Free Will & Quantum

It is natural to suspect that those who evoke the Quantum at every turn are a bit deranged. Has a Quantum obsession replaced God? God died, but not the need to obsess? (Dominique Deux made a wry remark in that direction.)

Nietzsche himself is an example. Having “killed” (his father’s) “God“, Nietzsche obsessed about the (Indian based) “Eternal Return of the Same”, something from the Zeitgeist. Henri Poincare’ soon demonstrated some dynamical systems roughly do this (although I certainly do not believe all Solar Systems will; recent observations have confirmed my hunch: many Solar Systems are very unstable, the Sun-Jupiter harmony may be rare…)

Quasar & Host Galaxy [NASA-ESA Hubble]

Quasar & Host Galaxy [NASA-ESA Hubble]

[The picture, from 1996, is poor, as the Quasar is very far. We need another telescope, but plutocrats don’t want it, because they would have to pay more taxes, thus rendered unable to treat the Commons as dirt as much as they desire. Yet, in spite of the plutocratically imposed low resolution, one can see the mighty ultra-relativistic jets arising from the Quasar’s core.]

Obsessing about the Quantum is obsessing about the true nature of Nature. As it turns out it’s much simpler and magical than the classical picture.

Nature is the Quantum writ large. Relativity, the Standard model, the Big Bang: these are all amusements of dubious veracity. The Quantum is the Real Thing. And it’s everywhere. Most people just don’t know it yet.

Even Biological Evolution Theory, or Free Will, are going to be revealed to be within the Quantum’s empire.

There is something called “Free Will Skepticism” as massaged in Gregg Caruso Scientia Salon’s essays, and his (celebrity) TED talk. It is not so much skepticism about the existence of Free Will, but skepticism that those who loudly believe in “Free Will” have a constructive, progressive attitude in the society of the USA.

Ultimately, the problem of Free Will will have to tackle the problem of what are exactly the free agents in Quantum Physics.

Well, nobody knows for sure. What the free agents are is the central problem of Quantum Computing, and the high energy physicists’ wild goose chase for high energy processes went the other way, for two generations, so we don’t know what determines the evolution of the Quantum systems.

High energy processes are of interest only in high energy places, none of which are found where the biosphere lays. In other words, much physics, high energy physics used the Quantum, but did not try to figure it out.

Not knowing what the free agents, if any, of Quantum Physics are imply that we do not know what determines the evolution of the simplest processes.

The simplest processes are, by definition, the Quantum processes.

As long as we do not really know what controls simplest systems, talking about whether there is Free Will, or not, is shooting the breeze.

Free Will is even a problem in Quantum Non-Local analysis.

On-going experiments on non-locality. In some hard core physics labs. Those experiments aim to turn around the problem that we may have no Free Will.

The situation is this: doing a measurement at point A was found to have an influence at point B. The influence propagates orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light (as the formalism of basic Quantum Physics theory predicts).

French physicist Alain Aspect was able to show this with crafty optico-acoustic devices (he got the Wolf prize for this, and, clearly, ought to get the physics Nobel). The question remained, though, that maybe Alain Aspect himself was a pre-determined phenomenon deprived of Free Will.

To check this, Aspect’s experiment is going to be re-run with distant quasars in charge (rather than just some French guys). MIT physics department is doing this.

Free Will is the last major loophole of Bell’s inequality — a 50-year-old theorem on Spin that, as it is violated by experiments, means that the universe is based not the (topologically separated) laws of classical physics, but on Non-Locality.

Actually this is all very simple. (No need for the fancy high school math of Bell’s theorem, a particular case of Non-Locality with spins.)

Two quasars on opposite sides of heavens are so distant from each other, that they would have been out of causal contact since the (semi-mythical) Big Bang some 14 billion years ago: there are no possible means for any third party to communicate with both of them since the (semi-mythical) beginning of the universe…

Now, of course, if my own version of the universe is true, and the universe is actually 100 billion years old, the “loophole” re-opens…

But of course, as a philosopher, I know perfectly well that I have Free Will, and, as a momentarily benevolent soul, I extend the courtesy to Alain Aspect.

The universe is Non-Local, even my Free Will is Non-Local, it does not have to be like long dead gentlemen thought it should be.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , ,

14 Responses to “Free Will & Quantum”

  1. gmax Says:

    Interesting how it all fits together… Including the nasty followers of Satan (plutocrats) who strangle civilization. Can we strangle them back, at last, please?

    Fell feels that you are angry, but WE THE PEOPLE are NOT angry enough. It is high time to throw the plutocracy out!


  2. johsh Says:

    what does it matter if free will exists or not.

    One’s existence requires, deems certain coherent thought/experience at any moment – his identity. If that identity (aka “self”) is real* or not is really of no value. In either case, one is always left with one’s own will/identity/self – even if that thing can be messed around by tweaking something on the other end of the universe.

    my point is, if we believe in old god, or supposed new quantum god, we are always left with our “self” (free will) , which is heavily messed/birthed by meta-will (the society, culture, systems of moods). So in way we already know its not real. We dont need some quantum experiments to tell us that. I guess its nice to double check hahaha.

    What matters is how we live with it. Its all anybody has.

