Panel: Quantum Theory and Free Will - Chris Fields, Henry Stapp & Donald Hoffman

Quantum theory incorporates two seemingly-contradictory ideas about free will. On the one hand, an observer can choose both the system to measure and the kind of measurement to make; given these choices, the theory predicts a probability distribution over the
possible outcomes and nothing more. is is "quantum indeterminism." On the other hand, a system that no one is looking at evolves through time according the dynamics that are perfectly deterministic. No one is "looking at" the universe as a whole - all observers are inside the universe by definition - so the time evolution of the whole universe must be perfectly deterministic. This clash between indeterminism and determinism is sharpened by the existence of a strong theorem, the Conway-Kochen "free will theorem," that says that if human (or any other kind of) observers are assumed to have free will, everything
else in the universe, even electrons, has to be assumed to have free will, too. Is this conflict real, or might it dissolve on further analysis? This panel will examine some of the strikingly different views advanced by physicists on this question, illuminating the concept and role of entanglement in the process."

Dr. Chris Fields is an independent scientist interested in both the physics and the cognitive neuroscience underlying the human perception of objects as spatially and temporally bounded entities. His particular interests include quantum information theory and quantum computing on the one hand, and creative problem solving, early childhood development and autism-spectrum conditions on the other. His recent papers have appeared in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Information, International Journal of General Systems, Advances in Cognitive Psychology, Frontiers in Perception Science and Medical Hypotheses among others. He is currently editing a Research Topic titled “How humans recognize objects: Segmentation, categorization and individual identification” for Frontiers in Perception Science.

Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist and author of more than 90 scientific papers and three books, including Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See (W.W. Norton, 2000). He received his BA from UCLA in Quantitative Psychology and his Ph.D. from MIT in Computational Psychology. He joined the faculty of UC Irvine in 1983, where he is now a full professor in the departments of cognitive science, computer science and philosophy. He received a Distinguished Scientific Award of the American Psychological Association for early career research into visual perception, and the Troland Research Award of the US National Academy of Sciences for his research on the relationship of consciousness and the physical world.

Henry Stapp received his Ph.D. in particle physics at the University of California, Berkeley, under the supervision of Nobel Laureates Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain. Wolfgang Pauli visited Berkeley in the spring of 1958. He talked extensively with Stapp, and invited him to work with him in Zurich in the Fall. Stapp worked in Zurich with Pauli on fundamental problems until Pauli sudden unexpected death in December. In 1970 Werner Heisenberg invited Stapp to Munich, where the two conversed often on fundamental issues surrounding quantum mechanics. After returning to Berkeley wrote an influential article The Copenhagen Interpretation, published in the American Journal of Physics with Heisenberg’s comments appearing in an Appendix. Stapp has has made major contributions to analytic S-matrix theory, generalizations of Bell’s theorems, and understanding the quantum connection of mind to physical processes.

[sngscratcher]

Can't give these guys enough credit for "moving the ball forward." Of course, the most important thing is that their minds are not trapped in the current dogma. And even tough much of what they are postulating may be wrong, we have to keep pushing on the boundaries of scientific thought, if we ever want to truly understand this mysterious reality we are all a part of. Very refreshing! Cheers.

[GiedriusMisiukas]

Chris Fields: 0:00
Henry Stapp: 17:00
Donald Hoffman: 36:30
Remarks, questions, etc.: 52:20

[Joshua-dcbs]

If science and philosophy committed the Ad Populum fallacy and only work within the current paradigm, new models and theories would never emerge. We'd still be stuck in Plato's cave if not for scientists who dare to challenge current models by looking through Galileo's lens .

It's a damn shame some want to keep science from exploring new ideas.

A big thank you to SAND for sharing the latest research and fresh minds.

[pedrozaragoza]

We are profound and infinite beings beginning to become aware of the boundless possibilities available to us. We will eventually realize that our freedom leads to love, a sense that all of existence is free, sacred, eternal and inexplicably beautiful.
Gloria in Excelsis Deo!

[rexjantze]

In context to Donald Hoffman I wonder if the split brain duality is the primary nature of indecision, and why we say one thing and act out another. I've been studying personal development for several years and this new research brings to light one of the most perplexing challenges for personal change.

[jfhow]

Once we figure out what free will means,
then we can get to work on figuring out whether or not we have it.
If we don't have it, how did we ever get the idea that we do?

