Quantum Physics & Free Will – Bell’s Theorem, Determinism, Causality, Non-Locality, Realism
What does quantum physics have to do with free will? Is causality linear? What is indeterminism? What is Bell’s Theorem and why is it so important when it comes to discussing determinism and…
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Before making such claims as will being unfree or not I think we have yet
to understand what “will” is and whether we have truly understood the
meaning of “freedom”.
I think for something to be unfree there has to be a theoretical or actual
state of it being free. The reason I’m thinking that is that we have an
idea what “free” and “unfree” mean, and while we – as I think – haven’t
defined either correctly yet, we can’t entirely rule out one of the two as
a possible state of being. How can we claim that will is constantly unfree?
It seems preposterous to me to pick a side with confidence. e.g. we can’t
know whether Schroedinger’s cat is alive or dead, so we are simply forced
to assume that both is true at the same time until we open the box and look
inside. We can’t know who’s right and who’s wrong, so the whole debate
seems pointless to me and we should let everyone have their own opinion on
the matter.
I think the question is not only “what is this thing free/unfree from?” but
also “what is this thing that we’re talking about?” long before we should
ask the first question.
We’re always working with incomplete (pieces of) information, and it’s
impossible for us to see the full picture (to know all the information).
Hence we cannot make claims about things being free or unfree so long as we
live inside this world and can’t observe it from the outside (open the box
so to speak).
Whatever “will” is, I personally think it has to be both free and unfree at
different times or even at the same time. e.g. at one moment it’s free, the
next moment it’s unfree, and it’s free/unfree from different things at
different times. For that reason will can be free and unfree at the same
time – just not from the same things at the same time. I think everything –
as well as our will – partially changes from a state of freedom to a state
of no freedom, with other parts being in a different state, all at
frequencies (and for reasons) that may or may not be possible to be known.
Art Bell: Are we but marionettes living out the preordained?
Ingo Swann: No, We are extraordinary sensing systems whose sensing
potential and capabilities are not confined to this time space reality.
What if you take the fact that space and time are the same, in the most
literal sense. Meaning, physical distance in space must consequently mean
literal distance in time. This would be able to explain away local
causality, while still have it be true depending on your point of view.
In other words, the light from the sun is literally the light the sun is
emitting this exact moment relative to you, and the sun actually exists 8
min in the past from your perspective.
Each position or point in the universe simultaneously exist in the past,
present, and future depending on your perspective and distance.
The maximum speed of information transfer is an illusion, information
transfers instantly. The reason there is percived travel time to photons,
is because the event that caused the photon to occur hasn’t happened yet,
and it takes time for the event to occur relative to you.
Are the “ors” in Bell’s Theorem (21:50) exclusive ors? Since we must
abandon at least one, does that imply we can abandon all of them? Or two at
most?
This is really interesting and well done. At about 14:07 you say that
.”By being aware of these possibilities,, consciously or unconsciously .we
are able to.exert our freedom of will’ But what does it mean to be
unconsciously aware of something?.
Quantum me this: can 7 billion concious people decide not to kill each
other for what they believe? I mean, how hard could it be if we all just
put down our guns and never picked them up again?
This got me interested in free will and consciousness again. Thank you.
The pressure of a gas in a container is totally determined by the
temperature. Yet a near-infinite different configurations of molecules
within can create the same pressure. A large system can be determined while
its components may not be. I once had a Totally accurate prophetic dream.
Does that mean my entire life is determined? Not really. It only means the
larger system I was a part of at that point in spacetime, was determined,
or very probable. I was only determined at that particular nodal point in
the mesh of possibilities. As in the Internet, the nodes in the network are
determined. The pathways to get to the nodes are ever-changing and are not.
Thank you for blowing away much of the fog in my simple thinking!
Just finished watching and I “have to say” that you have a BeAuTiFuL MiNd
🙂 I’ve been “waiting from the beginning of TiMe” for a teacher like you
🙂 I hope you have the bEsT wEEk eVeR !!!
superb content ! as usual ..can’t wait for more….these are the BIG
Q’s…..I think that a VR/sim model satisfactorily explains most if not all
of QM’s strange implications via the simple idea of rendering. “if u chose
not 2 decide, u still have made a choice”… I will choose free will
I think you are wonderful. I don’t have a job or I would send you money. I
thought you were independently wealthy because the videos are so well
produced. I think this presentation makes sense, I know about bells
theorem but I never heard anything like this.
Reality is deterministic and nondeterministic simultaneously. Everything
that can happen does happen. So it happens in one space
I’m sad to say this is very over my head. Would there be a better place for
me to start exploring this?
Notion of freewill: Look into the notion of freewill in you and see what is
‘free’ there. In any choice you make, remove the deterministic components
participated in making that choice such as desires, intentions and logical
arguments and see what is left there. What is left there is only random
selection.
Does the randomness contain any magic called your will? This magic of
freewill is only an emotion. An emotion work within the limit of your
ignorance of how choices are made.
A truly inspired upload, thanks so much!
The act of observation affects physical systems. SO mere thought or
observation can change the outcomes of events. So that would play into free
will.
Cracking The Nutshell Quantum Physics & Free Will
As Christopher Hitchens would say:
*”..Of course I have free will – I have no choice…”*
Determinism began to recede around the turn of the 19th-20th century.
Einstein started the rot with his paper in 1905 about energy coming from
‘black bodies’ showing that energy/particles had to come in lumps (or
‘Quanta’). Later, Richard Feynman showed conclusively that science/nature
didn’t mind in which TIME direction such quanta were moving. So
cause/effect becomes problematic, limited only by the 2nd ‘Law’ of
thermodynamics. It goes against all our ‘common sense’ – but is apparently
TRUE!
Mind. Blown. … can’t wait for the rest of it! I’m going to have to watch
this a few more times.
What if two different world histories lead to the same point?
If I falsify macro-realism and accept that the moon is not there when I
don’t look at it, there is the old saw of what about all the other people
who are looking at it when I’m not? The only conclusion is they are not
there either. This can lead, if not properly considered, to solipsism or
even sociopathy.
(The only people who dont have free will are the ones who have determined
that they dont have any. -xcat 2015) I like to think of it like this, there
are no independent agents functioning by them self,
every thing is interconnected. so that said how can one know that some
thing is predetermined with out knowing everything, To know every thing
would mean there is a finite amount of information in all “reality” which
as far as i am involved is incorrect.
If we “assume” that there is infinite information that can possibly be &
that it is impossible to know every thing then our perception of space time
is an emergent reality coming from the sea of possible, This would also
mean liniar would have to be redefined as not a single event leading to a
chain, but every event that through its various interactions leads to a
observation that can only see the series of interactions not but not the
source of the interactions.
– Roll credits –
possibly incontinent commenter = xcat