Mindless Materialists: A Controversial Proposition. Avi.Rabinowitz - Quantum Kabbalah: Free Will is incompatible with physics and logic - so if it exists, it transcends those: article in B'Ohr HaTorah

Free Will is incompatible with physics and logic - so if it exists, it transcends those:

Article in B'Ohr HaTorah (OCR of scanned text)

The original article published in the journal "B'Ohr HaTorah" is available as a PDF of photos of the pages of the journal, in two sections, in the files linked at the bootom of this page.

An edited version is available elsewhere on this site, MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, INTUITION & EDEN.WHEELER, GODEL & BELL , as well as in separate sections (see eg ACAUSALITY: THE ROOT OF TRUE FREE WILL AND OF UNIVERSAL EMERGENCE INTO EXISTENCE)

Below is a 'scanned to text' version of the printed article, which required editing since the process is not perfect....................................................................

The existence of 'truly-free will has great philosophical-religious importance inasmuch as it is underlies the concept of human moral responsibility. More is however required than just free will. For example it is logically possible that we are "morally responsible" for our choice If the following are true:

we possess a free will so that we can choose our actions,
there is a "good" and an "evil" way of acting,
one "should" be good,

however in this article we examine only the issue of free will. In Part II we'll show why the notion that humans have moral responsibility for their actions is not compatible with the fundamental outlook of modern physical theory, since the idea of free will is incompatible with quantum theory in particular, and with the logic of causality in general.

In Part III we'll briefly discuss the ramifications of this incompatibility. We then present speculations regarding the possible physical and cosmological basis for free will (Part IV). We present our conclusions in Part V.

Part I: The Situation prior to Quantum Physics

The Concept of Natural Law

The very first mathematical equations relating to natural phenomena were those developed by Kepler in about 1600. He was convinced that the real world is one ofquantitative characteristics-as opposed to the Aristotelian belief that the world is composed of qualitative characteristics-and that genuine causes of phenomena-must always be in the nature of some underlying mathematical harmony. According to Kepler, these harmonies originated in the creative mind of G-d, and are the causes of phenomena, not merely their description. Galileo, a contemporary of Kepler, and the founder of terrestrial dynamics (the physics of falling bodies, pendulums and so forth), believed that natUre acts "inexorably... through immutable laws which she never transgresses", (See Burtt.)

Thus, instead of the Aristotelian view of events "unfolding" in a process representing "the actualization of potentiality" -Le. working to fulfill some future goal (teleology)- there arose the new idea of a chain of cause and effect regulated by immutable natural law. The occurrence of an event was now seen to be caused (determined) by prior physical events rather than by some metaphysical "longing to achieve "perfection" or "completion".

Thus, as a result of the revolutionary discoveries of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, the belief grew that all observed phenomena should be described in quantitative terms. The predictive and explanatory power of the new theories as well as their mathematical exactitude convinced all scientists that a set of "natural laws" was operative in the universe governing all its processes.

Furthermore, in a process culminating in the development of the theory of evolution, man himself came to be considered as having arisen via natural law: from the inanimate to the animate via natural processes. Similarly, the universe as a whole was considered to have emerged into existence without the benefit of any supernatural agency. As a result, it was postulated that since man arose within a natural universe via the operation of natural law, there would be no reason to suppose that the laws governing processes in man are any different than those governing the rest of the physical universe-that is, it would be only reasonable to conclude that even man's mental processes are governed by "naturallaw".

Natural Law versus Free Will

From this it follows that those mental processes which man labels "free-willed choices" are actually physical processes occurring entirely according to natural laws of cause-and-effect. That is, they are in reality totally "determined", not free; "Free will" would thus have to be considered a physical impossibility, belief in it an error, and the sensation/experience of making "free-willed choices" an illusion. It is of course an illusion caused by natural processes in the human brain, having their origin in the natural processes (evolution which led to the formation of the human brain. However the fact that an illusion arises naturally makes it no less an illusion.

