Schroedinger's Cat, many-worlds interpretation and free will

[Bahman]

Nonsense. If I like both options equally and I know that, then I have nothing to lose by picking one over the other. I just pick one.

It is not nonsense. You don’t need free will for a situation when options are different and you don’t need free will for a situation that options are indifferent.

There are two question here:

1. What did cause that you make decision in a situation which is completely indifferent?
2. The situation of course clear from first person perspective when decision is made but how about third perspective point of view? To illustrate, assume that there is a person who wants to commit suicide but s/he is not certain. You leave the person with a gun in a closed room for a while. The question is whether person is dead or alive from another person perspective? There is an uncertainty from third person perspective point of view which cannot define the state of the person, so person is dead and alive with 50% chance. But there is no uncertainty from first person point of view. This is paradoxical situation and it is the property of any system that is indifferent state of being.

That doesn’t mean that I picked the one I picked randomly. I picked it for a reason, namely the fact that I liked it. (I tend to deny that rather-thans are necessary for specifying decisions. A decision can be rational and free without my being able to give you a reason for my choosing A instead of B. I merely need a reason for choosing A.)

You are not free any more when you have the reason for a decision in a situation and there is no place for free will when two option are liked differently.

Goodness and its many guises are not, in my view, so easily quantified, so one’s reaction to the differing goodnesses of two options is not a deterministic inclination to select the greatest goodness.

If this is no the case then how we could make a decision?

One option one might be confronted with is between sinning and abstaining from sin. The [apparent] goods in each case are not of the same sort. Freedom is not limited to an arbitrary selection of two things. I will be weighing moral principles against perceived benefits of indulgence, and there will be other factors involved as well (how well I have cultivated my virtues to respond more readily to actual goods, etc.). Can I be said to “prefer” one option or the other before choosing, such that my preference decides my choice? No.

So assume to prove otherwise you decide to chose what you don’t prefer. Isn’t this decision biased by the fact that you wanted to do otherwise?

I don’t see how single- or many-worlds interpretations of QM are relevant here.

It is very relevant for decision making since allows the intellect to project itself in a virtual situation which allows to measure like, dislike, and other different factors, so called imagination. This is generally relevant for any problem solving problem or situation resolving. We have the answer or make a decision once the problem is solved or situation is resolved.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t see anyone rebutting Linus2 telling everyone that they are into a silly exchange because it is all a thought experiment, and the laboratory itself is all in the mind of the author of the paradox.

The way I see it, there are no paradoxes in quantum mechanics except in the minds of the physicists who write about them paradoxes.

Quantum mechanics has to do with photons, and they exist in empirical reality, and particle physicists and engineers work with them to produce inventions like laser printers.

But tell me you guys here who are waxing so learned about the paradox cat, what practical uses do you or can you divine with the socalled paradoxes of quantum mechanics?

KingCoil

It is very simple to setup such an experiment these days. You basically need a computer which is a quantum device, connecting it to a gun, and write a line program which generate a random number, zero or one, in first case the gun doesn’t shoot and in the second case it shoots.

 

[Bahman]

I knew from post one this thread would be a hopeless mess.

Free will has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, as somebody else mentioned, and should not have been mentioned in a thread about quantum mechanics, which seems to be whatever you want it to mean.
Quantum mechanics is too complicated to discuss thoroughly in a website forum like this.

Well, quantum mechanics is in fact is as simple as than philosophy.

Although, the intellect is not equal to quantum mechanics, but mental states are quantum mechanical states. And that is duty of intellect to imagine them, namely experience different objective realities before putting them in practice.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Whether the is s relation with free will and quantum mechanics is subject of another thread.

This thought experiment is well accepted paradox among physicist most importantly those who pioneer the idea, such as Einstein, Schroedinger, etc. The idea is simple, could quantum mechanic manifest itself in our daily life. The answer is yes, example: computer you are using is a quantum device, superconductivity, quantum hall effect and many others. This is sentence from Einstein: “that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states”.

