Saturday, April 25, 2009

"Choice, Chance, and the Actions of Others": A Religio-Scientific Interpretation of Free Will


First, imagine the conceivable dimensions of space geometrically: a line connecting two points is the first dimension - it has length but no width or depth. If we add a line branching from this original line, we have created the second dimension - on a plane, these two lines taken as a whole have length and width but no depth. Visualizing the third dimension is the easiest since we live in this dimension, but if we think of this dimension not as a third line on another plane, but as a fold connecting the two original lines, it will help us to imagine dimensions higher than the fourth. So, imagine that we cannot simply draw another line along another plane to give it depth. Now, imagine the third dimension, instead, as a fold of one of the original lines to meet the other line (like a two dimensional ant on the surface of a two dimensional newspaper, or Mario in one of the wrap around screens) being able to seemingly blink from one section to another if we were to fold those two points together. Still, with me? If we imagine the fourth dimension, time or duration, as another geometric line, then the fifth dimension is a line branching from our fourth dimensional line of time. There are infinitely many branches, all of which exist and represent all of the possible future available to us in this universe, but they are inaccessible to us, since we are bound by three dimensions. Getting to any of these branches requires only "choice , chance, and the actions of others", although we can only travel down one of these branches at any given moment. This is another way of saying that free will is our access point to the fifth dimension. We'll return to this notion at the end to demonstrate the conceptual possibility of viewing free will outside the realm of our own three dimensional universe. The implications of these amorphous suppositions have roots in both scientific and religious disciplines, and I wish to explore these in their totality.

I was prompted into deeper thinking about these topics recently because of four things: firstly, the recent posting of my graduate writing sample discusses the concept of free will in the historical context of astrology, witchcraft, the thought of Patristic writers and other pre-modern Christian theologians, and the writings of Shakespeare; secondly, a recent post by my friend Jason on the "implications of omnipotence" and the incompatibility of free will and an omnipotent God; thirdly, my recent, and almost unintentionally relevant, reading of two books on the topic: Science and Creation: A Search for Understanding by theoretical physicist turned Anglican priest John Polkinghorne and Freedom of Choice Affirmed by agnostic humanist philosopher Corliss Lamont; and fourthly, the previous video, linked here and above, which, quite frankly, was mind-boggling to me the first time I watched it, but which illustrates how to visualize dimensions higher than the fourth. This has profound implications for what we may call free will or the freedom of choice. Since I've already posted 15,000 words or so on the first section, we'll jump right into the blog post, books, and end by reconceptualizing the contents of the video within the context of free will.

In the discourse of the modern day discussion of free will vs. determinism, one must begin with the Church Fathers and Christian theologians of the Middle Ages. And, if we begin with the most influential of them all, Augustine, we immediately run into contradictory interpretations of the phenomenon. On the one hand, Augustine seems to deny free will, giving all power over the past, present, and future to God. He states that the number of saved souls is fixed, has been since the beginning of time, and that all are predestined to go either to heaven or hell. But Augustine, perhaps counterintuitively from a contemporary perspective, differentiates between determinism and predestination. The former is an absolute fixity in the future of the universe, which he denies, whereas the second only refers to the ultimate fate of individual souls, whose choices, freely made, determine their final location. The Catholic Church, which holds the existence of free will to be compatible with its doctrine, regards the writings of Augustine as affirming free will, in that he asserts that "any can be saved if they wish." Indeed, the Calvinist view of hard determinism would be diametrically opposed to the Catholic doctrine of free will beginning in the 16th century. The difference is merely in the perspective - our lack of knowledge as to our ultimate fate renders free will a reality, while from God's perspective, it is already known and decided. While contradictory, this nevertheless represents Augustine's and the Church's position, as Augustine constantly refers to free will as the ability of any person to accept Christ and thus be saved through grace. He says as much in his theological treatise "On Free Choice of the Will". The pre-determinism found in his writings is usually contextualized with the contemporary heresy of Pelagianism that Augustine was combating - Pelagius taught that humans could be saved of their own accord and did not need the saving grace of Christ, which Augustine rejected.

