New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove
Ruth Kastner, PhD, is a philosopher exploring the foundations of physics. She is on the faculty of the physics department at the State University of New York at Albany. She is also a research associate at the University of Maryland. She is author of The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility and also Understanding Our Unseen World: Solving Quantum Riddles.
Here she points out that a deterministic universe implies that free will is an illusion. Many scientists hold to this view. Since quantum mechanics is founded upon Shrodinger probability waves, i.e., the psi function, she maintains that it is not a deterministic theory – and, therefore, not incompatible with free will. There is a viewpoint, known as the block world, held by many in physics that maintains that the entire history of the universe from beginning to end is predetermined and unchangeable. This viewpoint is hard to reconcile with free will.
New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in “parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is a past vice-president of the Association for Humanistic Psychology; and is the recipient of the Pathfinder Award from that Association for his contributions to the field of human consciousness. He is also past-president of the non-profit Intuition Network, an organization dedicated to creating a world in which all people are encouraged to cultivate and apply their inner, intuitive abilities.
(Recorded on August 23, 2016)
Source
Just want to say, to call 'free will' an illusion, which is what neuroscientist Sam Harris argues, is meaningless in my not so humble opinion. Let's say free will is an illusion, that it's really just a manifestation of biology. So what? How can the idea of free will as illusion be applied to our lives? It can't. It's a trivial distinction that, at best, only seems to serve ideology..or lack thereof. It's looks like science trying to re-define what free will is by calling the concept of free will false. If it isn't free will, how do I ever make a decision between 2 or more options?
To be fair, behavior can be informed by emotions and other behavior and the external world. Behavior can be impulsive, but it can also be calculated. Calculations come from the brain too, but they're not mathematical calculations.
I think it's accurate to say we have a range of freedom in our will, from impulsive to practical to purely novel. So to call behavior essentially deterministic is a leap of faith. So far science can't perfectly predict every decision every person makes. 'Free will is an illusion' is an a posteriori analysis, and it's too absolutist.
bryte symetrien ved å velge den ene
She's very bright, but at the end of the day, all we have here are assertions. "I think…", etc. Great, that's what she thinks! So what.
But the bottom up problem in panpsychism is just as hard as the "hard problem".
So, I suppose that those who believe in a block universe wouldn't consider trying to find out about the future because they couldn't change it anyway?
A time machine cannot be created because the "time arrows" do not exist (at a fundamental level, see text below), besides this the time machine hypothesis contradicts the law of causality and the second law of thermodynamics, which are essentially the result of the absence of a "time arrow" at the quantum level. But interestingly, nothing prohibits the creation of a device ("machine of the past") through which you can "view" the past. This follows logically from the fact that the past has already happened, and therefore "left a mark" (some information) in the Universe. Therefore, you need to "just create" a device that will read this information (that is, the past), and show us through the monitor. Naturally, we will not be able to change the past in this case (therefore, no laws of physics are violated), we will simply “view” the past as an ordinary film, and for this we will only need to enter coordinates and time. It will be a very useful "machine of the past" for historians, I think people would change their minds on many things :). In addition, it would very much discipline society as a whole, and politicians in particular, because essentially everything that you can do can be viewed, and there is nothing more secret :)…
Machine of the time can not be created, because there is simply no "arrow of time" in the physical, material world. Time is a human category and in reality, at a fundamental level, there is no time directed from the past into the future (“arrows of time”).
The future comes only from our actions and the efforts we have taken at the moment, and there is a future only in our imagination. There is no ready, “frozen” future for which we “swim up”, although this is how the future is portrayed in science fiction films. This logically brings us to the idea that time is an exclusively human category, and therefore time exists only in our brain, in our consciousness. A real, “physical” time does not exist, but there is a mathematical abstraction “time”, which is not badly applicable to some physical phenomena, but not to all.
If we accept that time does not exist (“arrows of time”), then the uncertainty of quantum phenomena follows from this assumption strictly and logically. If there is no time, more precisely, the “arrow of time”, then there is no law of causality, and therefore uncertainty appears at the most fundamental, that is, quantum level. And the fact that we feel time in our world should not mislead us, since our world is not fundamental. Our world is a kind of averaging of the fundamental world given to us in sensations. And therefore, our “human” time, which flows from the point t1 to the point t2, may be some kind of “averaging of the processes” taking place at the fundamental (quantum) level, or it may be an illusion created by our brain. Therefore, the non-existence of time at the quantum level is a fairly successful assumption. Since there is no time, there is no law of causality, that is, the quantum world should be probabilistic by definition (which we observe in principle).
But, it is worth noting that the non-existence of the "arrow of time" at the fundamental (quantum) level has nothing to do with the duration of the flow of various physical processes at the quantum level. Naturally, various processes at the quantum level have a certain duration, the value of which depends on the reference system in which the observer is located, which fixes this duration of the process. Further developing this thought, it is possible to show how the “arrow of time” in the human sense “forms”. To do this, consider a mental experiment.
Suppose that in the quantum world we observe a periodic process (a certain oscillation) with a certain period of the cycle. Further, in the 1st reference frame we will “see” the T1 period, in the 2nd reference frame we will see the T2 period, in the n-th reference frame we will see the Tn period. Now let's imagine the human perception of time, that is, the “arrow of time”, as a certain function, or a certain operator, which in a certain way “transforms and averages” all presented time periods from T1 to Tn (for all periodic processes of the quantum level) and output we get the "arrow of time", that is, the flow of time in one direction, from point A to point B.
Naturally, such “averaged” periodic processes at the quantum level are innumerable. Therefore, the “formation” of the “arrow of time” can be represented by the formula:
“Arrow of time” or T→ = F [Ɣ (T1, T2, T3, …Tn) * K (k1, k2, …kn)]
where the function K (or operator) displays the number of periodic processes occurring at a fundamental level.
Note also that various reference systems (from the 1-st to the n-th) and the periodic processes themselves (from k1 to kn), with “averaging and transforming”, can oscillate themselves with a certain frequency and according to a certain law.
It can be seen from the formula that human perception of time (“the arrow of time”) is “averaging and transforming” the duration of many periodic processes occurring at a fundamental level. That is, our “human time converter” sees the evolution of the Universe in this way, that is, in a human way. And if we reconfigure it, we will see a completely different evolution of the Universe, and a completely different Universe. And there is no contradiction here, since there are no “arrows of time” at the fundamental (quantum) level, but only the duration of certain cyclic processes that have no direction. Consequently, the “transformations and averaging” of such processes can be many, and therefore you can get a virtually infinite number of different “arrows of time” for our single fundamental world. And this means that in this way, we will get a virtually infinite number of different Universes, like ours (and different from it).
The hypothesis that the “arrows of time” does not exist is also confirmed by the A. Einstein's STR, since the duration of any processes in the STR depends on the reference system and can be literally any (from 0 to ∞). In addition, if the time interval has a beginning at point A and an end at point B (or we conditionally select such an interval), then strictly speaking, the beginning and the end of the Einstein's STR can be swapped, and this only depends on the choice of the frame of reference . And here again the law of causality is violated, and this again indicates that at the fundamental level the “arrows of time” do not exist, but only the duration of periodic processes. That is, there is no flow of time from the past to the future, thus time “flows” only in our brain, in our consciousness. But in reality there is only the duration of certain cyclic processes at the quantum level. Note that if these processes were not periodic, this would indicate the existence of an “arrow of time” and the appearance of causality at the quantum level, and this is not so — the quantum world is probabilistic and this is an indisputable fact.
The “arrow of time” is formed by our perception as a certain averaging of an infinite number of fundamental periodic processes. This is how our human view of the Universe and its evolution is formed. In fact, if we assume the existence of another “reasonable time transformer” (different from our human one), then this will create a different Universe and a completely different evolution of that Universe. It is remarkable that at the fundamental (quantum) level the physical world is one, and when “averaging and transforming” periodic processes depending on the “time converter”, we can get an infinite number of different universes, each of which has its own history.
