Artificial Intelligence

Arcane or Irrelevant Topic? On Free Will, Determinism, and Quantum Physics

This topic contains 62 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  _Robert_ 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 63 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #55540

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Part 1 here is what I wrote to ChatGPT, and part 2 is its response.

    —– —– —– 1 —– —– —–

    Human Concepts, Constructions, and Beliefs

    Intro: I am a human being. I use ChatGPT to help me put thoughts and questions into words that can hopefully make sense to other human beings. I believe that we can make the world better in many ways, when we can more accurately understand how it works, as documented in the sciences. I believe that understanding the nature of human beings is essential to our ability as a species to improve our lives together, while flourish without damaging Earth and other life on Earth.

    I personally understand determinism to be natural law, and that no “Free Will” can exist in the sense of it being able to defeat determinism.

    While I also don’t believe that so-called “predetermination” is possible, except in specific cases of closed micro-systems that are well understood. When all of a closed-system’s possible variables are known and understood well enough to reliably predict specific outcomes within them, we don’t apply the humanly constructed concepts of Free Will or Determinism to describe those predictions and outcomes.

    Note that we can ignore, by scientific definition, the potential effects of quantum level dynamics in closed systems at their macro levels. For example, how internal combustion engines behave at the sub-atomic, quantum level of potential behaviors is irrelevant, when they can always be understood and predictable at the macro levels of the combustion process, how they reliably power and move vehicles, and so on. The word “predetermination” itself strongly implies that an external agent, e.g. a consciousness external to a closed system, can reliably predict any and all micro-behaviors within the system, e.g. even its quantum-level behaviors.

    Even if/when we can reliably predict that quantum-entangled particles have predictable outcomes with relation to each other, we still cannot predict the quantum-level outcome, (e.g.) the “spin” of each, before their spin is “determined” by an outside influence. So in this sense alone, at least in our current level of understanding of quantum level behaviors, we cannot “predetermine” their outcomes.

    Although I don’t see how discussion of quantum level dynamics can possibly shed light on classic level physics, a new question has come to my mind that I can ask ChatGPT about: What, if any theories propose what the nature of quantum entanglement could have been on a macro scale at the big bang?

    ChatGPT, please answer that question if you can. Also, please critique all of what I’ve written here so far, keeping in mind that I want to expand my discussion to So-Called Free Will, vs Determinism, and other scientific and philosophical questions.

     

    —– —– —– 2 —– —– —–
    [I disagree with some of its response, but won’t get into that here.]

     

    Your question about quantum entanglement’s possible role at a macro scale during the Big Bang is fascinating and touches on current theories in quantum physics, cosmology, and philosophy. I’ll answer your direct question first and then provide a constructive critique of the ideas you’ve outlined, particularly around Free Will, Determinism, and the nature of closed systems.

    Quantum Entanglement at the Big Bang: Any Theories?
    While quantum entanglement is typically studied at the microscopic level, certain theoretical frameworks explore how quantum phenomena, like entanglement, could have shaped the early universe on a macro scale at the time of the Big Bang.

    Cosmic Inflation and Entanglement:

    Quantum Fields and Inflation: During the rapid inflationary period immediately after the Big Bang, quantum fluctuations in the energy field driving inflation (the “inflaton” field) are believed to have caused tiny perturbations in the density of matter and energy. These quantum fluctuations became “frozen” as inflation expanded space faster than light could communicate, embedding entanglement patterns across vast spatial scales.
    The entanglement of quantum fields during inflation is a hypothesis explored in theories like Quantum Cosmology. These fluctuations eventually seeded the structure of the universe, such as galaxies, and possibly retained some imprint of the quantum entanglement from that early moment.
    In this sense, entanglement during inflation might have “smeared” quantum correlations across cosmic scales.

