digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Do subatomic particles have free will?

sciencenews.org — Human free will might seem like the squishiest of philosophical subjects, way beyond the realm of mathematical demonstration. But two highly regarded Princeton mathematicians, John Conway and Simon Kochen, claim to have proven that if humans have even the tiniest amount of free will, then atoms themselves must also behave unpredictably.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • shaggyb, on 08/16/2008, -9/+56I think the "atoms must also have free will" is a bit of a jump. The question here should be: is there such thing as true randomness. If something is not random then you can predict where every particle will be at any given point in time. Theoretically you could trace particles back in time to the beginning of the universe. Conversely you could predict a particles position all the way to the end of the universe. That also implies that you can predict the future at any given point in time in between. However, if there is truly randomness then it would become impossible to predict a particles past and future. So now the million dollar question.

    Do you believe in randomness? Well do ya?
    • notwizt, on 08/16/2008, -4/+20If you went back an hour in time, would you do the exact same things? I think I would, and what makes most sense to me is that randomness doesn't exist. If we had total knowledge of everything in the universe, we could predict the future. I seriously doubt that is achievable, however.
      • Scynet, on 08/16/2008, -0/+25Quantum physics opposes that idea a bit. Take radioactive decay, for example. Radioactive particle decays, giving off radiation. Half-life of a radioactive particle means that when you take any number of radioactive particles, after you reach the half-life, only half of the particles remain.

        The dilemma lies in the fact that if you make new radioactive particles and wait for half of them to decay, then make a brand new dose of particles for comparison, the oldest won't decay first. There doesn't seem to be any internal mechanism or "clock" which dictates the decay process. It seems to be simply a fundamental property of the particles: a chance to decay at a certain rate, nothing more.

        We might discover that there is a mechanism that makes a particle decay after all, but as someone on Slashdot stated, the opposite is also true. We can NEVER be sure that we've found the most fundamental rule that life follows, there's always a possibility of something smaller affecting our observations.
      • Suricou, on 08/17/2008, -0/+13Even without quantum issues, to do so would require more processing power than the universe can provide... because you would have to have your computer calculate the output of your computer calculating the output of your computer calculating the output of your computer... And the storage space faces a similar problem. It's like trying to image a drive onto itsself. Not going to work. If you had some type of place external to the universe to work from, then it could be done.
      • bratterscain, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2idk, I think if a+b=c sounds a lot more logical then a+b=anything and everything. If there truly was random, then randomness would require complete separation from the universe because any particle/s around it would affect it so it couldn't be truly random. And if it is entirely separated from the universe, then it wouldn't play a part in the universe. I think it would be very illogical and in the case of an on-going calculation, which I like to equate with the universe, if one number is changed or replaced, then you have to change every other factor in the equation to make it add up correctly.
      • Paulish, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2But wouldn't simply knowing the future change the way we act, and so change the future to something different than we saw. If looking into the future does not change the way we act (or anything), why does looking into the future matter at all?
    • angelfelix, on 08/16/2008, -4/+18I think randomness is just a label for the things that we don't have the capacity to calculate precisely. And by capacity I mean powerful computers and the right approach to analyze things such as identifying all the variables.
      • Stevethegreat, on 08/17/2008, -0/+7Then again logicians like Godel, found out that there is no way to find out the answers to many (most) of the problems so it is a bit of a moot point to discuss the "what if" points especially if we'll never reach them.

        Since the 1930s the universe seems probabilistic rather than deterministic which means that you'll never be able to do the exact same experiment with the same exact results at any given time which is also what our experience gives out. The universe while not entirely random it seems not to be entirely determined either, events are like bubbles in a soup popping out, the bigger ones (those with the greatest possibilities) have more chances to pop out.....
      • bratterscain, on 08/17/2008, -0/+3I think it is deterministic. It's just that as time goes by, no factor will ever remain the same in every experiment because as time changes, factors change somewhat on smaller scales but if you done that experiment over and over, if possible in the exact frame of time, I think you would see exactly the same outcome.
      • Stevethegreat, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1But you see if the laws are unchanging then under ideal circumstance we must have the exact same results, the universe SHOULD be symmetrical, only it isn't. I'm not talking about macro-experiments here where everything can go wrong but for micro -even nano- experiments where nothing can -in principle- go wrong yet we are never able to take the same results, we can just predict the chances of certain outcomes.

        Again and again the basis of all chemistry and all physics (fundamental particles) act as if they're not bound by strict laws rather than by mild regulations (there are certain things they can't do, rather than one thing that they "should" do).
      • ommadawn, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Quantum uncertainty is not only a fact that is observed, it's explained by rock solid math. At least in Schroedinger's quantum mechanics.
    • elfprince13, on 08/16/2008, -3/+11sufficiently large particles, yes, you probably could trace their them all the way to the beginning of the universe, or rather you could observe the effects of them having been there. However on a quantum scale, the universe is not governed by causal relationships, which makes predicting the future position of a particle is impossible, until it has been observed there. Schroedinger's cat ftw. if it makes your brain hurt too much, don't worry about it, because unless you're willing to live with the consequences of blaming everything you do on deterministic algorithms over which you have no control, it makes no difference one way or the other which you believe. Not fully understanding it almost guarantees your beliefs on the subject will in some way be incorrect, but it shouldn't effect the way you act.
    • robbiedo, on 08/17/2008, -4/+19Theoretically, you CAN NOT trace any particles back to the beginning of the universe. You can calculate statistical probabilities, but that is as accurate as you can get. Determinism does not exist, except maybe in the female human mind.

