Revisiting Quantum Mechanics and Free Will

In my last post, I made some rather broad claims regarding the nature of the universe and determinism.  I'd like to go into a little bit of that more deeply.

From Quantum Mechanics, we know that with all of the smallest particles, we cannot determine their location and velocity exactly. Instead, we can only say with what probability they will be in a location or have such a velocity.

For the purposes of this argument, let's presuppose that there are no hidden variables that determine location that we can't identify. Instead, let's assume at the most basic level, this universe is inherently probilistic.

Now, let's recover Laplace's Demon.  Remember that the demon is defined as some extra-universal entity which has perfect knowledge of every particle in the universe at a single moment in time. Also, the demon has unlimited computing power and our current level of knowledge of quantum mechanics.

In this case, the Demon cannot say what the universe will look like in the next period of time.  Instead, he can calculate all of the infinitely possible next states of the universe, and the probablitity of each of them occurring.  Now suppose that he calculates the next states of the universe from that set of states, and so on until the end of time.  Here is the essential question: can anything happen in the universe that would not appear in the Demon's model of the universe?

I do not see how it could.  But how does this apply to Free Will?

Let us suppose that our theory of the mind is physicalism and functionalism (note: they are not mutually exclusive).  Physicalism is the philosophy that only physical things exist. In Philosophy of Mind, it states that a mind is a physical thing in all aspects.  For humans, this means that a mind is solely the brain and whatever other neural connections attached to it.  Functionalism is the idea that minds are defined by their functional roles, e.g. if some computer's circuitry mimics human vision processing perfectly, on a mental level, there is no way to distinguish the two.

From these definitions and my previous assertion that only things calculated by my expanded Laplace's Demon can happen in this universe, the only viable conclusion is that every mental action, every thought, can be predicted by the Demon.  Which means everything is determined, free will cannot exist.

When I say "free will,"I mean the ability to make choices free from constraints.  But since all mental thoughts are constrained by the physical, and the physical is determined (or at the very least, predictable, which amounts to the same thing), then our entire mental lives are determined.

Of course, Laplace's Demon cannot exist due to the boundary constraints of the universe.  Quite simply, any machine with its predictive power would require more particles than the entire universe and it would take longer to compute than the age of the universe.

Yes, Zach Weiner not only can make the same argument I can in a more concise form, but can also make it into a sex joke at the same time.  Go read his comic. SMBC-Comics.com

Free will could only exist if mental activity was immaterial or in a separate universe from this one where physics works differently.  To illustrate this concept, imagine a game of World of Warcraft. Even if you knew the entire programming code of the game, you would not be able to predict the actions of the players' avatars because their actions are dependent on what the players do, and the players are entities not described or constrained by the programming.

So should we check out now because everything that can happen, will happen, and that's that?  Not quite.  Because we know that Laplace's Demon cannot exist, any predictive models we develop will have a certain inherent inaccuracy.  To extend the metaphor used above, even if our model is the game's programming, there are still the elements(the players at home) that we can't know.

This means that when we construct models on decision making and behavior (and from that, some of cognitive science, all of economics, and all of political philosophy),  we need to try to account for as man variables as possible while still acknowledging that there are errors being made.  We need to assume everyone has free will while simultaneously acknowledging that they don't.

Due to the obvious contradiction above, I foresee numerous debates involving which variables can be accurately measured and predicted (and with what precision and accuracy), and from those debates, the relative strengths and weaknesses of different models. However, as long as everyone involved in those debates is relying on this same philosophical framework, I think the disagreements that will arise can be handled amicably and with careful acknowledgement of where the differing viewpoints come from.

Hopefully, these past two posts help place all of my other posts in a more understandable framework, and my intention is for all claims I make on this blog in regards to economics and political philosophy to be in basic accordance with this structure.

A Philosophical Overview: Rationalism to Empiricism to Determinism to the Lack of Free Will and Back Again

This post marks an attempt at explaining my underlying philosophical view.  As the title implies, it will set forth a logical progression from Cartesian rationalism to the currently accepted view of empiricism to determinism (or a variant thereof) to my belief that free will does not exist, explaining along the way why I believe what I do.

From the very beginning, the only thing I can know with any certainty is that I exist.  I think, therefore I am (Cogito, ergo sum - Descartes).  But in what way do I exist?  Am I a brain inside a human body?  Am I, like in the movie the Matrix, floating inside a machine, this entire universe an illusion electrically fed into my brain?  Am I a lunatic locked in an asylum, completely unaware that this entire universe is a figment of my imagination?

All of these are possibilities, and there is no way for me to determine with any certainty which is true.  What is true, though, is that the physical laws in this universe/matrix/my imagination are consistent.  I pick up my book, let go, and it falls to my desk. Gravity constantly pulls on me, and I cannot deny it.  Water boils in strict accordance with temperature and air pressure.

Therefore, as long as this universe (or matrix or imagination) continues to exist in this form, I am willing to accept all things that can be empirically shown as true for this universe. But which hypotheses should I accept and reject when it comes to explaining this universe? Is gravity some force that drags all masses together, or is it a secret army of leprechauns that runs around holding everything down? Fucking magnets, how do they work?  Here is where I apply Occam's Razor.  The simplest hypothesis that accounts for all results is the one that I'll accept as true.

Granted, I cannot perform every single experiment and rediscover all of science just to satisfy my own questions on truth and certainty, so I also accept as true discoveries that are made and presented to me with sufficient evidence.  If a peer reviewed paper says it, I'll consider it. If nearly everyone is in agreement with it, I'll accept it.  For a lack of a better way of saying it, I'll accept the status quo unless I have very strong evidence not to.

My physics is a bit dodgy, so humor any mistakes I make in this next paragraph.  From this view, I believe the universe is composed of matter and energy.  Let us assume that Laplace's Demon can exist.