    Holographic Principle and Entanglement:

    In some theories, such as those influenced by the AdS/CFT correspondence and the Holographic Principle, the universe’s macroscopic structure might emerge from underlying quantum entanglement. This implies that quantum correlations at the Big Bang could have been responsible for macroscopic phenomena like spacetime geometry itself.
    In such models, entanglement is a fundamental property that weaves the fabric of the cosmos, connecting regions of space and encoding information about the universe’s early state.

    Quantum Gravity and Big Bang Singularities:

    Quantum gravity theories like Loop Quantum Gravity or approaches involving quantum spacetime foam propose that classical physics breaks down at the Big Bang. If entanglement played a role in the very structure of spacetime, it could have contributed to how the universe transitioned from a quantum state to a macroscopic, classical one.
    For instance, the entire universe may have been in a highly entangled state at the Big Bang, and as it expanded, the entanglement “decohered” into the classical behavior we observe today.
    Summary: While these ideas remain theoretical and speculative, quantum entanglement may have played a critical role during cosmic inflation, encoded structure in the universe, or even helped “birth” spacetime itself. Current experiments in quantum cosmology, though challenging, aim to test for imprints of entanglement in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) or gravitational waves.

    Critique of Your Introductory Thoughts
    Your text is clear, thoughtful, and ambitious, aiming to address deep questions about nature, determinism, free will, and how human concepts intersect with physical reality. Here’s my analysis, broken down:

    1. Determinism and Free Will
    You define determinism as natural law, which is consistent with its standard use in science and philosophy: every event or state of affairs results from prior states according to fixed laws.

    Your rejection of Free Will as a “defeat” of determinism aligns with hard determinism (a position in philosophy). However, this position could benefit from addressing the nuances of Free Will:

    Compatibilism argues that determinism and Free Will can coexist. Free Will is reframed not as the ability to “escape” determinism but as the ability to act in accordance with one’s own internal motivations (free from coercion or external control).
    A critique here could ask: Does your version of Free Will require the violation of physical causality? If not, could you consider compatibilism’s take on Free Will as a practical and meaningful concept?

    2. “Predetermination” in Closed Systems
    Your discussion of closed systems is well-reasoned, particularly in rejecting predetermination at the quantum level due to uncertainty principles. However:

    Precision: You could clarify what you mean by “external agent.” Predetermination does not require consciousness or an agent; it simply refers to outcomes being fully predictable given sufficient knowledge of a system’s initial conditions and laws. This applies even to purely physical processes.
    Example: If you mean that quantum behaviors cannot be predicted even in principle, this aligns with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and modern quantum mechanics.
    You also correctly note that quantum-level behaviors generally don’t affect the macro scale behaviors of classical systems, such as engines or planetary orbits. This is true because of decoherence, where quantum uncertainty averages out at larger scales.

    3. Quantum Mechanics vs Classical Physics
    You’re right that quantum dynamics do not shed light on classical determinism (except in edge cases like quantum chaos). However:

    Your question ties quantum mechanics to macroscopic phenomena at the Big Bang, where classical physics and quantum physics are inseparably linked.
    Some philosophers argue that the nature of causality in quantum mechanics could have implications for classical determinism and Free Will.

    4. Expansion to Philosophical Questions
    To deepen your exploration of Free Will vs Determinism, consider these points:

    Emergent Behavior: Could Free Will be seen as an emergent property of complex systems like the brain? While neurons obey deterministic physical laws, the mind’s “will” may arise as a higher-level phenomenon (akin to how temperature emerges from molecular motion).
    Illusion of Free Will: Neuroscientific studies (e.g., Libet’s experiments) suggest that decisions are initiated in the brain before we’re consciously aware of them. Does this make Free Will an illusion?
    In contrast to determinism, some theories of indeterminism introduce randomness (e.g., quantum fluctuations). This raises further questions:

    If randomness exists, does it contribute to Free Will, or does it merely replace determinism with unpredictability?
    Does true Free Will require a third alternative beyond determinism and randomness?