We know what wave function is when it comes to describing subatomic system. Wave function has a expansion depending on observable namely eigenstates and the norm of the coefficient of each eigenstate give the probability that system is within that state and that is the idea behind Schroedinger’s cat experiment namely the state of life a being could coherently depend on state of a subatomic device since the state of life cat as well can be a superposition of death and life with appropriate probability.

That is correct and that is the state of life or death of cat as well. State of life cat is unknown state unless we open the box and know what is the state of art, by which we disturb the quantum system.

So the state of life cat is dead and alive.

I don’t claim to know anything about quantum mechanics, but I do know when I am being fed a pile of bull. I am alive, I am not either or or both and. That is my point. And nothing in the experiment supports a multiverse concept. Nor is there anything in it which destroys free will.I think people have been feeding too much on science fiction.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

You don’t need free will for a situation when options are different and you don’t need free will for a situation that options are indifferent.

What does it mean to “need” free will? Maybe one option or the other could be chosen without free will* in the sense that A is actualized rather than B, and that can happen whether the options are “different” or “indifferent.” But that would not imply that it wasn’t freely chosen.

*This is actually not true. No choice or decision was made if it was not made freely. It would be a “human act” rather than an “act of a human”.

1. What did cause that you make decision in a situation which is completely indifferent?

I made the decision. If I didn’t have a preference, then I acted on the basis of reasons–ie. that I liked what I chose, that it went just as far in attaining my goals, etc. I think there is a category mistake going on if we say that something caused me to make the decision.

1. The situation of course clear from first person perspective when decision is made but how about third perspective point of view? To illustrate, assume that there is a person who wants to commit suicide but s/he is not certain. You leave the person with a gun in a closed room for a while. The question is whether person is dead or alive from another person perspective? There is an uncertainty from third person perspective point of view which cannot define the state of the person, so person is dead and alive with 50% chance. But there is no uncertainty from first person point of view. This is paradoxical situation and it is the property of any system that is indifferent state of being.

First: Why should there be a complete description of the situation from a third-person point of view? A person is making a decision. What would make you think that there is some defect in having an incomplete account if we don’t consider that person’s subjective state?

Second: The person is not dead or alive with 50% chance. That there are two possibilities clearly does not imply that they are equally probable. That would probably be extremely rare. The actual probability would of course be impossible to determine; it varies from person to person, since whether the person decides to commit suicide has to do with uncountable factors that he doesn’t share with others, and you could not test it.

You are not free any more when you have the reason for a decision in a situation and there is no place for free will when two option are liked differently.

As I’ve pointed out, this is not true, because all of my options are not stamped with some quantitative measure of goodness. They tend to be good in difference senses (ie. should I sin for pleasure and relief, or keep myself holy for God?), and I must decide which aspect of goodness I would like to pursue.

In practice options are almost always liked differently. And this never eliminates free will, because their being liked in different ways does not imply that there is one that I find obviously more desirable than the other.

If this is no the case then how we could make a decision?

Do you think that to make a decision, we must deterministically choose the greater good in every circumstance? The consequence of that is patently that we don’t make any decisions; we just obey a moral analogue of the principle of least resistance.

So assume to prove otherwise you decide to chose what you don’t prefer. Isn’t this decision biased by the fact that you wanted to do otherwise?

In such a case, I would probably explain my decision by saying that I valued showing otherwise more than the difference between the two goods. That doesn’t mean I was determined by my desire to show otherwise, though, as I could have also decided that as much as I wanted to show otherwise, choosing my preference would be just too good to give up.

 

[GEddie]

Isn’t this all just mental gaming?

We do not see quantum events at the level of physical bodies such as cats.

More important, we never see them at the level of human life, which is the smallest scale at which free-will comes into play.

ICXC NIKA

 

[empther]

Isn’t this all just mental gaming?

We do not see quantum events at the level of physical bodies such as cats.

More important, we never see them at the level of human life, which is the smallest scale at which free-will comes into play.

