Bell’s Theorem – Is Everything Predetermined?

[Christopher O'Brien]

[Is everything predetermined or is there such a thing as 'free will?' And what are the implications of this question when examining the nature of consciousness? Good article! —chris]

Article HERE:

Is quantum entanglement real? When two photons are created at the same time, and then separated over some distance, are they still mysteriously in touch with each other, so that what one photon does affects what the other photon does — instantaneously?

The concept was first quantified by Bell in his 1964 paper, and known as Bell’s Theorem. It has since been demonstrated by many experiments, those of James Clauser and Alain Aspect. But many sceptics remain to be convinced, feeling that there must be some loophole. Something overlooked in the experimental setup may be “tipping off” one photon so that it knows ahead of time what the other photon is about to do. For example, hidden variables, such as suggested by David Bohm, could allow particles to communicate instantaneously with each other over large distances.

Why does this matter? Because at the heart of Bell’s theorem is the concept of super-determinism; the issue of whether free will exists or whether it is only an illusion. Perhaps the photon entanglement can be explained in a non-local way as a result of determinism. Bell stated the problem in a 1985 interview on BBC.

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behaviour, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the ‘decision’ by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be. REST OF ARTICLE HERE:​

 

[marduk]

Kinda.

What it really states is that you can't reconcile classical newtonian physics with quantum mechanics. In classical physics, there are variables to describe motion, states, events, etc... one early thought about QM was that it was really classical physics, but we just couldn't see the variables.

It's most likely not deterministic - if you look at QM itself and it's reliance on statistics and hard limits like the uncertainty principle - there's a lot of randomness built in.

One (unlikely) solution to Bell's theorem is the many worlds hypothesis. In the MWH, wave collapse essentially doesn't happen - it splits universes. Which is a pretty weird idea. I'm sure there are others.

 

[Randall]

Is everything predetermined or is there such a thing as'free will?

The answer to the question of free will is at least partly dependent on how it is defined, and there are multiple interpretations. Depending on one's viewpoint, whether randomness exists or not can make no difference to the answer. In the usual interpretation e.g. that we literally have the ability to consciously predetermine whatever future we want, free will is largely a delusion of those who fail to see the reality of their place in the universe. For those who are a little more discerning, free will exists to the extent that even if we can't realize the choices we make, we can at least conceptualize and attempt them.

Others like myself see free will as entirely illusory because all our choices and concepts are formed unconsciously. Therefore forming conscious choices is impossible. However even unconsciously formed choices still gives us agency as individuals. That agency gives us an illusion of free will analogous to surfing on the great ocean of reality. It is vast and deep and we only see the thin surface over which we glide. We may see our ability to navigate along the wave as an expression of free will, but most of our actions are reflexive, and we are incapable of changing the direction of the wave. At the end of each day, as the wave collapses we inevitably come to the end of our ride.

The next day we wake up and start a new ride. Depending on how well we did the day before, and what has changed in the world while we're sleeping, our starting point will be some distance further down the beach. We see this either as progress or as a setback. Which one depends on our attitude about it and which reality we're surfing ...

​

 

[marduk]

The answer to the question of free will is at least partly dependent on how it is defined, and there are multiple interpretations. Depending on one's viewpoint, whether randomness exists or not can make no difference to the answer. In the usual interpretation e.g. that we literally have the ability to consciously predetermine whatever future we want, free will is largely a delusion of those who fail to see the reality of their place in the universe. For those who are a little more discerning, free will exists to the extent that even if we can't realize the choices we make, we can at least conceptualize and attempt them.

Others like myself see free will as entirely illusory because all our choices and concepts are formed unconsciously. Therefore forming conscious choices is impossible. However even unconsciously formed choices still gives us agency as individuals. That agency gives us an illusion of free will analogous to surfing on the great ocean of reality. It is vast and deep and we only see the thin surface over which we glide. We may see our ability to navigate along the wave as an expression of free will, but most of our actions are reflexive, and we are incapable of changing the direction of the wave. At the end of each day, as the wave collapses we inevitably come to the end of our ride.

The next day we wake up and start a new ride. Depending on how well we did the day before, and what has changed in the world while we're sleeping, our starting point will be some distance further down the beach. We see this either as progress or as a setback. Which one depends on our attitude about it, and perhaps, which reality we're surfing ...

​

I think the answer is both - we have free will and we don’t.

A lot of what we do is based on instinct, context, our inherent physicality, etc. I didn’t decide to be born as a human in the era I was born into, etc. So my choice is limited.

However I do think we make decisions at times based logic, reason, desire, or just for the hell of it. Those things have an internal logic to them and in the law of large numbers perspective, probably shake out statistically.

But in the moment they are my decision.

Just like gambling. You’re going to lose to the house if you play long enough, but you might squeak some decisions out here and there to make you money in the short term.

Think also of random nuclear decay. Over the long term it happens very precisely, but you cannot determine instant by instant what is going to happen. And that’s the sweet spot for free will.

 

[marduk]

This was also a good book on the subject if I remember correctly - read it years ago:
Freedom Evolves - Wikipedia

Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions might be pre-determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. Free will, seen this way, is about freedom to make decisions without duress (and so is a version of Kantian positive practical free will, i.e., Kantian autonomy), as opposed to an impossible and unnecessary freedom from causality itself. To clarify this distinction, he uses the term 'evitability' (the opposite of 'inevitability'), defining it as the ability of an agent to anticipate likely consequences and act to avoid undesirable ones. Evitability is entirely compatible with, and actually requires, human action being deterministic. Dennett moves on to altruism, denying that it requires acting to the benefit of others without gaining any benefit yourself. He argues that it should be understood in terms of helping yourself by helping others, expanding the self to be more inclusive as opposed to being selfless. To show this blend, he calls such actions 'benselfish', and finds the roots of our capacity for this in the evolutionary pressures that produced kin selection. In his treatment of both free will and altruism, he starts by showing why we should not accept the traditional definitions of either term.

 

[Randall]

I think the answer is both - we have free will and we don’t. A lot of what we do is based on instinct, context, our inherent physicality, etc. I didn’t decide to be born as a human in the era I was born into, etc. So my choice is limited. However I do think we make decisions at times based logic, reason, desire, or just for the hell of it. Those things have an internal logic to them and in the law of large numbers perspective, probably shake out statistically. But in the moment they are my decision. Just like gambling. You’re going to lose to the house if you play long enough, but you might squeak some decisions out here and there to make you money in the short term. Think also of random nuclear decay. Over the long term it happens very precisely, but you cannot determine instant by instant what is going to happen. And that’s the sweet spot for free will.

I think I'll respond to this one over coffee in the not too distant future.