The
Acausality of Free Will: a Prescription for Further
Research
Quantum Physics, the Origin
of the Universe, and Moral Resposibility
Most physicists believe in moral responsibility, and many feel that underlying this must be a ‘true’ free will. In order that such a true free will exist:
1) more than one option exists at a
decision point, as in quantum physics as opposed to determinism;
2) an option can be selected "freely", ie
a) not randomly, as in quantum physics;
b) not deterministically as implied by the rationality of a truly free choice.
The
conundrum is: On the one hand, requirement #1 has been shown possible by quantum
physics, while on the other hand #2 is contradicted by quantum physics which
states that options are ‘selected’ at random. Furthermore, choice must be
rational to be free, and rational implies deterministic (The idea of a truly
free non-random choice implies a choice made after careful deliberation rather
than by caprice. To be rational, a choice must be based on reasoning, which is
a chain of logic, or at least a deterministic chain
of thought. This deterministic chain leads eventually to one's genetic
complement and environment and so forth.) Therefore free choice is
self-contradictory.
It would seem
that free will necessitates the existence of some radically new type of
interaction "transcending" both the determinism of classical physics
and the probabilistic determinism of quantum physics. In addition, one must
find a new approach to the logic of causality and the causality of logic.
If we take seriously our
intuition regarding the existence of true free will then perhaps we can benefit
by trying to extend quantum physics in such a way that we can requirement 2 .Of
course this seems intuitively impossible and/or absurd to us now, but so would
the probabilistic determinism of quantum physics have appeared to the pre-quantum
physics community.
The Acausality
of Free Will: a Rationale and Ramifications
Beyond our intuition there is another justification for assuming the
possibility of acausal processes, and it perhaps
points the way to the physical origin of the type of radically-acausal phenomenon such as free will.
The greatest mystery of all is the origin of the universe. A universe
which exists is in itself a result of acausality for
it exists without real cause: cause implies temporal order, yet time originated
with the universe and thus no cause could "precede" the existence of
the universe. Thus it is clear that at its most fundamental level, existence
implies acausality.
[Indeed,
there is perhaps a very close connection between the onset of free-willed
consciousness and the origin of the universe. See Wheeler. See also my article
“And God Said: ‘Let There Have Been a Big Bang’ ” and “Halacha
and Quantum Physics”]
It is not so
out-of-character for a universe which originates and operates via acausality to expected to exhibit freewill-type acausality where consciousness is involved.
Another question arises as to theoriginof
free-willed consciousness: if humanity is the only species possessing a
free-willed consciousness, and if humans evolved, then we must suppose that
free-willed consciousness evolved. However, how could one type of phenomenon,
matter ruled by probabilistic determined randomness (PDR) give rise to a qualitatively
different phenomenon via evolution? How could PDR processes give rise to free
will processes?
One answer
would be that free will was inherent in the universe and at a certain point in
the evolution of the human brain, free will existed
where it had "previously" not existed. When the brain achieved a
certain
complexity it connected to the free will inherent in the universe. Or, as an acausal phenomenon it needed no direct preceding
"cause" and could thus arise even as the product of PDR processes.
Free Will and the Collapse
of the Wave Function
Free will is possible only as a property of a consciousness - an "I" that wills. (This can be seen upon some reflection.) On the other hand, although consciousness is possible without an accompanying free will. it would be powerless to affect the universe since in the absence of free will everything occurs as it would without the existence of consciousness: consciousness is a prisoner of its ‘host body’.
Thus if by
human consciousness we mean a phenomenon which can interact with the universe
and affect it, then we must consider consciousness to be free-willed, and so we
can for this purpose consider free will and human consciousness as inseparable.
Free will is the only phenomenon which involves processes not bound to
the probabilistic constraints of quantum physics. Free will can even be
considered as a general case of which quantum probabilism
is a special case- ie when many options exist for how
an event will occur but it occurs in a probabilistic way rather than freely.
Thus it can
almost be expected that free will "transcend" quantum processes in
some way. Since consciousness is our only means of knowing of all physical
events -they exist (to us) only inasmuch as they are reported by our consciousness-it
can almost be expected that consciousness might play an important physical role
in the actualization of events.
