I’m going to have a go at something tough, free will verses determinism..
Some folks think we make choices and decisions, some think we are merely reacting to stimulus and our choices are predictable, as if we would always do the thing we think we are choosing, and some believe that everything is determined because of the physical laws of the universe. Those that think we are part of a story that couldn’t be otherwise, and even if we rewound time it would play out just as it has, have no work to do to prove that position, physics is on their side. Those that think we direct our own lives have one really big problem to solve…
There’s far too much complexity going on for us to successfully predict the outcome of even the simplest thing with any great certainty, and this often fools us into believing that things can be random and the results of choices we or other people make. Some people would contend that random is simply impossible because there are no events in the universe that are not governed by the laws of physics, meaning that everything is, if you have all the data, entirely predictable. The reason it looks random to us is because we are colossally unintelligent sacks of barely evolved meat. If the flea could be impressed, it might be impressed with the rat, but the rat is maybe impressed by the dog, the dog with the lion, the lion with the hippo, the hippo with the shark, and the shark with the Orca… and so on. We, us humans, are self impressed I suppose, but we are not smart in terms of what we can achieve through thought and observation, we are just smart in comparison to an Orca.
Picture a pool table, a player, a cue, a flat surface, with an array of similarly weighted balls. If we arrange these balls a certain way and then drive another ball, the white ball, toward this ‘Pack’, from a certain point, using a certain amount of pressure, then measure the trajectories and landing spots of each ball when it comes to rest, then we might suppose that if we were to exactly match the prior circumstances and repeat the break off shot, we should get the same outcome, yes? It doesn’t work out this way though, no two pool breaks are the same. The question is why?
The answer is our limitation when replicating the exact conditions. We would need to make sure that the exact amount of pressure was exerted upon the white ball, that each sphere in the arranged pack was in the exact same position as before, right down to the atom, that each strand of nap on the cloth was orientated in the same direction as it was, that the humidity and air pressure was the same, that each person in the room was breathing the same as before, that the electromagnetic and radio waves were as before, that the effect of gravity was the same, that every carbon atom in every part of every object in the room was vibrating at the same frequency as before. In short, we would need a staggering amount of data to know how, and a staggering amount of technology to be able to prep the scene. Every last detail in this simple scenario matters, everything has an effect regardless of how small. So we can say that it is and impossible task, we cannot imagine that we could replicate a pool break, and that’s why they all look, and are, different.
But we could do it in a simulation, the reason being that we control every parameter and every variable. We program the simulation, we set the size, weight, trajectory, environment where the ball travels in the 3-D space. So we could make the simulation produce the same result, but we could only do this because there is nothing in the simulation that is beyond our understanding or measure. For this reason, the simulation is not complex, it is within what we can know, and therefore of no use to us for now, though it will become so as soon as we can build a simulation that can encompass all the complexity of the universe and act accordingly. We can do this somewhat in a non complex way, we have invented methods of measure that indicate a regular or predictable relation between objects under similar conditions, but this is not complex enough to explain determinism, it is however useful to bear in mind. Let’s take one of these measures, a simple one, and use it as an example. We know that a certain oil, poured onto a brushed steel surface that is set at a fixed angle, will consistently traverse a certain length of that fixed width surface within a certain time. Counting this gives us a figure, we call this the viscosity of the liquid, and the consistent nature of this physical experiment allows us to build complex machines. If there was something external to the laws of physics, say something ephemeral, then this would prevent the usefulness of this measure and by implication negate the usability of oil.
Expand the thought of the pool room, think of the universe as a simulation, one with governing rules, but ones we did not decide upon, or design, or program, and you’ll start to get what the determinists are getting at with their postulate that nothing is random. Everything in the universe is made of atoms, they emerged from a singularity that we refer to as the Big Bang, they are subject to forces that also started with that event, and each was set into original motion at the same time, even time itself was created by this event. These atoms are like the balls on the pool table, the big bang is the white ball, and all the balls (atoms) move as they were exactly directed, only taking different paths when they collide and are knocked off their trajectory by another ball, or subjected to a force that they find in the fabric of the universe (the pool room). This makes us think that everything will be playing out just as it would have been predicted if there existed an intellect that was capable of predicting everything by being armed with the knowledge of all the atoms initial trajectories, all the forces they are going to be subjected to, and the result of all those interactions.
The question then becomes, what could make this otherwise? What thing, object, or being, one that we imagine might have a choice, could interact with these atoms, outside the laws of physics that we understand as applying to all things in the universe, to make them do something that they would not have done? We cannot compute this, there is simply too much stuff in play for the human mind to understand that there is nothing random. To us the term ‘random’ must just currently mean beyond our ability to measure or predict. We know that everything looks like magic until we successfully understand it by observation and measurement, then it becomes somewhat predictable. I listened to a podcast on electricity recently, for a long time there was an argument on what was actually happening, with wild theories being taken seriously and prominent scientists of the day making names for themselves and much coin for their take on it. We now know that electricity is an effect of the differing properties of objects having and imbalance of electrons orbiting their atomic nucleus, these materials pass electrons on when they can, and the effect of that passing moves faster than the actual electron move, it is a force effect. Electrons move at the speed of poured honey, but their effect moves a lot faster, just turn a light on and you’ll see. The point is that we can teach in high school what people didn’t know for 2000 centuries about an effect that everyone in that time would have experienced because they saw lightning or felt static from an object that had built up a charge.
If we accept that every atom has a determined trajectory, and that nothing can interject from outside of known physics to make that trajectory otherwise, then we must accept that everything in the universe is determined, including us. We are made of atoms, our thoughts and choices are the results of stimulus absorbed by our senses, created by the movement effects concerning atoms, the electrical charges that pass along our neural pathways are atomic. These are things that happen to our perceptual reality, making us believe, only because of our intellectual limitations, that we determine for ourselves the best course of action. This is a falsehood according to determinism theory. Your life is not planned, unless you think that a higher power intervenes, it is determined. This is not entirely measurable or predictable….. yet. If you think this is not so, then you must have some theory that human thought is ephemeral, originating from something other than the physical.
What implications does this have? Well none really, simply because we are incapable of feeling as if we have no say in what we do and choose. I could sit back and say that as a determined person I then am not in any way responsible for what happens as a result of my actions, because I have obviously had no choice in them. That’s not going to get me let off with a crime, or be forgiven for a moral wrong. We have built a social fabric, many in fact, based on the practical postulate that persons have freedom to choose between options at certain life junctions, it would simply be impractical to start to act otherwise, yet according to determinist theory, if we did so we would only be doing what we had been determined in the first place to do. Since you could not change your behaviour by accepting this theory, and according to this theory your behaviour cannot veer from its determined path anyway, there is no reason to either accept or deny it other than as a philosophical thought experiment.
Yes it may bring comfort to some people, and provide a conversation piece for others, but I personally find no particular intellectual pull toward this part of phenomenological philosophy, because I can’t use it. I may not be free, but what would accepting that fact do to my my natural curiosity, my desire, my sense of moral justice, other than negate their purpose?
pinkfloydpsw's Blog 
Leave a comment