Jan
31
Freewill
• Quantum mechanics is magic. Daniel Greenberger.
• Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. Niels Bohr.
• Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. Niels Bohr.
• If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it. John Wheeler.
• It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman.
• If [quantum theory] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science. Albert Einstein.
• I do not like [quantum mechanics], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. Erwin Schrödinger.
• Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense. Roger Penrose.
• If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics. - Richard Feynman
• Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice.
Albert Einstein
• Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word
Niels Bohr
• Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!
Erwin Schrödinger
• From the standpoint of our quantum mechanics, there is no quantity which causally fixes the effect of a collision in an individual event.
Max Born
• Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. Niels Bohr.
• Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. Niels Bohr.
• If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it. John Wheeler.
• It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman.
• If [quantum theory] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science. Albert Einstein.
• I do not like [quantum mechanics], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. Erwin Schrödinger.
• Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense. Roger Penrose.
• If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics. - Richard Feynman
• Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice.
Albert Einstein
• Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word
Niels Bohr
• Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!
Erwin Schrödinger
• From the standpoint of our quantum mechanics, there is no quantity which causally fixes the effect of a collision in an individual event.
Max Born
Such innumerous so-called silly quotes are made many times about Quantum Mechanics.
The reason is very simple. Quantum Mechanics and randomness of particles leads to the philosophy of free-will, which people are not yet ready to accept as it signifies the fault of determinism. As for example, Einstein himself was an adherent supporter of determinism and the debate of Indeterminacy between Einstein and Bohr are quite famous.
While Einstein was a determinist, he wanted to prove the causation and effect, while Quantum Physics lead him to randomness and uncertainty principles, which actually were not at all acceptable to Einstein. On the other hand Bohr was well known Positivist and was deeply influenced by Kierkegaard.
Quacks try to relate quantum physics with mysticism sometimes. But Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with the classical approach of physics.
The basic thing is quantum physics has nothing to do with mysticism or metaphysics.
Yet, we can extrapolate the basic tenets of quantum mechanics for supporting our basic philosophical views; Heisenberg on the other hand was a liberalist, his motive behind the uncertainty principle was primarily concerned with establishing that the uncertainty is actually a property of the world.
The determinists are fraudulently fatalist as they just deny any existence of free-will and suggest that we should deliberate our actions as deliberating our actions is a continuum of the complex interaction between cause and effect. But free-will just cannot be denied. How can one think that someone else has already planed for his actions? Or how can one think that he has no choice but to follow the already determined sequence of cause and effect?
To solve this difference, some suggests that determinism and free-will are compatible to each other. They suggests that free-will is not independence from a priori or any prior cause, but free-will is in the fact that one is not forced to make a certain choice. The thing is, such cannot be called as free-will as the choices is predetermined by prior cause and there is no independence. Hence the free-will is just a mere illusion.
But free-will is strongly supported by the random motion of particles, by the quantum indeterminacy, by Schrödinger wave equation, Heisenberg’s principle
Free-will is not some hypothetical illusion but a very genuine reality which suggests that some of our actions we perform without there being any compulsion, or any obligation, and that are indeterminacy that is free-will that is liberty. We rule ourselves and no one else. As John Locke suggested “humans in the state of nature have perfect freedom to order their actions according to the laws of nature, without having to ask permission to act from any other person. People are of equal value, and treat each other as they would want to be treated. People only leave the state of nature when they consent to take part in a community in order to protect their property rights”.
We are obviously free for our choices and actions and we are responsible for actions too. As principle of locality suggests that distant objects cannot have any direct effect on each other and an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings. That is very valid statement in relation with human too. Initially we remain concerned with our own self and our immediate surroundings which we are free to chose and decide for. Society as a whole effects us only if we let it deliberately, but that is not an obligation, it can be a voluntary choice only, a choice which is totally dependent on us and none else prior to us or after us… Independence cannot be sacrificed on the basis of that.
Yet, aggression cannot be tolerated as it is basically against liberty.