This seeming opposition between the orderliness of the universe (which leads us to postulate the existence of ~'naturallaw") and the alleged phenomenon of free will (which is impossible if natural law governs all) is however not unavoidable. We can avoid a clash between the two if we do not insist that an immutable natural law exists. Instead of assuming that "natural law" prescribes immutably the path of events, we postulate that "natural law" is merely a description of the path of events. This approach will now be explained.

Causality and Determinism

The "law of gravity" as it was formulated before the modern period stated that all things tend to fall to the earth. This was based on observation, not on some brilliant theoretical deduction. If it had been the case that rocks fell but wood rose to the sky, the "law of gravity" would say "rocks fall and wood rises". If on Sundays and Tuesdays rocks fell but on other days they stayed where placed, the "law of gravity" . would say" exactly that. Even in such a universe'. this "law of gravity" would be "prescriptive"", because it could predict what would happen to rocks and wood if the day of the week were known. However, if every few minutes there was a change so that sometimes rocks fell and sometimes not, sometimes water flowed and sometimes not, then a complete description of events could be made only after they had occurred. However, once a complete list were made then it could be called the "law of gravity". This law could state e.g. that last Tuesday at.g AM rocks fell and at 9:05 they rose and at 9:08... This would be, however, a descriptive rather than a prescriptive law since it describes but does not predict. However, it is a fact of mathematics that no matter how complex this law would be, it would be possible to express it mathematically so that one would have a formula, a mathematical law of nature, to describe the entire history of the universe.

We can see that if we took the history of any universe, even one where the laws change chaotically every minute, we could write down its entire history, even express it mathematically, and call it the "natural law" of that universe. We would be justified in calling it this because every event could be derived from this "natural law"... However, this would be a descriptive rather than a prescriptive law.

In contrast, imagine a universe in which prescriptive natural laws are available, and in which these laws maintain their validity always and everywhere, and where only a very few basic laws are needed to predict any event anywhere. In such a universe, rather than considering natural law as a "description" of events, as it would be in a chaotic universe, we are tempted, after meditating on this regularity and encountering it everywhere and always, to consider that events must occur in accordance with natural law.

This approach, which postulates that nature "must obey" natural law, obviously considers natural law to be far more than merely a convenient (mathematical) description of how events occur.

However, neither approach is conclusive; both have equal logical validity. Although we are more used to the latter approach-where natural law dictates how events must occur-the former approach-where "natural law" is merely Ia description of how events actually occur -is entirely valid.

What we are actually saying is that "causality" is not a priori truth: if effect Y always has followed from cause X, we do not say that if X occurs then Y must follow it (i.e. that Y is "determined" by X. or Y is "caused" by Xj, but ratherthat "so far Y has been observed to follow X".

Thus it is entirely possible that at some time X will occur without "causing" Y to occur. Conversely, Y can occur without having X occur prior to it. If this is so, then even the apparently immutable order of our universe does not logically imply that all processes occur in accordance with causality: there would be then no logical necessity to consider mental events as following causal laws everi if they were totally natural phenomena. Thus human free will could exist even in a seemingly deterministic universe.

However, although it is true that logic does not compel us to assume causality, nevertheless physics does assume the existence of a causal structure to the universe and its processes: indeed. one of the accepted signs of a true theory of nature is that it is "elegant". All great physicists have believed deeply that a simple order permeates all the phenomena in the universe, and that one great-yet elegantly simple-equation/law can describe all of nature. This belief in the unity of nature and in the elegance and simplicity of its laws has not only inspired generations of physicists, but it has led them to searches which have so far confirmed the validity of that belief.

Along with this belief in the operation of law in the universe was the belief that everything within the universe - including humans and the mental activity in their brains - operates in accordance with this law. Thus, scientific attitude rules out the existence of free will even though it is not necessarily constrained to do so.

In any case, we will see that even if one denies the existence of "natural law", and thus of causality, one encounters a very basic difficulty inherent in the logical content of the idea of free will: free will seems to be possible only if it involves processes which give the lie to its being free. This logical inconsistency in the very concept of free will is explained farther on in this article.