      /yes, I do have a degree in physics.
      • cscharabaruk, on 08/17/2008, -4/+3"Determinism does not exist, except maybe in the female human mind."

        ZING!
      • notwizt, on 08/17/2008, -4/+3Touché
      • bratterscain, on 08/17/2008, -2/+5I think it's entirely logical that at the position the universe is in at this space/time, that if time went backwards, it would work out just the same way going forwards. I couldn't see it being logical if it didn't. I don't see magic in the universe, I believe there's some kind of formulaic action going on at the sub-atomic level that is entirely logical and not random. As I said in previous comments, random just isn't logical. If x affects y, then z.

        I don't believe anything in humans is random either. If a stimulus affects me, I'll pretty much do the same thing over and over when reacting to it unless other factors change or I decide to even be random in what to do, previous calculations come into play. That is why we have laws and order in the universe and in humans as well. Even if you have outlaw humans, they're are likely affected by a stimulus, external or internal, which will make them that way. To just give up and say there's illogic and random in the universe is to say everything above that has no grounds for logic.
      • ommadawn, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3@bratterscain:
        As for your 'logical' idea of reversing time. We essentialy don't know why time flows, but most likely it's a result of the way quantum phenomena take place, and by that, speaking about a quantum process going back in time has no sense, since the flow of time is an apparent effect and not an implicit property of the system.
    • JacobParker, on 08/17/2008, -4/+8Boobies!
      Now try and prove randomness doesn't exist.
      • Diggnabbit, on 08/17/2008, -0/+15What could be more predictable than someone saying "Boobies!" in a Digg thread?
      • Lazydriver, on 08/17/2008, -2/+3Godzilla monkey space mutant fat people on a Texas-style bun enjoying watching Oprah while the sun explodes and George Bush dances on Dick Cheney's grave.

        Expect that one?
    • ChileanGoD, on 08/17/2008, -1/+16Do you mean that the fact that I'm typing these buttons on my keyboard to write this reply are in fact the result of the initial conditions set by the Big-Bang? Woaaa... You take fate to a whole new level.

      Also... great comments... for a second I felt back home in the old digg style.
    • bsmang, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Randomness is real!
    • twomeyw23334, on 08/17/2008, -5/+1Even in a deterministic world you can still have randomness. Computer software RANDOM functions for example.
      We have free will "effectively" regardless of whether there is randomness at the subatomic level, but may not really have free will "theoretically."
      It all seems like garbage to me. If we have free will, effectively, that's good enough for me. My life would not change one iota if I found out for certain whether free will exists theoretically or not.
      • Notclive, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Computer software random functions aren't really random they are pseudorandom.
      • jbetancourt, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1"Computer software random functions aren't really random they are pseudorandom." Correct, but I think there are true random generators in hardware now being used in high end systems.
      • twomeyw23334, on 08/17/2008, -4/+1software functions are not technically random, but for all intents and purposes, when you're playing solitaire, the cards appear to be random. I'm basically just making the point that it doesn't really matter in our daily lives if free will "theoretically" exists or not, it exists effectively which is good enough for me.
    • ajkrik, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1It isn't just a question of randomness. We're discussing the ability of a second party to describe in advance what the subject will do. Free will is different, even than randomness. If randomness is defined as an occurrence who's explanation for occurring is unaffected by some other force or player, then randomness in our world doesn't really exist any more than there's an "infinite" universe.
      Mary Shelley wrote that "creativity" does not come from making something out of nothing, it comes from bringing order out of chaos. Human action or sub atomic particle action or writing "boobie" are order from chaos.
    • LucifersDad, on 08/17/2008, -1/+0Scientifically there is no such thing as random. Even if random exists scientifically it does not exist as you cannot prove it.

      A random thing does not repeat itself over infinite team in the same environment. If a system repeats itself every trillion years to humans this looks random who live on average to 70 years.

      Random means no rules, no equations. people get confused between complexity and random. Random does not mean freewill.

      We are on a planet travelling through a solar system, travelling through a galaxy, travelling through this universe, that is expanding into something we don't know assuming that the thing we are expanding into only exits as one (muliverses, collection of multiverse, or even dimension of multiverses). We then assume nothing from outside this universe can interact with us, after all if gravity can leave this universe then what stops anything coming in.

      If the universe was random there is much chance as the sun turning into a grapefruit as it would turn into a moon as it remaining the same.

    • JoshReflek, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2Asserting that "Random" is your answer, means you dont know the cause yet.
    • ligyron, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1I believe in randomness. But then again, I also still believe in Santa Clause
  • Pitofdoom, on 08/16/2008, -30/+8A New Element Added to the Periodic Table:

    Research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to
    science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neuron, 25 assistant
    neurons, 88 deputy neurons, and 198 assistant deputy neurons, giving it an
    atomic mass of 312.

    These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are
    surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since
    Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected,
    because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

    A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally
    take less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.
    Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2-6 years; it does not decay, but
    instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant
    neurons and deputy neurons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass
    will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause
    more morons to become neurons, forming isodopes.

