Uncertainty principle

[Alpha~Omega]

So what I need help understanding is how the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates to the thought that our thoughts are mere chemical reactions. I recently came across an atheist who argued that because this principle exists, this proves that our thoughts are just chemical reactions and we have no free will. Honestly I think he had no clue what he was talking about as this is extremely advanced science for the everyday person. Obviously he was just trying to act like the typical " im a super intelligent atheist", but after studying this I still cant see where hes coming from, but I would like to delve deeper into this and refine my argument against it. The theory says that "fundamental limit on the accuracy with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known." What hes saying this means is that because of this, matter is organized through chaos, and that we have no free will because we cannot calculate the exact momentum and position of electrons.

I just want to see what everyone else's take on this is, because to me, what hes saying does not correlate with what the principle really means, but I cant say this for certain because this is quantum mechanics, and he seems to be turning it into something meta physical. I here and not in the science section because of the nature of his argument, but if you feel it better belongs in the science section, please move it.

So to sum it up, how does this principle imply we have no free will?

-----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Heres what I've been studying from, don't make fun of me! lol

[Reactionary]

Strange... This site claims that Heisenberg himself was, in fact, a Christian.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1985/JASA12-85Seeger.html

Regarding quantum mechanics, I'm not an expert on it either, however you may be right that invoking metaphysics may well be something different.

I'd like to see the comments from more qualified members of this forum.

[August]

Your atheist friend is arguing for indeterminism, which, per definition, is of course the opposite of determinism. Physical determinism is the counter-argument used by atheists against the Christian concept of free will, where the laws of physics determine all that happens, and even regulates our biochemical processes so that we make one choice over another, i.e. no free will.

However, some argue for indeterminism because determinism implies no alternatives, there is just one possibility and it can be no different. If anyone then wants to postulate about different possible futures, the question then becomes why one future becomes actual and others don't. Atheists like to argue for indeterminism because it proves that there needn't be a cause for anything, including the human will, and by implication of course, no need for God.. How that can be construed as "no free will" by your atheist friend, I don't know. it sounds like he is mixing up his objections.

This is not a new argument. John Searle points out the problem with the argument though:

As far as human freedom is concerned, it doesn't matter whether physics is deterministic, as Newtonian physics was, or whether it allows for an indeterminacy at the level of particle physics, as contemporary quantum mechanics does. Indeterminism at the level of particles in physics is really no support at all to any doctrine of the freedom of the will; because first, the statistical indeterminacy at the level of particles does not show any indeterminacy at the level of the objects that matter to us – human bodies, for example. And secondly, even if there is an element of indeterminacy in the behaviour of physical particles – even if they are only statistically predictable – still, that by itself gives no scope for human freedom of the will; because it doesn't follow from the fact that particles are only statistically determined that the human mind can force the statistically-determined particles to swerve from their paths. Indeterminism is no evidence that there is or could be some mental energy of human freedom that can move molecules in directions that they were not otherwise going to move. So it really does look as if everything we know about physics forces us to some form of denial of human freedom.
(Mind, Brains, and Science, 1984, pp.86-7)

[narnia4]

This would have to be much more clear than that, it doesn't sound well-formulated at all just reading that. In fact, quantum mechanics is one thing I see naturalists (not necessarily all atheists) try to use in defense of at least the possibility of free will and consciousness given their apparent existence. I've read a couple of articles on it in the past, they aren't always clearly expressed arguments with evidence but sometimes that's kind of the "magic argument" used to try to reconcile conflicting ideas with their worldview.

Like this-

"How do you explain consciousness?"
"Quantum Mechanics!"

"How do you explain free will?"
"Quantum Mechanics!"

"How do you explain fine tuning?"
"Quantum Mechanics!"

and so on.

[Byblos]

This would have to be much more clear than that, it doesn't sound well-formulated at all just reading that. In fact, quantum mechanics is one thing I see naturalists (not necessarily all atheists) try to use in defense of at least the possibility of free will and consciousness given their apparent existence. I've read a couple of articles on it in the past, they aren't always clearly expressed arguments with evidence but sometimes that's kind of the "magic argument" used to try to reconcile conflicting ideas with their worldview.

Like this-

"How do you explain consciousness?"
"Quantum Mechanics!"

"How do you explain free will?"
"Quantum Mechanics!"

"How do you explain fine tuning?"
"Quantum Mechanics!"

and so on.

I presume then one of the questions ought to be how do you explain quantum mechanics, to which I'm sure the answer would be self-explanatory .

[August]

Like a "Quantum Mechanics of the gaps".

[1over137]

http://cneuroscience.org/articles/quant ... -free-will
(That's all I can say at the moment)

[Reactionary]

I presume then one of the questions ought to be how do you explain quantum mechanics, to which I'm sure the answer would be self-explanatory .

Precisely that.

As seen here: http://creation.com/curiosity-did-god-c ... e-universe

Prof. Hawking avoids this by appealing to ‘quantum mechanics at the sub-atomic level’. Here, he says,

“ … you enter a world where conjuring something out of nothing is possible, at least for a short time, because of quantum mechanics. … The universe was once very small, less than the size of a proton. This means the universe could pop into existence without violating the known laws of physics.”

I guess it would be too much to ask where those laws of physics came from in the first place.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://cneuroscience.org/articles/quant ... -free-will
(That's all I can say at the moment)

Useful article, thanks. I think this paragraph sums up why indeterminacy =/= free will:

These theoretical physicists show a profound misunderstanding of what free will is. The human will is not a random action, dependent upon quantum uncertainty or the toss of a player's dice. It is the free choice of the human will, as it is determined by the intellect. It is a not a human will determined by the material causality of an instinctual nature. Rather, it is free (whence the term 'free' will) from material causality, and it finds its efficient causality in intellectual self-determination.

[DannyM]

[Useful article, thanks.

Yes, I enjoyed the conclusion.