
Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it - xenophon
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/free-will-is-back-and-maybe-we-can-measure-it
======
onion2k
_We desperately need a new way of thinking about free will._

We really don't.

The author of the article has written off hundreds of years of philosophical
debate about determinist free will versus indeterminism and decided that his
interpretation of free will, which falls firmly in the causal indeterminism
camp, is the right way to think about things. Admittedly that's the nice one,
because determinism is _hard_ when it comes to things like ethics and
morality, but we don't need to redefine 'free will' to have the discussion.
Especially when it's a low redefinition[1].

The fact is whether or not we have free will is largely irrelevant. There's a
really interesting Philosophy Bites podcast with Daniel Dennett about what's
important in the free will question[2]. It's well worth a listen if you're
interested in philosophical stuff.

[1]
[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html](http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html)

[2]
[http://traffic.libsyn.com/philosophybites/Daniel_Dennett_on_...](http://traffic.libsyn.com/philosophybites/Daniel_Dennett_on_Free_Will_Worth_Wanting.mp3)

~~~
narag
ISTM that the hundreds of years of debate comes from a unfortunate
misunderstanding provoked by many centuries of religious thought: that to be
free we need some kind of "soul" apart from physical reality. (The article
mentions that)

But I don't fully understand why so many smart people, including non-
believers, can't see the obvious: that determinism has nothing to do with free
will. Free will is just a mechanism of finding a path between the set of
natural forces operating inside our mind, including all the range of
motivations, from basic instincts to sublimated aspirations.

The opposite to freedom is slavery, either from external circumstances or from
own instincts that, in turn, is caused by external circumstances: arrested
development, physiological defects or the mental illness.

So lack of freedom has causes and freedom has causes too (configuration of our
brain and a favorable environment). The opposite of freedom is not "uncaused".

Requiring no determinism is one more example of the not true scottman fallacy.
Or moving goal posts.

~~~
onion2k
_that determinism has nothing to do with free will_

The theory goes that, on an atomic level, interactions between particles is a
deterministic process - it's wholly and completely predictable because the
outcome is determined by a knowable set of rules. Given the fact that our
brains are just[1] a huge set of particles and chemical processes it should
then follow that a perfect computer model of someone's brain would make the
exact same decisions as that person.

In other words, we don't actually make any decisions for ourselves. It's all
determined by chemistry.

If that's true then someone could argue that the path of their life was
predetermined by the state of the universe at any given time, so the fact they
shot their wife was actually nothing they could have had any control over, and
it's very unfair to lock them away for 30 years if they couldn't have changed
anything. It's just the latest outcome of a chemical reaction that started at
the Big Bang.

It's actually a very compelling argument. The counter argument requires
'magic' in the form of something that we can control that can't be measured.
That's a big ask for any rational scientist.

[1] Pretty huge 'just' there because it discounts God, souls, etc. Many people
think that the brain isn't just atomic particles. But there's no evidence that
they're right. We've cut brains up and looked.

~~~
domas
Then by this logic one could argue, that locking them away for 30 years is not
unfair because it is also predetermined by the state of the universe at this
given time and there is nothing other people could do but to sentence the
killer. Free will or no free will the argument goes both ways.

~~~
danieltillett
Exactly. I have never understood why people use determinism to excuse bad
behaviour, but fail to see the resulting punishment is just as determined.

~~~
marklgr
They don't fail to see it, they just object to calling it "fair".

~~~
danieltillett
If determinism is true then nothing (or everything) is “fair”.

------
adrianN
All discussions about free will are completely useless without first defining
what exactly "free will" is. Is your definition of free will compatible with
the assumption that the brain has to obey the laws of physics? Do you believe
that free will is somehow magic?

~~~
Schiphol
In general, it's far from useless to investigate the nature of X before having
a clear definition of X. Perhaps the definition will come as a result of the
investigation. Perhaps there will never be a clear definition, but paradigm
cases are easy to come by (that's arguably the case with free will).

------
frobozz
"We must believe in free will — we have no choice." (Isaac Bashevis Singer)

------
jstanley
This article is complete nonsense.

Just because it looks like animals are solving problems doesn't mean they have
free will, any more than humans solving problems means humans have free will.

There is no reason these things can't come about through a deterministic
universe.

------
zogwarg
I read the article about being less about free will and more about delayed
gratification. Which seems ironic, since from a neural standpoint, can be one
of the most addictive things possible.

Not really that compatible with free will in my view.

To slightly contradict myself, I don't think it's quite fair too say that the
ability to wait for something can be an indicator of free will, since that
characteristic can vary a lot, even among healthy adults. And describing some
humans as having more free will than others appears very dangerous to me.

------
Roritharr
So basically: The world is deterministic, so free will just means to be able
to weigh options and delay gratification for a bit longer?

That's a sad definition in my book.

