Here ya go...

Perhaps the best beginning would be to define what is meant by 'free will'...

first - what is 'free'.

second - what is 'will'.

Then we can determing what they mean when attached.

I think by the time you make free will realistic, its about as free as we are here in the land of the free . . .

Compatabilism is probably the best argument for free will and determinism co-existing that I have read/heard.

You might find it interesting.

http://www.optimal.org/peter/freewill.htm

Here is one fairly well done.

We may not always choose what comes our, on a conscious level anyway, we do however always have the free will to react in what ever way we feel is appropriate for us.

sometimes things are not one of the choices you have to choose from...

I will define "free will" for the purpose of this post to mean that you are free to choose an option.

then the question becomes, "does randomness give you all the options?

I also will say that a human is only capable of deciding/choosing between two things at a time...the brain narrows the choices down to two...

if there are 6 or 60 things to choose from, systematically, the person chooses between two things to bring the choices down one by one...

so, the randomness of items or choices would in someway limit the choices...and then an option would be limited. you are still free to choose any of the options however...

at least, this was my choice to say...

What happens to you is life.

How you choose to deal with what happens is free will.

Well depending again on the definition of free, I could argue that the very boundaries of "appropriateness" is a restriction that prohibits freedom.

Do we determine appropriateness, or is it programed into us through our interactions?

What if your choices are restricted? What if all the available options are bad, and you have "no choice"?

Does free will come and go? Does free will have anything to do with the environment? Is it completely isolated to your mind?

If your mental state is effected by the environment and your choices are effected by your mental state, then are your choices being directed by your environment?

Free will: you are free to do whatever you are capable of doing, be it goo, bad or banal. Free to make your choices, however constrained life may have made them. Of course, there are those nasty little consequences to deal with

Well we do not call prisoners free, even thought they are free to make choices within the confines of there prison . . .

Yes, those were the conequences I spoke of when someone chooses to use their "free will"...for the bad of course, why else would they be in prison?

My question is not about why, but if we should call the prisoner free.

For me personally, I would begin with the ontological essence of the world as we currently believe it to be.

By this I'm referring to our observations of what appears to be happening in the world (i.e. the scientific method of investigation via confirmable observations, where "confirmable" simply means an ability to repeat the observations with consistency.

This is the best we can do. No one has come up with a better approach for determining what is 'real'.

After all, if we give up the concept of consistent repeatability then we'd have to accept that we live in a totally chaotic world where we'd have no reason to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.

The very thing that makes the universe somewhat comprehensible is the fact that it is consistently dependable.

In fact, the very question of "free will" could be applied to the sun and the Earth. Does the sun have "free will" to not rise? Does the earth have "free will" to stop spinning on its axis of rotation?

Let's Dig Deeper

What do we know about the world in which we live, and in this case I'm using the term "world" to mean everything, all of reality. The entire cosmos and anything else that might exist "beneath it" in an ontological sense.

Well, thanks to people like Galileo, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell and many others, we have learned a lot about the behavior of what we now call the "Macro world". This is the part of the world that we think of in terms of 'physicality'.

The macro objects that exist in this world appear to have no "free will". Everything appears to be predetermined via the Newtonian laws of time, motion, and the forces of energy. All of which have been shown to be "conserved", by "conserved" we simply mean that they cannot be transformed in any way without having interacted with some other facet of time, motion, or forces of other forms of energy.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

In this totally "conserved" picture of physicality objects can have no "free will". By this we simply mean that they cannot change their behavior unless acted on by some other preexisting force or motion.

Therefore in this picture the "world" (everything that exists) is predetermined and no "free will" is possible. At least not from "within" this world.

The only source of "free will" in this world would need to come from "outside" of this ontology. Thus many people who believe in this picture of the world also believe in spiritual 'souls' that possess physical bodies. They believe that they ultimately are a 'soul' that has been placed within a physical body. And therefore they claim that their "free will" to choose comes from their 'soul' which is not restricted by this 'determinist' view of ontology.

This view was very popular and is, in fact, still is widely held to this very day by many religious people.

Science however has moved forward.

Einstein Warps the Newtonian Picture

When Albert Einstein came alone the Newtonian concepts of absolute space and absolute time became warped. Einstein introduced a new Relative view of things. In his picture Matter and Energy become recognized as being the same "stuff", they became interchangeable.