If free will is equivalent to freedom of choice, then perhaps the question lies in cause and effect. Here, however, the verdict, both philosophical and scientific, is still out. One of the earliest and most influential conceptions of cause and effect, is Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover," an imagined originator of the universe, defined as the original cause through which all existence may be termed an effect. Though the idea may seem similar to the concept of "God", it must be noted that Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" was not anthropomorphic and did not play an active role in creation as the Judeo-Christian God did. Thus, it was originally considered incompatible with the creator God until the the great Scholastic Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas did Aristotle one better, or five better as it were. Aristotle had contended that the universe was eternal and had proposed the idea of a hypothetical "Unmoved Mover" as a necessary attribute of any universe that did have a temporal beginning. Aquinas, who as a Christian believed in a finite universe with a definite temporal beginning, took the "Unmoved Mover" concept as a given and as his starting point for his Quinquae Viae, or the Five Ways. The Five Ways, originally conceived as a rational approach to proving the existence of God, also contains major implications for the conflict between free will and determinism. Polkinghorne simplifies them thusly: "1) The existence of change...conclude[s] that there must be a first originator of change; 2) the existence of causation...conclude[s] that there must be a first cause; 3) the existence of coming to be and ceasing to be...conclude[s] that the world's actual continuance requires an unchanging ground of its existence; 4) the existence of gradations and qualities...conclude[s] that there must be one whose perfection is the ground for all partial qualities; 5) the existence of purpose in this world...conclude[s] the necessity of an intelligence directing it." (I plan on posting more on this later). A "first cause" equivalent to God implies a certain top-down control in the matter if we accept Aquinas' version of a "first cause" rather than Aristotle's, though I think Polkinghorne is right when he points out that Aquinas was more concerned with a "logical hierarchy" than a "temporal priority." This continues to muddy the argument and even though the official Catholic position is one of free will, the greatest writings on the matter do not shed any particularly coherent light on the issue.

Science, however, is no clearer. Traditional Newtonian physics is fairly cut and dried. It is classically mechanistic: 1) a body at rest or in uniform motion stays in that state unless acted upon by an external force, 2) force equals mass times the acceleration of a given object (F=ma), and 3) for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. These are Newton's three laws of motion simplified, and these, in some ways, also seem to imply determinism. The late 18th century French physicist and astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace used these physical laws to create his own thought experiment, oftentimes called "Laplace's demon", which posits that if a demon with unlimited calculating power were given the location and momentum of every atom in the universe, he could predict the entire future of that universe. Carried further, this suggests that, of course, no human (Hari Seldon aside) could ever have this knowledge considering our own intellectual limitations, but an infinitely superior being with such power could in fact have such knowledge. Laplace called this being a demon, but what is to stop us in our conceptual language from granting this ability to God? Again, is this not exactly the God described by the Calvinists? This is where the conflict between knowing the future and controlling the future comes into play, which Augustine and other Christians have explained simply as a difference in perception. But, we must push this idea even further. As it turns out, Newtonian physics only describes the universe in general macroscopic terms, and at very small sizes and very fast velocities, it does not describe reality accurately. The determinism of Laplace's demon is overturned by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which states that if one knows the location of a subatomic particle, one cannot know its precise momentum, and if one knows the momentum of a subatomic particle, its precise location is indeterminate. So much for a demon with a calculator knowing our future - he can never input both variables into his equation. Einstein famously mused, in regards to quantum mechanics, that "God does not play dice." By playing dice, though, quantum physics, at least in this respect, affirms a universe of free choice.

