Skip to main content

Thinking Big or Rather Big Talking?

Michio Kaku is featured on the website as a sympathetic elderly man able and willing to explain everything. On April 13 he tells us "why quantum physics ends the free will debate".
Well, sure.
I am very supportive of the idea to popularize big scientific thoughts and achievements so that the broader public gets a glimpse of what is being mulled over in the head of those big shots. But I am totally allergic to oversimplification at the expense of the real message.
Why does quantum physics supposedly end the free will debate? You guess it: because with Newtonian physics everything, every thought, every move you make every step you take was in principle predictable. The world was supposedly completely deterministic. You would just have to know all the parameters of the universe at the time of the big bang, then calculate and calculate until you arrive at your phase space of now and, voila, you could extrapolate into the future of your tremendously boring life.
Now quantum physics has added some dice to the system - much to the annoyance of Einstein - (Mr Kaku mentions Heisenbergs uncertainty relation), and with that you get rid of predictability, determinism is out and free will is in. According to Mr. Kaku, Heisenbergs principle tells us that an electron (for example) could not be pinpointed, it could be anywhere at any time. This sounds great but it is an oversimplification and wrong. Quantum mechanics deals with probabilities. It is not true that an electron is a wavefunction. The probability to find an electron at a specific point in space is *described* by a wavefunction. The result may be that the probability to find it anywhere in a given box is equal at any spot - but that does not mean that it is actually everywhere at the same time (the probability to win big in Lotto is equal for any combination of allowed numbers but that does not mean that any combination actually wins - you get it, I assume).
And even if you allow for unpredictability - why exactly does that explain Free Will? Is the lack of predictability equivalent to free will? Is white noise the same as free will? Is randomness free will? Is free will erratic? Is the concept of determinism in contrast to free will? It is very much likely that I will go and have a beer tonight - but I tell you this is my absolutely free will, albeit terribly deterministic.

(there is an anecdote on Mr Kaku's skills of drawing a giraffe that you should not miss)


Anonymous said…
Thank you for the section about the electron in the box. Nice and simple, avoids the logical leap from "we can't tell where it is" to "we must proceed as if all possible outcomes have occurred." I'm not very educated, and I imagine I'm not alone in having been first confused and then annoyed by popular science writing that makes the leap from the inability to observe to the existence of parallel universes.

Popular posts from this blog

Academics should be blogging? No.

"blogging is quite simply, one of the most important things that an academic should be doing right now" The London School of Economics and Political Science states in one of their, yes, Blogs . It is wrong. The arguments just seem so right: "faster communication of scientific results", "rapid interaction with colleagues" "responsibility to give back results to the public". All nice, all cuddly and warm, all good. But wrong. It might be true for scientoid babble. But this is not how science works.  Scientists usually follow scientific methods to obtain results. They devise, for example, experiments to measure a quantity while keeping the boundary-conditions in a defined range. They do discuss their aims, problems, techniques, preliminary results with colleagues - they talk about deviations and errors, successes and failures. But they don't do that wikipedia-style by asking anybody for an opinion . Scientific discussion needs a set

My guinea pig wants beer!

Rather involuntary train rides (especially long ones, going to boring places for a boring event) are good for updates on some thoughts lingering in the lower levels of the brain-at-ease. My latest trip (from Berlin to Bonn) unearthed the never-ending squabble about the elusive 'free will'. Neuroscientists make headlines proving with alacrity the absence of free will by experimenting with brain-signals that precede the apparent willful act - by as much as seven seconds! Measuring brain-activity way before the human guinea pig actually presses a button with whatever hand or finger he desires, they predict with breathtaking reproducibility the choice to be made. So what? Is that the end of free will? I am afraid that those neuroscientists would accept only non-predictability as a definite sign of free will. But non-predictability results from two possible scenarios: a) a random event (without a cause) b) an event triggered by something outside of the system (but caused).

No theory - no money!

A neuroscientist I was talking to recently complained that the Higgs-research,even the Neutrino-fluke at CERN is getting humungous funding while neuroscience is struggling for support at a much more modest level. This, despite the undisputed fact that understanding our brain, and ultimately ourselves, is the most exciting challenge around. Henry Markram of EPFL in Switzerland   is one of the guys aiming for big, big funding to simulate the complete brain. After founding the brain institute and developing methods to analyze and then reconstruct elements of the brain in a supercomputer he now applies for 1.5 Billion Euro in EU-funding for the 'flagship-projects' of Blue Brain -and many believe his project is simply too big to fail. Some call the project daring, others audacious. It is one of the so very few really expensive life-science endeavours. Why aren't there more like that around? Why do we seem to accept the bills for monstrous physics experiments more easily? Is