Issue that is itching my brain...

[LMNO]

Bell's Theorem.

Wow, good call.

[hunter s.durden]

Bell's Theorem.

Also, there is evidence of the brain being able to veto body responses, stopping certain actions.  They did an experiment where they used neurosimulation to move someones hands.  They found that while the tendency to move the hand will build for the set amount of time, the actual decision is only made a split second before the action, suggesting the brain can stop physical influences from affecting actions.  They did note some mental prepardness was needed, but since when have we ever denied that on this board?

This was good enough for me to stop playing devil's advocate. I'm tired.

[Cain]

Bell's Theorem.

Wow, good call.

One of the first pieces of quantum physics I ever picked up.

Damn it was hard trying to understand it.

[Triple Zero]

ok, so we can at least say that, if free will exists, it only works on the moment ?

because otherwise all kinds of stuff may get in between

to hunter: first, being upset is your own decision, it's a reaction to the stuff that happens around you, of course you can't control that, but you still decide how you react. deciding not to eat because you're upset is totally your own free will, because you based the decision on something you decided to do.
the fact that there's things out of your control influencing your decision, doesn't mean there aren't any things within your control that influence it as well.
free will would be the thing that remains if you remove all outside influences. except that's completely academic because you can't do that, not even theoretically.

sort of what prof.cramulus said in fact.

also, Bell's theorem takes place on the quantum level. free will takes place on some macro-level where terms like "free" and "will" have meaning, the level where "meaning" exists, in fact. i'm really not certain whether you can conflate these two levels, see for an illustration that ouroubouros pic of Mang, it's a very big scale difference.
i would be very surprised if even a theoretical link can be shown between quantumlevel events on subatomic particles like these and meaninglevel events in the mind, and then whether these quantumlevel events contribute anything more to the outcome of a decision than any other (incontrollable) environmental influences

[Cain]

Actually, Bell's Theorem is very relevant, as Einstein claimed that there were hidden variables below quantum physics which make them determined and Einstein's argument is the basis for determinism in physics.

[hunter s.durden]

to hunter: first, being upset is your own decision, it's a reaction to the stuff that happens around you, of course you can't control that, but you still decide how you react. deciding not to eat because you're upset is totally your own free will, because you based the decision on something you decided to do.

DEAR ENTIRE BOARD:
THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE TOO. I WAS PLAYING DEVILS ADVOCATE. I BELIEVE IN POSSIBLILITY, EVEN IN THE FACE OF IMPORABILITY. NOW I'M FINISHED.
Thanks.

Hunter- still thinks it's possible, but will not put effort into explaining why.

[Bo]

I like this idea of a hierarchy of scales.  Going from deterministic actions, to a nondeterministic free will to a deterministic system of neurons, to a nondeterministic quantum envirement. (to a deterministic, global hidden variable theory?)

[That One Guy]

Trying to link Quantum physics to the larger gravitational-level world (whether it's through matter, energy, whatever) is THE current goal in the sciences. Einstein refered to this as the "Theory of Everything".

The fact that quantum determinism seems to be going on all the time in a sub-atomic level yet is stubbornly refusing to tie into the larger realm of electromagnetics, gravity and nuclear (atom-level) forces is one of the biggest issues with the sciences ATM.

I'd actually argue that "Free Will" exists ONLY at the quantum level, and interacts with the macro-level where strict determinism seems to be mathematically provable - set up the proper initial conditions and the results on a macro scale are given, fixed and provable in advance. I think (with ZERO official background in this stuff so take it for what it's worth) that the quantum state determines the initial condition that is then set in motion on the macro scale, and the only vestige of "free will" we have is in determining the quantum value that triggers the subsequent conditions.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle at work, essentially, in that our act of observing determines the specific space/time variable that can be observed. In essence, by making the choice to <insert action here> we then  set in motion specific events/reactions based inevitably on that initial choice, which then has a ripple effect on other choices, both for us and for others.

Sometimes I wish I went with the Math/Physics instead of the Music, but I've always prefered my numbers to sing rather than dance. At times like this, though, it highlights my lack of hard math to back up the weird concepts I have 

[LMNO]

You're a bit off on the Uncertainty principle, if you really want to know.

[Triple Zero]

the important bit to realize is that (seemingly) nondeterministic behaviour can arise out of deterministic systems, because of chaos theory (popcorn, humans)

to cain: then how does this make Bell's theorem relevant in a discussion about free will?

[LMNO]

000, once again it seems to me that you're conflating the Rules of Motion with the decision to move something.

[That One Guy]

Yeah - just realized that. I always get that one mixed up with some other quantum physics. I guess I'm thinking of collapsing the wave-particle duality into one state via observation - more along the Schroedinger's Cat deal but not specifically that.

That's what I get for going to a Music school and reading all this in my spare time 

[Cain]

Easy, it shows that physical determination is impossible because the universe is based on Stochastic theories.  In and of itself, it is not proof, but when combined with the previous evidence of indecision in physical movements, it delivers both a metaphysical and scientific base to personal responsibility and free will.  Bell Theorem allows it to be possible, from there on in all you need is evidence.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I hereby refuse to subscribe to any theorem that dictates freewill to not exist.

OP solved!

[Bo]

the important bit to realize is that (seemingly) nondeterministic behaviour can arise out of deterministic systems, because of chaos theory (popcorn, humans)

Can the inverse ever be true? seemingly deterministic behaviour arising from a nondeterministic system? Can't think of any way...