The truth of the matter remains murky, and even more recent scientific discoveries swing the pendulum back in the direction of determinism: certain electrons seem to be able to "communicate" with each other no matter the distance and in certain experiments involving these electrons, effects are quite capable of appearing before causes (according to some). Recent studies by neurobiologists and cognitive scientists in the realm of simple voluntary movement have shown that the brain is aware of the movements we are about to make before our conscious minds are. Chance is another conundrum. What we call chance, may not really be chance at all (though I don't suspect a coin flip in our universe will come up heads ninety-two times in a row) but "infinitely complex order." When odds are calculated in a coin flip, for example, one would say that the odds of a coin coming up heads is 1 in 2, all things being equal. In reality, all things are never equal, and variations in the weight of the coin, the strength and direction of the toss, which side it is on to begin with, how many times it bounces, etc. will have an effect on the outcome. Only the hypothetical continuation of the flip for all eternity will give a statistical average of 1 in 2. Chance is simply infinitely complex order, indistinguishable from what we may call chaos but which is not chaos. In other words, order and disorder are not mutually exclusive, but "disorder" is simply order so complex as to be unpredictable and thus equivalent to what we would call chance. Perhaps free will is this very form of "unpredictability", so complex at a universal scale, that only God Himself is capable of discerning the order from the disorder. The acausal connecting principle synchronicity, by this definition, could be defined as more than chance - it could be a pattern found in the apparent disorder of the universe, a glimpse at the infinite complexity of reality. In short, science is no clearer than religion is on this matter.

Justice is an entirely separate concern. If we ask the question "Do humans have free will?" and the answer is no, does this necessarily imply that the universe is unjust? Some critics point out, I believe with a fair amount of justification, the incompatibility of an omniscient and omnipotent God who nevertheless has endowed us with free will. If an all-knowing and all-powerful God, both established conditions for Christian belief, truly does exist, then His knowledge about the universe, the criticism goes, implies that your choice is really His choice (an effect that can trace itself all the way back to Aquinas' "First Cause" of Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover"), and this lack of control on our part is unjust. The traditional Christian rebuttal would be something to the effect of "God exists outside of time and space and thus His knowledge does not affect your will. All of eternity is a continual unified 'present' from God's perspective, whereas we are forced to perceive the universe temporally and spatially." Implicit in this argument is the fact that, as God exists outside of any conceptual framework we could ever attempt to comprehend, so too is His justice and judgment beyond our comprehension.

In closing, let us return to the thought experiment we began with. Beyond our perceivable three spatial dimensions and the fourth of time, superstring theory posits the existence of 10 dimensions (or 11 if time is included as a dimension rather than a "direction"). The fifth dimension, according to the geometric concept laid out in the opening paragraph, consists of branches extending out from the "line" of time. In the totality of the universe, the point from which we start "contains" all of three dimensional space starting with the big bang and the point where the line ends is the temporal and spatial end of the universe. But, since time is not fixed (at least from our three dimensional perspective), there are an infinite number of "branches" from this line that creates the fifth dimension (heat death, big crunch, etc.). A "folding" of this fifth dimensional line to meet another fifth dimensional line takes us into the sixth dimension, and this would be the equivalent of a warp or wormhole leading to another timeline within our own universe. Then, taking all these branches as a new geometric point (just as we did to the first three dimensions), we could term this "infinity", since every timeline that could possibly exist within our universe exists within this point. We can then draw a line from this infinity to entirely different infinities. How is this possible? Because the first "infinity point" contains only all possible timelines in our current universe and does not contain timelines from other universes (the "multiverse"), where the initial conditions following the big bang are different and create different physical laws (for example, another universe may have a light speed faster than ours or a boiling point of water higher than 100 Celsius or where gravity is stronger than the electro-magnetic force, etc.) Following the original premise, branches and folds produce the eighth and ninth dimensions, which, when collapsed into a point, creates the tenth dimension. No more lines can be drawn from here, since we have already exahausted "all possible timelines for all possible universes". Does this make sense? No, not really. . . just watch the video. It will be easier to understand it conceptually as opposed to reading an imperfect verbal description. So what's the point in describing all these dimensions? Because, according to this conceptualization of supersting theory's "higher dimensions," everything that exists beyond the fifth dimension is dependent upon "choice, chance, and the action of others" in order to exist. All of the possible future timelines (the fifth dimensional branches from our fourth dimensional "line" of time) require our active choice to occur. Or, put another way, the indeterminate nature of the future is simply another way of envisioning the necessity of choice. If we could picture an entity or being that exists in or beyond the 10th dimension, who would necessarily have access to the lower dimensions (as we have access to the second and first), does their knowledge of time, our future, all possible futures, and all possible other universes abrogate our own free will? At least in this respect, I'm not sure that knowledge equals control, even if creation is implied.

