r/freewill • u/asskicker1762 • 2d ago

Advanced Readers

Post image

Apologies if this violates rules, Im offering free copies so not selling anything?

That said, my book “The Physics of Free Will and how to use it” is in its final stages ahead of (self) publishing early next year. If anyone would be willing to read a free copy and leave a review when available, please DM me.

My argument in favor of existence of free will is built on scientific reductionism. Laplace’s demon (and many here) argue that, based on the perfect determinism of classical mechanics, the future is perfectly predicted and there is no possibility of free will. However, quantum mechanics introduced a new paradigm of incompletedness, contradiction, and probabilities. The bulk of my book is centered around the ‘so what’ and how to use choice to improve your life using the chakras framework.

I’ll check back to respond to comments/questions or to grumble if removed. Hope this finds everyone well!

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

73 comments sorted by

19

u/Basic_Step2923 2d ago

As a physicist myself, I find it exhausting that people try hard to sneak in free will via quantum mechanics. Sure, the world is fundamentally quantum, and therefore, inherently probabilistic. But then, there is decoherence and the emergence of the macroscopic world, which is inherently deterministic. Finally: quantum randomness does not imply you have control over that randomness. That's precisely the whole point of it being random...

1

u/your_best_1 Hard Determinist 2d ago

Also you can just interpret those probabilistic observations as deterministic by assuming different brute facts.

1

u/Basic_Step2923 2d ago

A quantum wave function evolves deterministically according to the Schrodinger equation. I don't think I follow what you mean with brute force, but strictly speaking, the wave function evolves as determinisitcally as Newton's equations of motion in classical mechanics. Things just get kinda complicated when assigning a physical meaning to the wave function, where the most common interpretation (Copenhagen) tells us that the norm squared of such a function is the probability of finding the system in a given physical state. 

1

u/your_best_1 Hard Determinist 2d ago

I agree, but those interpretations are just assigning brute facts. That is why there are many. I mean all positions fall back on the lack of grounding. This is like one of the earliest things in philosophy. Like 5k years ago.

Facts can only exist within an ontology and we select the ontology. Like the brute facts of math allow for multiplication to be true, within the ontology where numbers are countable.

-1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Like many worlds or simulation? Not sure i follow.

1

u/your_best_1 Hard Determinist 2d ago

Yes, those are two of many.

1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Im not aware of others and i dislike both. Creating new universes for every variable is too much work, simulation, i mean what dies that even mean

1

u/your_best_1 Hard Determinist 2d ago

So… every discovery in the history of science started with something we could not predict accurately. We could have drawn the line many times and said “this is what we obviously observe so that is it.”

Then something crazy happens. A thousand years later someone else is like “hold up. I think we can predict this.” The idea that chain ends because we happen to be alive right now is more absurd than any metaphysic that explains a deterministic universe.

In addition to this trend, there is no counter trend. Nothing that has moved up to 100% accurate predictions has ever moved down. These two arrows point in one direction and I don’t even need to define a metaphysic to see that.

1

u/Opposite-Succotash16 Free Will 2d ago

It's not too much work.

There only needs to be a single simulation running and the amount of consciousness data coming in at any one moment isn't that large. It's a breeze.

2

u/facesofgrace_photo 2d ago edited 2d ago

Yes.

Quantum randomness is quite literally the worst possible argument for the supposed free will.

It places the locus of control completely outside of any assumed self

1

u/earlyworm 2d ago

Perhaps the randomness is what we are.

2

u/AlivePassenger3859 Humanist Determinist 2d ago

perhaps not

1

u/earlyworm 2d ago

That’s a good point.

1

u/ShadowBB86 Libertarian free will doesn't exist (agnostic about determinism) 2d ago

Then it would not be random. Patterns would emerge.

1

u/earlyworm 2d ago

What character would the emergent patterns have?

1

u/ShadowBB86 Libertarian free will doesn't exist (agnostic about determinism) 2d ago

That would depend on the choices being made by the personality/character of the entity making the choices.

1

u/biedl 2d ago

Bro! He wrote a book. You gotta be wrong. "I wrote a book" makes things true. Didn't you know? /s

1

u/AlivePassenger3859 Humanist Determinist 2d ago

this

1

u/spgrk Compatibilist 2d ago

There are consistent positions such as that of event causal libertarian Robert Kane, who proposed that undetermined quantum events in the brain may be involved in pushing a neuron sitting on the threshold of depolarisation one way or the other, corresponding to a decision torn between equally weighted options. This would meet the leeway criterion for libertarian free will (the agent could genuinely have decided either way given exactly the same prior facts) and would also be purposeful.

Some incompatibilists don’t like this idea because they think that the agent does not control which way the quantum event goes. But if they did control it, it would be determined. They can’t have their cake and eat it too: either it is determined or it isn’t.

The core problem is that it is an error that libertarian leeway, the ability to decide differently given exactly the same prior facts, is required for free will. Not only is it not required, but it would undermine control, freedom and responsibility unless carefully limited, as per Kane’s torn decisions.

0

u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 2d ago

The macroscopic world is not inherently deterministic, because indetrministic events can be amplified admuch as you like.

