Hacker News Reader

The "randomness" of QM is merely an aspect of the discipline humans have designed, in order to digest the predictable parts of the systems examined.

We know, that due to differences of scale, and due to the fact that we must make predictions about systems in motion, as they exist, we must divorce ourselves from the concept of control.

But, the "randomness" is not assuredly an innate component of reality. It is simply how we deal with the circumstances as they have happened to confront us.

We have a tool that we use, in order to inspect reality. The information that the tool provides to us is practical and useful, but still represents only an estimate of unknowable facts.

You seem to be expounding the idea of local realism a la Albert Einstein

> "God does not play dice with the universe."

So you're in good company. However, it's more complicated than it appears and most physicists do not agree.

The randomness in QM is different and deeper than that which appears classically. For example, a coin flip isn't really random: if we can measure the coin's weight and the imparted momentum precisely enough we can predict the result. In QM this is fundamentally impossible, a measurement of a superposition state produces a random outcome. It's not merely and expression of our lack of knowledge of the underlying facts. Experimental violations of Bell's inequality demonstrate that there are no underlying facts in QM (called 'hidden variables'). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Unless you accept one of:

A) There is no free will: we are all enacting a clockwork fate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

B) Non-locality (faster than light interactions between distant systems)

It sound like you may already accept A, in which case fair enough!

My statement was written in such a way, so as to deliberately avoid this part of the conversation, forcing you're use of the word "seem" to be injected into your conclusion.

I am aware of the charged concepts of Bell's Theorem, Fate and Determinism and the interplay of Quantum Entanglement and that unique quirk of particle spins seeming to solidify into concrete realities, only after observation.

Basically, I'm taking the position of the agnostic, and concluding nothing. I am aware of the conflicts and debates you've enumerated, and eliciting no opinion or stance.

What I am saying, is that all of these things I've avoided are human interpretations of observed realities for now, and remain mostly unresolved, with neither side really giving in, regardless of numbers and head count on either side.

I think you make an important point, which if I understand correctly is that it's easy for lay persons to overlook the interpretive nature of QM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec...). Do most people know that QM or new theories that describe nature more comprehensively may not even require randomness at all? I know this starts to stray off the mainstream path but the point is nothing is set in stone and in fact, we can already be certain there's more to the story.

I think pop science is so important when done well, not withstanding the problems and pitfalls that come with it. But it seems damn hard to get across some of these subtleties in an easy to understand but still meaningful way. Maybe when the next generation of science does a better job of unifying things it will be somehow easier to grok for all of us.

Your views sound outdated. There is a "you" separate from "your chemicals". In the same way a character in a video game is in fact very separate from the transistors that power the computer that the game runs on. They live in different worlds, by different rules and both have very different implications for life.

There is a perfectly valid and functional world model that incorporates both the science and it's atoms and spirituality. Functional in a sense that people having this view can both apply their knowledge to the scientific domain (building new mechanical machines) and also to the spiritual domain, that is be truly happy and enlightened in the way the experience their own life. (Seeing yourself (factually incorrectly) as ONLY a chemical machine does not produce happiness, mission, love, etc. (nor good health for that matter, because health is affected by psychological wellbeing a lot) without a solid spiritual foundation.) Jordan Peterson has a very good video about this, something about reconciling science and religion.

The point is, "Free Will" is not a scientific concept, it's a concept from spirituality. And can very well fit with all of the science that is known to humanity today. Free will comes not from the randomness of quantum mechanics, but from implications of the chaos theory (which has basically killed determinism as a means of understanding the human life experience).

On the contrary, I find that seeing myself as only a chemical machine is a very freeing experience that leads to greater happiness and contentment.

I find it strange that you can talk about concepts of 'you' being 'factually' correct or incorrect when there are very few established facts about consciousness or self - it all seems like mostly open philosophical debate from what I've seen.

I don't think you are necessarily in disagreement with him.