Right on!

Quantum mechanics is the way matter behaves. It does not determine how matter behaves, nor does it substantially exist. It’s matter doing all this.

Free will is a power of the soul and it is not how matter behaves. The original poster’s throwing free will into this thread was a disgrace. It’s just another bellowing of the atheist agenda.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t claim to know anything about quantum mechanics, but I do know when I am being fed a pile of bull. I am alive, I am not either or or both and. That is my point. And nothing in the experiment supports a multiverse concept. Nor is there anything in it which destroys free will.I think people have been feeding too much on science fiction.
Linus2nd

Quantum theory is the best human invention which accurately explain our objective reality. It is supported experimentally and philosophically. It tells us that our real object reality is very different from what we experience in macroscopic daily life.

Many-worlds interpretation resolve a few paradoxical problems so it is more accurate.

 

[Bahman]

What does it mean to “need” free will? Maybe one option or the other could be chosen without free will* in the sense that A is actualized rather than B, and that can happen whether the options are “different” or “indifferent.” But that would not imply that it wasn’t freely chosen.

I think that we have to agree on a definition of free will. What is your definition?
To me free will is the ability to choose between at least to options. Intellect can experience a subjective reality which represent options as potentiality. It is duty of intellect to assist our will which is the potentiality of current state to actuality.

The problem with this definition is that the intellect is always dealing with subjective reality and subjectivity is always ahead of intellect. That doesn’t meant that intellect cannot act on a given circumstances when the potentiality is approachable. Once we reach the potentiality then we can perform the action based on given circumstances and this is a serious problem arises namely, either all experienced options are different in potentiality or they are equal. We are not free in the first case and we cannot make a decision in the second case.

In another word, we need equity in order to be completely free otherwise we are biased but we cannot make a decision when thing are equal. It is the problem “free will” by definition that we conjugate two concepts which confer with each other.

I made the decision. If I didn’t have a preference, then I acted on the basis of reasons–ie. that I liked what I chose, that it went just as far in attaining my goals, etc. I think there is a category mistake going on if we say that something caused me to make the decision.

You cannot deny the importance of subjective reality which allows us to act so it is matter of how subjective reality as a whole that is presented to you. The problem is that we need equality in potentiality to be free otherwise we are biased yet we cannot decide when we have equality in potentiality.

First: Why should there be a complete description of the situation from a third-person point of view? A person is making a decision. What would make you think that there is some defect in having an incomplete account if we don’t consider that person’s subjective state?

Because we don’t want to disturb the subject study with more than it is needed otherwise that could bias the result of thought experiment.

Second: The person is not dead or alive with 50% chance.

How could we know? Actuality is within the room not with us.

That there are two possibilities clearly does not imply that they are equally probable. That would probably be extremely rare. The actual probability would of course be impossible to determine; it varies from person to person, since whether the person decides to commit suicide has to do with uncountable factors that he doesn’t share with others, and you could not test it.

So the person is alive and dead with the different probability.

As I’ve pointed out, this is not true, because all of my options are not stamped with some quantitative measure of goodness. They tend to be good in difference senses (ie. should I sin for pleasure and relief, or keep myself holy for God?), and I must decide which aspect of goodness I would like to pursue.

This I have already discussed.

In practice options are almost always liked differently. And this never eliminates free will, because their being liked in different ways does not imply that there is one that I find obviously more desirable than the other.

Do we need the equity to be free? If no our decision are biased otherwise we can never make a decision. In another world, the free will is the ability to bring and resolve the equity on the spot constantly. We can only decide when the equity is resolved so there is no place for free will.

Do you think that to make a decision, we must deterministically choose the greater good in every circumstance? The consequence of that is patently that we don’t make any decisions; we just obey a moral analogue of the principle of least resistance.

I think there are at least two different stages in each situation when a decision is made. First free will act on spot to resolve equity otherwise the will cannot be free and this part is not deterministic hence it is self-caused. The second stage is where the equity is resolved so we can make a decision and this part is deterministic since we decide based on subjectivity presented to intellect which is different.