    Suggestions for Your Expansion
    Explore compatibilism and emergent behavior as possible bridges between Free Will and determinism.
    Discuss quantum decoherence to show how macroscopic determinism coexists with quantum indeterminacy.
    Investigate how causality and time symmetry behave in quantum mechanics versus classical physics, especially at the Big Bang.
    If you’d like, I can draft sections expanding on these ideas or explore specific theories further!

    #55541

    @popebeanie  – Although I don’t see how discussion of quantum level dynamics can possibly shed light on classic level physics, a new question has come to my mind that I can ask ChatGPT about: What, if any theories propose what the nature of quantum entanglement could have been on a macro scale at the big bang?

    That is very similar to a ‘chat’ I was having. I think if (and when) we come up with a solution to unite QM and Classical Theory it will be based around our understanding of the collapse of the Wave Function. This will give us our best understanding of ‘Reality’. I am so convinced of this that I am getting a tattoo of my interpretation of the Wave Function collapse on my back. The reality of that is that I will only ever see a mirrored image of it!  Here are some snippits from a recent conversation:

    We explored the idea that understanding wave function collapse might help bridge the quantum world and the deterministic universe. I think it is as if the Quantum world collides with the edge of the classical universe and that causes the collapse.

    We considered whether the collapse could be seen as a natural, almost banal process, akin to the “death” of a quantum state.

    We reflected on Roger Penrose’s ideas and considered whether the wave function collapse could be viewed as a normal, almost banal occurrence, like the “death” of a quantum entity.

    We agreed that applying Occam’s Razor is a great way to approach complex theories, favoring simpler explanations when possible. It can be especially useful in theoretical physics, where simplicity often leads to more elegant solutions.

    Me: “Would the function collapse if not observed?”

    AI: In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave function collapse is thought to occur only when an observation or measurement is made. However, other interpretations, like the many-worlds theory, suggest that all possible outcomes occur in branching universes, so no collapse is needed. This remains a topic of debate and interpretation in physics. What do you think?

    Me: “I don’t really adhere to the multiverse theories.”

    AI: That’s understandable. There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the multiverse idea is just one among many. Some people prefer interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation or pilot-wave theory. It’s always fascinating to explore different viewpoints. What’s your perspective on this?

    Me: “Well, first of all, as the old adage goes, nobody understands quantum mechanics.”

    AI: That’s a famous quote from Richard Feynman! Quantum mechanics can indeed be very counterintuitive and complex. It often challenges our classical understanding of reality. What aspects of quantum mechanics do you find most intriguing?

    Me: “I think somewhere on the wave function collapse we could solve the theory of everything, a unifying theory between the quantum world and the deterministic universe.”

    AI: That’s a fascinating perspective! Understanding wave function collapse could indeed bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and classical physics. A unified theory that can describe both realms consistently would be a major breakthrough in physics. What other aspects of this idea interest you?

    Me: “I wonder how many physicists are actually studying this possibility.”

    AI: It’s definitely an area of interest for many physicists. The search for a Theory of Everything, including the nature of wave function collapse, involves various approaches like quantum gravity, string theory, and other frameworks. It’s a complex and active field with many scientists contributing in different ways. Are you interested in any particular approach?

    Me: “Yes, but I’d be an adherent of Occam’s Razor for most theories.”

    AI: Applying Occam’s Razor is a great way to approach complex theories, favoring simpler explanations when possible. It can be especially useful in theoretical physics, where simplicity often leads to more elegant solutions. What other principles do you find important in your approach to science?

    Me: Falsifiability is crucial…..

    AI: Falsifiability is indeed crucial. It’s one of the cornerstones of the scientific method, helping to distinguish scientific theories from non-scientific ones. It ensures that hypotheses can be tested and potentially proven wrong, which is essential for scientific progress. Are there any other key principles you rely on in your scientific thinking?

    Me: “I suspect when we do make advances in the quantum world, there will be sort of paradigm shifts as Thomas Kuhn would have called them.”

