The Omniscience Of God And The Free Will Of Man

7 thoughts on “The Omniscience Of God And The Free Will Of Man”

1. We can’t even integrate the equations of motion of the solar system beyond a few hundred million years; the much more complex classical dynamics of the molecules and components that make up living beings may be “deterministic” in some sense, but they become exponentially difficult to determine from initial conditions, the longer in time you look – probably a fraction of a second for most chemical processes. That’s not even considering the quantum non-determinacy behind many-worlds etc.

   What does this mean for “free will”? It depends what you’re looking for. Believers in body/spirit duality could find, within these quantum/chaotic boundaries, plenty of room for free “choice” by some subjective entity separate from this world. Would that really be what we’re talking about though?

   Materialists, on the other hand, can still find an analog of “free will” in the unique, partially random, characteristics of the decision-making entity – the human brain in our case. To what extent do we have freedom of action in this world? Far more than a plant, without consciousness and fixed in position. More than (probably) any other animal, with our capacity for abstract thought and long-term planning. Is this material basis for free will enough? Does it really mean anything?

2. I’ve sat through more hours of quantum mechanics lectures than I care to remember on the way to my physics degree, and I’ve got to confess that despite the indoctrination, despite the math, I still have some problems with this whole “observer” stuff in QM.

   OK, I accept that the cat in the box is dead and alive simultaneously until somebody looks. Question: what was the philosophical role of quantum mechanics in the universe before the first lifeform existed in the universe? We had to have a few billion years there where there was NO LIFE. So who was around to observe and collapse wavefunctions THEN? Can a bacteria with no nervous system and therefore no consciousness collape a wave function? Is a nervous system even sufficient to create free will? If I ask you to think of a number between one and ten, and you never tell anybody the result, was that free will? What wave function collapsed?

   I believe that trying to tie consciousness and quantum mechanics together is just the 20th-21st Century version of having the arguments in the Middle Ages about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Silly question; there are no angels dancing on pins. How does the Cat in the Box work? Silly question; quantum mechanics isn’t the final answer in physics as a description of reality, so the Cat in the Box doesn’t exist any more than angels do.

   We know quantum mechanics and relativity, two spectacularly successful theories, both prove that the other can’t exist. We’re obviously missing something – maybe string theory? When we figure out the discrepancy between QM and relativity, it will give us a whole new way to look at reality that will make argumants about cats and boxes seem just as silly as arguments abount angels and pins.

3. I think you are missunderstanding what the meaning of an observer is. An observer can be a single atom. It absolutely does not have anything to do with living, thinking, or sensory perseption. Based on my understanding of observers in physics, the observer is an imaginary particle that is being placed in space. By seeing how the particle is affected, we can make guesses about what we are indirectly trying to look at.

   Now, the schrodinger’s cat analogy was intended to be a silly paradox that disproves sub-atomic indeterminacy. Looking around the net, people are taking it very seriously and debating all sort of things that make no sense and have nothing to do with sub-atomic indeterminacy. I agree with you that it is usually an argument of angels and pins.  However, if you don’t attempt to twist the idea that a particle may be in two places at once (or either) into a philisophical question of whether “knowing” (whatever the heck that means at an atomic level) where a particle is changes its state, there is no issue to make arguments about.  It is simply a curious observance that may or may not be explained with current science. I do not see how this affects the idea of free will, and especially, as you implied, how free will and thinking affects indeterminance. Schrodingers cat is supposed to be a nasty little paradox. In some of the versions of his paradox that I have read, It doesn’t seem to have a thing to do with indeterminance.  The analogy was an end in itself. Not a means of philisophical debate.