Einstein also observed the same thing to be true of Space and Time. Einstein recognize that space and time are also, in essence the same "stuff". However, when put together as a single fabric of 'spacetime' the fabric itself was still conserved. Matter and energy were also conserved overall, even though they could now be scientifically show to be transformable one into one another.

So Einstein showed that spacetime, and matter/energy were the two major underlying aspects of reality.

However, complete Newtonian determinism would still be possible, and even required. This new Relativity merely showed that we need to keep better tabs on who time and energy transform into space and matter and vice versa.

It just became a vastly more complex form of determinism.

"Free will" could still not exist within this world, it would need to be introduced from 'outside' of this world. The reason simply being that this world obeys entirely the laws of conservation and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The Quantum World is Discovered

Thus far, everything we have been discussing is today know as the "Marco world" or the world of "Physicality"

However, in the early 1900's a follow by the name of Max Planck discovered the quantum nature of the universe. The quantum nature of the universe is non-Newtonian. Whilst there are still 'conversation' laws at work in the quantum world the concept of 'For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" no longer holds.

In the quantum world things spring into being with totally random probabilities.

Suddenly "free will" springs into existence.

How is "free will" being defined here? Simply by the observation that things can happen randomly. They are not predetermined. There doesn't need to be a 'will' behind this. The mere fact that it is truly random implies that it's a 'free action'. This was entirely missing and even forbidden by Newtonian physics.

So in this ontological picture, "free action" = "free will". In fact to suggest that there is a conscious 'will' behind it would negate the very idea that the action was 'free' from any cause.

So in a sense, a random "free action" is even freer than the concept of "free will" because "free will" implies that some consciousness will that free action into being.

So the cosmic randomness is actually freer that "free will", it represent entirely 'free action' (i.e. totally random action, with no predetermined cause whatsoever".

At least not in the specific action that is taken. There may be boundaries, but the boundaries only provide limitations for how "free" the action can be. Think of it like a ball bouncing around within a box. Imagine that the ball is free to bounce anywhere randomly. Yet it is still confined to the box.

Quantum randomness is a form of 'bounded" free action. It's free within limits. Not free to be totally chaotic without form. Only free in the sense that its precise actions are not predetermined as in the sense of the predetermined Newtonian macro universe.

The Mystery of the Quantum World Revealed

What is this quantum world? Where does it exist? It's not "physicality" as we understand physicality in the macro sense. The quantum world is "mystical" it exists, not as "physicality" but as "potentiality" to become "physicality".

The quantum world itself is non-physical (or at least it arises from the non-physical quantum field as it is called). The quantum field itself cannot be physically detected. Only the things that emerge from it to become physical can be detected.

So the quantum field itself is non-physical. In that sense it can indeed be thought of as 'supernatural', 'mystical', or even 'spiritual'. Whatever label a person would like to label it as. Anything but physical.

The nature of the quantum field is totally non-Newtonian, and non-predetermined.

What is the difference between the ontology of the "Macro World" and the "Quantum World"?

Well, that's far too complex to describe in a this post, but very good descriptions have been given for this.

For one of them I would recommend the Teaching Company's course on 'Quantum Mechanics: The Physics of the Microscopic World". I think professor Schumacher does a wonderful job in describing the difference. Near the end of the course (after having explained Quantum Mechanic), he asks why a baseball does not exhibit quantum randomness. And then described precisely what all would need to be done to get it to display quantum randomness. His explanation if quite enlightening.

The Bottom Line for Me Personally

"free action" arises from the quantum nature of our reality, thus providing us a mechanism to have "free will".

Let's not forget the following.

The physical world does not only exist "out there" from our perspective as a human being.

We are "in" the physical world. We are part of it. Therefore the physical world exist "within" us just as much as it exits "out there".

Our very brains are made up of countless atoms and free electrons and photons. And within the boundaries every one of those atoms there are an infinite number of virtual quantum particles (or random "free action" quantum waves) popping into and out of existence constantly. In fact they are doing this in the "empty" space that exists between the atoms as well. And they absolutely have macro consequences on the atoms (and therefore the actions) of our brains.

To think that our brains are unaffected by the randomness of the quantum world would be ludicrous.

