Thomas Ash

Hi PotatoError. There seem to be no end of atheists in Britain. You might like to introduce yourself in the Welcome, Introductions and Help forum from the <a href="http://www.iidb.org/" target="_blank">main page</a>...

Thomas Ash

Starboy, I'm very interested in what you're saying about quantum mechanics. I have a friend who knows some physics (well, OK, he only studied it up to age 18, but that's more than I did ) and he gave a similar example of a photon or electron going through a peice of metal with 2 slits being truly random. He also said that the presence of an observer changed what happened - is this right?
Still, I don't think this changes all that much for determinism - it just alters the ways in which prior states affect your choices, doesn't it? Even if there's an element of randomness (or apparent randomness - couldn't quantum mechanics only look random, and actually be determined in a way we don't understand?) you can still predict an 'expectation' of what you'll choose [ie. E(what you'll choose).] Like I said, I don't claim to fully understand quantum mechanics - am I understanging correctly?

Oxymoron

I'm not Starboy, but perhaps I can be of service?

Quantum mechanics is - frighteningly - truly random at a fundamental level. It not only limits how much we know about a system, it limits how much can be known about that system. Better equipment or experiments will not mitigate the Heisneberg relations.

As an example of a truly random process, consider the radioactive decay of an element. Sure, you can say that element has a half-life of (blah), but that's just a probability, and you find that the probability distribution is non-zero everywhere. No heating, cooling or other (non-nuclear) attempts to screw with an atom can provoke it to decay, it will just do it at a random time.

There are various two-slit experiments. They all show that (a) matter can interfere with itself just like waves do, (b) this happens even with a single particle (photon or electron or whatever).

There are variants that use quantum entanglement of particles to determine left or right branches for use in, for example, cryptography. These, when set up correctly (in theory anyway) are totally secure conduits for message-passing and they exploit the totally random nature of Quantum parameters (as opposed to the deterministic but difficult and time-consuming 'prime number factorisation' cryptologies used today).

Sickening, isn't it?

Thomas Ash

OK, I guess you'll do
I get that. But though that may be all that's relevant in terms of science, if we're discussing a philosophical issue like free will, it doesn't matter (well, at least it doesn't completely overturn determinism) if we'll never be able to fully predict people's choices. It's whether there is in each individual circumstance one particular choice someone is going to make, whether knowable or not, that affects determinism.
Wow. eek!
Could you clarify what you mean by "matter can interfere with itself just like waves do." I thought I knew that! Here's an example of it happening: <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
How can you ever have a totally secure conduit. If someone at one end can receive a message, then can't someone else just mimic what they're doing. Or are only the particles at the intended recipient's end able to decipher it?
I see what you mean.

PotatoError

"Quantum mechanics is - frighteningly - truly random at a fundamental level. It not only limits how much we know about a system, it limits how much can be known about that system. Better equipment or experiments will not mitigate the Heisneberg relations."

Surely this isn't actually TRUE randomness but only random to humans in the same way that we say the weather is random.

Just because we can never ever predict something with certainty doesn't mean it is random, chaotic maybe but not random.

Radioactive decay SEEMS random but how do we know that it IS random? I cannot see how this cause and effect universe has place for randomness anywhere.

Okay, I don't know much more about quantum mechanics than what has been said here already. But I have heard experts say that the idea of quantum mechanics proving randomness is a misconception. All it does is prove that science will never be able to make certain predictions at the quantum level and therefore will never be able to predict anything with certainty.

probabilities are human designed and don't actually prove an event is random. They are an admission of our inability to predict determined events.

Kharakov

You are correct, but physics only deals with observable phenomena. It is meaningless and unproductive for physicists to speculate about some hidden reality that cannot be observed. Meaningless speculation is reserved for philosophers and journalists.

Devilnaut

Although I believe that there must be a mechanism behind even the seemingly random phenomenon of QM, what you say is true.

So, to get the discussion back on track, and assuming that everything is indeed random at some quantum level: can someone explain how randomness constitutes the operation of a "will"? It is certainly "free", but isn't free will (not the compatibilist version) a contradiction in terms?

PotatoError

"It is meaningless and unproductive for physicists to speculate about some hidden reality that cannot be observed"

True, but in the case of Free will vs determinism it is difficult to see where science stands.

You could say that we observe free will all the time therefore science should believe in free will. I am sure a great number of physicists believe in free will simply because they observe it.
But then again physics suggests determinism.

I fully believe that the universe is determined - I have seen no evidence contary to this except human free will. However I believe this is merely an illusion.

Starboy

Yes PotatoError, as far as is known scientifically, there is “true” randomness in the universe. This has been beat to death. It was thought that perhaps there were “hidden” variables that if known would allow this seemingly random phenomena to be predicted, but alas, according to Bell it isn’t so.

<a href="http://www.telp.com/philosophy/qw3.htm" target="_blank">Hidden Variables</a>

You can speculate if you wish that the universe is “classically” deterministic, but without evidence to support your claim you are engaging in wishful thinking.

Starboy

PotatoError

Ah i learn something new. I guess that stuff is random on a quantum level then :/ urh that pretty much means I have to do some solid days worth of rethinking.

Thanks for the link tho!