravity so it's likely that one or both will be replaced in the future. How this all will mesh with determinism isn't really clear, but it seems like alot of different ideas are on the table with respect to a theory of QG (continuity, the multiverse and the existence of higher dimensions being some examples), so it's debatable which ones are right and which are wrong.

Evidence? I decided to respond and I did in this post. The words I wrote were chosen by me. My own mind.

You figure God/Laws of Nature did the writing and posting?

I decided to respond and I did in this post. — Rich

Yes, but your decision to respond and your decision to even use those words was all based on what came before, at the root of which you had no control.

Determinism has zero evidence. There is absolutely nothing to support the notion that everything is determined or anything it's determined and the choices we make are either governed by some supernatural God or Laws of Nature which in turn are mystically creating the illusion of choice. — Rich

Yeah, determinism has zero evidence, apart from the fact that we find that pretty much everything in the physical universe is determined by the laws of nature. That's what science is all about.

Absolutely not. The choice were my own. Of all the words I know, I chose these. I can choose different words if you would like me to demonstrate. Exactly who or what do you believe is choosing the words?

You figure God/Laws of Nature did the writing and posting? — Rich

Do you think random/probabilistic quantum fluctuations did the writing?

Yeah, determinism has zero evidence, apart from the fact that we find that everything in the physical universe is determined by the laws of nature. That's what science is all about. — Mr Bee

Well that is a mouthful. Unfortunately for your purposes:

1) There is no such thing as the Laws of Nature. It is a made up please with no definition. It is precisely equivalent to God and has its roots in religion.

2) Science says that events are non-deterministic. If they were we could throw out Schrodinger's equation and replace it with Newton's. But, alas, science decided 100 years ago that Newton's Laws do not correspond to experimental evidence including Bell's Inequality which demonstrate non-locality.

So if you want to be a a determinist, go right ahead but science says no and everyday experience says no.

I said it was my mind doing the writing. We have minds. We don't need the Laws of Nature to make decisions for us. Why would someone want to make up something like the Laws of Nature in order to discard their own mind? Why? This question goes to the heart of why people embrace religion.

I never wanted to accept gravity. I always wanted to fly, but reality kept pulling me back down to earth.

In the end I accepted gravity because that's what the evidence pointed to, and because it's experimental reliability is unblemished.

Why do you reject gravity as made up?

P.S minds and natural physical laws are not mutually exclusive

@Mr Bee Living in a deterministic world would suggest that everything that is going to happen is already determined. That everything(almost everything) in this universe happens according to our laws of physics does not mean that everything is determined. Quantum mechanics predicts the chance of a particulair event. For example if one is about to measure the position of an electron, quantum mechanics can predict the chance you will find the electron in lets say position x. It is impossible to predict exactly what will happen. Not because the theory is incomplete or a because of a lack of information. It seems that this is how nature works, which would suggest that the universe is nondeterministic.

1) There is no such thing as the Laws of Nature. It is a made up please with no definition. It is precisely equivalent to God and has its roots in religion. — Rich

Then what are the scientists looking for if not laws that describe how our world works?

2) Science says that events are non-deterministic. If they were we could throw out Schrodinger's equation and replace it with Newton's. But, alas, science decided 100 years ago that Newton's Laws do not correspond to experimental evidence including Bell's Inequality which demonstrate non-locality. — Rich

This is the listing of all of the interpretations of QM (there are probably more but this is most of them). Realize that not all of them are indeterministic:



The Schrodinger Equation works, certainly. It's been experimentally verified time and time again by science. How we choose to interpret that is a whole other matter.

That everything(almost everything) in this universe happens according to our laws of physics does not mean that everything is determined. — Barry

Yeah, I originally meant to say that the vast majority of our scientific theories (barring QM which is debatable) are and have been deterministic and operate on deterministic mechanisms. That's clearly evidence of determinism and not zero evidence.

