Quantum Physics & Free Will - Bell's Theorem, Determinism, Causality, Non-Locality, Realism

What does quantum physics have to do with free will? Is causality linear? What is indeterminism? What is Bell's Theorem & why is it so important when it comes to discussing determinism and free will? What is non-locality? What is realism? Is Nature a super-deterministic conspiring machine?

Starting with a popular argument against free will, you will be introduced to a few of the implicit assumptions hidden in this argument. From causal determinism & linear causality to realism and unique histories. Getting familiar with these concepts will help you understand the importance of Bell's theorem, its assumptions and philosophical implications, which will be covered in detail in the second part of the video.

The freedom of choice assumption is in fact one of the pillars of quantum theory. From the standard double-slit experiment to Bell's Theorem, and more recently the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem, the free choice of the experimenter is an axiom which is built into the foundations of quantum mechanics. Since experimental tests show that Bell's inequalities are violated, the philosophical implications are that we need to let go of one or more of the assumptions in Bell's Theorem: locality, realism or freedom of choice.

Summary:

- Introduction: What does quantum physics have to do with free will?

- A popular argument against free will. Assumptions: causal determinism, linear causality, realism, unique histories

- Changing our starting assumptions. Turning the argument upside down

- Questioning the validity of Science if the choices of the experimenter (the questions we ask Nature) are not free

- Isolated system? Or can we assume an intrinsic indeterminacy in Nature which allows for a branching of possibilities, from the present moment, into both the past and the future?

-Definition of free choice: a choice not uniquely (or exclusively) determined by past or external events. Definition consistent with indeterminism & partial self-determination. Rejecting certain libertarian definitions of free will which demand that we have exclusive (super-hero!) self-determination powers, not influenced by anything external / physical / etc

- Indeterminism as the failure of determinism. It states that both past and future may be undetermined (a branching of possibilities rather than a pre-determined linear chain of events). Indeterminism does not necessarily entail absence of causation nor complete randomness

- Free will as a fundamental axiom in Nature. True novelty and creativity. Nature displaying a certain degree of randomness, an intrinsic indeterminacy, allowing for the arising of new possibilities, of new information

- Quantum Physics & free will. Determinism and indeterminism. The experimenter's choice. Asking questions to Nature. How Nature responds depends entirely on our previous choice as to what questions we decided to ask

- Nature’s response correlated to our choice of question even when we set up an experiment in such a way that this dependence would be classically forbidden, according to the principle of local realism

- Origin of the "Free Choice" discussion in quantum mechanics. Einstein arguing against the completeness of quantum mechanics. Term introduced by Niels Bohr. Spooky action at a distance

- Bell's definition of free choice. He considered the experimenter’s choice to be completely free when that choice could only be correlated to variables in its causal future, but not its causal past

- Statement of Bell's theorem. Illustration. Philosophical implications. Realism, locality & freedom of choice

- Causality & non-locality. Spooky action at a distance or reality beyond space-time? Nicolas Gisin experiments. What is this spooky kind of interconnection? Non-separability (oneness). Space-time not fundamental. Causal order, linearity in time not fundamental

- Experimental confirmation of Bell's inequalities. Violation of local realism or freedom of choice

- The Super-deterministic Universe, Cosmic Conspiracy: Nature is conspiring to make our experiments consistent with the view that quantum theory is true, that the world is indeterministic, non-local & observer-dependent

- Anton Zeilinger's experimental tests. Violation of Bell's inequalities, violation of Leggett & Leggett-Garg's inequalities. Macro-realism (moon still there when nobody is looking?)

- What needs to go? Locality, realism, locality and realism or freedom of choice?

- Coming soon: Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem, past history creation, John Archibald Wheeler, Participatory Universe, Universe as a self-excited circuit, alternatives to deterministic linear causality

[mistycat]

This got me interested in free will and consciousness again. Thank you.

[lonelywanderer]

21:10 - Bell's Theorem starts. You're welcome.

[Dragonface]

I am a complete layman when it comes to anything science-related, but I actually feel like I was able to understand everything you said in this video quite well! Kudos :)

[TheRealTaco]

The act of observation affects physical systems. SO mere thought or observation can change the outcomes of events. So that would play into free will. 

[RobertDigitalArtist]

I hoped you wouldn't fall for the same pitfalls (libertarian) freewill proponents always fall for
but I'm afraid you did. Just to be clear, I do like your videos and hearing people's views on these topics, from
a scientific and philosophical perspective, just don't agree with the conclusions and false dilemma's and assumptions.