The reason is very simple. Quantum Mechanics and randomness of particles leads to the philosophy of free-will, which people are not yet ready to accept as it signifies the fault of determinism. As for example, Einstein himself was an adherent supporter of determinism and the debate of Indeterminacy between Einstein and Bohr are quite famous.
While Einstein was a determinist, he wanted to prove the causation and effect, while Quantum Physics lead him to randomness and uncertainty principles, which actually were not at all acceptable to Einstein. On the other hand Bohr was well known Positivist and was deeply influenced by Kierkegaard.
Quacks try to relate quantum physics with mysticism sometimes. But Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with the classical approach of physics.
The basic thing is quantum physics has nothing to do with mysticism or metaphysics.
Yet, we can extrapolate the basic tenets of quantum mechanics for supporting our basic philosophical views; Heisenberg on the other hand was a liberalist, his motive behind the uncertainty principle was primarily concerned with establishing that the uncertainty is actually a property of the world.
The determinists are fraudulently fatalist as they just deny any existence of free-will and suggest that we should deliberate our actions as deliberating our actions is a continuum of the complex interaction between cause and effect. But free-will just cannot be denied. How can one think that someone else has already planed for his actions? Or how can one think that he has no choice but to follow the already determined sequence of cause and effect?
To solve this difference, some suggests that determinism and free-will are compatible to each other. They suggests that free-will is not independence from a priori or any prior cause, but free-will is in the fact that one is not forced to make a certain choice. The thing is, such cannot be called as free-will as the choices is predetermined by prior cause and there is no independence. Hence the free-will is just a mere illusion.
But free-will is strongly supported by the random motion of particles, by the quantum indeterminacy, by Schrödinger wave equation, Heisenberg’s principle
Free-will is not some hypothetical illusion but a very genuine reality which suggests that some of our actions we perform without there being any compulsion, or any obligation, and that are indeterminacy that is free-will that is liberty. We rule ourselves and no one else. As John Locke suggested “humans in the state of nature have perfect freedom to order their actions according to the laws of nature, without having to ask permission to act from any other person. People are of equal value, and treat each other as they would want to be treated. People only leave the state of nature when they consent to take part in a community in order to protect their property rights”.
We are obviously free for our choices and actions and we are responsible for actions too. As principle of locality suggests that distant objects cannot have any direct effect on each other and an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings. That is very valid statement in relation with human too. Initially we remain concerned with our own self and our immediate surroundings which we are free to chose and decide for. Society as a whole effects us only if we let it deliberately, but that is not an obligation, it can be a voluntary choice only, a choice which is totally dependent on us and none else prior to us or after us… Independence cannot be sacrificed on the basis of that.
Yet, aggression cannot be tolerated as it is basically against liberty.
“One of the most constant characteristics of beliefs is their intolerance. The stronger the belief, the greater its intolerance. Men dominated by a certitude cannot tolerate those who do not accept it.” Henry St John Bolingbroke, 1st Viscount (1678-1751)
http://couplewriters.blogspot.com/p/about-us.html
Related Posts
1 views25 Responses to “‘Quantum mechanics and Philosophy of Free Will”
Leave a Reply
Rashi V Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 6:28 pmPretty interesting…A little long but worth it :)
Made me rethink about somethings..Keep writing…
Sushant Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 9:41 pmThis is strange but uncertainty is fundamental law of nature. More deep we delve into the basic constituents of nature the more random they become. Your approach of extending this idea to free will is neat and interesting. Its just that both philosophers and scientists try to inter relate macro and micro worlds and try explaining them both with same set of laws which fails miserably. Its strange how an nondeterministic photon weave this elegant universe around us.
nomad Says:
February 1st, 2008 at 10:23 amBy God Ki Kasam, This is dense stuff… I’ll have to come back a few times to figure out the whole of it!
I hope you’ve read about chaos theory as well. I somehow feel that it applies to humans (more importantly their behavior) the most.
logic Says:
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pmScientific philosophy of belief and intolerance…..