The fact we are machines doesn't mean the circuits to video game analogy is incorrect, in fact I think it's apt.

If physics is about understanding the fundamental nature of matter and energy then why do we study chemistry? Because they are different abstractions that yield different insights.

So the point is thinking about consciousness may be more useful that thinking about chemicals even if we understand some of the low level mechanics.

Yes, "factual" was not the best word choice. "Factual" in that context was something like "having obvious empirical and experiential basis".

I like the optimistic and practical approach of your response, and agree on the you separate from chemicals abstraction idea. However:

>>"Free Will" is not a scientific concept, it's a concept from spirituality.

It is a scientific concept! I agree it's not always about science, and the concept has different implications depending on context. But it has it's place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approache...

>>can very well fit with all of the science that is known

Let's be clear here. There is no scientific consensus that free will exists, however you want to define it. Aliens landing in my backyard last night could also fit with all of the science that is known. So you may be technically correct but the claim is so weak as to be nearly meaningless.

>>[good video by Jordan Peterson reconciling science and religion]

I may take a look if I can build up the courage to be disappointed, but it seems strange to try and reconcile the natural with the supernatural.

What's wrong with keeping them separate? Science is falsifiable and religion is not. One sometimes advances the knowledge of humanity and one sometimes allows us be happier humans.

>> So you may be technically correct but the claim is so weak as to be nearly meaningless. My claim was referring to the following: many "science" people have a hard time developing their spiritual side, because of what they learn about the scientific models of the universe. Lacking proper guidance to place those models in proper places in their mind, they often end up believing (even subconsciously) that believing in "science" collides with with having a spiritual experience. I was pointing out that there are very good ways to combine the two. But yes you have a point and I get it.

>> What's wrong with keeping them separate? Science is falsifiable and religion is not. One sometimes advances the knowledge of humanity and one sometimes allows us be happier humans. There is nothing wrong with anything ;). But seriously, I think that reconciling some parts of those just leads to a deeper and more profound understanding of life. Not only being able to see either a particle or a wave, but even the deeper underlying phenomena combining the both.

You can't really define Free Will as something different and then claim it exists. Free Will has an agreed upon definition.

Free Will is the capacity to have done differently given the same situation.

Free Will is completely absent in a enormous number of circumstances. Are you free to stop understanding English? Are you free to not be persuaded by a logical argument you comprehend? When presented with a donut while on a diet are you free to determine your level of will power to resist?

Free will conditioned on chaos theory is just jargon and ventures into "not even wrong" territory. If free will is sensitive to initial conditions then actors evolving in time are not free to choose their trajectories.

If your happiness is conditioned on incorrect beliefs about your essential nature and capacities then you should reconcile your beliefs with reality, not argue that the understanding of essential nature is incomplete or wrong.

Your response may not be as productive as you intended, it sounds a little dismissive.

>>Free Will has an agreed upon definition

It may have definitions, but used in isolation it's actually ambiguous as hell. Even between science and philosophy the discussions can be pretty divergent.

>>you should reconcile your beliefs with reality, not argue that the understanding of essential nature is incomplete or wrong

Quite wrong I would say. Our common goal is to interpret our existence in a way that provides the best life possible for us, and hopefully for those around us.

If a person can lead a happier life and do the most good for others only by not accepting a scientific principle then I would not discourage them from that.

In fact, if I could somehow unbelieve some science and be guaranteed my family would be happier I might consider it.

Some of us are just made in a way we can only worship at the alter of objective truth no matter what the cost or the pain. I don't think there's any way to change that, but I certainly don't want anyone to join the club at the expense of the most important goal we have.

>if I could somehow unbelieve some science and be guaranteed my family would be happier I might consider it

I don't see how this can be defended. It commits you potentially dangerous and unethical behavior.

Suppose you were to unbelieve, "africans are humans." By not holding this belief you might be quite able to happily own and mistreat slaves.