    This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe
    that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical
    concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical
    morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium,
    an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has
    half as many peons but twice as many morons.





  • zmedico, on 08/17/2008, -1/+16Conway and Kochen's free will theorem:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
  • TheMachine1, on 08/17/2008, -6/+7Freewill and noise are the same concept. Creativity is also the same concept. It can be defined as the ability to over come the constraining influence of past examples.
    Which is the definition of a perfect random number generator.

    I submitted this story in the past where a scientist introduced noise into a trained neural network and saw signs of creativity.

    http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg14920134.0 ...
    • starmanjones, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2i was being mentored by renown psychologist and he use statistics to determining the factors... i.e. as in an ANOVA where variables are essentially compared to find which and what relationship they have to each other. pay dirt is find 'significance.'

      at any rate his analysis led him to postulate that there are 3 genes which which related to creativity. you get two you're creative. get 3 and you are schizophrenic. creativity might be related to "loose associations' and creativity is a function of associations between unrelated concepts.

      i always found that answer a good model.
    • erik333, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1How can you consider freewill and creativity on the same level?
      If we take the slave analogy for example – then a slave can be ordered to paint a certain object in a ‘creative’ way, but where is the freewill/creativity in that?
      • starmanjones, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1seems odd huh... free will as it applies to humans requires conscious behavior. i don't see anything that would imply any thought what so ever. the more i thik about it the less sense it makes.
  • vickers500, on 08/17/2008, -8/+1?
  • chesss, on 08/17/2008, -14/+26and wtf is free will??
    its a dumb philosphical concept which doesn't even have definition in scientific terms let alone there be the possibility of proving or disproving it
    • lylemackinnon, on 08/17/2008, -13/+2although.....it could be michael phelps
    • Dozernotz, on 08/17/2008, -2/+19@chesss

      Just because something cannot be addressed by science doesn't make it inherently dumb. In many cases, it may well be, but plenty of human activity, probably most of it, involves ideas about things that cannot be experimentally measured.
      • chesss, on 08/17/2008, -4/+2which is why those concepts cannot be proved/disproved... just like free will
        ya I guess u r right though , coz it doesn't make it dumb atleast for practical puposes
      • Ymeg, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2Everything is based in reality. Emotions are not random things that cannot be measured...


        That being said, we are not even close to having the tools to accurately measure such things.
      • starmanjones, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1>Just because something cannot be
        >addressed by science doesn't make it
        >inherently dumb. In many cases, it may

        disagree totally. science can address anything that exists. thats what science is in fact.

        the definition for dumb is to accept things as facts and unaddressable. the current iteration of religious violence is the result of this sort of philosophy. its a dangerous thing.

        >well be, but plenty of human activity,
        >probably most of it, involves ideas
        >about things that cannot be
        >experimentally measured.

        this is wrong too. we can measure things we don't understand. the only requirement for measuring is that it exists. we are measuring the effects of dark matter and energy but we are still uncertain about the exact form it exists in.
      • Dozernotz, on 08/18/2008, -0/+0@Ymeg
        I wasn't talking about emotions, I was talking about abstractions. No matter how completely and accurately you measure reality, what it "means" is still an entirely arbitrary, non-scientific, statement of values. Giving itself meaning is beyond the bounds of what science can do. That's what all those other janky buildings on campus are for.

        @starmanjones
        Spoken like a true zealot. Who decides what to measure? Who decides how to arrange the data? How do you apply it? Science has already established the secret to life, the universe, and everything. 42. Now what?
      • starmanjones, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1>@starmanjones Spoken like a true zealot.
        zealot? not really. if it exists then we can find it and measure it.

        >Who decides what to measure?

        the person doing the measuring.

        Who decides how to arrange the data?

        the person doing the measuring.

        >How do you apply it?

        measuring doesn't imply or require an application.

        >Science has already
        >established the secret to life, the
        >universe, and everything. 42.

        there is no requirment that says we have to know all the answers to measure some part of everything.

        is there a secret to life? if you mean create life from a bunch of chemicals then ya science can do that.

        the universe... we keep finding stuff everyday. we are beginning to see what was on the other side of the big bang. if god exists then science will find him on the trail of discovery.

        >Now what?

        i don't know... science doesn't require that you know... now what. what do you want to know? get up off your ass and go find it out. i suggest you start with peer revue journals.
      • Dozernotz, on 08/20/2008, -0/+0@starmanjones
        First of all, "peer review" is the process to submit to a journal, whereas "peer revue" would be a group of friends putting on a theatrical show.

        Secondly, do you honestly fail to see the contradictions in your response? You're agreeing that the "person doing the measuring" decides what to measure, how to measure, how to interpret the measurements, etc, etc. But how exactly do you think he does this? Coin flipping? The Big Book Of All Science? More measuring? When you say "what do you want to know?" you're asking for a value judgement, which is exactly not scientific. You can't answer the question "what do you want to know" within the framework of science itself. And yet the question must be answered.

        Maybe the issue here is that you're misunderstanding what the word "science" means. You seem to be confusing it with reality itself. Science is no less but no more than a way to make the most objective possible measurements of reality. Anything that might be considered "subjective" has nothing to do with science. But just because it's subjective doesn't mean it's irrelevant, or that subjectivity "doesn't exist." In fact, in any human action, some subjectivity is unavoidable. Scientists are well aware of this. That's why they are careful to reduce it as much as possible when testing, and are usually the first ones to object when experimental data gets used to support some subjective agenda. But subjectivity is still necessary, and because science can't tell you what to do, all of the subjective choices you outlined in your reply are specifically what science is unable to address.