The Measurement Problem of
Quantum Physics
Every event
is "recorded" automatically as it occurs by virtue of its effect on
the universe-however, this type of recording is not sufficient to
"collapse the wave function",
Humans are
natural products of the natural universe. If their actions result from
random/determined processes, then these actions are likewise random/determined,
and thus their actions are natural events qualitatively no different than any
other natural event in the physical universe. How then can it be that human
measurement (by human consciousness or by a recording apparatus constructed by
a conscious being and consulted by it) can “collapse the wave function”? How is
human measurement qualitatively different from the automatic recording of an
event by chance.
Attributing the difference to human consciousness is useless because if consciousness is governed at its most fundamental level by quantum processes then the argument is circular. However if the operative element is free will, then we can understand why the measurement of a free-willed consciousness is qualitatively different. And different in precisely the required way. Free will can cause events which would not have occurred in a purely quantum universe. It transcends quantum physics. It is in its essence a choice-making phenomenon, choosing which reality it wishes to create. Thus a free-willed consciousness is a unique phenomenon and perhaps is uniquely qualified to "collapse the quantum wave function".
1) This would
have important ramifications for the issue of contrafactual
definiteness,
2) Quantum
physics implies the existence of a new type of logical structure: quantum
logic. The causality of ordinary logic implies that free will is impossible.
Perhaps using quantum transcendent free will one can construct a new "free
logic".
PartV
In sum we present
three options:
Option A
The universe arose by itself, via chance. Life emerged
from non-life and humans evolved from ‘lower’ life forms. Qualitatively human,
animal, vegetable and mineral follow identical physical law, and human mental
activity is no exception.
All events including mental events occur in a PDR
way, and thus free will is physically impossible. In addition, if causality
is valid, then free will is logically impossible, Therefore, man has no
control over his actions and thought and cannot logically be held responsible
for them. Of course people are not logical, and thus many people feel that
they are responsible for their actions, and have invented the words "moral
responsibility" to describe this emotion.
Our feeling that we have free will is real-it
is a real feeling-but free will itself does not exist. Free will is a chimera,
and our belief in moral responsibility is an erroneous belief.
Option B
God created the universe and instituted a system of "natural
law" to run it. All events occur in accordance with this natural law,
except when God intervenes in nature. If quantum physics is correct, then the
state of the universe at any time follows in a probabilistically determined
random way from the initial created state of the universe. Therefore,
everything that occurs does so as a direct result of some combination of God's
choice of initial state, God's choice of system of natural laws, and
randomness. Clearly, God cannot expect humans to act differently than they do
since all follows determinedly from God’s initial creation, and so humanity
cannot be held responsible for its actions. Those who do not
realize that they really do not have free will and believe that they are responsible,
i.e. that they do have free will, are wrong.
Option C
God created
the universe in such a way that except for consciousness it follows the PDR
laws of quantum physics. Humans are conscious and have free will and are
responsible for their actions.
[ie: Quantum
physics (PDR) does not hold in the realm of human mental processes, and a
causality-defying process allows one to freely choose actions in a rational way
without this choice being determined due to its rationale.]
The
belief that humans are purely physical beings and consciousness is a physical
phenomenon as any other is incompatible with our most deeply held beliefs
about moral responsibility. Indeed, if one had to choose deterministic and
materialistic science or moral responsibility, most scientists would choose the
latter. Belief in human moral responsibility implies rejection of the
universality of quantum physics and of the seemingly logical demands of
causality.
The
assumption that humans are purely physical is not only unproven but is also
logically incompatible with those beliefs we are most sure of. These
assumptions are not science but rather are part of a mechanistic/atheistic
philosophy.
Bibliography
·
Burtt,
E.A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (revised edition).
N.Y.: Doubleday, 1954, See especially pp. 64-67, 75, 94,
·
d'Espagnat,
Bernard. "Quantum Theory and Reality," Scientific American, Nov,
1979, pp. 128-140.
·
Wheeler, J.A. "Beyond the
Black Hole," Some Strangeness In the
Proportion. N.Y.: Addison-Wesley, 1980.