Will the Religious start to use 't Hooft's theory of Quantum Mechanics to prove there is no free will

Question

't Hooft got a Nobel prise for his contribution to Quantum Mechanics. His theory is being hotly debated by Mathematicians and Physics departments world wide as it seems to prove that free will does not exist, that everything that is done and that we do, was determined at the time of the Big Bang.

Some Mathematicians feel we need to redefine what Free Will means.

Could this be a case of Science being used to prove some of the tenants contained within religious beliefs?

What does the 'panel' think?

Thanks simbha_07, 54 years of learning and using English and I still misuse words. At least I have the very real excuse of aixelsyd to fall back on.

John Conway and Simon Kochen at Princeton University feel they have shown that if t'Hooft's theory is true, than the ability for people to make instantaneous, unpredictable choices on a whim is constrained, e.g. we don't have free will.

And while Antonie Suarez at the Center for Quantum Philosophy in Zurich believes he has disproven 't Hooft's theory judgement as to if his experiment does is still out.

I just thought I'd contribute a question that might provoke some thought and reaction and pick the best answer to it.

And why doesn't the spell checker work when adding details?

I apologise in advance for any misspelt or misused words.

Answer 1

I'm Christian and free will or free agency as we call it is one of the most important aspects of our existence here on Earth.

Answer 2

Sorry. You've got this wrong.

Gerard t'Hooft received the Nobel in physics "for elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions". This has to do with the unification of the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces. The ideas he was cited for had nothing to do with his hidden variables hypothesis on the quantum structure except that they both had to do with the underlying quantum structure itself.

Physicists, including t'Hooft, generally do not make claims regarding free will or any other non-physical concept (at least within the context of their profession). The hidden variables hypothesis t'Hooft advocates is an argument that the seemingly probabilistic nature of subatomic mechanisms is an illusion that we subject ourselves to in the process of scientific inquiry and is due to the "fact" that we cannot observe/account for everything. Fundamentally this comes down to a very old philosophical debate about uncertainty vs probability regarding observation (which includes empiricism and experimentation) wherein the former is due to limited knowledge but perhaps in a deterministic system and the latter is due to some exogenous "true" randomness.

If a mathematician believes that we need to redefine what free will means as a result of the hidden variables hypothesis, it is my opinion that they need to examine whether they are overstepping the bounds of the application of physical principles to a non-physical concept.

Re: your last point. Most religions allow for the possibility of free will so even if your arguments were valid, this would be a case of science "disproving" (one of) the tenets of those religions.

And, btw, it's "tenets" not tenants. Tenants are people who pay rent to live/work in a building owned by another person.

Answer 3

You can't use math nor science to disprove free will. Philosophically, free will is a primary to understanding the universe in a scientific way.

Religion and free will are incompatible. Religion gives an altruistic standard based on an impossible morality that's derived from a god that doesn't exist. Christianity is a good example with the whole 'original sin' doctrine. Fatalism.

Answer 4

I can't speak for the "panel", but I can speak from personal knowledge and experience. My life started in blissful ignorance, and my mind was filled with the usual religious tenants about the supposed "free will" of man. God does not leave anything up to "chance", especially when it comes to His crowning creation... mankind.

After the discovery of DNA, my feeble mind was finally able to see the superior wisdom of God. Everything is programmed to act and become exactly what God designed it to do. Man makes limited choices at best, everything else is in God's capable hands. What a relief!

There is physical DNA and spiritual DNA. To the caterpillar it's the end, to the butterfly it's the beginning. God loves us and there's not a darn thing we can do about.

Answer 5

This part of the panel doesn't give a crap about Nobel prizes, Hooft, Mathematician , and Physics Departments.

But I suppose that is not free will then?

Answer 6

i've not seen the religous take any standpoint in the free will vs determininsm debate.

and i will take a short while to acquire a basic understanding of t hooft...and whre yuo are aiming with this question....

that done....

i'l separate faith religions from religious philosophies and

I answer: NO.

religious determinism or relgious fate in the major religions is a singluarity, it's specific!

the determinism that t'hooft's hidden variables could prove is of a far wider scope as it is a dynamic singularity which encompasses all possibilies in total opposition to that of religion.

however, this fits with oriental philosphies like daoism though which indicate that the while the path is set the way you walk it is not.

Answer 7

We have volition, not free will. Volition is limited by laws.

I didn't need a scientist to prove that to me. It's obvious that we can freely choose between options. We cannot freely choose between non-options, like being able to jump over a 4 story building. We can freely choose to do it, but it's not an option, therefore volition kicks in, and makes it no longer free.

Answer 8

Well there is an intelligence behind this manifestation. If you are self realized you'll know what your relationship is to matter and that you are contributing on a creative level to this constantly changing reality.

Answer 9

Every choice branches off another parallel universe. All possibilities do happen. That is another interpretation of QM.