This example is extreme, but the point I'm making still stands. If ones happiness is contingent on holding false beliefs then what value is the happiness. How can self-deception through pleasure seeking mental states be elevated in opposition to engaging with objective reality?

Seeking pleasure certainly does not ensure ethical behavior and in many cases explicitly conflicts with acting ethically.

>Our common goal is to interpret our existence in a way that provides the best life possible for us

I'm very wary of interpretation motivated for pleasure as opposed to clarity and truth.

Your stance is completely true. In theory.

In practice the situation is very different, because noone knows (or has any way of knowing) what objective reality is, and whether one's beliefs are "false" or not. Yes, we do have the scientific method and some ways of trying to figure things out, but ultimately it's a question of choice of right mindset. The right framework. An experiment might get some data within a framework. It cannot give you a framework.

With the belief "africans are humans" example, we might all agree on that. However on the beliefs like "if it feels hard to learn this skill, it just means I'm not cut out for this" versus "I can learn anything, universe is friendly and will ultimately give me what I need, I'll keep trying to learn this" - something like that will give you hard time if you're doing solely by scientific method and if you think that you can even know whether the belief is truthful to some "objective reality" or not. Both of the stances can be shown to be "truth" or "false", and they they will yield so different results in the personal life of a human that chooses to acquire them. Is believing one of them is self-deception? Maybe it's believing the other that is self-deception?

>> I'm very wary of interpretation motivated for pleasure as opposed to clarity and truth.

And it's very interesting how that has been working out for you? In most people that I've studied it does not lead to a particularly happy life. (Not just stable, but happy.)

I think the core issue here is that in the internal world of humans' souls, there is no such thing as "clarity and truth". It does not work that way. Something like pleasure (but concepts of love, compassion, greatfulness, and others can give even better results) are just better suited. Because in the areas where they are used (the happiness and enlightenment) those things are just easier to find. Concepts of "truths" on the other hand are notoriously elusive and in many ways simply non-existant. What is your life, a tragedy of stoicism? A pointless nihilistic movie? An enlightened miracle? Which one is the "truth"?

Ignorance is not a commitment to unethical behavior. Ignorance has certainly been used to justify evil but it's arguable how much of that justification was merely a means to an end.

For thousands of years there have been people who choose good and people who choose evil. I believe quite a bit of the people who have chosen evil did so while knowing at some level it was wrong, regardless of how much scientific knowledge the had.

There is a lot of discussion about definitions of Free Will. If you define which one of them you are operating upon, then perhaps we can continue discussion. So far I'm not sure what you're trying to debate :/.

I am assuming your full definition is not "Free Will is the capacity to have done differently given the same situation.", because that definition has a lot of problems: How do you define "same" situation? In our life there are no two cases which can be called "same situation". There are no 2 same humans, there are no 2 same time instants, there are no two same life situations, etc.? So what is the point of having this definition? At the very least, it's very non-scientific?

"There is no free will!" is also used by some radical neurologists to suggest questionable changes to society, some seriously close to human rights abuses. So to counter that other areas of science (or gaps therein) are searched for what seems like free will, but as you said this won't change anything.

I think the concept of free will is needed, and not as a necessary lie to hold society together. I think of it as the number of paths open to you and the likelihood of every one. With every decision you will then randomly fall into one (aided by QM or not). So every person can and should be encouraged to cultivate their pathway network, which is what an open society based on discussions and science already does. Yes, all this is not "free will" in the strictest sense and should probably get a hipper name, but this will serve humanity and humanism more than the alternative of what in the end is just fatalism.

With every decision you will then randomly fall into one (aided by QM or not).

»Making a decision« is not a coherent concept. Your actions can either be a function of the current state of the universe or they can be independent of the current state of the universe, they can be either deterministic or random. Or some combination of the two.