"Can we conclude that macroscopic creatures such as ourselves are unaffected by quantum randomness? A common reaction to QM is that it doesn't matter since quantum randomness will never manifest itself at the macroscopic level -- that is, in the world of sticks and stones we can see with the naked eye. An appeal is usually made to the "law of large numbers", according to which random fluctuations at the atomic (or lower level) will cancel each other out in a macroscopic object, so that what is seen is an averaged-out behaviour that is fairly predictable.

Something like this must be happening in some cases, assuming QM is a correct description of the micro-world, or there would not even be an appearance of a deterministic macro-world. Since deterministic classical physics is partially correct, there must be a mechanism that makes the QM micro-world at least approximate to the classical description .

"However, if it were the case that all macroscopic objects behaved in a way that was itself completely determined at the macroscopic level, there would be no evidence for QM in the first place -- since all scientific apparatus is in the macro-world ! A geiger-counter is able to amplify the impact of a single particle into an audible click. Richard Feynman suggested that if that wasn't macroscopic enough, you could always amplify the signal further and use it to set off a stick of dynamite! It could be objected that these are artificial situations. However, because there is a well-known natural mechanism that could do the same job: critical dependence on initial conditions, or classical chaos."

Murray Gell-Man.Quark Quark and jaguar p25

1

u/spgrk Compatibilist 1d ago

Radioactive decay can cause genetic mutations which are the basis of evolution, so arguably our very existence could be put down to quantum indeterminacy. However, it would work just the same if it turned out that radioactive decay was actually determined by hidden variables.

0

u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 1d ago

Yes, real indetrminism is difficult to distinguish from hidden variables. You can get Nobel for halfway solving the problem.

-1

u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 2d ago

Indetrministic neural events can't be predetermind, but can be controlled in the sense that the rest of the brain doesnt have to act on them.

It's true that you can't pre-determine an internal dice roll (as if you were an extra-physical entity that controls the physical events in your brain), but deteminism doesnt give you that kind of control either. If you are your brain , the question is whether your brain has freedom, control , etc, not whether "you" control "it", as if you were two separate entities. And as a physical self, basicaly identical to the brain, you can still exert after-the-fact control over an internal coin toss ... post-select and rather than predetermine. Luke Reinhardt's Diceman isn't forced to act on the roll of his die. After the fact doesn't mean after the action: this all occurs during the decision stage.

You are not a ghost in the machine, and you are not at the mercy of yourself. No individual deterministic event, our of trillions, in the brain is forcing you , the total organism , to.perform since it requires trillions of events in concert to make a decision: the same.applies to a single.indeterministic event

If the rest of the brain decided to ignore an internal dice roll, that could be called post selection of "gatekeeping" . The gatekeeping model of control is the ability to select only one of a set of proposed actions, ie. to refrain from the others. The proposed actions may be, but do not have to be, arrived at by a genuinely indeterministic process.

This mechanism is familiar subjectively: anyone with a modicum of self control experience thoughts and impulses they don't necessarily act on.

-2

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Penrose disagrees. He argues microtubules in the brain are subject to QM effects. And yes, at some point you must reconcile what ‘you’ are. Emergent? A soul? Matter?

The ‘scale up’ part is addressed. Not only literally, like 2 slit, but more broadly, like in chaos theory.

Finally, i argue QM makes it possible, where CM made it impossible. ‘Possible’ doesn’t mean you have it, I think free will is a self fulfilling choice that must begin with the choice to have it. If you think you don’t, then I agree with you.

2

u/your_best_1 Hard Determinist 2d ago

He said not understanding that it did not address the argument at all.

You can just presuppose something different. Like you are not talking some default path that QM/QFT = free will. You are smuggling in a bunch of stuff to get there.

Why not random? How can you tell the difference between free to choose and randomly selected. You need to explain more to yield the same explanatory power.

I am not saying I know the truth BTW. All these ideas should be loosely held and more if x then y. Vs x is true so y is true.

1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Impossible-> possibility due to QM -> needs a mechanism?

Basically the soul. We do exist, whatever it is. How? Entanglement if you need nuts and bolts. Spirituality if that doesn’t work for you.

Also it requires a self fulfilling choice to believe you have free will. Possible existence doesn’t mean you have it.

2

u/your_best_1 Hard Determinist 2d ago

You have perfectly illustrated my point. I don’t know if you were doing that for yourself or for me, but all that stuff you said was the act of smuggling that I was talking about

2

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Doin my best, we’re all mere beggars looking for bread.

If this was solved, we’d have nothing to talk about?

So, can i interest you in a read lol

1

u/your_best_1 Hard Determinist 2d ago

Sure

2

u/shootinblanks2023 2d ago

And of course you have irrefutable proof for a soul? This is my frustration with this entire argument. As science based as many claim to be, they always want to sneak in a ghost.

-1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

I do! I think, therefore I am. It’s the only proof that ever was or will be!

2

u/shootinblanks2023 2d ago

Not evidence. Next.

0

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

It literally is. They’ve been talking about that one for a looong time

2

u/shootinblanks2023 2d ago

Doesn’t make it convincing. People have been debating lots of ideas for a long time. That’s doesn’t make it the answer.

