TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

64 点作者 gpresot大约 4 年前

25 条评论

zwkrt大约 4 年前
“That’s free will: were you to rewind the tape of world history, to the instant just before you made your decision, with everything in the universe exactly the same, you’d have been able to make a different one.”<p>Let me posit a different world view that resolved this dilemma: we live in a present moment which is always unfolding in a chaotic kaleidoscope. QM tells us as much, that we live in a world based on nonlocal probabilistic events and that we can’t ever “rewind”. Under such circumstances “free will” as conceived by a middle schooler doesn’t make sense, but determinism hardly does either.<p>Determinism brings to mind the idea of a roller-coaster-track of past-present-future. Physicists call this “eternalism”. Eternalism is great if you are calculating how a ball will behave at time t when thrown in a parabolic arc, but I really do believe that time t+1 and time t-1 doesn’t actually “exist”. We remember the past like ripples in a pond remembering the rock that fell in. We anticipate the future based on patterns we have stored up. But it hardly makes sense to say that the future is determined by the past other than to say that our concept of a future is informed by our ability to make inferences from the ephemeral memories we call “the past”.<p>Like most philosophical problems we let words get in the way of reality. “Could have done otherwise” sounds like a statement of fact but we only ever use it to express our own every-day thought experiments, or to express desire. “He could have taken a shorter route.” “She could have been nicer to me.” In reality neither thing happened differently because &#x2F;now&#x2F; is when everything happens and we only get one shot. And that’s the crux of it to me. Talk of free will is mostly just anxiety over having made the right actions in the moment or not when mulling it over later. Certainly we have no future fate since the present has inflexible probability baked into it.
Shaddox大约 4 年前
I guess this explains why I feel so trapped. Like a pawn to my own circumstances.<p>To live life is to live in servitude. I&#x27;m a slave to my own needs of bread, water and circus. To supply this never-ending need I must serve someone else too. I must serve the needs of my family as well : they want and expect things out of me too. So where does that leave me? A never-ending cycle of busy-bodying. I can&#x27;t even get mad or push back anymore. To what end? I&#x27;m simply a spectator to my own fate which unravels before me. If it wasn&#x27;t me, it would have been someone else. Since it wasn&#x27;t someone else, therefore, it has to be me. I am just a replaceable cog, but this cog still needs to be put to use in a machine.<p>This made me realize death is the true gift of God to mankind. An end to our seemingly never-ending drudgery.
评论 #26953667 未加载
评论 #26953753 未加载
评论 #26953653 未加载
coldtea大约 4 年前
&gt;<i>“That’s free will: were you to rewind the tape of world history, to the instant just before you made your decision, with everything in the universe exactly the same, you’d have been able to make a different one.”</i><p>Huh? Why?<p>Shouldn&#x27;t it be the opposite?<p>As much as I have a personal will, I will continue to will the same thing if we replay the situation -- all other things being exactly the same.<p>I don&#x27;t chose something at random. I express who I am, based on my life story in space time.<p>To make a light example, if I&#x27;m a person who prefers Big Macs over Chinese, I will pick a Bic Mac if I&#x27;m asked to make such a decision, no matter how many times we rewind and replay the universe state.<p>Free will is not about me suddenly picking some random alternative. How would that ever express who I am (and thus, my, _my_ personal will?).<p>What&#x27;s &quot;free&quot; about this free will since its inexorably tied to my space-time history? Well, it&#x27;s exactly the fact that it&#x27;s my space-time history, and can&#x27;t be altered based on some external factor.<p>It&#x27;s not &quot;free&quot; as in arbitrarily changeable, but free as in &quot;expressing me and only me&quot; (that is: my space-time history who made me what I am).
评论 #26972986 未加载
评论 #26966450 未加载
评论 #26967626 未加载
评论 #26961906 未加载
dusted大约 4 年前
I&#x27;ve always done what I did because, while other options existed for my agency to persue, I didn&#x27;t chose them, I chose what I did, and so at that time, was the only possible choice I could make, obviously, since it was what I made, it was what my entire life here on earth had set me up to chose <i>continues arguing around the same cirle forever</i><p>Quantum theory is probably not going to save us from this, even if it at some point is fully and entirely proven and understood in a grand unified field theory. Even if something is not deterministic, does not mean that the thing is &quot;will&quot; or even a part of it.<p>Even on a macroscopic scale we can have unpredictable events, at least practically unpredictable ones, which can change our behavior, but that&#x27;s just it, external events chainging our internal state. For all I know, a high energy particle may once every so often hit one of my synapses, changing its chargs just-so, making me decide to opt for the smaller menu at Mc.Donalds.
