Michio Kaku: Why Physics Ends the Free Will Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdoroTeDevote
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the best physicists are also philosophers. That’s why they think they are theologians.
I read a statement in a book a number of years ago (wish I could find it so I could properly attribute it, but I think that the writer was a Christian physicist) – If you want to learn the language of God, study physics.

D
 
What irritates me the most about these conversations is the misuse of the word “random”. The uncertainty principle does not mean the “randomness” principle. It’s a simple proposition that the more accurately you know the position of a particle, the less accurately you can know its momentum (or vice versa). You will note that this is fundamentally a statistical statement (and indeed, in physics these properties are measured in standard deviations). But like all statistics, there’s a tendency towards the mean. In other words, while working with a single electron makes the uncertainty principle very pronounced, working with a hundred or a thousand of them means things start to even out.

A very good example of this is radioactive decay. If I have a single atom of carbon-14 and I sit around waiting for it to decay, it may occur at any time in the next 10,000 years or so, and there’s absolutely no way for me to predict when that atom may decay into nitrogen-14. However, if I have a large quantity of carbon-14 (say, something with 10,000 carbon-14 atoms) all of a sudden the statistical normal model becomes applicable, and we start observing that a large proportion of the C-14 atoms convert to N-14 in about 5,700 years.

So, in other words, for very small sample sizes (like, say, a single quark or a couple of photons), the uncertainty principle is a very big deal. Get a whole lot of those particles, and you find that things begin to fit in to more predictable patterns.

Except, of course, at the beginning of the Universe, where the extreme densities and pressures meant even relatively minor quantum effects would have been writ large. But that’s a whole other conversation.
 
Uncertainty does not lead to free will. It allows it.
Exactly. So what do we have? The question must remain either a philosophical one, or a theological one.

I think some people misunderstand after listening to the first part about Newton and Einstein. He is thinking quantum mechanics prove free will. As you point out, it only allows the possibility.
 
No, it doesn’t seem like nonsense. He’s arguing in favor of free will, because of the uncertainty of all the particles in the universe. At least I think that’s what he’s saying.
 
for very small sample sizes (like, say, a single quark or a couple of photons), the uncertainty principle is a very big deal.
According to the ensemble interpretation, the quantum mechanics model is accurate for large samples.
 
The model most certainly is, but at larger scales quantum effects “smooth” out. That’s the point, looking at a single particle has a high degree of uncertainty, the more particles you look at the more predictable a system becomes overall.
 
looking at a single particle has a high degree of uncertainty,
In the ensemble interpretation, the Uncertainty Principle is that if σx is the standard deviation of the location of the particle and σp is the standard deviation of its momentum then

σx ·σp ≥ ½ h

As you know the standard deviation is not useful when there are fewer than 30 sample points. So, there is no sense in talking about the uncertainty of a single particle in the ensemble interpretation of QM.
 
Indeed, the observer can change the outcome.
The way I look at it, it’s not the observer, it’s the equipment. The lab technology pulls the event, be it an electron, photon, or Bucky ball out of the totality of the system of which it is a part, where this is reflected in its having a wave-like nature, and into particle form. This would happen whether or not a person was observing. Such events happen all the time and are what make the world what it is. That said, we are causal agents, who create the equipment.
 
Last edited:
The way I look at it, it’s not the observer, it’s the equipment. The lab technology pulls the event, be it an electron, photon, or Bucky ball out of the totality of the system of which it is a part, where this is reflected in its having a wave-like nature, and into particle form. This would happen whether or not a person was observing. Such events happen all the time and are what make the world what it is. That said, we are causal agents, who create the equipment.
If you stand at the edge of a pond, it is you the observer who determines if the photon bounces off the surface or the bottom. No equipment is present.
 
If you take a picture, the photograph will show what you’ve been seeing. If you leave the camera there and have it take pictures automatically, wouldn’t it show what you would have observed directly?
 
Last edited:
Science CANNOT verify that there IS a spiritual dimension
of Life(Sean Caroll of the Gifford lectures 2016) note that
even the Core Theorem which claims to include EVERYTHING
that affects the causality of events IN THE UNIVERSE cannot
prove that there is a God. But, in ancient wisdom and actually
superior wisdom, the Scriptures in effect says:“the invisible
power and Divine goodness is seen in ALL CREATION” or in
modern lingo:“the Answer is right under your nose, dummy”
 
Last edited:
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Psalm 19:1

What we can see, and what we can know through reason, is not the same as what can be proven.
 
it’s just as arbitrary to posit that it’s the equipment rather than the observer that causes the collapse, because neither of them directly interacts with whatever you’re observing.
I’m not sure what you are saying here. The equipment can be reduced to a collection of quantum events. At the same time, the equipment is a higher order than those quantum events and it’s structure determines how they will behave. A beam of electromagnetic energy becomes a group of particles just by the events involved in the detection of which slit they are passing. Obviously, this stuff occurs in nature outside of our experiments, which organize matter for specific results that will reveal its nature.
 
What is it about one side or the other that designates that side as the cause?
At issue is the definition of cause. Events which are relationships between things that are relationships in themselves, are organized in a temporal sequence. We place ourselves within these sequences, let’s say a satellite around the globe and might say that the spacetime curvature caused by the mass of the earth, the gravitational force it exerts, is what determines or causes the object’s trajectory. There is a series of events where the cause might be said to be the fundamental properties or laws that govern the universe.

We are causal beings, transcending the material, finite in the sense that we cannot create but merely mould matter, while at the same time composed of the same material as the rest of the physical universe. We can cause things to happen and it is on which side of an interaction that we place ourselves that would be the cause, the independent variable, resulting in an effect, the dependent variable.
 
To what degree do I have free will?
The way I would answer is that free will is an aspect of the human spirit, which is an overriding organizing principle or soul that makes us what we are in reality. At the level of the very smallest of things, we have such events as quarks flying around at the speed of light in a contained system that constitutes a nucleon, where there kinetic and potential energies are mass, and these relating to other similar events go on to form atoms, which are in turn, combining into large complex molecules, are brought together as cells. These in us, are formed into tissues as parts of the organ systems, which form our bodies, perceiving, feeling, thinking and acting within the universe of which we are a part. If we think of matter as information in action, all that information is subsumed under the structural form of the human spirit. We carry on as persons - a unity of mind, body and spirit. We utilize all these given constituent parts within the universal context, to become who we will in eternity; there’s no going back to what we’ve done although we can make amends, repent and ultimately be redeemed innand through Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
What he is saying is that one event in the past does not necessarily mean that a particular event in the future will or has to exist.

But i don’t see how that ends the freewill debate.

Your choice is either determined by the laws of physics or it is not. In other-words, even if some events are indeterminate, unless it is you a who is determining your choice, you have no freewill.

So he is wrong in that sense.

He is right to point out however that some things don’t have to physically happen according to processes in the past, and so this opens up the door to freewill, but it doesn’t explain freewill as a physical event.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top