Freedomain Radio

A one minute video in which a guy misrepresents determinism  -- and free will for that matter -- hardly ends the debate.

A 2 minute video in which a physicist states that the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible for the universe to be predetermined. If at the very least, he leaves room for a probabilistic universe, but nonetheless I like how quickly and efficiently that beast is slain. Boom, 2 minutes. Determinism down.

Erös:

Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible for the universe to be predetermined.

The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle is about uncertainty, as it says in the name. The universe isn't "uncertain". It doesn't have a mind with which to be certain or uncertain. So it's not really about how the universe functions. The HUP, for short, is about the information available to us, people. It's not about matter qua matter, it's about what we can know about matter.

From wikipedia: "In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states a fundamental limit on the accuracy with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known." It's about what we can know, and this idea has been highly misappropriated countless times, probably due to it's name.

This guy in the video is really popular among those people who like to make up mystical stuff about science. He was interviewed extensively in that pseudoscientific "documentary" What The Bleep Do We Know? Not a good track record if you ask me.

OK, took a moment but I see the distinction. So, you are saying that either by a lack of technology or a fundamental inability for organisms to see their universe accurately, we either can't or are yet unable to predict where an electron will be. So unfortunately it doesn't eliminate the idea that the universe is clockwork, and thus determinism is still an open possibility. 

Well, if we can't disprove it, we can at least say there is no evidence for it in physics given current knowledge, I guess. And I would never believe in something that I could not measure.

Thank you for taking the time to calmly and rationally look at it.

As for your second paragraph, you believe in Free Will. How could you measure that?

I guess the question is really how much my actions can be predicted based upon past behaviors, experiences, and other circumstantial factors. Questions still remain on why some people turn out one way as opposed to another.

I'm not invested in it being true, but I seem to experience the ability to make choices. Some way in which I can influence my own behavior. In some ways I can be highly automatic, doing things outside of my consciousness, and I would not call that a choice (especially in the case of PTSD triggers). I experience all of this, to varying degrees. I suppose whatever I perceive to be free will probably has something to do with this consciousness, which is something that no physicist really knows anything about yet.

I do think you bring up a good point: regardless of wether determinism is true or not, we just don't have the computing power available to predict human action. We don't really have the computing power to very accurately predict the action of any animal, really. I think it's important to note, though, that determinism =/= predictability. They're not synonymous.

Also, the feeling of 'Free Will' is always an important topic to bring up in discussions about Free Will. The feeling, I think, primarily comes from A - not knowing what you're going to do and B - the algorithm your brain uses for figuring out what it's going to do. There are some great lesswrong articles about this.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/rb/possibility_and_couldness/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/rc/the_ultimate_source/
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_%28solution%29

Imagine a computer program programmed to do chess. Imagine this program is, for the sake of the discussion, a completely deterministic one -- every time given the same position it will make the same "choice" -- but also imagine that there is, regardless, a very complex algorithm that it uses to figure out it's choice. In this algorithm, the computer looks at all "options", treating them as "primitively reachable" -- ie "possible" to do -- and so it looks at its options and picks the one it deems best. Now, if this computer had consciousness, it would likewise feel like it has free will.

Of course the major difference between this computer and us is that our algorithms are dynamic, constantly changing. But then of course it's equally possible to have a program with dynamic, 'learning' algorithms, and it's already being done.

Anyway, just some food for thought.

Just watched that video. Great find. Not sure if you meant to post something so explicitly pro-determinism though...

Around 4:20, he says "It seems that what our experiments reveal is that there's like a mechanism unfolding - a deterministic mechanism - that leads up to your decision at a later point in time, and that was inevitable. It could only go one way."

To the vid above:

1:11 - Guy says "me or an unconscious mass of gray matter that I have no control of?". I'm thinking, I am my gray matter. I am my body.

2:30 - As I believe in the power of unconscious, it makes sense to me that he would have already made a decision unconsciously and known about it consciously 6 seconds later. He refers to his brain as if it isn't him...

3:45 - Other dude clears this up by explaining how the conscious mind is very much a part of the rest of the brain, and the unconscious works in harmony "with your beliefs and desires".

4:38 - He says there is a "deterministic mechanism", which I agree with, but it still leaves open the question of whether we can program ourselves. (Psychology has had a lot of success, in that respect.) He says "it could only go in one way", but once you've made a decision, aren't you going to go one way?

I don't see the vid as pro or anti deterministic. Very interesting, though.

Dude sees himself as a hostage to his own mind, comes out of the lab feeling melodramatically disheartened. But I don't think people are a hostage to their own minds. I think the unconscious is more like a genius secretary or a business partner; why not let it handle most of the processing power, and then relay the decision with your consciousness? Especially in an experiment where all he has to do is choose a color.

Not that just because the other dude said it, it's proven, but he said that "the unconscious works in harmony with your beliefs and desires" and that sounds good to me.

Erös:

4:38 - He says there is a "deterministic mechanism", which I agree with, but it still leaves open the question of whether we can program ourselves. (Psychology has had a lot of success, in that respect.)

If a program is completely deterministic, and completely deterministically "decides" to reprogram itself, the new program is a completely deterministic, causal result of the old deterministic program, and thus still completely deterministic.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/rc/the_ultimate_source/ This article goes into some depth about why we cannot be our own "ultimate source" of our decisions.

kremlin:

I think it's important to note, though, that determinism =/= predictability.

It absolutely does in theory. No predictability = no determinism. Granted that in practice it might be impossible (at least with any technology we could imagine in the near and probably even far future) to do so because of the immeasurable amount of variables, but in theory if determinism were true (which I don't personally think it is) a computer powerful enough to do so could absolutely predict human behavior with 100% accuracy. If this were not the case it would not be a deterministic universe.

Also, you don't honestly believe both in determinism and the idea that people can be held morally responsible for their actions, do you?

Chris R:

I'm just saying physicists haven't figured out what exactly is consciousness. I am aware of psychology, cog-sci, etc.

Kowalski:

Also, you don't honestly believe both in determinism and the idea that people can be held morally responsible for their actions, do you?

Stef doesn't want us to debate on the subject. There's kinda no point anyway.