Sentience, free will, and that which makes us tick

[usmhot]

"I don't think chaos theory meets your requirements. But quantum theory does."

Of course, there is no underlying explanation for why sufficiently complex systems become chaotic, and it may very well be a manifestation of quantum behaviour. (Which may become apparent if/when we ever manage to unify the different theories.)

But to get back to the point, is the given definition of 'free will' sufficiently rigorous and acceptable? If not, where does it fall short? And if it is, do we think that choas or quantum behaviour (or whatever) provide a means of achieving 'free will'?

[Cooker]

I have been thinking a lot about quantum mechanics (having graded a graduate physics course I know a little about the subject), and I don't think it is well understood enough to make statements about what is and is not allowed in this sense. Many people hear that it is a "probabilistic" theory and make incorrect assumptions about what this means.

Ususally, the probabilitstic nature of QM is invoked only when the details of some interaction cannot be worked out. This is usually called wave function collapse when an observation takes place in QM, but in reality observations never take place, we just can't (or are too lazy) to consider the QM states of the detectors and include all interactions. In principle, we could calculate and evolve the wave function of the entire universe deterministically allowing for no magic fluctuations. The universe would progress just as it must governed by the Schroedinger Equation.

However, we do know that QM is not the final picture and QED (the best understood extension of QM which includes special relativity and electro-magnetism) certainly contains fluctuations and probabilistic averages instead of a deterministic wave function. Still I am not sure how well time evolution is understood in QED. All I have ever done is use it to calculate scattering cross sections on homeworks.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
'Free will' is a trait of a sentient being that causes it, when presented with multiple options from which is must pick a subset, to make its choice in a way that could not be determined by another sentient being even if it had all possible information about the state of the Universe at that moment.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with that notion of free will is that "could not be determined" means random.

Suppose my neurons are somehow hooked up to a Geiger counter such that if it clicks so many times within a certain period I will order ham, otherwise I will order turkey. My choice is therefore totally random: it cannot be predicted ahead of time by another sentient being even if it had all possible information about the state of the Universe at that moment.

Would that constitute free will? Letting my "choices" be dictated by a Geiger counter?

I'd say the opposite. My choice to order ham is a free choice only if another sentient being can predict whether I'll order it if he has all possible information about the state of the universe (including information about whether or not I prefer ham to turkey).

[wozo30]

Wouldn't free will give you the ability to do anything?? Fly for example which may seem unreasonable but just walking for a parapalegic is unreasonable. They are missing those pathways and connections that lead to a certain outcome. Though the brain is complex it is not random at all. Also that would be selfish to think that we would be the only species with free will. We are limited by the laws of physics and the language of mathmatics that explains them. Sure Quantum M invokes a certain amount of uncertainty but it doesn't reveal anything magical.