        Not only that, but science itself, and basically human logic, is inherently limited in what it can and cannot measure. This is a seperate issue with nothing to do with subjectivity. It could be seen as "problems" with reality itself, or the human ability to think about it, at least. But don't take my word for it, read some actual science on the subject: start with Heisenberg, then Godel. If you still believe that anything that exists can be measured, then you need to read again, more carefully.
    • aquadoctorbob, on 08/17/2008, -0/+3From the Wiki page linked above: "The definition of "free will" used in the proof of this theorem is simply that an outcome is "not determined" by prior conditions, and may therefore be equivalent to the possibility that the outcome is simply random, whatever that means."
    • illt, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2I think what chesss is trying to say is, it's a dumb philosophical concept because regardless of whether we have free will or not, it isn't going to change how we act anyway.
    • ligyron, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1I challenge you for a day to leave all your decisions to chance. "Am I going to have breakfast?" *flip coin*
      And I mean everything, even the tiniest things

      It'll make for a very interesting day, and you will feel it
  • jonnyamsterdam, on 08/17/2008, -3/+2That's a damn good point.
  • Nateon, on 08/17/2008, -3/+9You have to define what free will is. Can unpredictability alone constitute free will? Sorry, feeling a bit philosophical.
  • Suricou, on 08/17/2008, -10/+8Free will doesn't exist. But we have to keep pretending it does, otherwise what is the point of anything?
    • JoshReflek, on 08/17/2008, -2/+4If you were right, then i wouldn't be able to disagree with you, mm?
      • Suricou, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3Either you were going to disagree with me all along, or your disagreement was a result of purely random quantum effects influencing your actions through a chaotic chain of events. Either way, you didn't choose to disagree.
  • blackjack75, on 08/17/2008, -6/+20"if humans have even the tiniest amount of free will, then atoms themselves must also behave unpredictably"
    Now you'll have to convince me that humans have indeed the tiniest amount of free will. I know people can do what they want but I don't think they can chose what they want or feel. It's all a result of the external world. Build the same humans with the exact same particles at the exact same place in space and time and he will do only what he is bound to do due to this conditions.

    We're just grains of sand, blown by the wind, only blinded by our own complexity.

    Damn, now I gotta get me a beer.
    • ChileanGoD, on 08/17/2008, -1/+5You are correct and wrong at the same time. Lets take your action of getting a beer as an example. If i follow your way of though correctly, that means that, in the current external world that you live in, getting a beer is an option that is common to you. So probably is getting a glass of water or juice or tea. What you explained is that the external world that you live in will not give you an option to get a glass of monkey blood or a glass of urine (even though some weirdos do). It is a fact that your behavior will be molded by your environment. It is called adaptation and that's all living creatures do in order to survive.

      Now, free will, will be in your power. It's truly your nature that you choose to have a beer instead of what it could have been a glass of water or juice.... or monkey blood. I believe there are no initial set rules that can exactly pinpoint what your next action be but I totally agree with you that those actions will remain within the limits of a mold formed by your external world.
      • rustyrobot, on 08/17/2008, -1/+2ChileamGoD, what balckjack is saying (I think) is that everything you do is the result of atoms and molecules moving and acting in a way that is pre-determined by the laws of physics. Whether we fully understand the laws or not, their influence on atoms never changes. Therefore, whatever decision/thought you make is decided by the precise motions of all the atoms in your body, especially the ones in your brain, and if every atom was put exactly back where it was in the past, the same outcome would occur. This argument is common among those who argue against freewill.
      • dugmartsch, on 08/17/2008, -1/+4Arguing against free will is like arguing that there isn't a Sun. It's so obviously wrong its hard to rebut.
    • xander, on 08/17/2008, -0/+4//I know people can do what they want

      You've answered your own question.
    • ommadawn, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1I bet dogs are sure about their free will too. And rats. And flies. And so on.
  • chaos7, on 08/17/2008, -9/+4even humans don't have free will
    • Stevethegreat, on 08/17/2008, -0/+3You have to assume that the universe is deterministic to make such a statement and not even physicists know that anymore. Newton and Einstein showed us an entirely ordered universe, but Bohr and the early Quantum Physicists showed us something entirely different lurking in the underground. What if the order in the universe is just a veneer that our minds create so that make sense of it?

      If the universe is not determined then -by definition- we can't be determined either, while this can't be -really- called (as) free will it certainly allows us some degrees of freedom that determinism does not......
      • LucifersDad, on 08/17/2008, -0/+0In order to predict the universe we have to know everything about it. The problem is we know nothing. We can't even answer basic questions such as What is the smallest distance, angle that can be moved, what is the smallest amount of energy you can have.

        1) if multiple dimensions exist then these would also affect this universe. Yet most of our equations, rules are only based on 3 dimensions.

        2) What is outside this universe can also affect the universe. Humans have not even left the solar system yet. The equation inside this universe may be different to outside the univers just like the equation inside an atom is different to the equation outside the atom.

        3) We may also have to include muliverses, and even collection of multiverses and even multiverse dimensions and so on. The system we are in may be something similar to a fractal but in multiple dimensions where no matter how far you go you would never reach the end. We also assume that if multiple dimensions exist they would also have the same equation of the universe as ours.