Gud one…keep writing
S Ramanathan Says:
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 pmgood one.
but, whats the point in typecasting people like this?…? determinists, collectivists…..
why?
now, knowing u, dont take the comment in the wrong sense. i know it takes a lot to churn out heavy stuff like tat, and i appreciate tat.
pandia Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 1:47 pmprobably, without offending, i would say, u have got ur philosophy mixed up. a) quantum mecahnics could be taken as guidance to understand our life, it really need not be the rule.
b) even if heisenberg’s uncertainty were to be true, it still does not rule determinism. it only tells us that our knowledge has a finite limit. things could be more deterministic. to understand this, let me say, some thousands years ago, people were happy with newtonian mechanincs. things looked hunky dory, determinsim was the letter of the day. then quantum mechanism happened, and we though free will was born. our knowledge hasnt taken a leap in years, we are just learning the same kinda things. another newton or einstein, we would be arguing differently. so best, we leave science to the scientists, and talk philosphy
c) philosophy, because, ur arguements have strong undercurrent of existentialists. who reject science in their own way ( i said u have confused ur philospohy….because ur arguements are of a phenomologists and u talk like an existentialist
d) about determinism vs free will, i think u will never find better arguements than in bhagvad gita……..please read them
unpretentious_diva Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 6:54 pm@above.
There’s nothing to get offended about, Yet i would like to say that
You never understood what it is about. reread and then may be you will get some sense about what I am talking of. It is absolutely about Einstien Bohr and Hiesenberg and the debates between them regarding their own contentions with philosophy.
anyways! about geeta, I have read alot more than that including vedas and upanishadas.
They have nothing potential of use, I have read much better than that.
But This post is NOT at all about free-will and determinism.
It is about Quantum mechanics, and Bohr, einstien and hiesenberg’s philosophical views regarding it
pandia Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 7:30 pmin that case, if i can put it this way, u dont err in philosphy, u err in logic. what u want to say and what u convey are two different things. its also possible, i am not reading it properly. but then…
anyways….if i can say, please do read geetha again. i thought it junk too, till i reread it some months ago, and i found it very enriching. ofcourse, it is clear our logic dont go together, so its fine, if u still insist geetha doesnt contain much stuff!!!
Anonymous Says:
March 7th, 2008 at 10:46 pmif you don’t think mysticism and quantum mechanics have anything in common, then you don’t really understand either.
Alok Says:
April 19th, 2008 at 3:59 pmOne question for you:
Can you define Free Will?
unpretentious_diva Says:
April 19th, 2008 at 7:21 pm@alok
Free-Will is the natural birth right of human to use his rational faculty(Mind) senses and consciousness to understand the reason and rationalize his ways to innovate rationally for his survival, progression, easement, happiness, welfare.and increment in knowledge of reality.
Rohan Says:
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:16 pmHmm… I came upon this by accident. Reminded me of an article I wrote many years ago. The first few paragraphs for the link below are about Arthur C Clarke, and then starts the Free Will article. Do take a look if you have the time…
http://drfronkensteen.blogspot.com/2008/03/arthur-c-clarke-1917-2008.html
Alok Says:
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 pmDiva,
So do you think an Electron has Free Will too?
unpretentious_diva Says:
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:10 pm@alok
Read my answer for your comment again.
Is elektron a Human’s name?
if it is, then that Human with name elektron surely have free-will.
Now about free-will…
Every man builds his world in his own image. He has the power to choose, but no power to escape the necessity of choice.
By Ayn Rand.
Freewill is that power, the power to choose rationally (or otherwise, say randomly). Yet no Individual has power to escape the necessity to choose.
Try to grasp it and understand.
Now, if electron is not human but a sub-atomic particle, it has no brain. It is non-living.
unpretentious_diva Says:
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:14 pmYet, I know why you asked this silly question.
You must understand that QM has nothing to do with philosophy of liberty. and you must also understand that electron is NOT a quantum particle.
Yet, the people who co-relates determinism with the negation of liberty and tries to restrict human being as not a free Individual but a social animal, must understand that Quantum Particles do exhibits free-movements irrespective of any deterministic force.
