Hacker News Reader

Randomness doesn't give you free will.

If you substitute direct choice of a particular next state and instead are only allowed to sample a state space, you still aren't free to choose.

Said another way: flipping a coin cant't make Harvey Dent free.

True, but if you think quantum mechanics is the same as "flipping a coin" I think you need to do more reading. I have yet to hear anyone explain the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment in a way that's remotely compatible with a classical understanding of reality, much less analogize it to a coin flip.

No, but particles states can only be in a limited set of positions / values.

While these values take a larger range, they are still limited. I believe the coin example jjaredsimpson gave was, while hyperbole, to show that the states are limited, and thus can't be used in and of itself as an explanation of free will.

> It's a logical deduction/conclusion that this low-level indeterminism is likely amplified into "choice" in human beings.

I would agree, and it's a concise way of putting it. It's easy to criticize the idea of quantum consciousness since no one yet can understand or explain how it would be physically possible, but in a deep way the idea of brains "capturing" / amplifying indeterminacy is extremely attractive.

I was really into this question a few years ago. I had quite a bit of existential angst about it as well.

I read Penrose, etc, but at the end of it could not find any plausible mechanism for humans having free will in the sense of uncaused causation. But I use a modified version of Daniel Dennett's take on it: we CAN choose, we just can't choose what we choose.

Another way of looking at it is to have two different "modes" for thinking of free will: in everyone's daily lives, they use the "traditional" view (how else could we have such things as moral praise or blame?), but when you look at the human brain as a physical system, you use the deterministic/pseudodeterministic view.

Free will arising from quantum indeterminacy, well, that's a thought of Robert Penrose. The bad news is that even he didn't manage to convince others and the theory didn't really took off. In other words, we are not yet ready to understand such a link.

However, there is the Strong Free Will Theorem of Conway and Kochen. Essentially, they prove that "if humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity", see http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf

And you need to take the realistic philosophical consequences of that very seriously ... if there is no free will ... I simply cannot imagine how someone can live with that.

I'll consider the realistic philosophical consequences of that seriously once they are presented. Your inability to imagine how someone can live with that doesn't provide any support for, and isn't an example of, what those realistic philosophical consequences are.

if there is no free will ... You might as well kill yourself now

So if one doesn't have choice, one should choose to kill oneself? This makes no sense.

If you can't tell that you are a "robot", does it really matter?

Does that steak taste any worse? Does the sunset seem less beautiful? Do your decisions feel less real?

Enjoy the ride! You only have 1 ticket =)

>If you can't tell //

Does it matter if you don't exist? I reckon, yes.

What? Not being in "control" is very different from not existing.