        4) Its very hard to predict a system when we are part of it, and it is impossible for computers to be completely accurate as the universe is analogue not digital.

        5) There may be aliens or other intelligence that can affect us that we are not aware of who could easily be trillions of years more advanced than us.
    • supermanred, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Of course we do. Maybe you don't.
  • thecoolestguy, on 08/17/2008, -3/+7Also, if we are conscious, then the smallest subatomic particle must be conscious. There is no dividing line between conscious and non-conscious. It's a gradient, with the highest intelligent organisms the most conscious, and the simplest wave-particles the least. The whole universe must be a agglomeration of consciousnesses.
    • Stevethegreat, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3If we're alive then the tiniest bit of matter should be alive, oh no it isn't, no particle known to man can copulate yet some certain carbon based networks (life) do, how can it be? I hate words like free-will and/or consciousness as they're non-specific, but we certainly have -as a functioning neural network- something that our parts lack (our whole in some -many- ways is different from our parts).

      It's not inconceivable that a group of things (which are together) acting differently than the parts (when they're alone), it happens all the time in nature.
    • thecoolestguy, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2---If we're alive then the tiniest bit of matter should be alive, oh no it isn't, no particle known to man can copulate yet some certain carbon based networks (life) do, how can it be?-----

      'Life' has characteristics that are concrete, rather than abstract, namely the ability to procreate.

      Consciousness meanwhile is a state of perspective, it's awareness, and since there's no physical characteristic to it, it can't be divided into things that have it and things that don't.
      • Stevethegreat, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1The same happens with neural networks, just because information theory is too young to know WTF is going on there doesn't mean that there is no some pretty incredible things going on which are very unlike what biology typically does.

        We're baffled by brains (not just the human ones) that's why AI research is underperforming so much, we certainly see things from a bit the wrong perspective there, that's EXACTLY why no concrete theory for the indeterminacy of brain actions exist rather than the other way around.
      • igul222, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2Time to redefine 'life'.
      • thecoolestguy, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2----The same happens with neural networks, just because information theory is too young to know WTF is going on there doesn't mean that there is no some pretty incredible things going on which are very unlike what biology typically does.----

        The world is not digital, it's analog, so whatever it is that gives consciousness must decrease gradually as a brain gets less complex, but it can never reach zero. There is no absolute dividing lines in between states of being and states of not being in the universe. Even an electron orbiting an atom can theoretically orbit 1 trillion miles away from the nucleus, although the odds are very small.

        It is for this reason that I argue that every thing must be conscious, since consciousness in an analog universe must exist at the most infinitesimally small amount in the smallest particles.

      • thecoolestguy, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2Also, speaking of 'life', the mechanisms behind it; natural selection that favors the increase in entropy, does exist at the molecular level in things that aren't considered 'life'. We have arbitrarily created a dividing line between life and non-life for the sake of categorization, but the fact remains that the fundamental dynamics that we associate with life exist throughout all the universe. In the same way, the fundamental defining characteristics of awareness/consciousness, must exist in the smallest sub-atomic particle, albeit in a very very small degree.
    • virtualcourtney, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1Whitehead's metaphysics (_Process and Reality_ is his major tome here) agrees. He postulates a world built of "actual entities" that each have a consciousness, though to varying degrees. He admits that his model is absolutely speculative. That just makes it all the more fun to think about.
  • eggballs, on 08/17/2008, -7/+2Will depends on the existence of a mind.
    • eggballs, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1If you bury me, then you have to prove me wrong or you look like an idiot. Sorry :)
  • vodkataime, on 08/17/2008, -7/+4These comments make my brain hurt.
  • jdepp, on 08/17/2008, -6/+9No.
  • keyme, on 08/17/2008, -11/+6There is no free will.

    All matter and energy in the universe interact in a certain way, by a certain constant set of rules, otherwise known as the laws of physics. If the rules never change, the outcome of the interaction won't either.

    I believe that if you "restart" the universe, everything will happen exactly the same way it did before. If the initial conditions (the Big Bang) and the laws of physics stay the same, so will the outcome over time.

    That's my little philosophy. I don't know what Quantum Physics has to say about that, but meanwhile I'd stick to my simple "mathematical" model.
    • aquadoctorbob, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3Quantum mechanics introduces a randomizing component. I hypothesize that if you were to "restart" the universe as you mentioned, since the Big Bang would re-enter the realm of the Planck length, you could end up with something wildly different from what we have now.

      Seriously, though, my knowledge of QM is limited to what I've gleaned from a couple of books written for the general public (CS major, not physics). Giving the universe a randomizing function (i.e. quantum "foam") fits nicely with my own little philosophy of possessing free will.
    • LucifersDad, on 08/17/2008, -0/+0Your are assuming that what is outside the universe is the same. We assume that his universe is expanding into nothing, if the universe is not expanding into nothing then what we are expanding into would also change this universe.