rewgs大约 4 年前
I think it&#x27;s pretty obvious that free will is an illusion.<p>No matter what, every action -- even if that action is somehow clearly defined as an act of free will (I guess the &quot;classic&quot; example being one of rebellion or a wholly unexpected action) -- springs from a cause. That cause has its own cause. And so and on and so forth, until you pass the barrier between what we call consciousness and what we call organic hardware and pass into the realm of the (currently) measurable and predictable.<p>Just as a technology, sufficiently advanced, appears to be magic, so then does a complexity, sufficiently complex, appear to be something other than what it is. I bet everyone on HN a Coke that Consciousness will one day be understood than to be nothing more than a whole lot of complexity masquerading as something more. Ditto for any concept of free will within the universe, though I suppose that&#x27;d be a whole hell of a lot more harder to prove ;)<p>Free will simply does not exit, no matter how complex reality is or brains are.<p>Side-note: while they&#x27;re pretty bad movies over all, the Matrix sequels summed this concept up pretty will with the whole idea of the One being essentially the free will machine of the Matrix, the &quot;Integral Anomaly&quot; -- essentially baked-in variety&#x2F;novelty&#x2F;choice&#x2F;etc, which is still no less part of the machine itself. Just as a random number generator function returns a random number, it&#x27;s still <i>programmed</i> to do it.
评论 #26971603 未加载
AndrewDucker大约 4 年前
A lot of these discussions start off badly by not agreeing a definition of Free Will.<p>It&#x27;s a really really nebulous phrase, and that frequently leads to people talking past each other.<p>This comic illustrates things quite nicely: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scienceandtheology.wordpress.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;01&#x2F;28&#x2F;dilbert-on-free-will-and-determinism&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scienceandtheology.wordpress.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;01&#x2F;28&#x2F;dilbert-...</a>
unknown_apostle大约 4 年前
I personally find it highly likely that the decision mechanism emerges from physical computation in the brain.<p>However, when we talk about decision mechanisms, we inevitably introduce the question of whether this decision mechanism can work better or worse.<p>“Free will” may be seen as a computational notion of “health” for this decision mechanism, similar to how we use the term health for our physical bodies. A free will is a healthy will, in the sense that our decision mechanism is not broken by e.g. drugs, electrodes or mental illness.<p>Second, many people, myself included, hold the assumption that the ordering between options A and B is not purely subjective. If there exists an ordering of options which is objective and external to the agent of choice, then the choices that are actually made can be compared to that external ordering. Free will in this sense denotes the observation that our choices may reflect an ordering which is significantly different from the ordering imposed by reality. This is not a scientific claim and cannot be disproven scientifically. Holding this assumption is in fact a choice.
评论 #26953849 未加载
评论 #26960920 未加载
评论 #26963623 未加载
anvandare大约 4 年前
Things either have a cause, and then they are causal. Or they have no cause, and then they are random.<p>But in the opinions of some, the laws of physics stop at the neck, beyond which things are neither causal nor non-causal nor random nor non-random but &#x27;free&#x27;. Whatever that might mean. (Apparently it&#x27;s some sort of unmoving mover which moves itself and interacts with the universe without being interacted upon by the universe.)
评论 #26960804 未加载
PeterWhittaker大约 4 年前
I&#x27;m surprised at an article on free will that mentions neither Skinner nor Kahnemann. Skinner&#x27;s studies on behaviourism and operational conditioning led him to question free will in quite a dramatic fashion - in some ways I think akin to how Darwin was able to reason from &quot;reproduction with modification&quot; to evolution, without ever having a mechanism for modification in mind (gene theory came along much later).<p>More recent studies of cognition and reaction have provided some of the counter-mechanisms, the things we do without deciding to do them, such as reflex arcs (the mechanism in action that causes us to withdraw our hands from something hot before our brains have realized it was hot, e.g.,), and, more importantly for the free-will discussion, Kahnemann&#x27;s (and Tversky)&#x27;s two-systems model.<p>The basic idea of that model is that our body and brain do a lot of prefiltering, dealing with much of what we encounter and manage without ever involving the conscious mind. Think of driving on a familiar, quiet road. You never think about it, you might not even be aware of much of the drive, but you drove safely.<p>That &quot;fast&quot;, low-energy-requirement system only flags things to the conscious mind - the slow, high-energy-system that we identify as ourselves - when it cannot make sense of what it encounters or when there are surprising happenings.<p>The workings of the fast (aconscious) system are inaccessible to the slow (conscious) system.<p>So we have within us a system that decides a great deal without our being involved, at least not consciously, and that only presents for our conscious consideration things it needs help with.<p>We make conscious, free-will-like decisions, based on filtered and reduced information. How free is that, really?<p>Of course, the definition of consciousness is a question all its own.