    Old god has worked out really well for some., i would say to most before 1800s, as literacy was abysmal, and the “free will”(sheep’s self) was increasingly shaped by culture/religion. It was lot more convenient to just blame god, and not one’s “free will” (“self”).

    *it has been found it is not real by some eastern philosophers ~2.5k years ago


  3. ianmillerblog Says:

    Dear Patrice,

    I suspect you expected this reply, and you were baiting me, so baited I be 🙂

    The issue of “quantum” sometimes irritates me. I temples that something is quantised (I agree) but then they don’t say what it is. For me, the ONLY thing that is quantised is action, and of course Planck’s constant is a quantum of action. To argue that space is quantised requires some evidence for it, and as far as I am aware, quantised action is sufficient to explain all the quantum effects that I am aware of.

    The second is this business of Aspect. As far as I am concerned, the ONLY reason this experiment is argued to show that a measurement of A affects the property of B is that the experiment is argued to show deviations from Bell’s inequalities. My argument is that because the second detector ONLY accepted photons as arriving within 20 ns of the first, there are insufficient variables. This experiment can get any result you want just by running the various set-ups for various times, but that obviously can’t be allowed. The way to get around that is to state the you will only count entangled pairs. The first detector takes all photons passing through it; the second all those that arrive within 20 ns of the first. Accordingly, the second gives the probability that a photon entangled with the first was detected, BUT that requires that the first photon was an event, and has a probability of 1. Now, if the second photon has a probability greater than zero the total probability is greater than 1, which violates energy conservation. Bell’s inequalities always require a term such a B+ + B-. Also, if the two polarisations/spins are set at creation, you get the same results as Aspect got. There is no proof at all that observation determined the results, as opposed to recording what was created.

    I know. Nobody will agree with my reasoning, but nobody will fault it either, or at least they haven’t so far. It is extremely difficult to change the minds of those who believe they know 🙂


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      OK, I don’t understand either, so let me rephrase this.
      1) I am not shocked by Non-Locality.
      2) I don’t expect it to be instantaneous (as the QM set-up has it now).
      3) I fully expect that the spin spooky action at a distance (propagating at least at 10^10 c, from my point of view) happens. And so exist the full EPR effects, in the way that would have “spooked” Einstein as much as possible.

      Question for you: if the EPR-Spin experiment is run ONE photon at a time, do you still have a problem?

      4) So I expect the EPR-Aspect experiment to work, ONE PHOTON at a time.

      OK, let me write a micro-essay on this.


      • ianmillerblog Says:

        Yes, I have a problem, because in the Aspect experiment, the only photons that are counted are when one arrives at one detector within 20 ns of the other. The photons have to be in pairs to be entangled. I have no problem with one pair at a time, but that is what Aspect did.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          You mean: that’s what Aspect did NOT.


          • ianmillerblog Says:

            We seem to have a communication problem here. As I understands the experiment, there were two detectors. One detector detected a photon; the second counted the number of times a second photon arrived within 20 ns. The intensity of photons was so low that the probability of an extraneous photon arriving within 20 ns was approaching zero. Each detector received (or did not receive) one photon from an entangled pair. However, the photons arrived singly at a given detector.

            By definition, entanglement means the property of one particle is correlated with another, and for me, that means there has to be a pair. If you mean something else, please explain because I seem to be missing it.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Dear Ian: I just put out a vast NON LOCALITY essay to hopefully answer you at least in part.

            What you are saying from your description above, is that the photon pair is IMPLIED. From being basically one pair at a time through the system. I agree. So I don’t think we disagree on Aspect’s experiment.

            I do believe in NON LOCALITY. I try to explain why, on a somewhat more personal basis, in the essay just out.

            Now I am going to go snow running, my way to go non-local, while spurning technoplutocratic skiing…;-)


          • ianmillerblog Says:

            Enjoy your skiing, local or non-local.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            The point is that I am not skiing, although I am a pretty good skier. Too technological. And not Non-Local enough. Instead I run vast distances on snow, and that enraged some ski patrol guy today. He tried to accuse me of diverse crimes, but truly he was disturbed because there is not enough snow (something I prefer, as a runner). I finally lost him deep in the woods, in a state park, off any decent trail (so he could not follow me with his skis anymore). Funny how people can get enraged about something you have nothing to do about, like damaging non existing snow, and then report their anger onto you.

            I must admit I am an expert at bringing this sort of behavior out. So I don’t have to go interview ISIS in the Middle East, to study deeply the human character…


  4. pendantry Says:

    I strongly suspect ‘free will’ to be an illusion brought about by homo fatuus brutus lacking the mental capacity to grok reality.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Illusion or not, “Free Will” acts free. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, eats like a duck, swims like a duck, looks like a duck, we may as well call it a duck…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      And most people behave, mostly, according to Meta Will, not Free Will (Rousseau’s General Will, generalized).

      This has been the entire problem of the Middle East is that the Meta Will, for more than 25 centuries, has been about a Meta Will that is all about Hydraulic Dictatorship being a good thing. (Islam being the last example of this, and why intellectuals loudly against, but actually FOR colonialism/plutocracy, support Islam, to please their masters…)


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: