Three Arguments Against Determinism

[muser]

That's more or less the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. It can be made consistent with scientific results from quantum mechanics, but I don't think it really explains very much. Its also quite an alarming idea in my view!

Alarming in what way?

 

[Jonti]

According to many-worlds all the possible outcomes of a quantum interaction are realised. The wavefunction, instead of collapsing at the moment of observation, carries on evolving in a deterministic fashion, embracing all possibilities embedded within it. All outcomes exist simultaneously but do not interfere further with each other, each single prior world having split into mutually unobservable but equally real worlds. source

Every time I ("Lev") perform a quantum experiment (with several possible results) it only seems to me that I obtain a single definite result. Indeed, Lev who obtains this particular result thinks this way. However, this Lev cannot be identified as the only Lev after the experiment. Lev before the experiment corresponds to all "Lev"s obtaining all possible results. source

QM phenomena are everywhere. The idea that we are continually dividing into a multiplicity of copies of ourselves is alarming because of what it does to notions of personal identity and continuity. At root, we are only talking about an interpretation of QM math. There's different ways of looking at what it means. I'm very leery of one which undermines the value of personal identity, the value of individuals ("there's plenty more of you") and this particular world (likewise).

So it's alarming in that way, but it's also alarmingly naff philosophically. The scientific principle of determinism is valid, but, as an absolute metaphysical principle it is incoherent. In clinging to Laplace's demon, its proponents end up imagining an infinite range of futures, all flowing from the present (the now). Amazingly, they do not see their position is a reductio ad absurdum of the principle, a demonstration of its metaphysical incoherence.

Far simpler to adopt a cogent metaphysic that naturally allows for the universe to be "open" (in the sense of having a range of possible futures reachable from the present configuration). Really, any decent metaphysic should do that anyway, as it's an idea implicit in evolutionary theory.

 

[muser]

According to many-worlds all the possible outcomes of a quantum interaction are realised. The wavefunction, instead of collapsing at the moment of observation, carries on evolving in a deterministic fashion, embracing all possibilities embedded within it. All outcomes exist simultaneously but do not interfere further with each other, each single prior world having split into mutually unobservable but equally real worlds. source

Every time I ("Lev") perform a quantum experiment (with several possible results) it only seems to me that I obtain a single definite result. Indeed, Lev who obtains this particular result thinks this way. However, this Lev cannot be identified as the only Lev after the experiment. Lev before the experiment corresponds to all "Lev"s obtaining all possible results. source

QM phenomena are everywhere. The idea that we are continually dividing into a multiplicity of copies of ourselves is alarming because of what it does to notions of personal identity and continuity. At root, we are only talking about an interpretation of QM math. There's different ways of looking at what it means. I'm very leery of one which undermines the value of personal identity, the value of individuals ("there's plenty more of you") and this particular world (likewise).

So it's alarming in that way, but it's also alarmingly naff philosophically. The scientific principle of determinism is valid, but, as an absolute metaphysical principle it is incoherent. In clinging to Laplace's demon, its proponents end up imagining an infinite range of futures, all flowing from the present (the now). Amazingly, they do not see their position is a reductio ad absurdum of the principle, a demonstration of its metaphysical incoherence.

Far simpler to adopt a cogent metaphysic that naturally allows for the universe to be "open" (in the sense of having a range of possible futures reachable from the present configuration). Really, any decent metaphysic should do that anyway, as it's an idea implicit in evolutionary theory.

I had thought that the post you are referring to was implying that thought itself is independent in the now stage, it is only when it moves from the now that it take on meaning. I did a wiki for laplace's demon and can't find fault with his reasoning. Except there are some Quanta events that appear to have no causal effect, and therefore outside its remit. Though having said this I don't agree with an infinite choice of reality extending from the present.
For instance could I be sitting on earth writing this message and then in the next moment floating in orbit around the moon. The future is finite, and if its not then what good is the physical law of the universe.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I had thought that the post you are referring to was implying that thought itself is independent in the now stage, it is only when it moves from the now that it take on meaning. I did a wiki for laplace's demon and can't find fault with his reasoning. Except there are some Quanta events that appear to have no causal effect, and therefore outside its remit. .