评论 #26965169 未加载
dotsam大约 4 年前
As we can&#x27;t train ourselves *not* to see an optical illusion (even if we know it is an illusion), I think we&#x27;re also stuck with the experience of free will, even if we conclude it is an illusion. But like illusions, we can use our knowledge, rather than our experience, to guide our response to the illusion. Revising the criminal justice system would be a good outcome, and I am glad to see this mentioned!
amriksohata大约 4 年前
Material nature, although allowing us only a limited choice, deludes us into thinking we are completely free. But our freedom is like that of a prisoner who has the privilege to choose between a first-, second-, or third-class prison cell. He has three choices, but in all cases he is still in prison. Like a prison, the three modes of nature restrict our original free will. The instinctive sense of free will that we now feel is factual, but it is only partially realized.<p>Our destiny in this material world is determined by a combination of our partial free will and the three modes of material nature. According to our previous karma, we are destined to face certain situations in this life. In those situations we have a certain amount of freedom to choose how we want to react. Once we choose, we come under the control of the mode associated with our choice, and we are obliged to accept the consequences, be they happy or miserable.<p>Fate and free will, as described in the Bhagavad-gita, are analogous to the relationship between the state, the law-abiding citizen, and the criminals in prison. A citizen is considered free only if he obeys the laws of the state. If he breaks the law, he goes to jail. A prisoner may enjoy limited freedom to choose between reading a book or writing a letter: between Jell-0 or ice-cream for dessert; between work in the barber shop or in the kitchen. But he is not free to abandon the prison altogether. By comparison, the free citizen is in a better position, but both are controlled by the law. Practically, the only unconditioned exercise of their free will is in their decision to choose between being a good citizen or a criminal.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.krishna.com&#x2F;fate-free-will-and-you" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.krishna.com&#x2F;fate-free-will-and-you</a>
fallingfrog大约 4 年前
“Were free will to be shown to be nonexistent – and were we truly to absorb the fact – it would “precipitate a culture war far more belligerent than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution”, Harris has written.“<p>I guarantee you that nobody outside of a tiny group of academics would care at all. The only reason that people care about evolution is that they feel insulted at being called monkeys. Call them mammals instead and you’ll get no response, because it doesn’t trigger the same emotional reaction. Call them animals, they’ll protest. Call them vertebrates, shrug. There’s no logic involved. People just react to the connotation of what an “animal” or an “ape” is and then rationalize that reaction after the fact. If you just the word “hominids” instead of apes they wouldn’t care. People are idiots, it takes years of training to be able to think the way a scientist does.<p>Free will is an airy abstraction. Nobody cares about that. Only someone like Harris could possibly think they would.
评论 #26963695 未加载
monkeycantype大约 4 年前
You want to make me cringe? remind me that I got into an email conversation on my theory on this topic with an internet stranger and it turned out that person&#x27;s name was daniel dennett, who I would assume assumed that I knew who he was and that I was an internet fan boy.<p>I&#x27;m not a philosopher, I didn&#x27;t even know who daniel dennet was, so while certain that my view was covered somewhere long before I was born, I wouldn&#x27;t know which century, but would guess all of them.<p>I am the deterministic set of operations and coefficients that calculates my choice. My will is not caged by a deterministic universe, the deterministic universe is the the constraint ensures my choice is the true reflection of who I am, the true has of the private key of my character. A quantum magic spinny wheel doesn&#x27;t liberate me, it would undermine the integrity of my choice.
评论 #26960813 未加载
评论 #26953995 未加载
RGamma大约 4 年前
Well true (small scale) randomness, combinatorial explosion and intractable complexity&#x2F;chaos do exist, which should be plenty to keep things interesting even in the face of considerable behavioral determinism.<p>Better to replace <i>free will</i> with <i>sense of agency</i>.
taffronaut大约 4 年前
I found that playing Rock, Paper, Scissors against an AI opponent demonstrated at least to me that I was not even able to make what I thought were random choices. The only way I could hold the AI to a draw was by using an external source of random numbers.