A few quick comments (this topic is really broad so I won't go in details:

- the argument for free will was a bit of a strawman as
the fundamental problem pointed out for ages is not at all
reliant upon determinism or materialism but rather 2 things:

1) Libertarian free will is ill defined, even incoherent
2) causality is at least as much, if not more, intuitive as
our sense of free will.

And since causality is still true in your model and any model
that's comprehensible, regardless of determinism or randomness,
means at best you'd have indeterminism, and that's not free will.

Even assuming a model where our mind has some entirely separate
part from the rest of physical reality, you'd just end up expanding reality
and moving the question up. Now you have to explain what causes
that (part of the) mind to make decision A instead of B?

It must have been either because of its inherent nature and processes, or
external influences and therefore you still have a 100% deterministic reality
(just not all within physical tangible reality but if that's not all of reality then
it means you can't stop there and have to include of all it and then see
how things are determined).

Only other 'out' is true randomness, as sometimes is
claimed and QM is invoked, but again, that's not free will, that's..randomness
and thus indeterminism but still not free will and I would say, even less 'free'
than determinism because you - in that scenario - are not in control and
are not even a collection of your experiences and inherent nature but are
subject to pure randomness.

- Agency vs free will
is a false choice or a red herring
Nobody denies agency, in fact, compatbilism (the view
usually held by philosophers who reject libertarian free will)
accepts we are agents and are not directly controlled
by impulses and mechanical reality.

We clearly have desires, thought, intention etc and will,
but where does that will come from to warrant the label "free" will?
Ultimately, it has to have been...determined :)

Whether it's determined 100% by physical processes and
the resulting building experiences or some part of the mind
external to physical reality which in turn has the same problem:
what gave it its will?

Lastly, a mind or a part of it, that's independent from physical reality
has other implications that needs solving: dualism.
This is illogical and and very problematic as it makes no sense
to say some fundamentally different substance can interact
with another fundamentally different one..

..and if you stick with a monistic model, then the claim that
the mind (or any part of it) is independent from physical reality
is false as there would be only 1 fundamental substance.

[LaureanoLuna]

It seeems to me that, contrary to the suggested at 28:00, the possibility of speaking of what the results of our experiments would have been if we had performed alternative measurements does not require free will. Those contrafactuals can and are usually expressed in terms of possible worlds: 'there is (or there isn't) a possible world where we have performed such and such alternative experiments and obtained such and such alternative outcomes'. In this context, we only need to restrict ourselves to possible worlds in which the same physical laws as in the actual world are in force.

[richard]

Thank You! A wonderful analysis of the relationship between Bell's Inequality Theorem and the issue of free will. I must say, I had never put these two things together in just that way.

[ETBrooD]

Before making such claims as will being unfree or not I think we have yet to understand what "will" is and whether we have truly understood the meaning of "freedom".
I think for something to be unfree there has to be a theoretical or actual state of it being free. The reason I'm thinking that is that we have an idea what "free" and "unfree" mean, and while we - as I think - haven't defined either correctly yet, we can't entirely rule out one of the two as a possible state of being. How can we claim that will is constantly unfree? It seems preposterous to me to pick a side with confidence. e.g. we can't know whether Schroedinger's cat is alive or dead, so we are simply forced to assume that both is true at the same time until we open the box and look inside. We can't know who's right and who's wrong, so the whole debate seems pointless to me and we should let everyone have their own opinion on the matter.

I think the question is not only "what is this thing free/unfree from?" but also "what is this thing that we're talking about?" long before we should ask the first question.
We're always working with incomplete (pieces of) information, and it's impossible for us to see the full picture (to know all the information). Hence we cannot make claims about things being free or unfree so long as we live inside this world and can't observe it from the outside (open the box so to speak).

Whatever "will" is, I personally think it has to be both free and unfree at different times or even at the same time. e.g. at one moment it's free, the next moment it's unfree, and it's free/unfree from different things at different times. For that reason will can be free and unfree at the same time - just not from the same things at the same time. I think everything - as well as our will - partially changes from a state of freedom to a state of no freedom, with other parts being in a different state, all at frequencies (and for reasons) that may or may not be possible to be known.

