For thousands of years, far greater minds than mine have been wrestling with and writing about the subject of free will. As a result, the concept of free will has accumulated mountains of philosophical, theological, and psychological baggage. Thus, it has become, for those folks that live for such things, a reliable excuse to indulge in endless circular arguments.
I have no patience for these kinds of endless debates: see note [1].
• So, for the purposes of further discussion, I would like to reject the term “free will” and replace it with the physicist’s concept of “free choice”: see note [2]. A free choice is simply one that is not determined uniquely by anything occurring in the previous history of the universe. Since it makes no sense to say that a system has “choice” if its output was already predetermined by the laws of physics, I will drop the “free” modifier and simply use the term "choice".
Here is a simple example to illustrate the difference between the physicist’s concept of choice and the more traditional definition of free will. Imagine an electronic circuit whose output, at any given moment, is determined by the output of a random number generator. If the random number generator is truly random, then the output of this system will be independent of the past history of the universe. One could say that our electronic circuit demonstrates choice, but I think few would try to argue that it possesses free will.
There is an interesting teachable aspect to this example. Once one has defined something like choice in a logically rigorous fashion, one can then see how it relates to other mathematically equivalent statements. In this case, the notion of choice becomes logically equivalent to the statement that there exists a true random number generator. To say that choice does not exist, then, would be to suggest that the output of every random number generator is already predetermined by the past history of the universe.
Now here is where things get interesting. Is there a way to experimentally verify whether choice exists or not? The answer is, no. And if there is no way to experimentally verify this fact, then why do we spend so much time arguing about it?
The simplest solution to this dilemma of whether or not choice exists, is to just take it as an axiom. In this case, a good working solution would be to add it as a new law of thermodynamics to the traditional list of four: a fifth law that states, “Choice exists.”
• As a precedent for this action, I would point to the case of Euclid’s fifth postulate; a geometric assumption that for centuries was taken as obvious, but that no one could ever prove from first principles.
For some history on this: Parallel postulate
Then, after more than 2000 years, it finally became evident to mathematicians that one could construct perfectly consistent geometries that broke Euclid’s fifth postulate; these are known collectively today as non-Euclidean geometries.
For some more history on this: Non-Euclidean_geometry
At first these geometries were only of interest to mathematicians, but then it was discovered by physicists working in both special and general relativity that, in fact, the physical universe is non-Euclidean.
Nowadays, it is so taken for granted that the universe is non-Euclidean, I doubt few people at all can appreciate how difficult it was, for mathematicians of the past, to accept the reality that the requirement for parallel lines not to cross was not a fundamental fact of nature.
• “You don’t need to believe in a God to have a system of morals and ethics.” This is a valid statement; but at minimum, you still need to believe that humans have moral agency and are therefore capable of making choices.
“Moral agency”: Moral_agency
From the secular/materialist side of the question, then, if choice does not exist as a fundamental aspect of the universe we live in, then any discussion of humans having free will is a pointless exercise; and, on that note, any further discussion of morality and ethics goes out the window, too.
On the other hand, if choice does exist, then that by itself, is held by some to be sufficient for us to be considered moral agents.
See for instance, “compatibilism”: Compatibilism
• The mirror side of this question in the Christian world is the concept of predestination. A Christian faith calls one to a moral and righteous life; this call assumes we have moral agency. Indeed, what need is there for forgiveness if there is no personal responsibility to begin with? So the notion of predestination is a contradictory belief in that it effectively denies free will. Thus, despite all of the arguments presented on its behalf, predestination still grates on the sensibilities of most people.
The source of predestination’s logical contradiction begins with the assumption that God is all-knowing. This then leads many Christians to the conclusion that God must therefore know the future as well. But if the future is thus known by God, then it is already set, and our roles in God’s creation reduce down to no more than being actors in a play already written.
The only way to eliminate predestination from Christian theology is to believe that God only knows that which is knowable; with the future being one of those unknowable things.
At first pass this would appear to be a rather heretical statement, but it’s logically equivalent to the question, “Was the creation finished ‘after the sixth day,’ or is creation still a work in progress?”
If creation ended ‘after the sixth day’, then the future was set at that moment, and predestination is the only logical conclusion one can proceed to.
On the other hand, if creation is still a work in progress, what then? If our choices are not predetermined uniquely by anything in the past, then the outcomes of those choices were not predetermined either; which means, with our choices, we are in some small way creating the future of this universe. Does this make us then co-creators with God in the unfolding of His creation?
[1]… Warning note to commenters: This blog, from its starting point, takes as an axiom that choice exists. Therefore, this blog will not be a forum for any debates about whether or not we have free will. Period. Zip. End-of-discussion.
[2]… Free choice is a concept that comes up in quantum mechanical experiments involving observers and their ability to “freely choose” the measurement they implement; whether or not observers have this freedom is a continuing source of debate.
For history on this debate: Superdeterminism
No comments:
Post a Comment