Nobody's answering my question. If uncaused, random events occur at the micro, quantum level, why don't they happen at the macro level, ie in the observable physical world?

 

[118118]

Nobody's answering my question. If uncaused, random events occur at the micro, quantum level, why don't they happen at the macro level, ie in the observable physical world?

Because of the fallacy of composition. The conditions are just different a the macro level.

 

[frogwoman]

hmm, you know i have no idea!

 

[muser]

Nobody's answering my question. If uncaused, random events occur at the micro, quantum level, why don't they happen at the macro level, ie in the observable physical world?

I attempted to on post 136, alternatively wait for knotted to return.

 

[Knotted]

It has something to do with the collapsing of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Einstein's theory describes the physical world as we experience it while string theory, QFT, the world we cannot see (at least with the naked eye).

I don't have much to add to this except that this is a description of the measurement problem which as far as I am concerned nobody has come up with a decent explaination for.

Also I should point out that quantum evolution is perfectly deterministic. It is only when it is measured that randomness occurs.

I think I'm right in saying that in special relativity there is an axiom whereby a shattered plate will reassemble itself as if the event had never occurred, but the probability are so remote that no one has witnessed it.
Stretching credibility? It's the reason physics has so many detractors.

I think this is a hyperthetical effect in general relativity where space is so bent round that it is possible to travel backwards in time. Some physicists including Stephen Hawking have postulated an idea of 'cosmic censorship' that stops this happening. I forget how this works.

 

[Knotted]

So it's alarming in that way, but it's also alarmingly naff philosophically. The scientific principle of determinism is valid, but, as an absolute metaphysical principle it is incoherent. In clinging to Laplace's demon, its proponents end up imagining an infinite range of futures, all flowing from the present (the now). Amazingly, they do not see their position is a reductio ad absurdum of the principle, a demonstration of its metaphysical incoherence.

Far simpler to adopt a cogent metaphysic that naturally allows for the universe to be "open" (in the sense of having a range of possible futures reachable from the present configuration). Really, any decent metaphysic should do that anyway, as it's an idea implicit in evolutionary theory.

Determinism is not the only or even the main worry with quantum mechanics. There is also the issue of subjectivity. Its extremely difficult to describe objectively what is going on in the double slit experiment without coming to the conclusion that the photon (or electron or whatever) travels through both slits simultaneously. If it were just a question of being unable to decide which slit the photon goes through there would not be an interference pattern.

I would categorise the many worlds interpretation as saying that the photon literally does go through both slits at once but, like the Copenhagen interpretation, does not see measurement as a physical process. With the former it is interpreted that the universe splits in two and with the latter it is to do with the arrangement of the experiment. Its a matter of taste which you find more outrageous!

 

[Jonti]

Well, it's really the way that the objectively evolving wave function has observable effects that is at issue. Many-worlds tries to dodge the bullet by claiming all the possible observable effects occur in parallel in an infinite panoply of constantly created alternative universes. Occam weeps.

Also I should point out that quantum evolution is perfectly deterministic. It is only when it is measured that randomness occurs.

This is absurd. A thing cannot be deterministic only when peple are not looking at it.

 

[Jonti]

Because of the fallacy of composition. The conditions are just different a the macro level.

That's right. There are many phemomena that exist at the macro level that are simply non-existent at smaller scales. The laws of rigidity in solids, or of hydrodynamics, become more and more exact as the length and time scales of measurement increase, and they fail at the opposite limit.

 

[Knotted]

Well, it's really the way that the objectively evolving wave function has observable effects that is at issue. Many-worlds tries to dodge the bullet by claiming all the possible observable effects occur in parallel in an infinite panoply of constantly created alternative universes. Occam weeps.

