QM, Free Will, and Superdeterminism: Debunking the Myth of Free Will in Science

[bertrandrussell]

TL;DR Summary

Is the weirdness of QM because of the silliness of believing that without free will science is impossible?

I do not like superdeterminism because it makes reality Newtonian. However, the objection that superdeterminism means that there is no free will and free will is required for science is silly. Computers lack free will, but they still figure out what's going on.

from the introduction to the Essai: “ We may regard the present state of the universe as the
effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a
certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and
all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect
were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in
a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe
and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be
uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes
Laplace


Free will implies an infinite regress! “Honestly, I cannot understand what people mean when they talk about the
freedom of the human will. I have a feeling, for instance, that I will
something or other; but what relation this has with freedom I cannot understand
at all. I feel that I will to light my pipe and I do it; but how can I connect
this up with the idea of freedom? What is behind the act of willing to light
the pipe? Another act of willing? Schopenhauer once said: Der Mensch kann was
er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will (Man can do what he will but he
cannot will what he wills).”
Einstein...
I have no problem with a rejection of free will. It is logically absurd. However, I prefer an exciting quantum reality rather than a
Newtonian one of colliding Billard balls. Of course that is an emotional reason
and not a logical reason. However, I am willing to listen to arguments that
quantum mechanics is superdeterministic and basically Newtonian.

 

[bertrandrussell]

If one says that computers only do what we program them to do, then what about us? So, we are beyond the physical laws of cause an effect?? That seems mystical and very unscientific!

 

[PeroK]

There was a discussion about this recently.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/closing-the-superdeterminism-loophole.1012038/

There's not much support for superdeterminism here. I think we all agree that "free will" is a red herring.

 

[bertrandrussell]

What particular objections do you have to her (in the video) argument. Basically, she is saying that the reason QM seems weird to us is because we make the silly assumption that without free will science is impossible. But if there is no free will then there is nothing weird about QM.
I have a great admiration for Hawking, but I have learned that physicists are very weak at philosophical understanding. Hawking for example was a self-described logical positivist, a philosophy now known only because it refuted itself. Logical Positivism's (from now on called LP) central doctrine is that anything not empirical or analytical is meaningless. LP's central doctrine is neither empirical nor analytical so therefore by its own definition it is meaningless. Like I said hawking was a GREAT PHYSICIST, but he would have flunked Philosophy 101!

 

[PeroK]

What particular objections do you have to her (in the video) argument. Basically, she is saying that the reason QM seems weird to us is because we make the silly assumption that without free will science is impossible. But if there is no free will then there is nothing weird about QM.
I have a great admiration for Hawking, but I have learned that physicists are very weak at philosophical understanding. Hawking for example was a self-described logical positivist, a philosophy now known only because it refuted itself. Logical Positivism's (from now on called LP) central doctrine is that anything not empirical or analytical is meaningless. LP's central doctrine is neither empirical nor analytical so therefore by its own definition it is meaningless. Like I said hawking was a GREAT PHYSICIST, but he would have flunked Philosophy 101!

This is not a philosophy forum, this is a physics forum. We can only discuss physics here.

 

[PeterDonis]

free will

Does not have a well-defined scientific meaning, and so discussion of it is really off topic here.

Superdeterminism is really an interpretation issue as far as QM is concerned, and so it should be discussed in the interpretations subforum, not this one. Moving the thread to that forum.

 

[PeroK]

What particular objections do you have to her (in the video) argument.

I defer to Scott Aaronson on this, as he has articulated the issues better than I can. The term he uses is that SD is "wilfully contrary". Most of the comments on Hossenfelder's video are from crackpots cheering her on because they believe she has debunked modern physics.

Also, see the link to Mateus Araujo's paper in the other thread. He has addressed the issues with the Hossenfelder/Palmer paper (which is what we should really be discussing and not her YouTube video).

 

[PeterDonis]

the Hossenfelder/Palmer paper

Can someone provide a link?

 

[PeroK]

Can someone provide a link?

Here it is:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full

 

[bertrandrussell]

According to her video the only objection to superdeterminism is that it eliminates free will. Some scientists ( she quoted ) say that science is impossible without free will. That of course is silly. Computers lack free will and yet calculate answers. Also, those scientists are without knowing it implying intelligent design as opposed to evolution. Our brains would have to be designed and not the result of evolution.
Is there an objection to superdeterminism that doesn't include that ridiculous " science requires free will ( the autonomy of the experimenter ) " idea?

 

[PeterDonis]

Computers lack free will

How do you know this?

 

[Delta2]

Super determinism is wrong, in my opinion the universe is a "divine" blending of chaos and order: Something like ordered chaos: There is absolutely chaos in the microscopic world (for example it is quite often said in QM that the electron orbiting a nucleus is simultaneously at many places at once, this looks a bit chaotic to me), in which chaos they put "some order" the laws of physics like the Schrodinger equation or the other laws, and in the meso-macroscopic world it looks like that we have some order, some discipline to the laws of physics.

