There is the obvious incompleteness in the description of quantum mechanics (QM). QM makes it impossible to find the right solutions for the greatest secrets of nature such as the matter-antimatter asymmetry, the origin of dark matter (DM) and dark energy, or the difference of mind and brain which leads to the origin of free will and decision making. Here we show that free will is compatible with determinism and that mind is a DM structure.
There is the obvious incompleteness in the description of quantum mechanics (QM). QM makes it impossible to find the right solutions for the greatest secrets of nature such as the matter-antimatter asymmetry, the origin of dark matter (DM) and dark energy, or the difference of mind and brain which leads to the origin of free will and decision making. Here we show that free will is compatible with determinism and that mind is a DM structure.
Since quantum mechanics (QM) was formulated, many voices have claimed this to be the basis of free will in the human beings. Basically, they argue that free will is possible because there is an ontological indeterminism in the natural laws, and that the mind is responsible for the wave function collapse of matter, which leads to a choice among the different possibilities for the body. However, I defend the opposite thesis, that free will cannot be defended in terms of QM. First, because indeterminism does not imply free will, it is merely a necessary condition but not enough to defend it. Second, because all considerations about an autonomous mind sending orders to the body is against our scientific knowledge about human beings; in particular, neither neurological nor evolutionary theory can admit dualism. The quantum theory of measurement can be interpreted without the intervention of human minds, but other fields of science cannot contemplate the mentalist scenario, so it is concluded that QM has nothing to say about the mind or free will, and its scientific explanation is more related to biology than to physics. A fatalistic or materialist view, which denies the possibility of a free will, makes much more sense in scientific terms.
The issue of whether we make decisions freely has vexed philosophers for millennia, Resolving this is vital for solving a diverse range of problems, from the physiology of how the brain makes decisions (and how we assign moral responsibility to those decisions) to the interpretation of experiments on entangled quantum particles. A deterministic model of free will is developed, based on two concepts. The first generalises the notion of initialisation of nonlinear systems where information cascades upscale from the Planck scale, exemplified by the chaology of colliding billiard balls, and featured in the author's Rational Quantum Mechanics. With `just-in-time' initialisation, such Planck-scale information is only initialised when it is needed to describe super-Planck scale evolution, and not e.g., at the time of the Big Bang. In this way determinism does not imply predestination and a system with finitely many degrees of freedom can shadow a system with infinitely many, over arbitrarily long timescales. The second concept describes the upscale control of such Planck-scale information on super-Planck scales and is illustrated by reference to stochastic rounding in numerical analysis. Using these concepts, a deterministic model is proposed whereby freely-made decisions are made by using past experiences to control the impact of noise in the low-energy brain. It is claimed that such a model has evolutionary advantages, not least preventing paralysis by analysis and encouraging rational risk taking. It is concluded that humans have free will, determinism notwithstanding. The model is applied to study the foundational issue of free choice in quantum physics experiments: it is shown that violating the Measurement Independence assumption does not invalidate the free-will conclusion above.
Abstract: The Everlasting Theory, i.e. the lacking part of ultimate theory, describes the deterministic entanglement characteristic for the Einstein-spacetime components from which the observed matter consists of. Such entanglement leads to the fundamental arrow of time. The exchanged superluminal binary systems of the closed strings, that are responsible for the entanglement, cannot be detected directly. It causes that there appear the uncertainties in the quantum mechanics and experimental data. In reality, the transition from the classical equation of motion via the Poisson brackets to the commutators and equation of motion in the Heisenberg image suggests that the more fundamental level of the quantum physics describes a classical/deterministic theory. The matter-mind asymmetry follows from the torus-circle asymmetry but the matter and the mental structures are built of the same elements i.e. of the Einstein-spacetime components. Due to the entanglement, we can show that the free will follows from the brain-mind resonance. The vibrations in a mind create the magnetic quanta that are some analog to the phonons produced in crystals. Only selected magnetic quanta can induce electric currents in the nerve systems. The freewill is a part of deterministic theory. Due to the classical/deterministic beginning of our cosmos there is obligatory the law of conservation of information. Before the inflation, the unit of time was equal to zero i.e. the space was timeless. 1.
Before Alan Turing made his crucial contributions to the theory of computation, he studied the question of whether quantum mechanics could throw light on the nature of free will. This paper investigates the roles of quantum mechanics and computation in free will. Although quantum mechanics implies that events are intrinsically unpredictable, the 'pure stochasticity' of quantum mechanics adds randomness only to decision-making processes, not freedom. By contrast, the theory of computation implies that, even when our decisions arise from a completely deterministic decision-making process, the outcomes of that process can be intrinsically unpredictable, even to-especially to-ourselves. I argue that this intrinsic computational unpredictability of the decision-making process is what gives rise to our impression that we possess free will. Finally, I propose a 'Turing test' for free will: a decision-maker who passes this test will tend to believe that he, she, or it possesses free will, whether the world is deterministic or not.
Abstract Advancements in neuroscience make the question of free will more pressing. Between physicalist positions, which largely deny free will, and libertarian views, which reject determinism, quantum mechanics initially appeared to offer a middle ground. Even though it was thought to depict a probabilistic reality allowing some degree of freedom in choices, quantum mechanics remains deterministic, albeit with stochastic results. This paper proposes an alternative where quantum mechanics still supports free will as the possibility to do otherwise within a physicalist framework. Through the manyworlds interpretation, I show how the principle of alternative possibilities can be maintained, even when both our decision-making processes and the external world follow physical laws.
Since Descartes' dualism, with his res extensa and res cogitans, six fundamental problems in the philosophy and natural history of mind are these: 1. how does mind act on matter? 2. If mind does not act on matter is mind a mere epiphenomenon? 3. What might be the source of free will? 4. What might be the source of a responsible free will? 5. Why might it have been selectively advantageous to evolve consciousness? 6. What is consciousness? I approach the first five of the above six problems based on two physical postulates. First the mind-brain system is a quantum coherent, but reversibly decohering and recohering system. This allows me to answer 1) above, mind does not act causally on brain at all, rather it acausally decohers to classicity (for all practical purposes), hence has consequences for brain and body as matter. Epiphenomenalism is averted. A quantum mind, because it is acausal on Copenhagen including Born, yields a free will, but a merely random free will, not a responsible free will. Second, the most radical part of this article proposes that the quantum classical interface is not always describable by a law: specifically in a special relativity setting, no function, F, maps the present state of the system mind-brain into its future. In its place is a nonrandom yet lawless process. I seek in this non-random yet lawless process a source for a responsible free will. Finally, if the quantum-classical boundary can be non-random yet lawless, then no algorithmic simulation of the world or ourselves can calculate the real world, hence the evolutionary selective advantages for evolving consciousness to know it may be great. I make no progress on problem 6, the hard problem of qualia.