We know that physics does not support the idea of metaphysical free will. By metaphysical free will I mean the magical ability of agents to change the world by just making a decision to do so. To the best of our knowledge, we are all (probabilistic) automatons who think themselves as agents with free choice
If a probablistic agent can make a decision that is not fully determined by previous events, then the consequences of that decision trace back to the agent, as a whole system, and no further. That seems to support a respectable enough version of “changing the future”. “Magic” might mean being able to make any decision, or carry through any decision, or having a decision making faculty with no moving parts. “Magic” is a term very worth tabooing.
If a probablistic agent can make a decision that is not fully determined by previous events, then the consequences of that decision trace back to the agent, as a whole system, and no further.
Yes, if that view were supported by evidence, that would count as free will. Thus far, whenever we gain the tools to look further, we can trace the consequences further back, with no clear boundary in sight, beyond the inherent randomness of the ion channels in the neurons firing according to a suitable Markov chain model.
Scott Aaronson in The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine does a good job spelling all this out. There is no physical distinction between an agent and a non-agent.
Scott Aaronson in The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine uses the word “agent” 37 times.
The building of agents is an engineering discipline. Much of the discussion on this board is about AIs’ which are agentive as well as intelligent.
You might mean there is no fundamental difference between an agent and a non-agent. But then you need to show that someone, somewhere has asserted that, rather than using the word “agent” merely as a “useful” way of expressing something non-fundamental.
If a probablistic agent can make a decision that is not fully determined by previous events, then the consequences of that decision trace back to the agent, as a whole system, and no further. That seems to support a respectable enough version of “changing the future”. “Magic” might mean being able to make any decision, or carry through any decision, or having a decision making faculty with no moving parts. “Magic” is a term very worth tabooing.
Yes, if that view were supported by evidence, that would count as free will. Thus far, whenever we gain the tools to look further, we can trace the consequences further back, with no clear boundary in sight, beyond the inherent randomness of the ion channels in the neurons firing according to a suitable Markov chain model.
Well, which? Iron chains of causality stretching back to infinity, or inherent randomness?
You may be taking it as obvious that both randomness and determinism exclude (soem version of ) free will, but that needs to be spelt out.
Scott Aaronson in The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine does a good job spelling all this out. There is no physical distinction between an agent and a non-agent.
Scott Aaronson in The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine uses the word “agent” 37 times. The building of agents is an engineering discipline. Much of the discussion on this board is about AIs’ which are agentive as well as intelligent.
You might mean there is no fundamental difference between an agent and a non-agent. But then you need to show that someone, somewhere has asserted that, rather than using the word “agent” merely as a “useful” way of expressing something non-fundamental.
More precision is needed.