 

[Bahman]

Isn’t this all just mental gaming?

We do not see quantum events at the level of physical bodies such as cats.

More important, we never see them at the level of human life, which is the smallest scale at which free-will comes into play.

ICXC NIKA

No, it is not a mental game. Our objective world works based on laws of quantum mechanics. The color of a flower, the shape of an object, the computer that you are using right now, neural activity within your brain and… are all governed with the laws of quantum mechanics.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Whether the is s relation with free will and quantum mechanics is subject of another thread.

This thought experiment is well accepted paradox among physicist most importantly those who pioneer the idea, such as Einstein, Schroedinger, etc. The idea is simple, could quantum mechanic manifest itself in our daily life. The answer is yes, example: computer you are using is a quantum device, superconductivity, quantum hall effect and many others. This is sentence from Einstein: “that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states”.

We know what wave function is when it comes to describing subatomic system. Wave function has a expansion depending on observable namely eigenstates and the norm of the coefficient of each eigenstate give the probability that system is within that state and that is the idea behind Schroedinger’s cat experiment namely the state of life a being could coherently depend on state of a subatomic device since the state of life cat as well can be a superposition of death and life with appropriate probability.

That is correct and that is the state of life or death of cat as well. State of life cat is unknown state unless we open the box and know what is the state of art, by which we disturb the quantum system.

So the state of life cat is dead and alive.

But we do not live in a subatomic world, we live in a world of whole substances. The same with the can. It does not live in a subatomic world either. And in fact it has been demonstrated that this experiment only works on much smaller substances and within rigid temperature thresholds.

So this experiment has nothing to do with either free will or multiverses, or any other piece of science fiction.

Linus2nd

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Many-worlds interpretation is in fact a solution that could resolve the paradox. This situation is paradoxical since from third person perspective, the person who does the experiment, the cat is in a mixture of death and life but from first person perspective, cat perspective view, she is either dead or alive.

Yes, but now, since free will has entered the picture, we are endeavoring to interpret the interpretation. My original interpretation of the interpretation still stands. Free will is not negated simply because it is subjective, although I admit that subjective experience is usually not considered to be a part of physics. Perhaps it could become a part of psycho-physics, that is if it isn’t already.

I meant how you could resolve the situation a person who is involved in a decision making with two options and they are liked equally? The person either stay in trap of uncertainty forever or s/he finally resolve the problem and make a decision. My question from you is that what candidate do you know that could resolve this situation if it is not randomness?

There are several kinds of randomness (randomness due to quantum mechanics, randomness due to thermomodynamics, randomness due to chaos, and pseudo-randomness in computers), but free will may very well be another type of randomness; after all, as I have alluded in a couple of previous posts in other threads, there is a psychological arrow of time.

1. *]Purgatory and time; post #21
   *]Does the universe itself point to temporality; post #11
   
   So, not to be cute, but there may be an objective physical component to some of our subjective components.

 

[jimmy]

Schroedinger’s cat suffers from the fact that it is purely speculative, and there is no way to get past speculation. It can’t be tested.

It also suffers from the problem of being purely from a third person perspective. The reality is that the cat is either dead or alive, and the cat is perfectly aware of its own life if it is alive. If you jumped in the box yourself, the scientists outside could speculate all they wanted about the dual state which you exist in, but the reality is that either you are alive and you know it or you are dead. There is no duality in it.

The only way duality of state can be argued is if you have an inanimate object in the box. The cat is aware, and is consequently an observer. Since the cat is an observer the state of the reality is already determined. But then it becomes purely speculative because the act of observation determines the state.

Free will doesn’t even come into question because free will isn’t a third person observation. It is a first person action. The state of reality is determined by the fact that I observe it. I am an observer at the same time as being an actor.