   Wow. Through all this writing, i realized that we concluded the same thing. I think I’ll stop typing now :)

4. Jay writes:

   I wish to contribute to the discussion without
   mentioning God, as “Is it possible to have a
   deterministic universe sporting free-will?” (by
   deterministic universe I mean one where the future
   is uniquely determined by the past). Our universe
   is deterministic only if we accept some form of the
   Everett interpretation of quantum physics.
   Otherwise, there is some kind of magic effect that
   kills off all possible outcomes of the current
   state of the universe, except one selected
   randomly, as soon as an act of observation by a
   conscious observer takes place. So if we choose
   another interpretation of the foundations of
   physics, we can hold the concept of free will in
   the universe.

   — this is one of those puzzles that keeps me awake at night, sometimes. When one mixes different levels of analysis and mixes fudgy terms, the puzzle grows deeper. The puzzle grows only more swampy when the mix is further leavened by the logics of analytic philosophy or its hated cousin, theology.

   So, quantum-level discussion of determined events is possible, but at that level “free will” becomes meaningless.

   Similarly, the theological concept “free will” is different from the psychological concept “agency.”

   On the same track, to talk about a deterministic universe (where antecedents impose outcome) in the same breath as free will, one can square the circle by considering acts of human agents as simply more antecedents.

   Where the puzzle gets tractable (and I get some sleep, finally) . . . is when I consider that some concepts in logic/philosophy (determined, deterministic) get conflated not only with logical concepts from lay philosophy, but also with perceptions from everyday life (determined).

   So, I try to avoid thinking about a deterministic world or universe in terms of “prediction.”

   In other words, what the puzzle comes down to for me is ‘if the world I inhabit is wholly deterministic, then events are determined by prior states and antecedent events; but, does this mean that the the determined outcome is *predictable* by humans?’

   Once I get to that question, the swamp drains, and I am closer to thinking about human agency, human will . . . as simply another determining aspect of the world.

   It doesn’t matter if what we humans do is ‘free’ in the sense of completely unbound . . . only that judging actions and behaviours as freely chosen is impossible, give the tools we have.

   Impossible? Yes, because we are not able to measure the many aspects of a given ‘chosen’ action.

   And since we cannot measure these, we cannot form a coherent theory that accounts for all the aspects.

   And since we cannot form a coherent theory that is strongly predictive, we cannot, at the present time understand what determines our actions.

   In the absence of this knowledge, we humans are free to consider our will as relatively unconstrained — on the self-referential psychological plane on which we are all (except for the divinely inspired among us!) trapped.

   Now rest and be ready for another puzzle come the morning!

   William Scott Scherk
   http://www.wsse.ca

5. Our universe is deterministic only if we accept some form of the Everett interpretation of quantum physics.

   It would have been a fine statement except for the word “only”. Everett’s explanation is not the only possible one. For example, universe according to Konrad Zuse and Alex Solomonoff is just as consistent as Everett’s.

   In search of free will, probably the most fundamental question is the existence of randomness.

6. I totally agree with you; in fact, you are saying what I meant to say better than I did. A quantum observer is indeed a single atom without consciousness, which is why I’m always amazed that “consciousness” gets injected into QM debates. QM is a description of reality, not a description of consciousness. In fact, the two almost certainly have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

   Extending the angle-pin and cat-box analogy, in the middle ages the general belief was that “the Earth is the Center of the Universe”, which was a reflection of our inflated sense of self-importance. I think the same is true with current attempts to link consciousness to quantum theory. Centuries ago space was the vast and mysterious unknown that just HAS to all be centered around US and our little world. Well, telescopes blew THAT concept away. Now quantum mechanics is the vast and mysterious unknown that just HAS to all be centered around US and our little minds.

   Yeah, right. As Arthur Clark is fond of saying, The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it’s stranger than we CAN imagine. That quote can be taken on two levels. Maybe we’ll never get it not because we lack the imagination, but because we lack the ability to drop the self-centered notions that the Universe revolves around US.

   Tho certainly the Vatican’s admission they were in the wrong about Galileo is a hopeful start in the right direction…

7. Bill, it’s Patrick. Bowiebechet@msn.com

Comments are closed.