.The Religious-Scientific View before Quantum Physics

Before proceeding to a discussion of quantum physics, we shall examine the problem of free will versus determinism from the viewpoint of a religious scientist before the advent of quantum physics. Such a person would believe that the natural law operating in the universe is a creation of G-d (and perhaps that the unity it manifests and the awe and sense of beauty it engenders are reflections of the Divine unity'and majesty).

Using this approach of a universe created by G-d, which is run according to a set of divinely created, immutable prescriptive laws of nature, we can presentthe conflict with free- will even more graphically, as follows.

The Universe as G-d's Machine

Assuming that G-d created the universe and natural law, then any actlevent which follows automatically from the initial state of the universe is indirectly an

act of G-d. In order that man be responsible for his actions it must be true not only that it was physically possible for him to act otherwise than he did but also that he was free to choose h is action from a mong these available alternatives. Under these conditions, we can say that free will exists. If on the other hand it was not physically possible for him to choose any of the other alternatives, or if there were no other alternatives to choose, then his act is an automatic one, and is caused by the conditions of the universe as G-d created it. As such, it is an act of G-d, and not an act for

which' man can be said to bear responsibility.

Two of the fundamentals of Judaism are that man is commanded by G-d to shun certain actions and to actively pursue oth.. ers and that man is responsible for his actions. This implies that it is up to man' whether or not he will do these actions, Le.

that man has a free will. Science, on the other hand, has raised a number of objections to the idea of free will. ' .

According to the philosophical interpretation of scientific determinism presented above, all phenomena are governed by natural law: Le. all events always' occur in accordance with certain cause-effect relationships, and only in accordance with them, as though they were obediantly following some all-powerful set of laws. We thus call these regular cause-effect relationships "natural law". As a result, if one possesses all the relevant information characterizing a system (any system) at anyone point in time, then since event must follow event in accordance with natural law, if the natural law is known it is possible to compute the exact state of that system as it would be at any other time, past or future.

Since event follows event in a way immutably set by natural law, we say that events are" determined" by prior events, and thus we say that the state of the system at present is determined by the state as it was at a previous time. Implicit in this philosophy is the belief that all observed phenomena are subject to natural laws. For example, although thoughts, emotions and decisions are mental phenomena, they are detectable by human consciousness and are therefore considered to be operating subject to some (albeit as yet unknown) natural law. Knowing the state of the entire physical universe at any given time allows one in theory to predict its state at any future time; and, as part of the physical universe, thoughts and emotions would be predictable as well.

Of course, the necessary calculations might well be so long and difficult that the entire human race with all its computers might not be able to complete such a prediction. Nevertheless, the problem is at least theoretically soluble. That is, given all thoughts, emotions, actions motions, positions... of all the particlesl entities in the universe, as they arel were at any point in time, their future thoughts, emotions, actions, motions and positions could be exactly specified. For example, your thoughts at this very moment were determined by the previous state of the universe (which includes the previous state of your brain and of your surroundings). That state was determined in turn by the previous state and so on, so that your thoughts now are actually determined by the very first state of the universe.

The possibility has been raised that even were such a calculation made, the amount of information to be processed would be so vast that even in theory the result could be obtained only after the predicted event already occurred. For example, a prediction otthe state of the universe one year in the future would take more than a year to calculate.

However, in our case, this is irrelevant: when we say that the future can be predicted, we mean that it is determinedeven if the prediction of events requires a longer amount of time than the actual occurrence of the events, if they can be predicted at all, then this is proof that the events are determined.

Thus, if the exact state of the Big Bang were known, one could (in theory) predict all the actions, thoughts, works of art and philosophy and science, all acts and words of kindness and brutality, love and hate, of all humanity for all time.

Thus, if the theory that the universe is (totally) deterministic is correct, then every act that we consider to be spiritual, good, meaningful or beautiful is merely an inevitable, automatic consequence of the Big Bang.

It is not even necessary that it be possible for man or any physical being in our universe to be able to predict the unfolding of the universe in order for this to be true. Obviously, if G-d created the universe with its physical laws in such a way that it would develop in one and only one way, then everything that occurs in that universe is an automatic result of G-d's creating the universe. Whether or not we can predict events, they are nevertheless determined.