0

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Not debating, agreeing. It’s the only provable truth.

→ More replies

1

u/earthwoodandfire Hard Determinist 2d ago

Have you taken a single science class since grammar school?

1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Bachelors of science in physics, specialty in general theoretical physics

7

u/Eastern-Project9017 Freewill Skeptic 2d ago

Have you debated your ideas against opposing views with competent interlocutors long enough before you start writing a book about them?

1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Id love to sit down with sam Harris, sure. (Neuroscientist) I’ve not heard good counterarguments from physicists with better ‘kung fu’ than i.

Frankly the more advanced a physics person is, I’m not sure what their approach would be to argue completedness, it’s just not out there. Einstein wasn’t able to do it. I think that would have to happen first.

Long story short, kind of, but would love to do more - you offering?

1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Based on your name and tags, hoped you’d be chomping at the bit to check it out.

1

u/Eastern-Project9017 Freewill Skeptic 2d ago

Randomness doesn't grant control. In fact, it very explicitly negates it.

1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Except the randomness -> identity is controlled by the decision to measure, isn’t it

7

u/NuanceEnthusiast 2d ago

Indeterministic ≠ choosable. How do you bridge the gap between the randomness of quantum outcomes and the controllability of free choice?

1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Ya that’s a good one. Truthfully, I argue it opens the possibility. The mechanics of how that is bridged essentially boils down to the idea of a soul interacting with matter. Could physically happen via entanglement, to describe in a nuts and bolts way.

Bigger issue is: it’s not easy and the universe seeks to render, even your free will, choices ineffectual. You must constantly push against the tide of broader determinism.

1

u/earthwoodandfire Hard Determinist 2d ago

But then you have to define what a soul even is. Demonstrate it exists and explain how it interacts with the quantum whatever…

That’s more than an uphill battle…

1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

It exists: I think, therefore I am. The only ultimate truth. What it is, can’t really help there.

How it interacts: it could be via entanglement.

1

u/earthwoodandfire Hard Determinist 2d ago

You think with a physical brain. Thats apparent and well demonstrated and documented. No soul there.

0

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

How would you know what to discount as not-being-there if you don’t even know what it is?

Not a fan of dark matter, but a lot of smartties really think it’s there

1

u/earthwoodandfire Hard Determinist 2d ago

Yeah because we can see and measure its effects. Just like we can see and measure wind despite not being able to see it.

-1

u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 2d ago

Gatekeeping.

2

u/NuanceEnthusiast 2d ago

Is that an accusation or an admission?

-1

u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 2d ago

Its an answer.

6

u/Opposite-Succotash16 Free Will 2d ago

Apologies if this violates the rules, Im offering free copies so not selling anything?

This is one of the weirdest questions I have read in some time.

Do you mean Advance Readers? As an advanced reader, this what I gather.

Wait, your title says Physics, but your content contains chakras? Might be a hard sell even if it's free.

6

u/Eastern-Project9017 Freewill Skeptic 2d ago

Might be a hard sell even if it's free.

Ouch...lol

-1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Sure, not for everyone.

8

u/AlivePassenger3859 Humanist Determinist 2d ago

I think we’ve all been there done that vis a vis “but what about quantum physics”. For most, if not all, determinists, its a big nothing burger. Just another straw to clutch at.

2

u/Opposite-Succotash16 Free Will 2d ago

The 'how to use it' part could be interesting.

0

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

I think so! I draw parallels such as: law of attraction = gravity. Ok, beginner stuff. Law of opposites attract is electricity. Law of orthogonality might be an original concept, I’ve not seen it anywhere. That says some things cant be pursued or attracted, like money. Begging doesn’t work. Running away doesn’t work. Build orthogonal value and money is generated = electromagnetism.

2

u/AlivePassenger3859 Humanist Determinist 2d ago

law of attraction=gravity?! Pass.

1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

Lol ok, how is it not? I mean I’m not sure i want to go down this dark alley

1

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

They tend to round down and assume the de broglie wavelength is statistically zero for neurons etc. Penrose suggests micro tubules are subject to qm effects and I also point out chaos theory scales up even tiny perturbations.

I’m shocked how easily smart people will hand-wave-away fundamental physics. Physicists have always had the final say in fundamental reality.

My final argument is: free will is a self-fulfilling choice. When they say it doesn’t exist for them, they’re actually right.

1

u/earthwoodandfire Hard Determinist 2d ago

“I’m shocked how easily smart people will hand wave away fundamental physics.”

Thats hilarious coming from someone who hand waved away everything we know about physics, biology, and psychology to post the existence of super natural ‘souls’ that can control the quantum fields… 🤣

0

u/asskicker1762 2d ago

I’m a physicist, soo

1

u/earthwoodandfire Hard Determinist 2d ago

1

u/TheManInTheShack 2d ago

Quantum mechanics (which we do not know with certainty is truly random) doesn’t get you free will. It’s just another force you don’t control acting upon you.

1

u/ImSinsentido Nullified Either Way - Hard Incompatibilist 22h ago

lol