    AI: That’s a great point. Paradigm shifts, as described by Kuhn, often occur when new discoveries challenge the existing framework, leading to a fundamental change in understanding. The quantum world definitely holds potential for such shifts as we uncover more about its nature. What kind of paradigm shifts do you think might happen in the future?

    Me: “I think by the very nature, we can’t figure them out in advance. They just happen, like a type of punctuated equilibrium.”

    AI: Yes, punctuated equilibrium is a good analogy. Scientific progress can have long periods of stability with occasional, rapid shifts. It’s these unexpected discoveries and insights that drive major changes. It definitely keeps things exciting!

     

    #55542

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    LOL, IMO, you’re sounding more intelligent than the AI, in this case, as it looks like it’s just responding as basically as possible. Also, did you set it to respond to you more interactively, as it’s always asking for your opinion.

    I’m still only at a basic level, and am interested in the wave collapse as if entangled particles must exist on a single, very long, even an ever increasingly long wave connecting them. I did ask ChatGPT once if perhaps another dimension might exist that acts as if the distance between widely separated entangled particles in classic 3D actually is very short, even so short that they can look like they’re just one particle with two modes.

    Of course GPT responded with words about my ideas like, interesting, creative, intriguing, and so on. Makes me think the programmers threw some personality code into to it, especially for paying customers.

    Unfortunately, I don’t have the depth of knowledge to understand if/how an extra dimension like that could square with Bell Inequality tests. (It might even be a connection through a wormhole, but wtf do I know?!)

    #55543

    Unseen
    Participant

    You define determinism as natural law, which is consistent with its standard use in science and philosophy: every event or state of affairs results from prior states according to fixed laws.

    I realize I frame determinism that way but to be more precise every state of affairs is the result of its antecedents. Whatever happens is the result of the current state of affairs.

    #55546

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    You could clarify what you mean by “external agent.” Predetermination does not require consciousness or an agent; it simply refers to outcomes being fully predictable given sufficient knowledge of a system’s initial conditions and laws. This applies even to purely physical processes.

    I do want to clarify this. I might be missing something, but I can’t see what “predetermination” could mean, other than when a conscious agent or the determination process itself can predict outcomes beyond the current moment. I.e., in terms of what total information is available that would describe the current state and the current direction of processes, how could a “determining process” actually predict, i.e. pre-determine, what will happen further into the future, i.e. what has to happen next? It’s not like determinism “knows or decides” what will happen next and then next and then next, before it happens.

    I hope that explanation made enough sense for me to reasonably propose the following conclusion: Predeterminism can only make sense in the context of some ability to predict the future, e.g. with a mind, or by an all-knowing God. E.g. by an agent potentially external to the determinant system itself. I.e., doesn’t it follow that any form of predeterminism is impossible, or fantasy?

    Dayum though, how interesting is that… That a mind can often predict outcomes, like a form of calculated or simulated predeterminism, even if the mind cannot defeat or override determinism? Perhaps just having powers of prediction is what makes a lot of humans assume they might have effective agency external to a deterministic universe. (This reasoning is starting to feel circular, now. I hope it’s not contagious?)

    We are endowed with an ability to predict (or at least speculate on) futures, even when the universe itself is, by nature, NOT endowed with that ability.

    #55548

    _Robert_
    Participant

    We are endowed with an ability to predict (or at least speculate on) futures, even when the universe itself is, by nature, NOT endowed with that ability.

    You could say the evolution as an unconscious process is making predictions as to what combinations of attributes will succeed in the future.

    #55549

    _Robert_
    Participant

    You define determinism as natural law, which is consistent with its standard use in science and philosophy: every event or state of affairs results from prior states according to fixed laws.

    I realize I frame determinism that way but to be more precise every state of affairs is the result of its antecedents. Whatever happens is the result of the current state of affairs.