Determinism versus Free Will

Now, if human acts are truly automatic results, we can neither claim credit for our meritorious deeds nor be held responsible for even the most reprehensible crimes. Rather, since G-d created the Big Bang, and all our actions follow inevitably from it, then G-d is the direct cause of all that "we" do. Humanity and the rest of nature are merely the puppets through which the universe acts out the drama programed into the Big Bang by G-d.

Indeed, if the universe actually does develop in this totally automatic way, then it is in reality merely a very large machine of which we are simply a small part. Like the motions of a machine, our actions are devoid of any moral or spiritual meaning.

The motions of a machine cannot be "good" or "evil"-they just "are". As determined, automatic events, our actions, thoughts and emotions are thus neither "good" nor "evi'''-they just "are".

Yet we all feel very deeply that our actions do possess meaning and that there does exist a distinction between right and wrong, good and evil. Is there any way to overcome this paradox? Can our actions have meaning?

Clearly, in order that we could consider our actions to have any meaning, we would have to believe that in some way we could control what we do.

If we control our action, then at least to some degree we are neither puppets nor machines; our actions can carry with them a measure of "responsibility"; and they therefore have the potential to be meaningful. However, for it to be true that we indeed control our actions, it must be true that, for any possible course of moral action taken by man, alternative possibilities existed, and man could have chosen freely from among them. .

The idea of undetermined processes seemed contrary to the spirit of science and of physics in particular. Thus, many people ceased to believe in free will so that they would not be forced to give up a belief in science and predictability. It was postulated that our feeling that we possess a free will is only a fantasy (caused perhaps by that strange phenomenon we call consciousness). Non-religious scientists flirted with the idea of man as an evolved mechanistic organism without free will, and religious scientists were on the defensive (trying to justify belief in the acausality of free will).

...

However, these conditions were negated by physics. It was an accepted doctrine in physics that each event occurred as a direct, inevitable result of other events. There are no alternatives possible. The event occurs as it does because it cannot occur otherwise. It is "determined".

And then came Quantum physics.

Explanation of Quantum Physics

According to Quantum physics, events at the most fundamental level are not determined but can instead occur in more than one way. In order to know how an event will occur, one must use the Quantum formulas to determine both the different ways the event can occur and also the relative probability of each such different way of occurrence. Then nature rolls the dice and chooses one of these ways.

FIGURE

(p147)

For example: quantum formulas applied to process X show that there are five ways for it to occur: A, B, C, D and E. The formulas show further that item A has a 10% probability; B 5%; C 35%; D 27% and E 23%_ Nature then constructs the following table in its mind (see Figure) and then rolls a one-hundred sided die. The 100 sides are numbered from 1 through 100, and thus each number has an equal chance in each throw. If the number on the die is between 1 and 10 then event X occurs in way A. If the number is between 51-77, it occurs in way D, and so on.

Every physical process is governed by physical law, and every event occurs in some specific circumstance. By combining a knowledge of the relevant physical law and the relevant circumstances with the

rules of Quantum physics, one can exactly determine the relative probabilities of each "way of occurrence" for every type ofphysical process, under any circumstance.

Since the relative probabilities are exactly determined, we call Quantum processes "probabilistically-determined" pro

cesses. However, to stress the factthat the actual choice is made using a random procedure (nature's "dice") we call Quantum events "probabilistically-determined random events" (to be abbreviated here as "PDR" events).

Part II

Free Will

To many people, this weakening of determinism seemed to present the possibility that free will does indeed exist; since there is indeed a multiplicity of options

available at each decision point, our decisions are not uniquely determined.

However, it would seem that this was a misplaced hope. It became clear that although there is indeed a multiplicity of physically possible options for each event, the choice of which possibility to select is not up to us, but is rather up to pure chance (nature's dice).

