Notes on staged free-will- ask yourself about your goals

– William James- process with two stages, chance and choice, capable of creating random alternatives, Me: what does “random” really mean here, just because we do not observe connection, it does not mean that it is the case)

-Henri Poincare-  “all the combinations are formed as a result of the automatic action of the subliminal ego, but those only which are interesting find their way into the field of consciousness… A few only are harmonious, and consequently at once useful and beautiful, and they will be capable of affecting the geometrician’s special sensibility I have been speaking of; which, once aroused, will direct our attention upon them, and will thus give them the opportunity of becoming conscious… In the subliminal ego, on the contrary, there reigns what I would call liberty, if one could give this name to the mere absence of discipline and to disorder born of chance.”, Me: subliminal ego would result in showing us the entire parameter space, hadn’t it been for its size; given its size, we are shown the more connected options; given the algo part of it, we are shown those that can be effectively tackled; given the quality of thinking of a being, a combination of all those is shown, i.e. Gauss, Euler, Poincare in the present times would still have his life focused on long-term equity values (“the learning about the black box”, which I mentioned earlier) , but his way of learning would be more effective in showing part of subliminal ego message that can be effectively exploited to learn about more explicit (high confidence level, high stat. significance) values

– Compton: amplification of quantum events, “A set of known physical conditions is not adequate to specify precisely what a forthcoming event will be. These conditions, insofar as they can be known, define instead a range of possible events from among which some particular event will occur. When one exercises freedom, by his act of choice he is himself adding a factor not supplied by the physical conditions and is thus himself determining what will occur. That he does so is known only to the person himself. From the outside one can see in his act only the working of physical law. It is the inner knowledge that he is in fact doing what he intends to do that tells the actor himself that he is free”, Me: to the best of my knowledge, this stands in no contradiction to the Novikov’s principle

– Popper: ” New ideas have a striking similarity to genetic mutations. Now, let us look for a moment at genetic mutations. Mutations are, it seems, brought about by quantum theoretical indeterminacy (including radiation effects). Accordingly, they are also probabilistic and not in themselves originally selected or adequate, but on them there subsequently operates natural selection which eliminates inappropriate mutations. Now we could conceive of a similar process with respect to new ideas and to free-will decisions, and similar things.

That is to say, a range of possibilities is brought about by a probabilistic and quantum mechanically characterized set of proposals, as it were – of possibilities brought forward by the brain. On these there then operates a kind of selective procedure which eliminates those proposals and those possibilities which are not acceptable to the mind”, Me: I don’t see anything new here, except for comparison to mutations; the very procedure of “proposal elimination” shall reveal the connected values that are most valueable to our perceived model of the world.

– Margenau: “Our thesis is that quantum mechanics leaves our body, our brain, at any moment in a state with numerous (because of its complexity we might say innumerable) possible futures, each with a predetermined probability. Freedom involves two components: chance (existence of a genuine set of alternatives) and choice. Quantum mechanics provides the chance, and we shall argue that only the mind can make the choice by selecting (not energetically enforcing) among the possible future courses”, Me: a set of alternatives and selection according to own goal function (I call it “intelligence” and represent it as a graph), all brought to us by the QME model, leaving the problem solving closed in the QME box,

-Dennett: “It takes two to invent anything. The one makes up combinations; the other one chooses, recognizes what is important to him in the mass of things which the former has imparted to him.”, Me: as noted earlier, combinations and choice based on the intelligence graph (goal function combined with intrinsic graph optimization quality)

-Kane: libertian freedom, “The reason is that the chance (“free”) part is not in the control of the agent and the “will” part is fully determined by a combination of the chance part and other determining factors, so the final choice is determined by factors, none of which the agent has control over at the time of choice. If all of our choices are determined at the time of choice that would not be libertarian freedom even if some chance events in the past were responsible for forming some of the determining factors that now determine our choice because however the determining factors were formed in the past, all of our choices would be determined when they are made.”, Me: see Novikov’s principle- what if one would not be (due to some reason) able to do things that would otherwise contradict the choices which are determined at the time of the choice

-Sedley, Long: “The evident power of the self and its volitions to intervene in the physical processes of soul and body would be inexplicable if physical laws alone were sufficient to determine the precise trajectory of every atom. Therefore physical laws are not sufficient to determine the precise trajectory of every atom. There is a minimal degree of physical indeterminism — the swerve. An unimpeded atom may at any given moment continue its present trajectory, but equally may ‘swerve’ into one of the adjacent parallel trajectories.”, Me: some even claim (loose conjectures) that we already live in the indeterministic universe, see lectures of amplituhedron; just note that if a particle decides to change the trajectory (or wlog, any state whatsoever), it either does it for a reason or there would have to exist “randomizing” spots, where indeterminism is involved, also see Eddington quoted regarding this issue by Sedley/Long: “(It may be objected that swerves are meant to be entirely uncaused; but, as E 2 shows, that was only an inference by Epicurus’ critics, made plausible by concentrating on the swerve’s cosmogonic function, cf. 11H, for there it must indeed occur at random and without the intervention of volition.)”, also notice that “uncaused” in the sense of Eddington would also itself build up a “cause”, which would then itself refer to some intrinsic mechanism shaping the universe

-Doyle: about free will

– M. Heisenberg: “Evidence of randomly generated action — action that is distinct from reaction because it does not depend upon external stimuli — can be found in unicellular organisms. Take the way the bacterium Escherichia coli moves. It has a flagellum that can rotate around its longitudinal axis in either direction: one way drives the bacterium forward, the other causes it to tumble at random so that it ends up facing in a new direction ready for the next phase of forward motion. This ‘random walk’ can be modulated by sensory receptors, enabling the bacterium to find food and the right temperature.”, i.e. some sort of random walk as stepping forward in the “uncaused” manner

Source of information:


About misha

Imagine a story that one can't believe. Hi. Life changes here. Small things only.
This entry was posted in Mathematics. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s