News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

delayed choice quantum eraser shows that free will exists

Started by ablprop, October 13, 2010, 12:31:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ablprop

Quote from: "hackenslash"It is entirely probable that a particle doesn't actually possess either of the qualities 'position' or 'velocity' until such time as it's actually forced into that state by observation.

Yes, that's my understanding. But the probability wave function is spread out over space, while the particle is always in one particular place, once we observe it. So the moment we observe the electron "here", the wave function instantly goes to zero "there".

meta

Quote from: "i_am_i"
Quote from: "meta"
Quote from: "ablprop"OK (to both responses), but don't you find it the least bit interesting that the universe responds differently to quantum erasure that happens before the pattern is formed and quantum erasure that happens after the pattern is formed? If the future is already determined, then why the difference is experimental results?

Actually there aren't differences in experimental results in that only one result from experiments has been shown to hold up, as "patterns" meld.  Entanglement is the key.  

It seems to be agreed here that the original argument and conclusion is wrong, in that quantum physics does NOT affect free will of humans.  I remarked they are in different categories of thinking and understanding reality.  I think human free will is illusion, but extremely important from an evolutionary standpoint, with its selective value.  In theory there is nothing wrong with illusion so long as it produces beneficial products, such as survival. Besides that, all our perception of what we call reality may be only illusion, as Kant said our minds construct our own reality.

What does it matter?  What matters is what works for us:  pragmatism.  Illusion, such as self and free-will work well for us as much as we could expect from whatever reality is.  But that doesn't apply to ghosts, does it?  But it might apply to religious experiences, which actually have very great benefit for us in alleviation of pain (primarily psychological), shown to be verified in brain studies.

Richard.

So...what are you planning on doing this weekend Richard?


Watching football on TV
Richard.

meta

Quote from: "ablprop"
Quote from: "meta"It seems to be agreed here that the original argument and conclusion is wrong, in that quantum physics does NOT affect free will of humans.  

I agree. At best, the fact that the future is not determined is merely consistent with the existence of free will, but that's a long way from showing that we macroscopic beings have it. I didn't mean to imply any sort of mystical connection between indeterminacy and consciousness. I recognize there is a huge gulf between the results of individual photons and the activities of a big object like a brain.

The experiment itself simply fascinates me. The fact that nature is so effectively "covering her tracks," creating an interference pattern (in the delayed choice experiment) that can only be read once we've collected the which path information later on. There's deep stuff going on there.

Non-locality is pretty incredible all by itself, of course, but really the moment we admitted wave-function collapse as an explanation, that forced non-locality, don't you think? If I detect an electron here, that immediately means it isn't out by Jupiter, where at least a tiny bit of its wave function must have been hanging out.

The problem, I think, is not with the science, as experiment and theory always match up. The problem is with people like me, science educators, who are trying to make the science make sense, first for themselves and then for others. Simplification is crucial (otherwise just throw them the textbook and be done with it), but of course simplification can lead to misconceptions. It's a lot more fun and sexy to say "free will" as opposed to "indeterminacy", though in reality it's a long hard (and maybe impossible) slog from the second to the first.

Anyway, good discussion.

But in classical commonsense physics events ARE determined, in an algorithmic process within a closed system.  In QM the future is at the most probability.  Since QM is only about micro-physics, the smallest of elements of reality, electrons, quarks, and photons, large objects fall into the "realm" of classical physics, like the neurons, etc., a molecular system, in our brain, thus subject to determinism, thus no free will, thus free will is a necessary illusion.  Note: large objects determine their direction through the strongest avenues of future possibilities, enough to render the weaker ones of QM inapplicable.  Indeterminacy is found only in quantum particles/waves,thus don't affect us as large objects.  Interference results only in more than one history of events, so that the sum of histories display the probabilities.  I don't see any way this is "covering tracks."  Non-locality is proven experimentally all on its own.

Richard

hackenslash

Quote from: "meta"But in classical commonsense physics events ARE determined, in an algorithmic process within a closed system.

Whoah, Hoss! I don't think that can categorically be stated. The very most that can be said on this topic from an empirical perspective is that semi-determinism is not ruled out at macroscopic scales. To say that determinism is ruled in is a qualitatively different statement, and the data support no conclusions in this regard as yet. More importantly, common sense is not only not the final arbiter of reality, it isn't even something that can be relied on to elucidate reality. Indeed, both of our most successful theories in modern physics screw common sense up the jacksie with a pogo-stick wrapped in razor wire and covered in gorgonzola from the fondue of reality!

QuoteIn QM the future is at the most probability.

That's almost reasonable, except that probability is only a measure from our perspective. While our current understanding suggests, for example, that a particle has no position or velocity until the collapse of the wavefunction, we must be wary of acceptance of unproven paradigms. It is entirely possible that our model of the quantum world is wrong. In reality, nobody understands why it works, beyond the fact that, when the equations are applied and predictions made based upon those equations, they agree with observation to a ridiculously high degree. In technical parlance, all this actually means is that they have not been falsified.

QuoteSince QM is only about micro-physics, the smallest of elements of reality, electrons, quarks, and photons, large objects fall into the "realm" of classical physics,

Except, of course, that macroscopic events are influenced by quantum phenomena. Two glaring examples of this are Einstein's work on Brownian motion, which was actually the first hard empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of atoms (often overlooked, in light of SR and GR and his Nobel prize-winning work on the photoelectric effect), and the Casimir effect, which demonstrates the impossibility of nothing on a macroscopic scale. And that's long before we get intyo macroscopic demonstrations of quantum events in QED. Everything is quantum at bottom, not least the operating principles governing the technology that allows you to state that it's only influence is 'micro-physics'.

Quotelike the neurons, etc., a molecular system, in our brain, thus subject to determinism,

Err, no. The neurons in our brains are indeed macroscopic, but the firing of them requires quantum events, namely electrons, which are most definitely subject to quantum uncertainty, and therefore most definitely NOT deterministic. At best, we can say that this is rooted in stochastic principles.

Quotethus no free will,

Already refuted, see above. While I have good reason to suppose that our will is anything but free (incidentally, in the presence of omniscience, we don't even have will, free or otherwise), those reasons are not rooted in quantum-mechanical principles.

Quotethus free will is a necessary illusion.

Necessary? Can you actually demonstrate the necessity of this illusion? Can you even demonstrate that it is an illusion? I have provided the beginnings of some reasonably strong evidence above, but it also must be stated that it may be that we can learn to recognise all such input, and filter it out, thus restoring true free will. Of course, it may be that those influences are so numerous that we can't identify them all, in which case free will is ruled out. There is nothing in either classical or quantum physics that categorically rules it out, though.

QuoteNote: large objects determine their direction through the strongest avenues of future possibilities, enough to render the weaker ones of QM inapplicable.

Nonsense. All quantum-mechanical effects are always in play for all the particles in the universe.

QuoteIndeterminacy is found only in quantum particles/waves,thus don't affect us as large objects.

Can you actually demonstrate that? I'd be very interested in seeing your evidence to support this assertion. Since ALL particles are subject to quantum-mechanical events, even those being observed (which is pretty much what being a macroscopic object is, from a quantum-mechanical perspective), then large object are, to some degree, subject to those same principles.

QuoteInterference results only in more than one history of events, so that the sum of histories display the probabilities.

This is bordering on gibberish, and sounds a great deal like a half-understood version of Everett's 'many worlds' nonsense (and yes, much as I respect Everett, it is nonsense, not least because of the complete disregard it shows for parsimony).
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.