~~~
Natsu
That depends on exactly what idea of determinism you have. If you mean
something like phenomena can be described by the standard model, that's fine,
but if it's something like local realism, that's been busted pretty hard. This
might prove more interesting than the linked article, though it was on HN
previously:

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409791a...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409791a0.html)

Local realism is the idea that objects have definite properties whether or not
they are measured, and that measurements of these properties are not affected
by events taking place sufficiently far away1.

[...]

Many experiments1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 have since been done
that are consistent with quantum mechanics and inconsistent with local
realism. But these conclusions remain the subject of considerable interest and
debate, and experiments are still being refined to overcome ‘loopholes’ that
might allow a local realistic interpretation. Here we have measured
correlations in the classical properties of massive entangled particles (9Be+
ions): these correlations violate a form of Bell's inequality. Our measured
value of the appropriate Bell's ‘signal’ is 2.25 ± 0.03, whereas a value of 2
is the maximum allowed by local realistic theories of nature. In contrast to
previous measurements with massive particles, this violation of Bell's
inequality was obtained by use of a complete set of measurements. Moreover,
the high detection efficiency of our apparatus eliminates the so-called
‘detection’ loophole.

~~~
spacehome
The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is consistent with local
realism.

~~~
Natanael_L
What would happen if a particle measurement had a probability with irrational
numbers (in every base)? What would the outcome be?

And I feel that MW would need a pilot wave that carries the information for
every parallel possible outcome for entanglement to work, wherein certain
pilot waves cause universe splits starting from the point where they overlap
and others merge - if you measure the spin of two entangled particles you get
two waves that meet where X+X and Y+Y don't interact, but X+Y and Y+X does and
thus create new universes. I don't see how the wave-less versions hold up when
there for example are orientation-dependent probability and a ton of other
crap like that. What else makes the particles interact with exactly the right
universe?

Edit: Not to mention how complex MW would have to be to explain the delayed
quantum eraser experiment.

~~~
spacehome
You're thoroughly confused about what MW is.

~~~
Natanael_L
In what way? There's no one canonical MW either way, my version with growing
parallel universe bubbles that merge or split is just my interpretation, as
the other versions I've seen seem to be unable to address various issues

~~~
spacehome
There is a canonical MW interpretation. The MW hypothesis is just that reality
is the evolution of the Schrodinger PDE on a configuration space with no other
modification such as pilot waves or collapse required. The math is really
quite simple (this simplest of any QM interpretation). It doesn't have
parallel universes or bubbles as fundamental objects.

~~~
Natanael_L
And by what mechanics does that happen? How do the universe "know" which
particles should behave how in delayed eraser experiments, for example? It
just... Happens? How are the particles "separated" and "merged" (in lack of
better terms) in the configuration space?

~~~
spacehome
Particles are not fundamental, either, and thinking in classical terms will
yield only confusion. You'll find a good non-technical introduction to the MW
interpretation here:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/)

~~~
Natanael_L
My basic justification for my interpretation: either entanglement of two
photons makes all of spacetime branch out into two instantaneously (however
that's represented in the configuration space - Pluto wouldn't wait for the
event to enter its light cone to now diverge into two "branches");

Or every point in the universe is essentially an independent configuration
space, linked in a kind of matrix, in which the fact that the photon we sent
to Pluto had spin X on measurement propagates outwards back to us and upon
reaching us causes our configuration space to react accordingly in two
different branches. After all the knowledge couldn't be available to you
before it came back. Functionally equivalent to my bubble description above,
only the terminology differs. Or is the configuration space infinite to the
degree that all possible future outcomes is accounted for and represented in
every point at once already, practically making it into a growing complex
infinite web of interactions when following the time line forwards?

------
paulsutter
Focusing on actual processes in the brain may be a more objective discussion
than discussing "free will". For example, is the human brain driven by
reinforcement learning? is dopamine part of the reward loop? how does
curiosity fit in? Are there tipping point effects in neural networks? What
about noise, or even quantum effects if you were trying to model and predict
an outcome?

Regardless of one's position, that's an objective discussion with questions
that can be tested, with useful results that could help develop a general AI.