I find it telling that Corliss Lamont titled his book Freedom of Choice Affrimed rather than Confirmed. Confirmation presupposes objective knowledge about the subject, and this may prove impossible. This essay was not meant to prove free will valid or invalid, but to shed some light on a new way of thinking about the issue. However, I am certain I feel more confused after exploring this topic over the past week, than less. But when we open new doors we often find ourselves in rooms with completely new mental furniture. And this is never a bad thing.

Tout comprendre, c'est tout accepter. . .

8 comments:

  1. Very interesting post, and I quite enjoyed the video as well. Two comments/questions --

    1. You make mention of the relation between order and disorder by stating that disorder can be viewed as highly complex order. What then, do you have to say about entropy and how it plays in this discussion. Are you dismissing it, redefining it, or do you simply feel that it is not relevant? Can entropy exist if disorder is merely highly complex order? Admittedly, my understanding of entropy is imperfect, but I don't know how it reconciles with your idea.

    2. What of the multi-verse? I've read a fair bit lately about multi-verses and the notion that there are parallel universes out there right now where every possible variation of our current universe has already occurred. If every thing that can occur is occurring somewhere, what does that say about freewill? (Terrifying side note: if the multi-verse idea is correct, there is at least one universe out there where everyone but you just went insane.)

    Anyway, to bring this discussion to a more elementary level -- neat post. I'll be interested to hear what else you have to say.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If your understanding of entropy is imperfect, mine is essentially nonexistent. I'm aware of the concept, but it didn't really play into my thought process, though maybe it should have. Could you be more specific as to how entropy would affect the argument? My understanding of entropy isn't that it's necessarily order to disorder, but a closed system reaching an equilibrium of heat energy. Is that right? In any case, I think the point is that chance, disorder, and infinitely complex order are merely symbols we use to describe a phenomena which may be the same thing - that is, if I roll a die, the "chance" is one in six that it will land on any individual number, but in reality, there are complex motions at work that determine exactly what it would land on. If we could know all the little movements that allowed it to land on whatever it lands on, we wouldn't call it chance - we would call it order, though an extraordinarily complex one. My point is that, when you can't know, what's the difference? Polkinghorne uses this to overturn Laplace's demon (rather than using the, I think more obvious, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).

    As far as the multiverse is concerned, I think free will could still be compatible, since it is, at least theoretically, the choices of individuals that create these other possible universes in the first place. Or, tying into the previous topic, maybe the "infinitely complex order" (all the versions of the universe) is equivalent to chance - or free will in this analogy. Did that make any sense? Again, this a perceptual argument rather than a physical one. But then again, I'm not a physicist.

    And, by the way, sometimes I feel like I'm CURRENTLY living in a universe where I'm the only sane one :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. One thing I didn't mention earlier in regards to chance is the philosophical divide. I forgot about a list given in one chapter of Lamont's book, Freedom of Choice Affirmed, in which he lists the philosophers who have argued that "chance" is an illusion, and that it's merely complex order (Democritus, Marcus Aurelius, Spinoza, Hegel, Russel, and Einstein) and those who regard chance as, well, chance (Aristotle, Epicurus, James, Bergson, and Dewey), and invariably, all in the former group subscribe to the deterministic view and those in the latter subscribe to free will. Perhaps by agreeing with the "chance as complex order" argument, I was inadvertently bolstering the deterministic side of my exploration. It wasn't intentional, though now I feel like I need to reexamine the foundation of my argument.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, on your second comment, I think you hit on what I was trying to bring up with entropy, though I had to go reeducate myself, as it had been a while.

    I still don't see how freewill is compatible with the multiverse. If every choice MUST be made somewhere, how is it possible that the choice you make in this universe is a choice of freewill rather than a requirement of the laws of physics.

    I find all of this really interesting. Especially because I typically end up arguing against freewill even though I, personally, tend to come down in favor of freewill. (My reasoning tends toward the rather simplistic, "I think therefore I am.")