      Most of out theories on this universe are based on nothing from outside this universe interacting with it. Which makes no sense because what is outside this universe created this universe and can also destroy it.
      • Urzeitlich, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2There is nothing outside of the universe. The universe is everything, so what you are thinking of as "outside" of the universe is really part of it, by definition.
    • knowitman, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1So the fact that you wrote that paragraph was determined at the time of the big bang?
      • Acglaphotis, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Yes. Don't you just love quatum physics?
      • notnathan, on 08/17/2008, -0/+0yes
      • sirhomer, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1@Acglaphotis

        Most accepted theories of quantum physics tends to argue the opposite, that that Universe operates on something called statistical mechanics, or the idea that any action has a probability of happening that can be measured, but there is no deterministic actions. If anything, the Universe was shaped at exactly one Planck time after the big bang, not exactly at the time of the big bang, because that's when physical reality as we know it was started, before then, it is impossible to know.

        (Planck time is the smallest possible unit of time in quantum physics, the time a particle moving at the speed of light travels one planck length (the smallest unit of space).)
    • JoshReflek, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1Keyme:
      it is apparent you don't know the difference between "rules" and "boundaries" in regards to the function of universal consistancy and the nature of choices a human can make.

      Rules define constants, such as gravity.
      Boundaries show the lines within which our choices derive.

      Free will exists.

      It is evidinced by the mere fact that you are choosing to argue for it, and i against it.
      • notnathan, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1If everything is matter (not a dualist universe) and this physical matter follows some sort of constant rules (which we might not fully understand) then where is the room for free will?

        simplified: If baking soda mixes with vinegar they will foam up. it is a chemical reaction - not the will of either baking soda or vinegar.
        If your brain processes your environment, it will react in some way biased on the chemical reactions in your brain. How could you control this?
  • chubbybubba, on 08/17/2008, -9/+3Humans do have free will and particles do not. A humans ability to end their own existence (suicide) is proof of free will.
    • SCYellowhammer, on 08/17/2008, -3/+0Not exactly. What if you were MEANT to end your life at that very moment?
      • Evolutuon, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1Meant by whom or what? God or fate? Wheres the justice and responsibility in determinism. If you murdered someone, should you be held accountable for your actions if you actually were meant to kill a person? The answer is no, which is totally absurd.
      • Urzeitlich, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1No, SCYellowhammer is right. Killing yourself proves nothing, as we have no idea as to whether or not what we are doing is free will or fate.

        Also, you are speaking of fatalism, not determinism. Determinism states that what happens in the past and present determines the future. Fatalism states that everything is predetermined, fate.
      • archer104, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1@Evolutuon
        People should be held accountable for their actions even with no free will because punishment acts as a deterrent for future crimes. The idea of getting punished goes into everyone's minds at a young age and makes it less likely that they will turn out a murderer. It's true that punishment from the criminal's perspective is absurd (after the fact) so what would be better would be some kind of perfected rehabilitation. But then you have the problem of people killing just to get into rehabilitation. So I guess in the ideal world kids would receive therapy and psychological guidance to prevent crimes before they happen. But everyone would only agree to that if it was common knowledge that there is no free will.
  • Sananda, on 08/17/2008, -3/+3Free Will is a conceptual idea created by human, to define the ability to decide to eat pies all the time, if you want to.

    Btw, TIME doesnt exist also, its just a conceptual tool created by humans to measure things moving in space



  • hpfilter, on 08/17/2008, -2/+17""We're all puppets, Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings.""

    Doctor Manhattan
    • jawdog, on 08/17/2008, -0/+4Exactly, the whole point of that quote is that unless you have the capacity to measure every particle in the universe in order to determine every single particle interaction, then the system is so complicated that you may as well consider humans to have free will because nothing can be predicted.
    • riskybeats, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Now with all this fuss going on with Watchmen, I want to read the original novels. I don't know how it escaped my radar for so long.
  • smek2, on 08/17/2008, -3/+10That's the problem with popular science. When scientists try to make the majority understand the very complex concepts of their field, they tend to use metaphors and analogies. Those are prone to misinterpretation and confusion. If you read the article carefully you realize that those mathematicians claim to have proven that subatomic particles do not inherit properties you can predict in advance. Considering the consequences for free will are obvious, though using allegories , some people might get confused and draw the wrong conclusions. The headline, for example, is a bit sensational, evoking the image of particles inherit a free will comparable to what we understand by this. The mathematicians claim to have proven that uncertainty really is part of reality and did so in a pure mathematical way. To come to the conclusion, that particles choosing their properties by means of a thought process, ie. free will, would be a bit hasty.
    Personally, i tend to believe that free will is an illusion, to great parts anyway. If one consider how we, as living beings, are influenced by uncountable factors, internal (such as hormones, biochemicals) and external (such as various stimulus and socialization), one can't but realize that our decisions and actions are not random acts of free will but effects of cause. Still, i do not refuse the idea of uncertainty in nature. There's one thing one has to consider though. Subatomic particles are said to have no set properties until prodded. To prod a particle you don't necessarily need a lab and a scientist. All it takes is another particle. All the experiments regarding uncertainty were conducted in labs using special circumstances. But the the universe is like a giant lab itself, filled with probably billions upon billions of particles, interacting and prodding each other constantly. So even if nature is fundamentally probabilistic, it may very well be that there's no real consequence for the macroscopic world.
    • BXRWXR, on 08/17/2008, -1/+6Speaking of astounding discoveries, did you know that there is this thing called the paragraph?
      • smek2, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1It's not my fault that Digg ignores my line breaks. And if you don't have better things to do than trying to be sarcastic, i pity you.
        Did you know that there's always the possibility not to read a comment if its amount of letters scares you?
      • drugfree1, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2That bit of sarcasm is telling of a jealous person. smek2 knows what he's talking about...at least a lot more than most of us!
    • loki49152, on 08/17/2008, -1/+0I hope you understand that even the most flawless mathematical proof doesn't necessarily tell you anything about reality. Math is, at best, a tool for measuring and describing the physical world.
    • Abram730, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1Are particles intelligent or is there a God?