For those of you unaware of Laplace's Demon, read the following illustration.  Imagine a tiny box. Imagine that, just for an instant, you know with perfect certainty the exact location and velocity of every particle in that box (this violates Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle,  but just make the assumption for the purposes of this experiment).  Furthermore, you know there is no way for anything to enter or escape the box: no light, no heat, no tunneling little mouse, nothing.  With the knowledge you have and sufficient computing power, can you extrapolate from the data you have of that one instant the location and velocity of every particle from then until the end of time?  Now imagine this box contains the entire universe, wouldn't that imply that the entire universe is predictable?

The counter to this is that the at a very small level, particles are not deterministic, but probabilistic.  That there is a 90% chance a particle may be in one spot and 10% chance in another, and there is no way to know, even with perfect knowledge, which is true.  Even then, with sufficient computing power (exponentially more than required in the example above), Laplace's Demon could calculate every single one of the quickly growing towards infinite possibilities.

If every conceivable possibility for the universe could be thus calculated, that has some interesting implications.  The first is that nothing happens at random: everything has a clear precedent and cause.  From that, we can conclude that as our science advances, we can create predictive models with more and more precision, though never with perfect certainty (again, it's impossible to know the exact location and energy of every particle).

The second, and in my opinion, more interesting implication is that there is no free will.  If every possible universe can be calculated complete with all of their particles and energies, then all possible compositions of thinking matter can be calculated.  Since our minds are physical objects (yes, yes, I know Philosophy of the Mind is an entire field of philosophy. So is epistemology, yet I'm going to skim over those entire fields with just a few words), we can conclude that all thoughts are a result of physical interactions.

Your mind is the firing and functioning of a set of neurons.  These neurons are activated by a series of physical events; the chemistry of your brain, the input coming in from various external factors, etc.  Change just some of these factors, and your thoughts will be different.  The end result is that we have no actual control over our thoughts, they are all result of our initial state and all of the experiences we have had since then.

The result of this is that economics, psychology, cognitive science, etc eventually all belong in the natural sciences, and that once they are developed to a certain point, they will be.

But this lack of free will has the implication that my original premise, the fundamental axiom of my entire philosophy, "I think, therefore I am," is instead "I am, therefore I am."

Short version of this entire post: the universe exists. Unless it doesn't.

Inevitability of Regulation

Yesterday, I was playing rugby in a tournament held a couple hours away.  The tournament was organized from the ground up by the players who were there.  Teams paid a few hundred bucks to the club organizing it for the tent and the permit to play and all that fun stuff.

On the field, the games were refereed by former players.  All the players knew the rules and deferred to whichever call the refs made, even if the refs were particularly bad.  Watching this, and playing in it as well, the thought occurred to me how regulation is inevitable.

Let me take a step back.  There is a lot of political rhetoric these days about how the government is infringing on the free market and how there should be less regulation or, coming from the other end, how the free market is screwing the common joe and there should be more regulation.  I'd like to present the idea that current government regulation, and whatever minute changes in it occur, are the products of the free market.

To illustrate this example, let us imagine a single industry: the food processing industry.  Let us all imagine, for our purposes, that we live in a libertarian paradise and there is no government regulation or FDA or any of that.  There are solely the food processing companies, competing against one another, and the consumers.  Now, the food processing companies wish to make as much money as possible doing as little work as possible (as we all do).  Therefore, they will take whatever options they can to make their production cheaper.

Likewise, the consumers want as much as possible for as little as possible.  Let's say that all companies currently have equal market share, and all produce one product, Food, which they all produce and sell for the same price.  Let's say Company A realizes that if they add a little sawdust to Food,  they can sell it for less while still making more money than Company B.  Unfortunately, sawdust in Food causes roughly one in a thousand consumers to have horribly scratchy throats and start coughing blood.

Company A doesn't want their consumers to know this, rightly assuming that it may scare some consumers off.  So, they don't anyone, but they do lower their price.  Company A starts gaining market share.  As it happens, 0.01% of their consumers get pissed off when they start coughing blood, and they start buying from Company B.  However, this is not enough to stem the tide of consumers heading to Company A, so Company B starts a marketing campaign, accusing Company A of child slavery through television ads, radio ads, and well-funded whisper campaigns, while at the same time finding that they can totally cost cuts by reducing work place safety.  Company A retaliates through their own combination of cutting costs and marketing, and meanwhile the quality of Food is going down this whole time.

Consumers, fed up with the lying bullshit being fed to them, as well as the actual bullshit that both companies now include in Food to make it cheaper, decide they're going to form a consumer coalition that looks into the production of Food done by both companies as well as how they treat their workers.  Of course, there's the trouble of financing this coalition, and at first it's done by whoever has signed up for this group, but as the group grows in size, and the information it produces starts leaking out to everyone anyways, people find they can still benefit without paying their dues.

At this point, the consumers have a regulatory body without any funding, so the next step is pretty natural.  Everyone pays their share for this coalition, or they face the wrath of an angry mob.  And now we have a de-facto government complete with taxes and an army (in this case a lynch mob).

Society and people crave a certain amount of order within their lives.  It's a good that everyone is willing to pay for, as evidenced by the fact that we do.  It is similar to a rugby game. Sure, it can be played without a ref, but there's a certain point where it gets so messy with players policing themselves that a ref is decided upon and all defer to his decisions, even when they might be wrong, because slightly unfair play is better than anarchic play.

As a corollary, when the ref sucks and everyone on the field agrees (or even just a significant number agrees), we get rid of the ref and replace him.  Same should be so with government, hence the attraction(though not always the result) of democracy.

When the play gets messy, the field selects a ref. When trade gets messy, the market creates a government.