 

[CoolMint]

It has been impossible to ascribe meaning to life so it doesn't matter if it is a series of cosmic hallucinations or a Newtonian case of inevitability aka superdeterminism.
For at least a century superdeterminism has rested on shaky foundations, though.

 

[Delta2]

There is definitely not superdeterminism but not absolute true chaos either. Somehow it is something in between.

 

[CoolMint]

Yes. Whatever reality is, it appears to be an emergent phenomenon described best through the concept of fields.

 

[PeroK]

Is there an objection to superdeterminism that doesn't include that ridiculous " science requires free will ( the autonomy of the experimenter ) " idea?

I already gave you links to two physicists who argue strongly against SD for other reasons. Why don't you read them?

 

[bertrandrussell]

How do you know this?

Free will requires consciousness.

 

[bertrandrussell]

Computers do not violate cause and effect.

 

[Delta2]

I agree that computers don't have free will "by default" like humans do but we can do AI programming in a computer to simulate free will, though I doubt how true free will this "AI free will" will be.

 

[bertrandrussell]

The scientists she quoted in the video argued that the experimenter must have autonomy, or the scientific method makes no sense. The choice of experiment cannot be predetermined. That means that the choice of experiment cannot have a cause. I find that a mystical notion. It's the old contradiction. 1. Nothing is outside nature 2. One must be objective. However, the way around that is to realize that there are many calculations that involve absolutely no free will. For example, the human brain (that does calculations) was not the result of free will. it was the result of evolution. To suppose otherwise is to invoke intelligent design. I am sure the scientists she quoted would not agree with intelligent design. Therefore, their beliefs contradict each other and therefore cannot be true. It frightens me that such academic elites can make such an obvious error. I was probably misunderstanding previous answers from another thread, but it seemed to me that the objection to superdeterminism was that the choice the experimenter made could not be predetermined.

 

[bertrandrussell]

Basically, the objection to superdeterminism in the video is that if everything is determined the scientific method becomes meaningless. As I showed above that "argument" is silly.

 

[bertrandrussell]

If that is the only objection to superdeterminism then there is no valid objection to superdeterminism. Since I was probably misunderstanding previous answers from another thread, it seemed to me that the objection to superdeterminism in that thread was that the choice the experimenter made could not be predetermined. I want clarification that that was not the objection in the thread and that I misunderstood and an explanation of a valid objection to superdeterminism

 

[DrClaude]

Thread locked pending moderation.

 

[berkeman]

Thread will remain locked, since the OP has been banned.

 

[Marilyn67]

Hello,

I just want to tell you that the update of the experimental protocol that I want to submit to you to have your opinions, will take me longer than expected, because some things are no longer correct, compared to the knowledge that you brought me yesterday, and for which I thank you once again.

It's in progress and as soon as it is finished, I will submit this experience to you.
Promised !

There are no two complementary parts.

A photon is a specific state of the electromagnetic field. Such states are spread out, and more specifically the position operator cannot even be defined for them. Saying that it has two parts and that those two parts are in different places is simply not related to how these states actually behave.

A single photon is the entire state, not just a part of the state. The state itself is a wave, and it behaves as a wave does, including exhibiting interference. The math is solid, the theory is solid, and the experimental evidence is solid.

I take this opportunity to open a small parenthesis on the subject :

What do you think of Sabine Hossenfelder and her work ?
I know she has a doctorate and post-doctorate...!

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.01327.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.01324.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.06462.pdf

In particular this :

She says that we don't devote enough energy to certain areas where quantum mechanics intervenes and she proposes in particular to "get out of the chaos" by studying and experimenting with small systems at low temperature with rapid measurement sequences.

On peut l'écouter ici :



I ask you the question because I don't have the level to judge the relevance of his remarks.

Cordially,
Marilyn

 

[PeroK]

I take this opportunity to open a small parenthesis on the subject :

What do you think of Sabine Hossenfelder and her work ?
I know she has a doctorate and post-doctorate...!

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.01327.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.01324.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.06462.pdf

In particular this :

She says that we don't devote enough energy to certain areas where quantum mechanics intervenes and she proposes in particular to "get out of the chaos" by studying and experimenting with small systems at low temperature with rapid measurement sequences.

I ask you the question because I don't have the level to judge the relevance of his remarks.

Cordially,
Marilyn

Hossenfelder's support for superdeterminism has been discussed already here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/qm-and-free-will.1016124/

I would again refer to Scott Aaronson and Mateus Araujo

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6215

https://mateusaraujo.info/2019/12/17/superdeterminism-is-unscientific/

The other point to make is that Hossenfelder YouTube videos attract a considerable amount of support from those who simply refuse to believe that QM could possibly be right, usually for spurious reasons. It's not a good sign when the crackpots are on your side.