It seems physically extravangant but its a simple explanation. Does that violate Occam's razor? Is it worse than a physically economical but convoluted explanation of how a single particle can produce an interference pattern?

This is absurd. A thing cannot be deterministic only when peple are not looking at it.

Why not? This is what quantum mechanics actually claims - it does not claim that quantum states evolve due to a stochastic process. Even if you regard the quantum states as the (complex) square roots of classical probabilities then these roots will still evolve in a deterministic way. If you can say an event occurs with a 50-50 probability then you are saying something very precise about what you don't know. Quantum mechanics gives you a method for *determining* these precise probabilities.

 

[Jonti]

Steady. It is what some interpretations of quantum mechanics claim. The many-worlds interpretation (for example) does *not* make this claim; neither does Zeilinger's interpretation; nor Bohm's neither, I think.

 

[Knotted]

But it does go a little further than that. From here ... Stunning stuff, eh?

Why the rolleyes smiley? I genuinely can't tell whether you think Hameroff is saying something so obvious that it needn't be stated at all or whether it is so absurd as to be patently ridiculous.

Quantum effects are usually quite localised - not for any theoretical reason, just because they usually requires a carefully prepared environment to get macroscopic quantum effects such as coherence. The human brain is not a laboritory for delicate quantum experiments or a sophisticated superconducting material.

Does anyone here know enough about anaesthetics to comment on this?

 

[Jonti]

sorry ... the roll eyes were supposed to indicate passing out ... a sort of a joke on the use of stun, you see

And it is pretty stunning that the noble gas Xenon -- a chemically inert substance -- works as a general anaesthetic. Seems to rule out any kind of biochemical explanation, wouldn't you say?

ETA: This review of Xenon as the ideal anaesthetic agent from The WorldWide Anaesthetist notes Xenon is

• Unlikely to be involved in any biochemical events in the body.

 

[Knotted]

Steady. It is what some interpretations of quantum mechanics claim. The many-worlds interpretation (for example) does *not* make this claim; neither does Zeilinger's interpretation; nor Bohm's neither, I think.

You have a point with Bohm and half a point with many-worlds. I'm not sure if many-worlds is supposed to be deterministic or not. Its always struck me as being non-determinstic in that you can never tell which universe you are about to hop into.

Zeilinger's interpretation certainly claims that the roots of the probabilities evolve in a deterministic manner. Its absolutely central to the interpretation - indeed the information and thus the probabilities actually seem more real than the actual physical matter in this interpretation.

Put it this way. The formalism underlying the well tested theory of quantum mechanics is deterministic up until the point of measurement.

 

[Knotted]

sorry ... the roll eyes were supposed to indicate passing out ... a sort of a joke on the use of stun, you see

Oh OK.

And it is pretty stunning that the noble gas Xenon -- a chemically inert substance -- works as a general anaesthetic. Seems to rule out any kind of biochemical explanation, wouldn't you say?

Is Xenon chemically inert? I can half remember my chemistry teacher at school saying that the noble gasses can form chemical bounds albeit with extreme difficulty. But yes it does seem to rule out biochemical explanations and that seems extraordinary to me.

 

[Jonti]

Oh yes! The math works alright. The arguments are all about what it means.

This from the Many-Worlds FAQ (emphasis added).

According to many-worlds all the possible outcomes of a quantum interaction are realised. The wavefunction, instead of collapsing at the moment of observation, carries on evolving in a deterministic fashion, embracing all possibilities embedded within it. All outcomes exist simultaneously but do not interfere further with each other, each single prior world having split into mutually unobservable but equally real worlds.

Wavefunction collapse appears to be dear to adherents of the Copenhagen Interpretation. But, that said, I've read that Schrodinger devised his thought experiment (the one involving the cat) to show up the idea as ridiculous.

 

[Knotted]

Oh yes! The math works alright. The arguments are all about what it means.