Contrast that with a discussion about "free will", a suitcase word with
numerous polarizing definitions. It's like walking into a minefield of bias
and enmity. And frankly just as much strident opinion from "rationalists" as
from the religious. And I ask, where is that going? What's the result such
discussion is driving towards? Is the discussion really analyzing a real
physical process in the brain or is this a values discussion masquerading as
logic?

------
frobozz
Is he saying that because other animals also seem to exhibit free will, and
because some humans appear to be more impulsive than others, that makes it
possible without a "supernatural ability to transcend the laws of nature"?

Buried in the article, rather than in an introductory definition of the terms
used, is the line:

"for some, a really free will is one that is not determined by anything – one
that stands outside the causal chains of nature. Such a person might feel
cheated when offered instead a set of capacities that we share (to a degree)
with cats and chickens."

Surely there's nothing at all novel here. We've long known that other animals
have varying degrees of autonomy.

I also don't think that any determinists would argue (or even ever have
argued) against the existence of this kind of free will. Just that it is only
free if you also accept that Bertrand Russell's table is "oblong, brown and
shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard", and choose to go no
deeper.

------
cousin_it
Free will is how a decision-choosing algorithm feels from inside. Not much
more to it, IMO.

When a decision-choosing algorithm says "I can't predict my own decisions,
therefore they must be unpredictable in principle", that strikes me as
unfounded.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Free will is a scalar dimension along which decision choosing algorithms can
vary.

With high free will, human can adapt, customize, and innovate situationally
optimized responses to an unpredictable environment. With low free will, a
Sphex wasp can reactively activate one of its stored patterns and use very
little expensive cognitive processing to react optimally in a predictable
environment.

------
nefitty
Once you have a grasp of the fundamental mechanisms of the
universe(cause/effect, logic, etc) you quickly see that certain, socially-
defined terms are irreconcilable with the facts of reality. Namely they, the
three major and thorny ones, are ideas of God or gods, supernatural phenomenon
and ideas of free will.

These three ideas just don't fit with the facts. If an entity was powerful
enough to create everything, what created IT? If supernatural phenomenon were
real, why isn't there solid evidence of its existence, and if it exists on a
plane beyond the material then how could it ever affect the material plane we
inhabit? Finally, if you accept that the universe follows certain predictable,
immutable laws then you must agree that with enough information any future or
past state could be predicted or recreated. Humans and their minds live within
the constraints of this physical universe, thus any potential future state of
mind or behavior could be predicted from the previous state(s) that human was
in. All moments arise from the moments before them. There is absolutely no gap
there to shimmy in ideas of "free will". I was born at a certain time, place
and in a certain community. I had no choice there, but the die was cast and
everything I ever become will be constrained by those facts. I will never be
able to magically pull myself out of this causal chain.

I would like to add one more thing, to counteract the possible easy pessimism
that a realization like this could have on an individual. One day I realized
that ghosts weren't real. As a child, this was a burden lifted from my
shoulders, as I could rest easier knowing no unpredictable and unfathomable
force was going to accost me as I slept. One day I realized that there was no
God. I suddenly felt freer than ever, and less self-conscious in solitude. I
don't live every day in anxiety about the "lack" of these two delusions. It
happened once more with free will. I realized all things belong to a causal
chain possibly extending into infinity, and I was just a pattern at the tail
end of this chain in time. I suddenly felt more compassionate for every other
human, lodged as they are in their station . You and I can't help what we have
become, what we came from or what we will be. Even knowing this, I live
intentionally, not drowning in a sea of slavish fatalism, but instead with the
keen knowledge that I too belong to the causal chain, and that through
evolutionary machinations, my mind can suspend disbelief and still feel it is
directing the future toward a desired state.

The paradox is difficult to rest in, but it has given me a powerful tool,
another paradoxical belief, that I can control my future by knowing that I
simply arise from what has past.

~~~
ajuc
> These three ideas just don't fit with the facts. If an entity was powerful
> enough to create everything, what created IT?

That's exactly the same argument as "what happened before big bang created
time and space".

The right argument is "big bang theory requires less assumptions than God, and
gives better predictions, so let's use it (until we find even better theory)".

> Finally, if you accept that the universe follows certain predictable,
> immutable laws then you must agree that with enough information any future
> or past state could be predicted or recreated

According to our best understanding these laws have random generator in them,
so for example we cannot predict exactly when a radioactive decay of an atom
will happen. And it's not because our lack of knowledge, that uncertainity is
a state of universe, it's inherent to the quantum mechanics. At best we can
calculate the probability distribution.