    Anyway, Brian Greene gives a pretty good explantion of why freewill is possible within the frame work of theoretical physics in one of his books. I believe it's The Elegant Universe, but I'm not sure. I read both of his books when doing research for my current novel. I think the frame work may have changed enough in the last few years, however, that what he says in TEU regarding freewill may no longer be considered a valid interpretation of the universe. Anyhow, I've got a long weekend coming up, and I'll try to dig up the information and send it to you or post it here. This is a really interesting discussion. I love talking (writing) about this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would never call anything Cartesian "simplistic" :) I hadn't thought about the "law of physics" argument for free will, which is odd since I've used that argument elsewhere and seen it elsewhere (in the context of consciousness especially). I think I tend to have a less rigid criteria for free will (and the difference between knowledge and control) than you do, which may be a bad thing. Assume you're right about the multiverse containing every possible choice available: that still leaves every available choice open to us (i.e. we CREATE this other universe by our choice, freely made) and even if it's all ordered, we still don't know what this choice will be. Like the difference between chance, disorder, and infinitely complex order: if we can't tell, what's the difference in assigning different terms? I don't know if I necessarily buy that argument, but I think it probably holds as much water as everything else we've said.

    I need to read some Brian Greene. As it is, I've seen the PBS specials but haven't read the books. Maybe that will be on my summer reading list.

    I'm with you on where I tend to fall in the argument. When I first started writing the blog and gathering research, I fully expected to come away believing in free will, but if anything, I think I may lean more towards determinism. Or, I'd say, I believe in freedom of choice within the constraints of certain deterministic laws. I also find it ironic that the religious stuff I've read has been more free will-affirming (despite most of these people being in the "God-has-a-plan-for-me" crowd), while the scientific stuff I expected to be free will-affirming has led me more towards seeing determinism in so many places...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Okay, had time to do a little research finally...

    As you noted, Laplace is overturned by Heisenberg. However, your discussion falls somewhat short in that you do not bring probability waves into the discussion and this, to my understanding, is the really exciting thing about Heisenberg. The ultimate conclusion of H is not that we cannot not know all locations and motions, but that we can, theoretically, know the values of all probability waves (they follow strict mathematical rules), which would tell us the likelihood that any future thing would occur. This is a type of determinism (Greene, and I assume others, call it "Quantum Determinism"), but it does allow for chance, and, presumably, some freewill. Also of note is that (and as far as I know, this is still the case), black holes muddy the situation further as it is still regarded as possible the information can be lost within them. If this is the case, determinism would be weakened virtually to the breaking point. Anyway, if you want to have a look in a bookstore or library, the explanation starts at the bottom of page 340 of the paperback edition of The Elegant Universe. The section is labeled, "The Remaining Mysteries of Black Holes."

    Also, before I wrap up, I think you give a little too much weight to retrocausality as it is not yet proved, though it is a very interesting idea.

    Back to you, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think after all this back and forth discussion, I might just write another post. An addendum of sorts. I especially want to re-address the concept of "ten dimensions" because after further research, that video seems to be kind of unsound scientifically - or rather that it's more of a vision of parallel universes and wormholes than the actual physical dimensions that exist beyond our three.

    Very quickly though, you may want to check out my post from about two months ago entitled "I Am a Hologram, and So Can You!" because I actually talk about the "Black Hole Information Paradox" (if that's what you're referring to) that has so plagued Stephen Hawking. Apparently, the Holographic theory of the universe, which isn't as ridiculous as its name implies, has an explanation for this information loss. I don't fully understand the vocabulary, but the link in my blog takes you to an article in New Scientist magazine that does. The information that is supposedly lost, according to the theory, is stored on the surface of the "hologram" (which may be in one of string theory's dimensions???) and this can be detected in background noise similar to the noise that provides evidence for the Big Bang. How this reconciles with string theory, quantum determinism, the existence of ten dimensions, and free will, I haven't the foggiest...

    And retrocausality? Yeah... I just think it's cool :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I remember that post. I read it and meant to read it again, but never got around to it (ah, the interferences of life). I'll go back and take a look. I love theoretical physics, but it does make my head hurt from time to time.

    I'll look forward to your next post.

    ReplyDelete