The universe is predetermined. An explanation: all things contained in the universe are consequentially linked. That is to say that all things interact with all other things based on the sum total of their previous interactions. I kick a ball, thus it leaves its current position and attains a new one, from which another person kicks it, a second kick that could not have occurred had I not sent the ball there in the first place. So, my decision to kick the ball, my "free will," has influenced its future? Yes, and no. Yes, I have influenced its future, but not by anything but an illusion of free will.
I must ask, what interactions in my day, in the previous minutes, or even in the previous seconds, have influenced my decision to kick the ball? The truth is that I could not have done anything BUT have kicked the ball at that moment. Upon deeper investigation it should be realized that none of my actions are free. All of them operate based on the influences of previous interactions between myself and the universe I exist in. Compounded, one must realize that only the initial action of the universe, the seminal energy transfer (that signaled the creation of what we can comprehend), was even potentially free, though in all likelihood it too had an influence that was based on previous interactions from a pre-universe state that is beyond my limited comprehension. The truth of the matter is that all events, and thus all decisions, are consequential, and are, therefore, predictable. They are pre-determined.
To be able to actually predict the future, though, to analyze the seemingly infinite complexity of the universe's atomic, molecular interactions with itself, is a task beyond the computational ability of a computer, even one exponentially thousands of times more complex than anything we have developed. Our own computers, our brains, are equally incapable of making such hyper-complex calculations. Thus, to us, the universe appears to contain free will. Animals, creatures, and humans appear to make decisions based on a sentient relationship with the universe in which a possibly "random" choice can play out. This, however, is mere illusion. Whether or not we can comprehend the web of influence that plays out about us has no relevance on its existence. Our actions are determined by all that has happened before us, and since all of those things are, by their consequential nature, "out of our hands," so is any actual capacity for decision making and free will.
Here things get interesting, though. Given the opportunity to fully embrace this truth, where are we led? Nihilism and misery are the final, emotional products of this realization, for without power, our lives cease to have meaning. We become mere amoebae, floating aimlessly in the universal ether. This, of course, is the truth, but it does us no good to play out our lives in its shadow. Rather, we should look at the universe, and our position in it, as one that is susceptible to alteration based on sentient decisions we make. In fact, our brain is hardwired to believe this is the only way in which the universe functions. This is not without reason. It is what makes complex organisms successful. They have an understanding that their choices change their position in the world, thus they take the time to do things, making "choices" that appear to suit them, such as finding something to eat, or making a bed to sleep in. The belief that there is free will is both necessary and pleasurable, for doubtless we enjoy making decisions that appear to be free of the influence of forces around us, even when nothing could be further from the truth of the matter. Thus is it by our very nature that, in order to live fulfilled and happy lives, we must live an illusion. As Edgar Allan Poe would say, "All that we see or seem / Is but a dream within a dream." A fitting metaphor. So we choose to choose, or pretend to choose, turning what we seem into what we see, blissfully and necessarily, forgetting the great difference between the two.
There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance,
A host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance.
A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive.
"The stars aren't aligned -
Or the gods are malign"
Blame is better to give than receive.
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear -
I will choose free will.
-Neil Peart, “Freewill” (listen)
3 comments:
Though this information may seem pointless to consider (being that one philosophically ends in almost the same place one begins), it is worth noting that the most interesting aspect of this line of thought is the understanding that our basic sense of the universe is inherently flawed. Given this, what other areas of our lives, mysterious or mundane, might we also reevaluate and stop taking for granted?
Firstly, I must commend any blog entry with Rush lyrics inserted. So kudos there.
Secondly, I have to disagree with your whole premise (but then, you knew someone would).
From your point, everything was caused by something else, yet you admit that even the Big Bang likely had a pre-universe force act on it. In as much as it is relative, time flows infinitely forward and backward. If there was never a "beginning", there could never be an initial action for all subsequent reactions that you are supposing were caused. So one either breaks your theory based upon the lack of an initial catalyst, or by an argument that due to the infinite nature of time we can consider every action as its own individual beginning, each of which must stem from free will.
I’m not arguing that free will exists. I am merely providing a counter-argument. Unfortunately, to argue whether or not free will exists is like trying to prove that God does or does not exist. Even to you and me, who solidly believe that there is no God in terms of mankind’s creation of religion (i.e. no old man with a white beard), there is no proof that some kind of – for lack of a less clichéd term – “higher power” does or doesn’t exist. We just don’t know, and can’t really know unless that power makes itself present. Thus the term “faith”. No matter how you try to argue for or against free will, there can be a valid argument presented from an opposing viewpoint.
Just my two.
T
I maintain my stance that free will is an illusion, even if a wonderful and necessary one. I believe that I did state that there was an initial catalyst, at least insofar as we are able to comprehend, in the big bang (or whatever universal starting gun you subscribe to), though it seems difficult to imagine that it did not, too, have some force catalyze it. What that might have been is beyond my ability to comprehend, but even if you want to argue that it was a humanized god, that still doesn't refute the fact that everything since then has been, on a purely technical level, a deterministic series of events that have fallen into place like a cascading set of Olympian dominoes. God or no god (and this was never meant to be a religious discussion), we act, every day, in accordance with all the countless effects and interactions that have befallen us, not only in our own lives, but also in the immortal "lives" of our atomic, molecular pieces, that have been parts of rocks, clouds, and space dust during the millennia of our universe's existence. Frankly, I don't think there is a valid counter-argument to my point. Free will is, at the atomic level, impossible and, in fact, wholly theoretical. It is merely an idea.
Try to imagine the universe as it is: not a vast, open and desolate vacuum prairie, but instead as a hearty tomato soup. Sure, there is a lot of broth (the vacuum), but there are tomato chunks too (the condensed physical matter). How different are the two, though? If I stir the broth, do the chunks not move? Once it is understood how the universe is, like our planet, one interminably complex, swirling, writhing thing, then the deterministic nature of the universe becomes easier to comprehend. Do our cells have free will? Of course not. Everyone would agree to that, I assume. Our T-cells, for example, react automatically to viruses. Moreover, the more they interact with them, the more they learn about them, allowing them to more easily subdue strains of virus similar to ones they have encountered before. Do they think to themselves, "Hmm, seen this one before. Go with assault pattern delta! Always fools them!" Obviously, this is not what happens. Cells, a symbiotic part of our living self, don't actually think such thoughts (though one with a fanciful mind might imagine that they seem to do just that). Rather, they act automatically and in accordance with the history of things that they have already encountered. Now, imagine a far more complex "cell," a human, in a far larger, more complex organism, the earth. The illusion of free will is, here, much harder to dispel because of the far greater range and variety of influence that the human is subjected to, but an illusion it remains. If I could talk to Mr. Peart I would argue that he should change the lyrics slightly: "We dance on the strings / Of powers we CAN perceive." I know I am influenced in ways that I cannot comprehend, but I am entirely able to perceive that such a thing is occurring. If only losing that syllable wouldn't throw off the lyrical timing...
Post a Comment