评论 #26954176 未加载
StanislavPetrov大约 4 年前
&gt;“This sort of free will is ruled out, simply and decisively, by the laws of physics,” says one of the most strident of the free will sceptics, the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne.<p>This sort of hubris is astounding. It boggles the mind that a &quot;scientist&quot; could make such a definitive statement when there is so much we don&#x27;t understand about physics, and the universe(s?) in general.
uniqueid大约 4 年前
From what I understand of the Many-Worlds Theory, if it&#x27;s correct, we can have both &#x27;free will&#x27; and &#x27;determinism&#x27;: a man orders pizza, in 90% of possible futures he chooses a Margherita which is his favorite, but in 10% he orders something else.
评论 #26954181 未加载
评论 #26954015 未加载
RHSman2大约 4 年前
“Nevertheless, the free will problem is really depressing if you take it seriously. It hasn’t made me happy, and in retrospect, if I were at graduate school again, maybe a different topic would have been preferable.”<p>Well, he couldn’t....
usgroup大约 4 年前
I think self consciousness is the sticking point for a mechanical or probabilistic universe. It exists. It eludes quantifiable definition. It makes no sense in a mechanism. It is central to free will.
评论 #26953818 未加载
评论 #26963704 未加载
LargoLasskhyfv大约 4 年前
BS! Free will emerges from the accumulation of checksum errors in the file system of the quantum foam storage of the Akashic Records. Because bit rot is universal, regardless of the substrate information is stored, computed, running on, and in.<p>(Eat this!)
bryanrasmussen大约 4 年前
is the clockwork universe provable?
评论 #26953296 未加载
_y5hn大约 4 年前
Free will is inevitable.
评论 #26953281 未加载
评论 #26953275 未加载
评论 #26953955 未加载
hypertele-Xii大约 4 年前
WILL, a kind of abstract but measurable power. We don&#x27;t know exactly what it is, where it is contained, or how it works, but we can intuitively point to somewhere in our world and say, &quot;that person has lots of willpower&quot; or, &quot;that action required lots of willpower to pull off&quot;. So it&#x27;s defined about as well as <i>consciousness</i> is at the moment.<p>FREE is a loaded word; It can mean free as in <i>no cost</i>, or free as in <i>without restriction</i>. These are interrelated; Restrictions increase cost. Resources diminish restrictions. But no action in the universe is completely without cost nor restriction.<p>Even when you generate power you&#x27;re not creating it from nothing, you&#x27;re <i>extracting it</i> from one form into another, more usable to you. After use it transforms into yet another, waste form, economically unviably unusable to you personally, but not any kind of &quot;absolute waste&quot;. One being&#x27;s waste is another&#x27;s food.<p>Even the most powerful systems in the known universe are subject to restrictions of the physical laws. Humans have long theorized the existence of god(s), systems that transcend all limitations. But they have never been observed scientifically. Every system previously thought &quot;ultimate&quot; in any way has been discovered to be a measurable part of our universe. Currently the most &quot;ultimate&quot; thing challenging our comprehension are black holes. Compare them to god(s): They cannot be seen directly. They are the most powerful things we think might exist. They affect everything around them. We know almost nothing about them, besides how they affect the universe.<p>So then what is FREE WILL? We can intuitively point to instances of it, and it seemes to be some kind of power that facilitates change in the universe. Humans seem to have more of it than other animals, on the basis that we&#x27;ve changed our world in more numerous and complex ways than any other animal. It might be an energy source we can draw from, like the Sun or black holes. Something we&#x27;re not sure where it&#x27;s coming from, yet. Once we discover the exact nature of it, what revelations about our universe might we achieve?<p>Consider that at one point in the evolutionary history of life on this planet, the Sun was this magical, invisible, distant, ambient energy that some organisms learned to harness with a process later named photosynthesis. Plants probably <i>still</i> don&#x27;t understand the nature of the Sun, but their proliferation of the surface has allowed us to thrive and understand it. And for most of our civilized history we only knew it&#x27;s a cyclic point energy source that makes everything go more alive when there&#x27;s enough of it, and increasingly dead when there&#x27;s too much of it.<p>Is the Sun an illusion? Of course not. Is free will an illusion? Of course not. We just don&#x27;t know what it is, yet.
dlkf大约 4 年前
&gt; A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist.<p>This isn&#x27;t _new_, this &quot;chorus&quot; has existed for so long that it used to be referred to exclusively as a &quot;khoros.&quot; Secondly, it&#x27;s totally embarrassing that the matter isn&#x27;t considered settled. The standard argument against free will is sound. The closest thing to an objection you&#x27;ll see is people moving the goalposts so far that we are talking about something else.
评论 #26953600 未加载
评论 #26953661 未加载
评论 #26953662 未加载
评论 #26953497 未加载
apienx大约 4 年前
&gt; _A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. Could they be right?_<p>Most likely not. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...</a>