In fact, considering how many random quantum waves are popping into and out of existence within our brains ever second it's a wonder that we can think with any consistency at all.

So for me, our ability to have "free will" arises from the fact that the quantum world operates on a principle of "free action" or truly "random action". Random action gives rise to "free will", IMHO.

Quantum Entanglement and Bell's Theorem

The experimental observation of Quantum Entanglement, coupled with Bell's Theorem (notice that Bell's Theorem is a proven mathematical theorem not a mere theory), shows that on a quantum level, these random quantum "free actions" can indeed be influenced by, (or influence other), free quantum events that have been 'coupled' on the quantum level.

In quantum computing this fact of nature is actually being used in practical ways. These entangled quantum states are called E-bits for entangled bits of information. (This is also covered in the Teaching Company Lectures that I had previously recommended.

There are valid reasons to believe that via the quantum events that take place within our brains, we may very well be able to affect the quantum manifestations of physicality at physical locations that are far removed from the physical location of our brain. In other words, e-bits may actually explain mental telepathy as well as telekinesis, an ability which humans may very possess but have simply not yet discovered how to use effectively.

Just my "free action" random thoughts for whatever they are worth.

Interesting this is what the Standford philosophy page has to say about QM and Causal Determinism.



Quite an interesting page.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#QuaMec

In my humble opinion, the statement above totally misses the point of randomness that QM is making.

These people are mistaking the probabilities as being 'deterministic'.


In other words, they are looking at the Schrödinger waves or probability as being precisely defined, and thus interpreting this as "determinism".

But it's its pure determinism in the old Newtonian sense.

This would be no different from looking at a pair of dice and saying, "Ok, the structure of dice are already predetermined, therefore the ROLLS of the dice are predetermined!

But that's not true. At least not in the older Newtonian sense of precise pre-determinism.

What has been pre-determined are the boundaries of the randomness. Not the randomness itself.

Just like with the dice. We can roll anything from 2 to 12 and only the whole numbers in between, but nothing else. Does that mean that the outcome of a single toss of the dice is predetermined?

No, of course, not!

It is in precisely this same way that quantum mechanics introduces randomness into the world.

The Schrödinger wave equations simply give us a view of what the dice look like! But it does not predict the pre-determined outcome of any given roll of the dice.

Quantum Mechanics does not say that "anything goes". It simply says that within the confines of restricted potentialities any specific outcome is truly random. Just like a toss of dice.

I'm truly shocked the Stanford Philosophers can't see this subtle distinction. The kind of "determinism" that they would be talking about here would not support the Newtonian kind of specific determinism anyway. There would still be a random element involved that exists between the Schrödinger probability wave description and the actual random outcome of any single quantum event.

I think what most people mistake is in the idea that QM is saying "anything goes". It doesn't say that at all. It simply says that within specific boundaries of potentiality things are truly random.

And that does away with the original idea of any specific Newtonian-type of pre-determinism.

That kind of determinism and never be resurrected.

So if someone asks us to determine how we rolled a 6, and we point to the dice, thats not determinism?

I think you are over thinking this one abra.

Well, the point being that you accept that a dice roll truly is random. In a Newtonian universe it would not be random.

In a quantum universe it can be random.

The bottom line is whether or not you accept randomness in the quantum field.

I do.

I suppose if other people don't then they could claim that even the quantum dice are predetermined.

But why this obscession with predeterminism anyway?

Why is that so important for people to believe in?

If we accept absolute complete predeterminism, then we can't possibly have any choice in how the universe unfolds, and that would include our very own physical bodies and physical actions.

I can't understand why people are so attracted to such a picture.

I'm actually thrilled to death to see how 'god' gave us free will through the trick of quantum randomness.

From my point of view it was ingenious. I actually feel that 'god' has reveal her secrets to us.

But so many people find her secret to be appalling.

Why they feel this way, I have no clue.

I personally feel that it's utterly beautiful and clever.

It was YOUR example. So tell yourself what you think.

I only see one obsession here . . . and its not someone else with determinism.

I do not agree that determinism means no choice. Straw lots and lots of straw.

At least determinism can be ontologically defined, free will remains a mystery.

Ive not made up my mind on this, and really do not make a habit of making up my mind on questions of absolutes that are subjective in definition, and objective in phenomena.