This approach can also be applied to solving the Fermi paradox (that is, not detecting traces of alien civilizations): it is possible that each type of mind is a specific “time converter”. And then it turns out that each type of mind literally from a single fundamental (quantum) world creates its own “arrow of time”, that is, its own Universe with a certain evolution. That is, how many kinds of mind will be, so many universes will be, and they will not be able to contact each other in any way. In this consideration, our mind creates for us the Matrix (our “arrow of time”, our Universe) in which we exist. But it is worth remembering that our Matrix was created after all on the basis of the real, fundamental world (although it exists only in our brain). It is interesting to note that in this case Elon Musk is right: we really exist in the Matrix, but this Matrix is created by our mind based on the real quantum world. Therefore, we are not in slavery, but still in the Matrix of our consciousness. And the fundamental (quantum) world is really physically one and real, and it exists independently of our consciousness.
See more pp. 24 – 28 http://vixra.org/pdf/1904.0124v1.pdf (Quantum Theory of the Development of Science, Economic and Society).
https://qr.ae/TW8iKw
Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra): http://vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych
Volodymyr Bezverkhniy (SSRN): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm…
Volodymyr Bezverkhniy (Quora): https://www.quora.com/profile/Volodymyr-Bezverkhniy
Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (archive): https://archive.org/details/@threeelectronbond
Apes, If You want to do Physics and Understands That, You must to constraint your Imaginations to a Block Universe Existence, Inclusive, The existence of a Block Universe can hold in Itself Infinite Ape's Imaginations … But If You begin to Believe that Your Imaginations are something Transcendent to a Block Universe existence …
… Simple, You are just some Apes subjugated by a Block Universe …
Imaginary Example:
If You go to 'The edges' of a Block Universe …
… You will observe that infinite past is the infinite future … Therefore, You are in The Eternal Present not as a 'Potential Phase' instead Kinetic and Potential at The same time …
Therefore, I fYou decide to look to 'Your' local History … You will watch not only all your local history's linear path as a single entity, but you will also watch all the local history's linear paths from all the local entities sharing a local Environment connected to 'your path's experience set' …
The Illusion of Free will comes by that Environmental relationship that imagines in the others/otherness partially interdependent paths a field of possibilities and choices available … but that is just that Localized Imaginations about An – intrinsically – Non-perceptible Physical Domain excluded to the local auscultation …
Then, God let that Omniscient Task to Imaginary Maxxel's demons because to Know everything is – essentially – Eternal Boredom for The Eternal beings …
For God, Ignorance of Himself is Eternal Bliss in His own Infinite Potency …
… and Thanks to God, Your aversion to Omniscience allows Us to exist in a Contingent Pseudo-freedom 'far from' ( … and near from …) an Eternal Present but at The same Time, – practically – fused, Very near, Quasi-Identified as Embedded in That One as One more One in One …
I am not God … but as Him … I don't care at All about been Omniscient … I let that task to Maxxel's demons …
Of course, I don't believe in Demons …
… To Believe is not Required …
Did Terrance Mckenna eat cske with Ram Dass. Did Ramm dasd meet Ramana Maharshi? is mooji a direct student of papa ji? Did Papa ji hold hand with Ramana?
This was a fascinating interview. One thing that puzzles me though is the idea of a photon making a choice. I am o.k with idea of some minimal 'consciousness' for the photon (panpsychism) but I can't quite wrap my mind around it being able to choose. I know I am conscious but whether or not my consciousness is responsible for my choices is, given the determinations of character, psychology, etc., – is problematic. I will for sure be reading Ms. Kastner's book(s). (off to the library tomorrow – the prices are a little to high for my budget!)
A photon exercising free-will answers nothing about free will. All you’ve done is push the problem down a level. And the same is true of panpsychism— all you’re doing is multiplying the problem of consciousness.
I mean, I’m guessing indeterminacy is sufficient, but not necessary for free will. An event that is sheer chance is still an event that’s sheer chance. Talking about free will without giving a definition of it is as good as talking about nothing. If you have a definition of free will, then it’s just a matter of investigation— either at the empirical or subjective level— to see whether or not it’s “real”.
We live in the past, everything changes very fast.
Great! Thank you!