All study that approaches the object from a purely third person perspective is inherently erroneous, because it removes real experience and direct observation. Instead everything becomes indirect and theoretical.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is no randomness anywhere in the universe. The action of subatomic particles are termed random because no one can determine the cause of their " strange " behavior. But absolutely everything in the universe has been caused by God and planned by God down to the very action of subatomic particles. Thomas Aquinas, himself, teaches that there is no chance in the universe.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

First, what is Schroedinger’s cat: Assume that you build a quantum gun which probability of shooting and not shooting are 50% and 50% respectively. You put this gun together with an alive being, lets say a cat, in a box and close the box. This means that you are not aware of quantum state of gun hence the state of life of cat meaning that cat is both alive and dead until the box is opened. You can read more here. This means that even a macroscopic being could be in a quantum state as it applies to the cats life in this experiment.

Second, what is many-world interpretation: Many-world interpretation was suggested To resolve the Schroedinger’s cat paradox meaning that quantum state of a system never collapse hence there should exist two world in this thought experiment that in one cat is alive and in another one cat is dead. You can read more about many-world interpretation here.

Third, what is free will: the ability to decide in a unbiased situation with at least two options, in another word when the two options are equally likely prior to decision(two options are liked equally). This is similar to Schroedinger’s cat thought. In another word, our mind is in state of affair with two outcomes both have the similar likelihood from third person perspective. What decision the person make affect the microscopic state of person being so the question is what would be state of affair from third person perspective which is paradoxical.

Many-worlds interpretation of course can resolve this paradox with the price that free will is an illusion.

Your thought.

You’ve only given a couple of interpretations of quantum mechanics, but there’s a whole bunch of them.

Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is used to help visualize the weaknesses of an interpretation when applied to real world objects. The cat consists of upteen trillions of quantum particles, so an interpretation which sounds fine for a single particle might sound just weird when applied to the cat. Any interpretation which leaves the cat both dead and alive is obviously flawed or, as they say, out there with the fairies.

And as every cell in our brain consists of trillions of atoms, even a vanilla materialist should recognize that what applies to the cat applies to our brain, and so trying to explain free will via quantum theory is flawed or, as they say, out there with the fairies .

I think the most common view amongst physicists may be that no interpretation of quantum phenomena is possible. The critters are so tiny, so far outside our everyday experience, that we just can’t expect to visualize what is going on. They are real, and we can use results to build computer chips and so on, but it’s pointless in this case to ask why. The phrase is “Shut up and calculate”.

 

[Bahman]

But we do not live in a subatomic world, we live in a world of whole substances. The same with the can. It does not live in a subatomic world either. And in fact it has been demonstrated that this experiment only works on much smaller substances and within rigid temperature thresholds.

So this experiment has nothing to do with either free will or multiverses, or any other piece of science fiction.

Linus2nd

What we know as classical regime is only an approximation of quantum state. In reality each mental state also is a quantum state or physical state in general since it represents an objective reality, experienced by the intellect. So the mental thought experiment is very serious since it shows a serious paradox that can appear in mind as well.

 

[Bahman]

Yes, but now, since free will has entered the picture, we are endeavoring to interpret the interpretation. My original interpretation of the interpretation still stands. Free will is not negated simply because it is subjective, although I admit that subjective experience is usually not considered to be a part of physics. Perhaps it could become a part of psycho-physics, that is if it isn’t already.

Any mental state is a quantum state or physical state in general (because we don’t know if quantum mechanics is the last paradigm).

There are several kinds of randomness (randomness due to quantum mechanics, randomness due to thermomodynamics, randomness due to chaos, and pseudo-randomness in computers), but free will may very well be another type of randomness; after all, as I have alluded in a couple of previous posts in other threads, there is a psychological arrow of time.

So you believe that time is subjective?

I reality there are two main forces, namely randomness and order each can be observed as objective realities hence they do both exist. They are both potentialities that can manifest themselves in actuality, what can be experienced. In another hand they represent different type of physical states before they could manifest themselves hence there is intellect behind both of them.