    The current state of affairs could result in many outcomes, however. All of them dependent on the current state. This is the softer version of determinism that could certainly give a brain the impression it has agency and real choices.

    #55550

    Unseen
    Participant

    The notion of free has many problems, the first one being defining it. And, of course, one of the easiest and least honest of ways of “solving” a problem is to define it away.

    One of the dishonest ways of giving us free will is to define it in a way such as this: “If you can do something you want to do and no external person or force is making you do it, then you are free and have free will.” That’s the cop out approach of many compatibilists.

    Ignoring the problem, as compatibilists do, is not a solution to the problem.

    At the same time, as a subscriber to the “ordinary language” approach/school of philosophy, I don’t think a solution that one needs a fancy degree to understand is a creditable solution. That may work in the hard sciences. If a physicist stands in front of a blackboard with a complicated formula behind him and tells me it means such and such, I take his word because I must.

    However, I don’t think a lay person should accept a philosopher’s word that he has a solution to a philosophical problem if it’s one that only other philosophers or people who can intelligently read philosophy can understand.

    “I have solved the free will problem and if you read my 400 page treatise and have a solid background on the history of the problem you’ll understand that I did” is bullshit. So that’s one way philosophy is different from the sciences.

    Now, a final word on introducing the quantum world into the discussion. There is no predeterminism because quantum level events can influence events in the world of everyday Newtonian/Einsteinian physics. Evidence: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, obviously, though more mundane influences happen as well. When the fire in the fireplace wanes, you move closer, for example. I’m sure, that influences coming from the subatomic level change the course of worldly events all the time.

    But whether the antecedent circumstances come from the gross or subatomic level, you’re still not free to resist them.

    #55551

    Unseen
    Participant

    The first line of my above post should read “The notion of free will has many problems,…” (emphasis mine)

    #55552

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Free will (as gifted by a loving god) as a way to explain away the problem of evil is such a provincial human excuse in stupidity. The idea that Adam and Eve lived in a perfect world without “evil” is stupid. There could be no evil tempting serpent, LOL. The idea that a single act of disobedience (as defined by a dictator) by one person (Eve) would result in painful childbirth for all from then on is both immoral and stupid. The idea that an all-knowing god would have regrets about his creation is impossible and stupid.

    The problem of “evil” is not really a problem at all. Living things do what they have evolved to do.

     

    #55554

    Unseen
    Participant

    @robert

    “Evil” is defined in different ways in different times, places, and communities. In Sparta, for example, it wasn’t evil to murder deformed or weak babies. Even today, is abortion evil? Depends who you ask, doesn’t it?

    #55555

    _Robert_
    Participant

    @robert “Evil” is defined in different ways in different times, places, and communities. In Sparta, for example, it wasn’t evil to murder deformed or weak babies. Even today, is abortion evil? Depends who you ask, doesn’t it?

    Evil in the context of a “loving, all powerful god” is all and any suffering that he could easily prevent. Explain why an all-powerful god could not turn bullets into popcorn, mid-air. As Nazis were herding Jews in gas chambers, god watched.

    Children dying of brain cancer is a creation of the god of Abraham so that we may have free will.

    This is the logic of christian apologists.

    #55556

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Now, a final word on introducing the quantum world into the discussion. There is no predeterminism because quantum level events can influence events in the world of everyday Newtonian/Einsteinian physics.

    I agree, and I feel responsible for potentially confusing a free will discussion with a mostly separate discussion on potential, rare, randomizing quantum effects. The two discussions should have been kept more separate, even when both were nagging me simultaneously.

    #55557

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    This is the logic of christian apologists.

    I was wondering when we’d hit post #55555. I missed it by one!

    #55558

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    “Evil” is defined in different ways in different times, places, and communities. In Sparta, for example, it wasn’t evil to murder deformed or weak babies.

    But they were doing it for unselfish reasons: for the greater good.  That’s not so different from our conception of good and evil.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 63 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.