[marvinedwards]

As to predetermination, no event can be said to be caused until ALL of its prior causes have completed. If it is inevitable that I will choose, of my own free will, to eat this apple, then I will actually consider my options, evaluate them, and make that choice. This event, my mental process of choosing, is causally determining what becomes inevitable.

[TheZooman]

I really enjoy these presentations.After taking a summer semester ( 5 week) speech class, I have an even greater appreciation for what you do. You have a very expressive and lovely voice.

[adamjondo]

I cannot overstate how grateful and impressed I am by this video and your output in general. Staggeringly lucid and enlightening. And your graphical commentary is so acute its pretty much a work of art in itself. The worlds classrooms are screaming out for this format and enthusiasm. Sincerely hope you're doing this professionally. All best wishes.

[nathanneiman]

Determinism in Physics has not to do with free will. Determinism in Physics means that physical process have physical causes. This causes are studied in a way to understand the processes involved. Determinism doesn't deny randomness. When a Physical phenomena possess a great number of variables with a high degree of freedom, randomness is present. Determinism in Physics means that all physical phenomena have causes that we can know and understand.
The problems with QM are:
They don't know what is a particle
They don't know what is a wave
They deny the existence of vacuum structure
They decided that we can't know or understand the physical causes
They decided that QM theory is the only and correct theory
They consider subatomic phenomena as exclusive and different from any other macroscopic physical phenomena, and despise consistency.
They established by law the uncertainty principle.
They believe in Planck's constant as universal (see Prof. Robitaille)
They consider paradoxes as a fundamental physical principle, instead of consider as an error in logic proposition, lack of understanding, insufficient knowledge or wrong assumptions.
All this things they decided, by free will, to believe. Now they are telling us that nature is the way they say it is.
By my free will I decided that this is not true.
There are a great probability they are wrong!

[elizabethorr]

No proof offered for the existence of Free Will. Simply saying, 'We assume the existence of Free Will' does not make Free Will real.

[stephenlawrence]

If scientists are starting with the assumption we have free will, that means if we don't, then the conclusions they are drawing are wrong. So really it's a matter of begging the question. Quantum physics shows we have free will because we assume free will right from the start.

[neorock]

My head hurts!

Was that predetermined or did I _chose_ to watch this video & hence _chose_ the headache?

[TheRealTaco]

Reality is deterministic and nondeterministic simultaneously. Everything that can happen does happen. So it happens in one space

[stephenlawrence]

The definition of free will is vague. If we get clear about why free will is incompatible with determinism, we see that indeterminism doesn't help and free will is impossible. Also there is nothing we experience when choosing, or otherwise which is incompatible with determinism.

[Eighthundredmillion]

Here's an illustration to show what entanglement can be, and why Bell's Theorem is too simplified to explain the basic reality of hidden variables:

The left boat has a propeller that goes CW and the right one C-CW. Both boats sail off a waterfall making one shoot left (up) vs. right (down).
At the lower next level these two boats get into a new stream, one up and the other down; they now sail towards the other detector ... whatever box you open up first there's always an opposite on the other side.

'Spooky action at a distance' isn't needed.

[discountmerchandise]

Human free will is limited only by the individual person's own limitations/expectations. The matrix of nature ( as hinted at in quantum mechanics is totally neutral. It exist as the filed of all possibility in potentiality. Each human, by simply observing the field materializes and sustain his own unique 'world. Fact is the Moon is there only for those who expect to see the moon when they look for it. On earth it seems that everyone expects (with seemingly absolute certainty) to see the moon when they look for it. So we all see the moon and can all take it for granted that the moon is always present.

Seems that the day we rise above our (strong) entanglement with the laws of general relativity, our building etc. will be seen floating out of their foundations in total defiance of our perceptions of gravity, etc. . Indeed other supposed magical things will occur on earth.

Amar.

[BBBrasil]

In case you read this before the video. This is an extremely dense presentation, rich in philosophical thoughts about axiomes and results of some experiments in QM, without describing the actual experiments, which is sometimes frustrating. If you identify yourself with "Shut up and calculate" approach to physics, this video might not be for you.
It is not easy, hardly a minute goes by without a heavy and hard logic thrown at us, and there you go stopping the presentation. Again.
Like many here, I wouldn't mind some baby math, which we understand she is great at it, definitely not baby.
You can follow Dolors and her sexy voice exploring the meaning of reality and free will by just accepting the references she gives. If you have almost no idea what is the hard science behind the philosophy, this can be a great introductory guide. Did I mention she has a sexy voice?