On 8/6/2013 11:04 AM, Dan Asimov wrote:
These two things ("free will" and "determined by causes I can't perceive") are not almost the same, but instead are almost opposites. Of course, "determined by causes I can perceive" would also exclude free will. Ultimately, "free will" per se is precisely the opposite of "determinism".
Speaking of determinism, can someone please clarify a confusion I've had about the consequences of quantum mechanics:
1) I used to believe in determinism, but then learned that QM implied some things happened ultimately by chance with no underlying mechanism.
2) Then I believed there must be hidden variables until I heard of Bell's Theorem, which is said to prove the non-existence of hidden variables in QM.
3) Then I heard that Bell's Theorem is valid only if non-locality is excluded.
QUESTION: Does QM exclude the possibility of determinism? Is some kind of non-locality consistent with known physics?
Sure. Everett's interpretation of QM is a consistent, non-local deterministic theory. So is Bohm's QM, although it has problems with relativity. Brent