Quantum Physics and Free Will

According to Quantum physics, the universe is governed by probabilistically determined randomness (PDR). We can imagine the development of the universe in the following way: outside the universe there is a "random number generator", and every time a Quantum process is to occur in the universe, the universe picks a random numberfrom the generator and causes the events to occur in accordance with the

chosen random number. Therefore, any event in the universe is partially predetermined by the initial stateofthe universe and is partially random, i.e. it is PDR. Human beings are part of the universe, as are their thoughts, emotions and decisions. As such,

all actions, thoughts, emotions and decisions of all people of all time are partially predetermined automatic events, and partiallyrandomones, i.e. they are PDR events.

Obviously the thought '" am dead" does not reflect reality; nor does the thought "the world is flat". However, one can imagine circumstances which would lead to the arising of such thoughts. That is,

although all thoughts always result automatically/randomly from the initial state of the universe, the contents of a thought need not be true. Thus, although thoughts such as "I have a free will", or "this thought is neither determined nor "PD random" will exist in the universe, even though deeply held beliefs in free will exist, nevertheless if quantum physics is correct then there is actually no free will, and all thoughts are determined/PD random.

Probabilistic Quantum Free Will

Since free will assumes that more than one option is available in each decision, it thus is in this respect compatible with quantum physics. However, free will seems also to conflict with quantum physics since, according to quantum physics, events are decided by a random process while free will requires a very nonrandom, deliberate choice.

One could, however, seemingly get around this difficulty as follows: Very little is known about the human mind/brain. It is quite possible that if the laws of the mind were known, it would turn out that when quantum physics was applied to them, the result would be that the relative probability of a quantum event in the brain's decision center occurring as the mind wishes it to

choice must be made, the possible options offered by quantum physics are considered, and the will chooses one of the options. Then the die is flipped. If it lands on any number between 1-821,367 or 821,369-1 ,DOO,OOO then the free-willed choice is acted upon. If it lands on 821,368

then it is not acted upon. Thus in only one out of 1,000,000 choices will the event not occur as desired.1

The Basic Problem

occur is 99.999%. That is, decisions are based on quantum processes, so that there are options available to choose from, and yet the choice of which option to follow is highly unarbitrary. The choice process, although random, is so heavily weighted in favor of occurring as the mind wishes it to occur that events effectively follow the mind's will. This is as if one had a 1 ,OOO,DOO-sided die. Each time a free-willed

It would then seem that free will is compatible with quantum physics. However, in actuality it is not. The problem lies in the causal chain leading to the decision to act. Even if we say that once the decision is made to do C for example, that the relative probability of C occurring becomes 99.999%, the problem remains that we still must examine how it came about that C was decided upon rather than A. B, D or E. Whatever process it was, it was either random or determined and thus not free. That is, we can use quantum physics to say that it is indeed possible that there are options available, and that once the ,'ree decision is made one can force events to

occur in accordance with the choice. However, it is still impossible to understand how the choice itself can be arrived at except via physical processes, which are

all necessarily random or determined.

In other words, it is true that when making a decision, various options are open, as postulated by quantum physics (rather than there being only one' inevitable "option" as per classical determinate physics). It is also true that. once the mind decides which of these options to choose, it can ensure that its choice is followed -with a degree of certainty of 99.999%-since the physicallaws.of consciousness and of free will taken together

1 Indeed there is reason to believe that conscious. ness "controls" quantum events. See tha section entitled "Free Will and the Collapse of the Wave Function" below.

with quantum physics determine that the relative probability of events occurring as decided by the will is 99.999%. What still

. remains an insurmountable difficulty is the question of how the decision itself is taken, i.e. what is the procedure whereby the mind chooses its desired option. The decision will involve quantum and macroscopic processes and will thus also be either random or determined. There is no way to exit from this loop. If the processes in

macroscopic ones, then at the most fundamental level all is random and/or determined, not "free".

. Quantum physics does solve the problem of the multiplicity of options necessary to free will, and it can allow decisions to be carried out with arbitrary precision by appropriate manipulation of the relative probabilities. Nevertheless, it is not able to solve the basic problem of how the actual choice is arrived at.

