Quantum Ninja

I'm sure this topic has been discussed to death around here, but I'm new, so I'm excused. Anyway, I'm trying to arrive at a precise definition of free will. Here's what I've brainstormed so far.

Agent X has free will with respect to action Y performed at time T if:

1. X is physically capable of performing Y
2. X has the potential to perform at least one other action other than Y at T
3. At any time prior to T, it was neither true nor false that X would perform Y (Y only becomes true at T)
4. At time T, given the exact same conditions, X could have performed differently
5. At time T, given the exact same conditions, X could have performed exactly the same


This is not meant to be a finished definition, but rather a start. I still feel like there's something missing. What do you think? Any input or criticisms are welcome.

js_africanus

Should it have a statement regarding personal agency? X could do Y or Z at T, but I'm not seeing a statement indicating that it is actually X who decides which to do.

Would personal agency make a difference? Consider this short paper about the paradox of choice. A person is free to choose, yet the choice is completely determined by preferences. The person could not choose differently and still have the same preferences. Personal agency does not imply free will....

Quantum Ninja

Good point. I think something about this needs to be included in the definition. Otherwise, after re-analyzing my idea, I realized that an electron travelling as a probability wave in a two-slit interference experiment could be said to have free-will according to what I have so far in my definition.

1. A single electron wave is physically capable of striking the detection screen on a particular interference fringe
2. The electron has the potential to fall on any other interference fringe on the screen
3. If quantum mechanics is truly non-deterministic, than it was neither true nor false that the electron would fall on any of the fringes before it actually fell on a particular one
4. The electron could have fallen on any other of the interference fringes
5. The electron could have fallen on the exact same interference fringe

Therefore, the electron has free will.

What I have so far is obviously incomplete. Hmm... must think on this some more.

Godless Wonder

I think parhaps you have shown that the behavior of the electron is nondeterministic. You have not shown that the electron has free will. They are not the same thing, in my book.

I'm not even sure the question of "free will" makes any sense. Suppose there are two universes. One in which people are strictly a (highly organized) collection of molecules bouncing around in accordance with the (non-supernatural) laws of phyisics (which we don't yet have a total grasp of). In this universe, the movement of the molecules is non-deterministic, but there is no free will.

What experiment could the denizens of this universe perform to tell whether or not they did have free will? To them, it would appear that they _do_ have free will, in the same way it appears so to the average earthling.

Now suppose you have the 2nd universe, in which there is "true" free will? How can you distinguish this universe from the first? What is it about the "true" free will that is different than the illusion of free will that the first universe provides? Is it "magic" in some way? How does it work?

I posit that there is no such thing as this "true" free will, only the illusion of free will provided by the complexity of our minds interacting with all the stimuli which it is experiencing or has memory of having experienced. (I mean memory, not in the every day sense here, but mean "has been affected in any way, however slight") Basically, I posit that this illusion of free will is good enough that this illusion is what we call free will, and the other "true" free will, which involves some kind of "magic", is not a real thing. Just my hard-line materialist opinion.

Quantum Ninja

I wasn't trying to prove that the electron has free will. I was using the electron example to show how my definition is incomplete. It is not my belief that electrons do have free will, which is why I brought this example up. It's a loophole in my definition.

I'm not trying to argue whether or not free will exists. I'm merely trying to arrive at a definition. If you can't define what your rejecting, on what basis can you reject it?

For instance, we can define what a square is, and as such, we can be reasonably sure that no perfect squares exist in the universe. Anything that looks like a perfect square is more or less an illusion of a perfect square (since the edge is composed of atoms, which are by no means straight). I'd like to know what free will really means before I completely reject it. It may turn out to be an illusion like our friend the square, but first we need to define what we're talking about.

haverbob

An integral part of the "free will" definition as i understand it means that the object in question must make a "decision" for it to be "free will". "will" means "desired outcome" and "free" means we can "choose" what we believe will lead us to the desired outcome. Now the term "desired outcome" might be a little misleading because one might say that even a random choice is still a choice (but not free will). Ex. "pick a card, any card". In this case, the card we picked is thought to be a random choice and therefore we are not really practicing "free will" because there is no desired outcome in selecting a card randomly. However, we practice free will in this situation by choosing to select a card or not select a card. Maybe I missed something but I hope this helps

Quantum Ninja

You're right. "Decision" is an integral part of free will, but here's the problem I have with it:

Free will is the ability to perform an action based on a decision... a decision is a commitment to a desired outcome made using free will. Free-will requires a decision, but a decision requires free will. You see how that's circular? I'm trying to avoid that in the definition of free will, but I'm stumped at coming up with any alternatives.

Warcraft3

Whats a quantum ninja?



Russ

haverbob

Okay. Hmmm.... This makes it interesting. Lets see what the boys at dictionary.com have to say.

Decision:
1) The passing of judgment on an issue under consideration.
2) The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one's mind.
3) A conclusion or judgment reached or pronounced; a verdict

Free Will:
1) The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2) The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

I think "decision" definition #2 is most appropriate here and "free will" definition #1 is the most appropriate (for the purposes of this discussion)

Hmmm.... so lets see. If one has "free will" one can decide what they want (the action part you mentioned is not always true, technically speaking), but do i decide to have free will? No, either i have it or I don't. So looking at it through that particular pair of glasses, "free will" does not require a decision, it exists without a decision being made. It merely requires "the ability or opportunity" to make a decision of your choice, but not a decision in of itself. Does this work for you? So far it does for me (although i may change my mind, this is a tough concept)

js_africanus

Some ninjas come in indivisible units, or quanta. So I'm guessing that QN is one of those ninjas. Don't ask about hyperbolic ninjas.