»Making a decision«, at least that is the way I understand it, means choosing one of several different possible actions and this choice is neither random nor determined by the current state of the universe. As far as I can tell such a thing can not exist, random means not a function of the current state, a function of the current state means not random, there is no room for a third option.

And if you think carefully about it, you will notice that »making a decisions« really makes no sense despite the fact that we use the phrase all the time. Just think a bit about a thing that is neither a function of the current state nor random, it just makes no sense. If it existence, then we are currently missing something extremely fundamental about the world.

So every person can and should be encouraged to cultivate their pathway network, which is what an open society based on discussions and science already does.

We will probably do this but it is fundamentally an illusion without free will and as I just said I am pretty certain it is. Without free will things like encouraging people are meaningless, things just happen, whether deterministically or randomly. I am as stuck as everyone else with the belief that I can make decisions and go down one path or another, but it is an illusion.

We will probably keep talking as it were not for the foreseeable future, we will encourage people to do this or that, we will decide to do one thing instead of a different thing, we will be happy or disappointed or angry that someone decided to a specific thing. We will continue to ignore that all this is not in my or your or anyone's control. Not that we could change it, outside of our control, too.

> »Making a decision« is not a coherent concept.

You might "believe" that, but I doubt that you believe it "in your heart of hearts" (I.e. that you alieve it).

Choice is fundamental to the human experience. Regardless of its objective existence, disbelieving it's existence doesn't allow for making better choices.

Choice is presupposed.

Choose well.

> As far as I can tell such a thing can not exist, random means not a function of the current state, a function of the current state means not random, there is no room for a third option.

That's an very good and intuitive point, thanks. Winner in the "shut down the old, silly, unproductive discussion in the least amount of sentences" category.

Indeed, Making a decision« is not a coherent concept., I should have written the quoted sentence as "making a 'decision' means you will then randomly (but weighted) fall into one outcome". Whether that source of randomness is QM or just deterministic chaos* (say, it depends on being somewhere a second early or any other butterfly-factor). The point is, some decisions might always have a p=1.0, others only a p=.8. And in the not-QM case that is decided by other factors in advance, so the closer you get to the point-in-time itself, the closer it gets to 1.0.

The point is that these different probability values are there, and could be a faux-will. E.g., no matter how bad your commute was, you will be kind to your coworkers (high p), or if your mind encounters new information, you might change your mind (p ~ .5).

Concrete example:

like encouraging people are meaningless

Person has an exam in a week, nobody cheers, and depending how good the coffee is over a week, the weather, etc., p_passing_the_exam is 0.6. So, rolling back time and playing it again 40:60, QM outside the mind, maybe someone making decisions with a geiger counter could be the randomness source. But with some encouraging, p might climb to 0.7 because they outweigh some negative factors. The fact that you cheered someone on, is of course also just a certain probability, but one which you could shape.

* if it is all deterministic chaos and QM is a big lie, then Maxwells daemon could compute it all, but nobody in this universe will every have access to all that data, so it is the same.

"there is no free will" is used by all neuroscientists I have ever worked with, and I have been a neuroscientist for 10 years. Those are not radicals. Moreover, I have never heard of a scientist who would suggest human right abuses except maybe in Nazi germany or other totalitarian regime. Questionnable changes to society, that depends on your view of the world, if you are a climate change denier then a scientist would be perceived as trying to change society in a questionable way I suppose.

Interestingly I wrote an essay about morality that essentially follows your logic of maximizing the number of paths a person has open to them, although I used different terminology.

https://medium.com/@Med_Student/on-morality-4a30d7e20dc8?sou...

That QM is random to us is no more correct on its face than a dice roll being random. A dice roll follows rules of classical physics and given enough information about the state of the system we can accurately predict /exactly/ how the die will land. It ceases to be random as we increase knowledge.

That QM has a limit to the knowledge we can acquire within the confines of our observations does not indicate some philosophical "true randomness."

John Conway and Simon Kochen would like to have a word with you: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079