Rohan Says:
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:37 pmYes, but, as you alluded to it yourself in your post (followed by a rebuttal that I did not quite understand), the very act of “choice” could have been predicted prior to the act of making it, IF you knew enough about the system in question (in this case, a human), and its environment and inputs - just like any program. Granted, we may be so complex that no intelligence may ever be able to actually do this in practice, but that’s a different matter, no?
Alok Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 pmDiva,
The Electron is a particle whose behaviour is described by Quantum Mechanics.
It describes the electron as a wave-particle, all the exact parameters of which are supposed to be indeterminable precisely. Thus, the theory basically assigns a certain randomness to the electron. Something akin to the concept of Free Will. I’m not saying that the electron has free will. That is just one way to describe the uncertainty principle.
Like all theories, this one is limited by its assumptions, and a stronger set could produce a much better description.
The concepts of free will and rational decisions are our creations. They are concepts. We use them to describe ourselves. We need not justify free will through any theory.
All we need to do is to understand that free will is a manifestation of randomness, and rationality is an ability we possess, which has led to our species remaining the fittest. It is the result of evolution.
You don’t need to make anyone (determinist or whatever) understand free will through its justification in quantum theory. Anyone who knows about the concept can understand it. That is the power of the brain. So those who deny it, they’re just denying an ability they possess. And if they look into it objectively, they will find that it is something that they own too.
Don’t attach dogma to it.
What we believe in, that’s what our creations reflect, even scientific theories.
Nice post, but a bit mixed up, I must say. :)
Alok Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:17 pmSomething else I’d like to say:
Determinism might not necessarily contradict free will. You need to understand this.
Someone might not necessarily be denying free will when he/she’s trying to understand and describe some phenomenon. In fact, free will could very well be modeled (The field of Artificial Intelligence).
Just saying that we would never be able to determine the velocity and position of the electron simultaneously is a statement that restricts our progress.
We need to look further inside, think rather than accept facts. That’s what Einstein’s stand is, I believe.
Let me quote Wikipedia:
“It is a popular misconception that determinism necessarily entails that humanity or individual humans have no influence on the future and its events (a position known as Fatalism)”
unpretentious_diva Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:40 pm@Alok,
yep I agree that electron’s motion is described by wave functions, yet they aren’t the fundamental particles. They are the first generation particles along with neutrino.
Thus, the theory basically assigns a certain randomness to the electron. Something akin to the concept of Free Will. I’m not saying that the electron has free will. That is just one way to describe the uncertainty principle.
It is just a way, but basically QM has nothing to do with Human free-will.
We need not justify free will through any theory.
True and that is the point.
You don’t need to make anyone (determinist or whatever) understand free will through its justification in quantum theory.
What I create and write is My choice, which may/may not be a requirement. I wrote this for my pleasure.
@Your second comment,
I agree with that.
Ever Hopeful Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 7:21 pmHI Gargi
I came here after being referred by Alok
I must compliment you on your research and putting forward your viewpoints so strongly.
I have thoruroughly enjoyed your and alok debate and I am in favour of the points raised by Alok.
I must compliment you people for digging your head into such mature topics
NiN Says:
June 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pmErrr..Is it ok if I just I got lost amidst that post of yours.. :(
It all bounced through the top of my head. :( :(
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 amAn explanation of Quantum Physics by Richard Dawkins!
Unpretentious Diva Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 amAn explanation of Quantum Physics by Richard Dawkins! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbWcKg06evM&feature=related
consciousness Says:
January 25th, 2010 at 8:36 pmI understand your perspective on this, but I don’t think that quantum physics in any way takes away from Metaphysics and Mysticsim. It is science and I believe we have to find ways to integrate science and spirituality rather than separate the two.
consciousness´s last blog ..Comment on Deliberate Creation in Harmony and Well-Being by Tweets that mention Deliberate Creation in Harmony and Well-Being | Blue Lotus Living™ - Let the Creative Spirit Move You — Topsy.com
Sallie M. Says:
August 23rd, 2010 at 7:55 pm“Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word.
- Niels Bohr”
Niels, I feel the same way about Sarah Palin.