[rtrunck]

“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.” ― Freeman Dyson

[josephpmay]

That quote is mindblowing. I don't think I've ever heard an argument for free will on a sub-atomic level. It never crossed my mind that that was a position someone could conceivably hold. But it's weirdly comforting- it almost feels religious- and I'm now thinking about how that would affect emergence.

[osrec]

It feels especially religious to me as a Hindu. A lot of Hinduism talks about a so called "sense of existence" - a vitalising, fundamental "thing" that permeates inanimate and animate beings. The quote reminded me a bit of that.

[novalis78]

It also reminds me of Arthur Schopenhauer’s concept of ‘world as representation of (universal) will’

[heavenlyblue]

The sad thing is that it takes someone quite smart (or let’s say someone with an abstract mind more or less) to understand how mediocre this idea essentially is.

[osrec]

Mediocre in what sense?

[samatman]

Conway (yep, that Conway) and Kochen elaborate on this in the Strong Free Will Theorem:

https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf

[Causality1]

Isn't that a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of "observer" in quantum physics? To "observe" is to cause a quantum system to interact in such a way that collapses probabilities. Whether there is a living observer is totally irrelevant.

[skosch]

Unless ... there is no observer at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

[v77]

I would say this is considered an open question.

[BalinKing]

AFAIK the details are unknown (e.g. what constitutes the boundary between the “measuring” system and the one that’s being “measured”), but the “alive”-ness of the observer is definitely known to be irrelevant.

[scotty79]

Only for non-physicists and physicists wondering about things outside of physics.

[hprotagonist]

it is “the measurement problem”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

[jes5199]

if I remember correctly, this paper specifically tries to prove that those are the same

[jes5199]

I don't know where I first heard that view, but I've long thought it was the only one that was plausible - where else could free will come from? is it supposed to sneak into physics somehow at a higher level?

[whatshisface]

Another plausible view is that it never sneaks in. Nondeterminism would only lead to free will if the mind somehow controlled the nondeterministic outcomes. We know the brain can't do that, so it's clearly a metaphysical question if you want to go further (the mind would have to be an agent distinct from the brain.) The answer to a metaphysical question is not always "no," but you will never be able to prove it.

[fancyfredbot]

I don't get this argument. If your mind deterministically makes a given decision in a given circumstance then that's what your mind decided to do. Another mind would make a different decision. That seems like your mind determined the outcome and that sounds like free will?

[jeremyjh]

The decision is the result of mechanical interactions of the atoms your brain is made of. Unless the mind controls the atoms it’s simply a projection of them. A lot of people are uncomfortable with that idea, but this discomfort is also only a projection and the atoms don’t give a damn about it. Where is the freedom exactly?

[fancyfredbot]

I guess I think the atoms are the mind so if the atoms make the decision the mind makes the decision.

[laumars]

I think the GPs point is that the decision is less about free will and more about programming that has taken place through the lifetime of the host.

For example if someone asks me if I want tea or coffee and I know I don’t like coffee then I’m always going to choose tea irrespective of my free will.

This is just a crude example though, our psychology is infinitely more subtle. We are a subject to our experiences and those experiences start out against our control (due to us being kids). We are also a subject to our biology. If your body produces too much of one chemical or not enough of another then our moods could be drastically affected. We have cravings that are often chemical. Diet also plays a part too.

So much of what we think of as “free will” is actually circumstance that happened before the decision and biological states happening elsewhere in your body.

[jes5199]

sure... but that means the three options are: "free will exists in atomic physics" "free will doesn't exist" "free will exists but cannot be studied". I find only one of these to be an acceptable answer.

[whatshisface]

One of those answers may be acceptable, but their acceptability cannot be studied.

[jes5199]

yeah but you could make this argument about anything. For example: Bacteria can cause disease. Disease is metaphysical. Disease does not exist.

these are not generally considered to all be equally plausible!

[missosoup]

> where else could free will come from?

The more we know about the brain and mind, the less hiding room is left for free will and we haven't found it yet. It's looking pretty likely that free will just doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Libe...

[paulddraper]

I think most physicists are either religious ("sneaks in at a higher level"), or believe that free will does not exist; from a physics perspective you are no different than the smartphone in your pocket.

[v77]

This is fairly well-known stance and the intersection of consciousness and quantum decoherence is something people talk about quite a bit. Check out Sean Carroll's stuff for a lot of good discussion on this.

[hprotagonist]

This idea is more or less the crux of Leibniz' Monadology.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#MonWorPhe

[heed]

I might be misinterpreting the quote but is he saying that he believes quantum particles carry at least some small degree of “consciousness” which compounds to the degree of “consciousness” we experience at our scale?

[mongol]

Sounds like Dyson believed in, or hoped for, free will, in that mind would affect the randomness that quantum physics involves. I think it would be great if it was so because the alternative would be that we are just machines. But I fear that the mind does not have that type of influence on it's fundamental parts...

[alexpetralia]

Though I could be wrong, I believe his point was that consciousness - the mind - is the randomness underlying quantum physics.

[jackcosgrove]

If the brain cannot consciously reprogram itself, why does studying work?

[bagacrap]

I thought the observer effect of particle physics fell out of favor. This author gives a pretty persuasive argument that, at least from a theoretical physics point of view, consciousness does not create the universe.

https://www.paulanlee.com/2017/04/14/consciousness-and-the-m...

[meowface]

It has, at least if you mean the hypothesis that the wave function is collapsed by consciousness. This doesn't rule out theories of panpsychism and panprotopsychism (or even rule those theories in?), but I don't find the arguments in favor of them convincing. I think it's plausible, but I'm skeptical. I'm also skeptical that quantum mechanics plays an important role in consciousness (beyond the role it plays in the rest of biology, and everything else in the universe), though I think that's more plausible.

Dyson was a brilliant person, but I disagree with his quote there. I think we may develop a deep theory of consciousness (including solving "the hard problem") within the next century which will put some of these debates to rest.

[Florin_Andrei]

Related:

http://nautil.us/issue/82/panpsychism/is-matter-conscious-rp

[jkeat]

Here's another article that introduces the idea of panpsychism:

https://aeon.co/ideas/panpsychism-is-crazy-but-its-also-most...

[altonzheng]

What a beautiful quote, thank you for sharing.

[henriquemaia]

Lucretius, some 2000 years ago, based on a completely different kind of atomism, believed something very similar. Free will was due to random events on the atomic level, what he called clinamen (the swerve).

[analognoise]

"The Swerve" is a great name for my punk band.

[jschwartzi]

This makes me think of how the story in The Expanse is proceeding.