[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?