[AlexHop]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU to all the speakers and to ScienceAndNon-Duality. This is the MOST IDEA-FULL discussion of Free Will that I've experienced EVER! Henry Stapp's explanation of the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem--that Nature is making decisions for quantum particles (given quantum non-locality) is BRILLIANT! I'm going to have to listen again to his explanation of how we move our arms by our own decision (Anti-Zeno Effect). Donald Hoffman's description of split-brain experiments must be taken into account when considering Free Will--looks like there's complementary (in Neils Bohr's sense) between consciousness and the brain. This discussion is so ILLUMINATING! AGAIN, THANK YOU!

[ICnia]

Thank you very much for these rooting connections

[Life_Is_A...]

How could anything in the universe have free will if:
1- It's always governed by the laws of physics / chemistry.
2- It's pre-determined by earlier events which make certain probabilities much more probable to happen.

[Nonconceptuality]

After Dr. Hoffman's talk, I understand why Ramana Maharshi didn't speak for many years. Perhaps Self-Realization requires the shutting-down of the functioning of that part of the brain.

[rovrola]

Discussions about freewill are generally lacking but I was hoping these great minds might offer something substantial. Aside from the neuroscience presentation, this was not very insightful and failed to demonstrate anything beyond their starting assumptions; that choices are being made by a free someone. They merely describe possible natural mechanisms by which this "willer" is presented with alternatives.

Even if the range of possible states isn't completely determined by history or external agency, nothing has been said to demonstrate that there might be any supernatural causal element of a hidden consciousness variable which selects states. This was hinted at when discussing the electron's freewill but nothing was said regarding human agency. Unless you're a compatibilist or flat-out denier, your arguments need to distinguish between willed outcomes and naturally determined selection of presented alternatives; if nature chooses for the electron why not for us as well? If nature is consciousness, what's so special about the agency of the "I"?

Furthermore, it remains unspecified if the (initial) values or questions of the willer are decided randomly, by determinate cause or will itself. If it's the first two then operation of will isn't obvious. If the third, how can the will chose if it has no prior values or preferences? Unless that's addressed references to phenomena like the Zeno effect demonstrate nothing already being attributed to the observer.

[martin]

The location of a single Electron at any moment is completely indeterministic, the location of many Electrons however is highly deterministic. Like-wise if there is only one Universe & one goes back in time one can apparently "Change" the past so one has free wil, l but when one changes the past it becomes what already was the past so it isn't changed so determinism, in other words choich is predestined & predestination is chosen

[mitchellhudson]

Self determination in terms of existence is not adhering to any presented (and tbh faulty) definitions of free will. As stated, even the most elemental parts of the universe have an (obvious) element of self determinacy in terms of existence - but does an atom have will? Does an electron have will? Where does the will come into the equation if consciousness is not required? How then are we even discussing agency anymore?

[nishantberry]

QUESTIONS ON THE WILL:

1) What is the will in terms of electrochemical reactions ?

2) Can the will be detected, isolated, quantified, transplanted and stored?

3) Can the will be created from scratch using electrochemical methods?

[Nonconceptuality]

What if the fundamental choice is whether or not to ask the question? Seems to me that the choice to engage in the question/answer, yes/no system IS the creation of duality/illusion itself. What is the experience of not forcing as 'yes' or 'no' out of reality? What if the observer just observes? Or even better, what if the observer focuses only on the observer? 

[emeejay]

you guys are The best proffesionals ! Thank you for sharing the truths about this life of illusion ! And yes there is free will! We are the co-creators!

[nishantberry]

NOTES ON THE WILL:

1) As an innate property of mind-consciousness, the will is the determination or the intent of the inborn sentience in the living being to act in a specific manner and in no other.

2) To begin with, the will-impulse arises from the melange of thoughts, memories, instincts, hunches, experiences, emotions, sights, sounds, desires and other sentient inputs stored in the subliminal (or subconscious) aspect of the mind-consciousness and it then draws on the interactions with the current environmental factors and personality features of the individual to make a choice in a given situation.

3) As a result, once the will-impulse to act in a particular way, based on the above, is formed in these subliminal/subconscious depths then it rises to the surface mind where the human subject now takes note of it and attempts to realise it to the best of his/her capacity.

[StephenPaulKing]

@ 26:15ish. Is a "valuation" something like a choice of a basis?

[kathycraig]

All so very interesting to think about, thanks for sharing.   

[johnellis]

Our will being the decision maker of our being, we should have the desire, ability and freedom to enjoy life without being enriched upon the misery of another. Also, to truly have a freewill and not be a slave to good, we need to have both the ability and freedom to cause misery.