      If you look closely at the behaviour of particles one can see that what we know affects how they behaved in the past. So are particles like electrons and photons intelligent, able to know the future and act on that knowledge?
      Clearly classical logic doesn't hold a flame to the very small.

      It's no metaphor smek2, article aside.
  • BlakkSheep, on 08/17/2008, -4/+4For a second there, I thought they got a free Wii.. Got jealous..
  • Bersy, on 08/17/2008, -5/+3Suddenly I have the urge to go watch Free Willy.
  • BXRWXR, on 08/17/2008, -4/+1Do protons ***** in accelerators?
    • riskybeats, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3No, but allow me to ***** on your comment.
      *Grunting poop noises*
  • zenithmbr, on 08/17/2008, -3/+1hard determinism is the only philosophical position that makes any sense.
    • archer104, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Then what caused it all to happen in the first place?
  • SDGrimshaw, on 08/17/2008, -2/+1Well I didn't read it all but I caught enough to digg it. ***** you Hobbes, d'Holbach, Hume, Nietzsche and all you other heathens.
  • venuspcs, on 08/17/2008, -3/+8What if all the energy in the universe has a shared connection. I don't necessarily mean a shared consciousness but more like a shared cause/effect connection; whereas what happens to energy A in Galaxy B affects the energy C in Galaxy D. This is the basic premise behind Quantum Sciences yet I have never heard anyone look at it this way....EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED TO EVERYTHING ELSE. There is randomness in my model however and here is how it works:

    All energy independent of any other energy has a set (fixed) rule of behavior that it follows and can never deviate from. When energy begins to amass into matter (atoms) those atoms take on a new set (fixed) rule of behavior that they follow. Those rules are different than the rules for the independent energy that comprises them. Thus creating the appearance of randomness. Now you take those atoms and interact them with an outside energy source and the rules change yet again. Throw those atoms in an area near other atoms and yet again those rules change. The point is that each layer of existence has a different set of rules....something along the lines of:

    1.) Pure Energy (independent of all other energy)
    2.) Single Atom formed by several independent particles of energy
    3.) Several Atoms combined to form a single particle of matter
    4.) Several particles of matter combine to form a simple-celled organism or different type of matter
    5.) Numerous different types of matter form to create a more complex organism or complex matter
    6.) Numerous different types of complex organisms or complex matter unite to form stars, solar systems, suns, and life

    Each of these 6 levels of energy existence has a different set of rules (for that level and only that level). Laws of Physics, Fluid Dynamics, Gravity, etc. only deal with the Sixth Level. The Quantum Sciences (in there current form) only deal with the Fourth and Fifth levels. The Quantum Sciences are slowly developing an understanding of the behaviors of level 4 and level five and the interactions between level 4, level 5 and level 6. But we currently have no rules for level 1, 2 or 3. Nor do we have any rules for the interactions between levels 1, 2 or 3. Furthermore we have little to no understanding of how level 1 effects level 6 or how level 6 effects level 2. So yes the universe appears to be random (for now) but only because we have yet to define all aspects of all 6 levels of energy.
    • LucifersDad, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1What about dimensions, multiverses, dimensions of multiverse, collections of multiverses etc.

      Who says there is only 6 levels of energy.


    • 3Den, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2"Particles of energy" does not make any sense... what are particles of energy?

      Energy is a property that is conserved when we observe how things work.. it's not a "thing" or "magic stuff" that floats around out there, drifting around. It's a property.. a calculation that can be shown to be conserved in all cases.

  • vkiperman, on 08/17/2008, -2/+2Suggestion: When presenting fascinating but esoteric scientific information to -- a general audience -- keep it simple and keep it brief.

    That being said, aren't we getting hung up on human conventions when we think of "free will". In other words, we believe that we have free will (this is yet to be proven). But, what if our actions and behaviors are just the result of ancient quantum forces? That is a much harder question to accept because we fancy ourselves "free". But, even our very best attempts at behaving in a particular way are controlled by chemistry that is largely outside of our control. That is the paradox. And I think this paradox may be evident in this discovery. But, for science's sake, the conversation must be had.
  • Diggnabbit, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3I think the emphasis of the article (or at least the title) should be the other way around.

    The implication of the discovery is not that subatomic particles have "free will" in the sense of thinking and deciding what to do the way that we do, and so they're just like use. It's that what we call "free will" in human beings may be the result of random, non-determinative acts by subatomic particles. So, yes, there is randomness, which is not the same as "free will" because there's no decision-making process that goes on, but it's that randomness that allows for the decision-making process in human beings.
  • Rinxix, on 08/17/2008, -2/+0True random events may exist (and some accepted theories require that randomness exists), but I doubt free will exists. Is there even a scientific definition of free will? What's the difference between someone randomly choosing A or B and someone choosing A or B from their own "free will"?
  • Doodad, on 08/17/2008, -2/+1This isn't really news -- it's just "reductionism", and it's a naive argument at best. There is no reason that subatomic particles *have* to exhibit free will -- it could be an emergent behavior.

