blog.radsy.com

My last post has got me thinking about a lot of things.
Firstly on the issue of free will. If my logic is sound, then it follows that free will is simply an illusion created by the staggering complexity of the brain and the particle interactions that occur in it.
Unfortunately, the illusion of randomness – or free will – caused by enormous complexity is not true randomness or free will. Even if there is a true underlying randomness in the properties of the universe, that would not imply free will. It would simply imply unpredictability.
There is of course, another explanation – the theistic one. It cannot be disproven – though similarly cannot be proven – that our “free will” might exist outside the boundaries and limitations of the physical universe, but is somehow able to influence that physical universe. This grates with the scientists amongst us, but only the most dogmatic – and thus the least scientific – of them would totally discount the possiblity.
So that leaves us, simplistically, with two variables, each with two options. Either the evolution of the universe is entirely predictable, or there is some underlying true randomness in the laws of the universe. Either there is no free will, or free will exists outside the limitations of the physical universe.
Let’s look at the four resultant combinations in the context of human nature. The most “pessimistic” combination is that the universe is completely predictable and that we have no free will. We are on atomic railroad tracks. Forever. Kinda depressing eh? Importantly though: the fact that it is depressing does not make it false. I’ll get to this in a moment.
The most “positive” combination is that the universe is inherently random, and that we have a consciousness that exists outside of this true randomness which can influence the physical universe in which our bodies reside. This is the “aeroplane in a storm” analogy. Much more pleasing! But don’t fall into the trap that because this is more pleasing, it is more likely.
The other options are: free will in a predictable universe (in which life is the only factor that alters the streets of the passage of time – the “driving a car” analogy – also “pleasing”); and true randomness – the “feather in a hurricane” analogy, where we have no ability to influence the chaotic randomness of the future.
Now of course that raises an interesting point on the origin of theistic faith. Let us assume that the majority of people feel that having no free will is an unpleasant thought. I think that is a fair statement to make. Now let’s think back to our ancestors. When faced with the same dilemmas (though obviously more instinctive than reasoned) would they not lean towards the more pleasing conclusions? Would the natural instinctive desire to believe that we have free will not naturally lead to the human creation of deities, who also exist above and beyond the laws of the universe?
Some may see this as proof of the existence of their personal god, but this is a perversion of my argument. It is in fact strong evidence to the contrary; that deities are a human creation that came about through our natural desire to have a purpose. Whether or not we have a consciousness outside of the physical universe, human nature almost inevitably leads to the creation of supernatural theories of purpose.
Only those that can recognise that desire for a particular truth has no bearing on what is actually true – just as I recognise that I want to have free will but that does not necessarily mean I do – can transcend this human bias and be truly objective.
Of course all this, due to the impossibility of experimental validation, falls more into the area of philosophy than science.
Are we strapped, immobile, to the front of a train on infinite, straight tracks?
Are we driving a car on empty, predictable streets – taking the turns we wish?
Are we piloting a plane in an umpredictable storm?
Or are we a feather being tossed in a chaotic hurricane?
Philosophy, yes – but grounded in fundamental scientific issues nonetheless. How interesting!