Quantum mechanics predicts the chance of a particulair event. For example if one is about to measure the position of an electron, quantum mechanics can predict the chance you will find the electron in lets say position x. It is impossible to predict exactly what will happen. Not because the theory is incomplete or a because of a lack of information. It seems that this is how nature works, which would suggest that the universe is nondeterministic. — Barry

Like I told Rich and the OP, there are different interpretations of QM, and not all of them are deterministic. A deterministic worldview is just as compatible with the science as any.

Try to fly and see what happens. Try to make a choice and see what happens.

It's tough arguing with the faithful, so let's call it quits. Really, there is no discussion when it comes to faith.

You realize that Bohm himself said that his equations are causal but not deterministic. They can't be because the quantum potential has to be probabilistic and it's right there as a probabilistic function in his equation. So that person who created that chart is just copying someone else's error. It happens when people are lazy.

Do you have any idea what the ontological ramifications are off the Many-World Interpretation? How everyone is smeared across an infinite number of imaginary worlds creating and equally imaginary meta-mega-world. Is this your ontological construct? No matter, in this world, in this universe, the one we love and love in, all remains probabilistic. I'll let the science fiction writers deal with the infinite worlds interpretation. But if that is your belief, so be it. You don't have choices but you are smeared across an infinite number of ever growing worlds. To each his own.

Schrodinger's equations are probabilistic in this world and this universe. There is plenty of evidence to support Bohm's interpretation (verification of Bells Theorem), zero for the Many-Many-Infinite-Many-Worlds interpretation.

Like I told Rich and the OP, there are different interpretations of QM, and not all of them are deterministic. A deterministic worldview is just as compatible with the science as any. — Mr Bee

Not really. The only stretch is the Many-Many-Infinity-Many-Worlds for which there is zero evidence and forever will be zero evidence. That is what Determinism had evolved into.

You realize that Bohm himself said that his equations are causal but not deterministic. — Rich

What's the difference? Is causal compatible with uncaused indeterminism?

They can't be because the quantum potential has to be probabilistic and it's right there as a probabilistic function in his equation. So that person who created that chart is just copying someone else's error. It happens when people are lazy. — Rich

I'm sorry, but it's actually common knowledge that the Bohm interpretation is deterministic. It's a non-local hidden variables theory. The only person I've heard that seems to be suggesting otherwise is you. Of course I don't have the technical know-how to understand the details of the Bohm Interpretation myself (and it'd be impractical of me to learn about it on the fly) so I can only put your word against theirs.

What's the difference? Is causal compatible with uncaused indeterminism? — Mr Bee

There is a cause but outcomes are probabilistic not deterministic.

I'm sorry, but it's actually common knowledge that the Bohm interpretation is deterministic. — Mr Bee

You mean it is a common mistake. Bohm himself stated otherwise as his model, the Implicate Order, actually incorporates creative novelty, a concept that Bohm cherished. He wrote an excellent essay on the nature of creative intuition and novelty.

The only person I've heard that seems to be suggesting otherwise is you. — Mr Bee

I just told you my source is Bohm himself. Read the source and not some chart. That is what I did.

I just told you my source is Bohm himself. Read the source and not some chart. That is What I did. — Rich

Then perhaps you can show me a quote where he specifically says that his Bohmian theory is indeterministic.

He writes in his book Science, Order and Creativity:

"Although the interpretation is termed causal, this should not be taken as implying a form of complete determinism. Indeed it will be shown that this interpretation opens the door for the creative operation of underlying, and yet subtler, levels of reality."

Hmm, interesting. I didn't know of that. Unfortunately, like I said earlier, I have no technical knowledge to rely on so I can't look into it. The best I can do is listen to what others have to say about it. Still not entirely sure what " creative operation of underlying, and yet subtler, levels of reality" could mean though.

Exactly who or what do you believe is choosing the words? — Rich

You are choosing the words, but you are choosing based on all of your previous choices and experiences. Your first choice ever was based on your biological instincts, the environment into which you were born, and other factors that you didn't choose. So yes, you are able to make choices that will affect your future, but you shouldn't take credit or accept blame for the choices or the results. That being said, in the absence of any learned or physiological dysfunction of the brain, a person will be motivated to make choices that make life a more positive experience.