    For example, how ridiculous would it be to suggest that because a car has locomotion, therefore locomotion must exist in its individual parts?
    • dood, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1Would it be less naive to believe that we must have at least several subatomic particles to have free will? Or a few whole atoms? At what level does free will emerge?
      • philhatesyou, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1You're assuming free will exists. Not necessarily a good assumption.
      • dood, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1I'm not assuming anything. In fact, I don't believe that free will truly exists.
      • Doodad, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1Hilarious. You are *debating* whether you have free will.

        By the way, is a basketball made of tiny subatomic basketballs?
  • Evolutuon, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3I guess this would have something to do with particles having "free will:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experimen ...

    Matter behaving as waves? Seems unpredictable to me.
  • ommadawn, on 08/17/2008, -4/+3Come on, stop discussing stuff you have no idea about and go back to work.
  • thebrinkman, on 08/17/2008, -1/+2Just as much as we do... which is quite possibly none.
  • MadHarvey, on 08/17/2008, -2/+2Here is a relevant excerpt from waking life:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U
  • Epistaxis, on 08/17/2008, -1/+2What does it even mean for HUMANS to have free will? That our magical ethereal soul isn't constrained by the chemistry of our brains? The mind IS the brain, so it's just as silly to say we have free will as it is to say we don't.
  • fx666, on 08/17/2008, -2/+3As the famous physicist and philosopher, Niels Bohr, pointed out, the question whether a micro-particle has a free will or not is meaningless because we can predict only its future behavior, with some degree of uncertainty, but cannot determine why it behaves in certain way. In other words, this question is purely metaphysical, which excludes it from the realm of science.
    Most likely, these two mathematicians are realists (majority of the mathematicians follow the doctrine of scientific realism) and not positivists, so they jumped to erroneous conclusion, at least from a positivists point of view.
  • Synova, on 08/17/2008, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_Hears_a_Who!
  • Ziggy7273, on 08/17/2008, -2/+1I read the title as "But two highly retarded Princeton mathematicians, John Conway and Simon Kochen, claim to have proven that if humans have even the tiniest amount of free will, then atoms themselves must also behave unpredictably."

    It fit.
  • Snarfy, on 08/17/2008, -1/+2What about the uncertainty principle? You can't know position and momentum precisely simultaneously therefore you can't make 100% accurate predictions.
  • travis6690, on 08/17/2008, -2/+2"There have always been ghosts in the machine . . . random segments of code that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul..."
  • RedneckRandy, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3Free Willy!
  • wontstoptalking, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1My subatomic particles won't comply to my will. So, yess, they must have some will of their own.

    Or they're just damn lazy.
  • forceuser, on 08/17/2008, -2/+1No.
  • Ransack, on 08/17/2008, -2/+3Free will is an illusion. We are slaves to our psychology which is determined by genetics and environment.
    • Ymeg, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1For all practical purposes, free will exists.
      • Ransack, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Tell a person who is afraid of spiders to pick one up and put it in their mouth. They cant.
      • Ymeg, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Go to a judge and tell him the killer had no control of his actions.




  • LemonChicken, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1"Do subatomic particles have free will?"

    Dr. Manhattan begs to differ.
  • 12OunceMouse, on 08/17/2008, -1/+0Sounds like some Princeton mathematicians just got finished reading the His Dark Materials trilogy.
  • loki49152, on 08/17/2008, -1/+0Human "free will" doesn't require any kind of funky quantum mechanics that let mechanistic physics and chemistry "slip up" every once in a while. Consciousness - all forms of consciousness in all conscious living things - is an active relationship between that thing and the outside world. The animal's sense experience is the input, and the brain/neural system is the processor.

    What separates humans from other conscious entities is the fact that we have the ability to self-direct the focus of our conscious attention, both in terms of the subject matter and the intensity of our thought processes. We can do that because, unlike other animals, we can separate our reactions to stimuli from the experience of it. *That* is "free will".

    This concept of "free will" as "being completely unconstrained or unpredictable", and of choices as simply seelcting from a list of possibilities is fundamentally wrong.
  • CrossCanyon, on 08/17/2008, -1/+2Calvinist subatomic particles

    Y : What you're saying is God knows what we're going to do before we do it.
    e- : That's right.
    Y : It doesn't matter what I choose to do, because it's all laid out in one master plan.
    e- : Amen.
    Y : An act of free will would require unattainable power to work against that plan, infinite regress and all.
    e- : Yep.
    Y : So I just play my part.
    e- : Now all you have to figure out is whether you're for us or against us.
    Y : Against us?
    e- : Yeah.
    Y : Against what?
    e- : The wave! The wave, you bonehead. Are you going to get out and push, or what?
    Y : What if I don't?
    e- : Then you'll be pulling us back.
    Y : But . . .
    e- : But what?
    Y : What if I decided to do neither and just sit here and do nothing?
    e- : Ha ha ha. Neutrality is impossible.
    Y : Quark.
  • thecheesemonkey, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2surely a perfect illusion of free will, would be indistinguishable from actual free will, so real or an illusion it is still in fact free will. does that make sense?
  • jamessavik, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1No. The movements of particles are described by statistical methods.

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.