1. *]Purgatory and time; post #21
   *]Does the universe itself point to temporality; post #11
   
   So, not to be cute, but there may be an objective physical component to some of our subjective components.

1. 
   In another word, each mental state is a physical state.

 

[Bahman]

Schroedinger’s cat suffers from the fact that it is purely speculative, and there is no way to get past speculation. It can’t be tested.

It cannot be tested because of its quantum setup meaning that you cannot determine the state of life cat from third person perspective as you cannot determine the quantum state of a sub-atomic being. Hence it is not speculative and it is very real.

It also suffers from the problem of being purely from a third person perspective. The reality is that the cat is either dead or alive, and the cat is perfectly aware of its own life if it is alive. If you jumped in the box yourself, the scientists outside could speculate all they wanted about the dual state which you exist in, but the reality is that either you are alive and you know it or you are dead. There is no duality in it.

So following your argument, one can deduce that a sub-atomic being is aware of its own being as well. It is just shortage of third person perspective that it could not define the state of a sub-atomic being.

The only way duality of state can be argued is if you have an inanimate object in the box. The cat is aware, and is consequently an observer. Since the cat is an observer the state of the reality is already determined. But then it becomes purely speculative because the act of observation determines the state.

That is correct but it is not speculative. Once time T passes and cat find herself alive, she knows the correct state of sub atomic being. What about if cat is dead?

Free will doesn’t even come into question because free will isn’t a third person observation. It is a first person action. The state of reality is determined by the fact that I observe it. I am an observer at the same time as being an actor.

It does. Since we cannot be aware of decision which is about to be made in advance hence free will is a third person perspective namely intellect just become aware of decision at the moment when decision is made. In another world your mind is in a set of mixed state to choose between two options which are quantum states and you can be aware of final outcome which comes out at a given time when decision is made but not prior. Intellect is aware of its own internal state but not the outcome otherwise intellect would know the outcome of decision before hand hence the our experience of free will is third person.

All study that approaches the object from a purely third person perspective is inherently erroneous, because it removes real experience and direct observation. Instead everything becomes indirect and theoretical.

In reality there is no first person perspective experience. Our awareness even from our state of being is always third person unless one claims that s/he is God.

Schroedinger cat is a real paradox stating what do you partially say that there could be a problem with third person perspective when we are dealing with a paradoxical issue.

That problem simply states that our state of our beings is third person perspective and we are part of it.

 

[Bahman]

There is no randomness anywhere in the universe. The action of subatomic particles are termed random because no one can determine the cause of their " strange " behavior. But absolutely everything in the universe has been caused by God and planned by God down to the very action of subatomic particles. Thomas Aquinas, himself, teaches that there is no chance in the universe.

Linus2nd

What do you mean with the behavior?

 

[Bahman]

You’ve only given a couple of interpretations of quantum mechanics, but there’s a whole bunch of them.

Thank you for the link. I will look through it.

Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is used to help visualize the weaknesses of an interpretation when applied to real world objects. The cat consists of upteen trillions of quantum particles, so an interpretation which sounds fine for a single particle might sound just weird when applied to the cat. Any interpretation which leaves the cat both dead and alive is obviously flawed or, as they say, out there with the fairies.

That is correct. The idea is what is the right theory that can explain the behavior of our objective reality including ourselves.

And as every cell in our brain consists of trillions of atoms, even a vanilla materialist should recognize that what applies to the cat applies to our brain, and so trying to explain free will via quantum theory is flawed or, as they say, out there with the fairies .

It is shown that cells act coherently when it comes to an specific action so that could be correct that we say that they are in a coherent quantum state.

I think the most common view amongst physicists may be that no interpretation of quantum phenomena is possible. The critters are so tiny, so far outside our everyday experience, that we just can’t expect to visualize what is going on. They are real, and we can use results to build computer chips and so on, but it’s pointless in this case to ask why. The phrase is “Shut up and calculate”.

Or maybe the proper way of saying is that the behavior of a quantum system in general depends on we do approach them since they have their own real world as well and they are not static and sentient being.