Do Subatomic Particles Have Free Will?
sciencenews.org
sciencenews.org
I think there is a big equivocation here. Free-will does not mean "unpredictable" -- which as a human trait, is a consequence of free-will not its essence. More to the point, free-will is a property of human consciousness not atoms, etc. If the authors have (unwittingly) proven anything it's that QM commits the mind-projection-fallacy as specifically identified by Edwin Jaynes in "Probability Theory" or more generally a form of Ayn Rand's primacy-of-consciousness error in many of her articles.
Free will does not mean unpredictability, but if unpredictability is a consequence of free will, and there is no unpredictability, then we can say that free will does not exist.
I don't understand that; how can something exist in reality but not in theory? That implies to me that the theory is wrong
That's kinda the point of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which prove that there are definite limitations in formal (read theoretical) systems.
In fact, indeterminism would not help with the free will situation in any way. Indeterminism just means part of physics is random.
The best way to reconcile free will with the various attacks is to say that it is an explanation -- the best one we have -- and to reject reductionism.
On the other hand, that has nothing to do with free will. Even if true randomness exists, and we suppose that even the ability to act randomly would not fall under most's definition of "free will".
That's not an assertion, that's a definition.
The truth is that we cannot know if there are things that are 'above' these laws, because we are not capable of observing outside of these laws. You are eyes are made of matter and mass, if something existed that was fundamentally different, how could you deal with it with your eyes? You can't see it or observe it.
Anyway, with respect to the topic: you're suggesting that there is the possibility of a higher level of knowledge beyond what we can observe with our physical eyeballs. This is a fallacy that goes against everything science stands for. Science is the platform upon which you build models that describe the physical world.
For example, if we witness the effects of gravity occurring over and over in many experiments, then we can create a model of what we saw: the Law of Gravity. Then we can make the assumption that whenever there is mass, there is gravity. So far, it works. If something can be physically shown to break/violate the law, then it will be reexamined and the model will be changed to satisfy the new information.
There is no evidence of anything above or beyond the physical/theoretical models of science. To suggest there is implies faith.
Are you religious, maxklein?
Observation is inherently limited by our observational capabilities, and this is not a radical thought, it's a very very basic thought. So your argument is not just wrong, it's incredibly wrong, and you should not be making it.
For example: Electrons. To posit that there are electrons, but viewed strictly from a 16th century perspective is a position that cannot be observed based off the technology available to them at that time.
As a purist, I take offense when anybody tries to claim that observation and experimentation can be anything but assumptions. It is something we observe to be a certain way, but very restricted by our particular viewpoint.
You think you are a man of science, but what you actually are is one of those people who said the earth could not be round because it looks flat. I've said something that is perfectly realisitic if one has some imagination, and you immediately shoot it down because it does not conform to how you think scientists should think.
Free your mind, and learn to deal with uncertainty.
Electrons are small and you can't see them with your eyeballs. But J.J. Thomson used models of how cathode rays work and how electrical conduction works, and he hypothesized and then experimentally showed that electrons exist. They may not exist, and any good scientist would be open to that possibility, given evidence. But the best models we have today show that they do exist.
Observation and experimentation are one level beyond assumption. They're assumption backed by evidence. Blind assumption is to "suppose a case is true without proof."
Imagination drives science, true. But nothing imagined is ever considered science, or even possible, without some kind of evidence.
Uncertainty is fine. Is there dark matter? Is it possible to travel faster than the speed of light? Why are photons both particles and waves? Uncertainty is what makes these the interesting questions in science.
UPDATE: There are cases where a patient experiences loss of brain function leading to an inability to make decisions. They require a guardian to make even the most trivial choices for them (e.g. what to wear, in what order to eat the items in their meal, etc.) What exactly have they lost? An answer to this question, scientific or otherwise, would be relevant to free will.
This is a philosophical question, and as such, can't really be answered experimentally. At the risk of sounding sophistical and clintonian, it depends on what you mean by "'really' free". You can be controlled by environmental factors and still exercise free will by some definitions of that term.
UPDATE: A brief summary of compatibalism: http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014SECT1
According to them dogs do not have free will but people do. Probably talking about ethics and moral side of "free will" question, not physical or religious. But even there "free will" is just an illusion in your mind.
Just because God may know what you will do ahead of time, does not mean God caused you to do it.
Sure it does.
But feel free to disagree if you like. Or can.
Within the confines of science, and outside the consideration of religion, philosophy, or faith, free will simply refers to the limits of determinism. i.e., is it possible to have enough information about the initial state of someone's life to perfectly predict all of their actions? At the moment, quantum mechanics says no, and so science says we have free will.
However, it's not a black-and-white, on-or-off thing either. Psychology and sociology can both make predictions about a person's life based on specifics of the person's initial state, and as genetics and biological sciences continue to touch borders with psychology, we find more and more that there are physical forces which influence the way people behave.
So, to what extent is there free will? If someone is born with the genetic traits for schizophrenia -- pre-determined by their parents, and their parents before them, and so on -- then just how much free will does that person have?
The question of determinism has nothing necessarily to do with religion.
As such, there is no free will, there is simply responses to outside influences which are grounded on some rules.
Hence, how can he say there is no algorithm to the way that the particle responds? How can he possibly know?
Or is he conducting what could be called "pop science" you know like stuff that people are walking faster today than twenty years ago
Even "basic" stuff like the Double-Slit experiment keeps me daydreaming for awhile.