My head is going explode..then of course quickly eat remnants before I become unconscious, then hope to regain consciousness due to the sustenance of these vids. quote from the "Hidden A. Einstein".
Ruth is brilliant
No, no free will. It only feels you do.
Indeterminacy doesn't allow for free will. if a dice is rolled for a decision there is no choice made by the conscious agent. Our brain could be just a bunch of dice.
if we can have light be a wave and a particle, if schroedinger's cat is both dead and alive, why can't we have both free will and a determined existence? only one's belief system can provide an illusion that limits both co-existing.
Don't get me wrong, I agree entirely that scientists need to give up the notion that a block world is the only possible answer to relativity and feel almost as strongly about how the hard problem of consciousness could be solved so easily if it just took a moving present into account. But still, within a block universe how does David Lewis' Counterfactual logic not preserve free will? More than that, isn't the notion that free will is an illusion just a byproduct of mislabeling what the self is? Even if counterfactuals cannot save it, in a deterministic universe in which I'm defined through perdurance it doesn't matter whether I "could" have chosen to do something differently since the object which did the choosing is still entirely made up of myself. The fact that I couldn't have done anything to change the future doesn't mean that I didn't do everything I could to make sure that the future happens the way it will.
When it comes to free will I really can't see any scientific reason to even think about it out apart from physical/psychological issues. ie Where the line should be drawn before outside influences outweigh personal responsibility, or how much do personality, value systems, behaviours, etc have to change before someone should be considered a different person in terms of identity.
I had a thought a few days ago about block time. What if multiple future's exist and you can choose which one your consciousness should inhabit next
Is it safe to say that "the everything" is deterministic or nondeterministic – if we do not know/ can observe all the forces taking part?
I say it is a misuse of language to speak of "free will" in the abstract. When someone testifies that she voluntarily signed a legal document, a judge may conclude that she did so of her own free will. Everyone seems to know more or less what is meant.
But if the phrase "free will" is not being used in its well-understood legal context, or in any similar way, what does it refer to? This is an obvious difficulty that never seems to come up. A conversation in which the main topic remains undefined can reach no substantive conclusion.
Another problem: there can be neither verifiability nor falsifiability of the existence of free will. In that sense, free will is something we apparently can never hope to locate and study in the physical world.
I don't believe such a "thing" is a thing at all.
come on… Randomness in quantum is good reason that there is No Free Will,
I don't even know where to begin….
Perhaps Time flies like an arrow – but fruit flies like a banana
How does indeterminism (randomness) equate to free will?
The block world super deterministic view is making me think of the Oracle from The Matrix trilogy, "You've already made the choice, now you have to understand it." – That single idea is about the most comfort I can find if such a universe were true and I think the source of the ignorance idea of people trying to have their cake and eat it too. Our own ignorance allows us that sense of wonder and freedom even if it is an illusion, and if we can't tell the difference then does it even matter?
I think what should have been said, in philosophical parlance, is that indeterminacy is necessary but not sufficient for free will. True free will has more to do with the model of mind you espouse. Indeterminacy is just a prerequisite.
For block time, no one to my knowledge has ever explained how a single moving now emerges from a huge collection of static nows. That would be a neat trick. Also for block time, it's hard to see how there can be any notion of cause and effect (except possibly for the growing block model).
Jeezzz….Come on Jeffrey,,, get Tom Campbell to talk to you… MBT. His theory is right on… Come on … Free will is essential…
There is free will. While there is a past and a future but neither is fixed.
ms kastner states it well
observation reveals, it is always now
despite our experiences of feeling, memory, or precognition, we never inhabit a moment that is not now
likewise 'here'
for better and worse, we exist here/now
the innumerable tales of 'there', 'other', 'yesterday', and the like, all exist only in the imaginal; not to say that the imaginal is worthless, only that to confuse it with the phenomenal world of being (here/now) would be error
thanks again, friends, for bringing the light of intelligence to our fascinating, common circumstance
very inspiring
But we do experience time if nothing is changing..
Because we still feel something is going along if we were top sit in a room with nothing changing..
So something weird is going on there..