The question
of whether we have free will, or whether we are biological robots doing only
(and exactly) as nature compels us to do, presents problems which the best
minds have struggled to resolve. An
article by Roy F. Baumeister at https://slate.com/technology/2013/09/free-will-debate-what-does-free-will-mean-and-how-did-it-evolve.html
seeks to offer a third possibility. Is
there, in fact, a compromise position?
Or is there something that is truly a third way?
If we answer
simply that, yes, we do have free will, then we run afoul of physics—at least
the current paradigm which guides physics research. The current theory of physics relies on
something called, determinism. A
familiar way of describing determinism is to use the familiar analogy of a row
of dominoes. Tip the first domino and it
knocks over the second, which knocks over the third, and so forth. This simple chain of cause and effect
exhibits the physics principle of causation, which in however complex a form,
applies to everything that happens, including the choices we make. Another way of expressing this principle is
to cite the maxim that, everything in physical nature can be explained by other
things in physical nature; no other explanation is needed. Free will simply does not exist. It cannot.
Therefore,
if we do have free will, we must conclude that physics, in its current state,
is wrong. Stated another way, there is
something more than physical cause and effect which results in physical
events. If I am confronted with the
choice between turning left or turning right, the physical event of my turning
is not dictated by the dominoes that have previously fallen. It is determined by something that physics
has not defined, something like a spirit or soul, something not of this physical
world.
That
conclusion is considered heresy in physics, not just heresy, but by purists, a
despicable falsehood, either the delusions of fools, or the intellectual crime
of superstition.
The irony is
this: if a person believes in free will,
but if at the same time there is no free will, then that person did not choose
to believe in free will. That belief was
forced upon him by preceding physical events.
Then, how can he be blamed?
The online
article at Slate, by Roy F. Baumeister, cited
above, makes a valiant attempt to resolve the issue, in a way that the author
seems to hope, might be acceptable to both sides. The effort fails. It basically concludes that free will is
actually what we only think is free will.
We think so, due only to the complexity of the mechanics of how we make
decisions—but they are still mechanics, after all, not the truly independent
decision of a sovereign entity.
The doctrine
of free will does not necessarily assert that every decision we make is
independent of physical causes. On the
contrary, all our decisions are at least partially influenced by physical
causation, and the degree of that influence may be overwhelming in many cases. Some of our actions are so routine that we do
not bother to use our power of free will. But, at its core, there is no compromise. As to whether free will is possible, or not
possible, that is either yes, or no.
If we are to
accept that we never, ever, have any power to act volitionally as independent,
sovereign agents of physical causation in nature, then we must accept
unavoidable absurdities. One of them has
already been mentioned, which is that our belief or disbelief that free will is
possible, is not the result of our investigation of the facts, but rather, the
result of an inexorable chain of physical causation.
There is a
greater issue—in fact, two of them. One
of them asks, are we active participants in our own lives, or merely passive
observers? The other issue asks, does
physical nature just happen to give rise to living, conscious, volitional
beings—or is physical nature designed around us, to be our habitat?
It quickly
becomes apparent, then, that the question of free will is not isolated from
other profound questions. It involves
the fundamental essence of natural reality.
It addresses our own reality as either biomechanical machines, or
spiritual beings in physical form. Moreover, it involves the great mysteries of
science, religion and philosophy.
If the
standard model of physical causation is wrong, then that opens exciting avenues
of research which are currently considered to be heretical. If, on the other hand, we truly have no free
will, then we are actors on a stage, reciting lines that nobody wrote. We are as futile as, as Shakespeare puts it,
in Macbeth 5:5, a sound and fury
signifying nothing, a tale told by an idiot.
-
No comments:
Post a Comment