This from the Many-Worlds FAQ (emphasis added).

Useful link. I think the date should be noted though. I think many worlds is less popular these days.

Wavefunction collapse appears to be dear to adherents of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Its not that dear to them, they don't believe it describes anything! In a sense Copenhagen and many worlds are similar in that they don't have a realistic theory of wavefunction collapse. The former deny realism and the latter deny collapse at all.

But, that said, I've read that Schrodinger devised his thought experiment (the one involving the cat) to show up the idea as ridiculous.

I'm not sure to what extent he was targeting the Copenhagen interpretation and to what extent he was targeting QM in general. In many worlds the cat is both dead and alive but in different universes.

 

[Jonti]

Glad to hear many-worlds is losing popularity. 'Nuff said, I think

The question is how a certain rule can result in an uncertain experimental outcome.

That's certainly an important and interesting question. And yes, it was prolly amiss for me to suggest that Schrodinger was having a go at Copenhagen in particular. He was likely trying to point up the absurdity of the quantum observational paradox in general.

 

[Knotted]

Glad to hear many-worlds is losing popularity. 'Nuff said, I think

But why was it popular in the first place? Quantum mechanics is weirder than you seem to think.
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html

The question is how a certain rule can result in an uncertain experimental outcome.

Three different ways to look at it:
1) It is a certain rule about uncertaintees. (Copenhagen)
2) It is a certain rule which only manifests one aspect in our universe. (Many worlds)
3) It is a certain rule followed by an uncertain rule. (Non-linear wavefunction collapse of one form or another cf Penrose)

I prefer 3), if for no other reason than it helps me understand the mechanics and that it makes it clear what the more philosophical problems are because it leaves them unresolved.

 

[samk]

Is Xenon chemically inert? I can half remember my chemistry teacher at school saying that the noble gasses can form chemical bounds albeit with extreme difficulty. But yes it does seem to rule out biochemical explanations and that seems extraordinary to me.

It doesn't form chemical bonds under normal conditions, so rules out explanations based on chemical reactions. It does dissolve in fatty substances, as found in nerve cell membranes, and takes up space, which can alter electrical capacitance and block moving parts of receptor proteins, an entirely mundane explanation accepted by many experts in the field.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Because of the fallacy of composition. The conditions are just different a the macro level.

But the existence of free will is apparently being predicated on these uncaused quantum events.

The argument seems to be that there are events without logical antecedents at the quantum level, and that this is consistent upon our being able to make choices that are separate from what we might call logical antecedents.

Thus the argument is that these uncaused events exist at the quantum level, and at the macro level, wrt psychological events.

That just leaves macro physical events: where are the uncaused events in that domain?

 

[Jonti]

We've just wandered off-topic, that's all. Seems to have started around #134

It's perfectly possible to discuss determinism and freewill without wandering into QM territory.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We've just wandered off-topic, that's all. Seems to have started around #134

It's perfectly possible to discuss determinism and freewill without wandering into QM territory.

I'm trying to bring it back.

 

[samk]

That just leaves macro physical events: where are the uncaused events in that domain?

Most things average fluctuations instead of amplifying them, the weather would be a good example of one that doesn't, so would radiation causing a mutation, or maybe a fault in some microchips...

 

[Jonti]

... or, come to that, a click of a Geiger counter.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

... or, come to that, a click of a Geiger counter.

But the click of a geiger counter is supposedly simply the marking of one of the so called random quantum events.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Because of the fallacy of composition. The conditions are just different a the macro level.

That's an interesting thing to say. It implies some sort of barrier, or qualitative difference between the micro and macro worlds. That may be so.

But usually, if you confront a free will proponent with the logic of antecedent causes underlying all actions and events, they will inevitably fall back on quantum mechanics for an example of alledgedly uncaused or random events.

But based on what you say, that's irrelevant, apparently because of the fallacy of composition.

That being the case, then all macro events are predicated by logical antecedent causes; meaning that there is no free will.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]