If all is governed by quantum physics, then all events in the universe occur in a probabilistically determined manner. That is, to some extent they are determined and to some extent they are random. Clearly the Big Bang, the conditions prevailing at the Big Bang, the laws of nature, and chance are the only parameters needed to

produce every event' in the universe, including the human mental events we call free-willed decisions. Since the Big Bang,

its initial conditions and the laws of nature were all created by G-d, then one can see that all events in the universe-including free-willed decisions-are partially auto

matic results of G-d's act of Creation and partially chance. Certainly no responsibil

ity can be attributed to man for his actions, and G-d can obviously not "expect" man to act any way other than the way he .does.

The Life of the Universe as a Meaningless Game of Dice

volved can only be either quantum or

The Universe as G-d's (Quantum) Machine

In order to ensure that the resulting universe be of the desired type, then if G-d were to create a Big Bang and natural law and so forth, He would do so according to some mental blueprint. Then, before actually creating the Big Bang, G-d could use this Big Bang blueprint to extrapolate and find all the "quantumly possible universe histories" which could result from this Big Bang. The actual universe-history would of necessity be one of these.

Since it is chance that determines which of the possible universe-histories is actually realized, we can say that the actual universe-history is chosen at random from among the (ensemble of) possi

histories, it would be "easier", more "elegant" and "faster" for G-d to simply choose a universe-history at random from among the possible universe-histories. There is no need to actually create the universe or even the Big Bang: all G-d needs is the blueprint for the Big Bangl To actually go ahead and create the Big Bang and

allow it to develop into a complete universe containing human life and soforth is ineffi

ble universe-histories.

Thus, instead of G-d actually creating the universe and allowing it to develoD intr one of the known possible univers~

cient and superfluous and adds no meaning or content to the universe and life within it.

Thus the creation by G-d of a universe is simply an elaborate game of chance. which boils down to G-d playing a solitaire game of die-throwing, a game involving only one single throw of the (infinite-sided) die.

The Universe without G-d

We now imagine the universe as having emerged into existence by itself, without the benefit of a creative act on the part of G-d (G-d forbid), as an atheist would have it. Certainly this would not change the fact that all human mental processes are random/determined events. Indeed, they would be in this case doubly random/determined events since they would be based or. the chance-derived conditions of the Big Bang, where the Big Bang itself emerged into existence by chance (rather than by Divine design).

Either way, if the universe were created or arose by chance, its life drama would be merely an empty farce, a one-shot game of chance on a cosmic scale. That G-dshould engage in such a boring farce is inconceivable.

Free Will

The only way for the Creator to prevent the creation of a universe from degenerating to this kind of trivial and meaningless die-throwing is to introduce a non-deterministic, non-random factor -namely free will.

If a universe contains free-willed decisions, its history can be neither determined by the initial Big Bang conditions nor simulated by throwing dice, The history of a free-willed universe can be actualized only if it is created and allowed to actually live its history. Having the blueprint of such a universe is not enough-no extrapolation and die-throwing can simulate the history it would have. Therefore such a universe can have meaning and purpose to its creation and to its life history.2 Thus, free will is not merely an incidental phenomenon in the universe. From the religious perspective it is the only factor in the universe which can justify the very existence of the universel

A Radical Solution

Clearly, the only mechanism which can allow a free-willed process is one which does not rely on quantum or macroscopic processes but instead relies on some hitherto unknown-to-science, acausal, "free" process which goes beyond determinism and beyond PD randomness. Once this "free" process is employed to decide "freely" how to react, no problems r'3main. Indeed, if such a free process exists:. quantum physics becomes irrelevant to the issue of free will since the remaining steps

can be taken on the macroscopic level -with 100% probability rather than the 99.999% probability supplied by quantum physics. Quantum effects would only interfere since they would introduce an unwanted element of randomness into a carefully arrived-at "free" decision.

Thus, quantum physics alone is not radical enough to encompass free will. In order to allow free will, we must postulate a new "free acausal" process. However, once this process is allowed, there is no need for quantum physics at all. Instead, we can say that as far as the requirements of free will are concerned, once the decision is made by the "free" process, the rest can occur in a deterministic way.

Footnote: G-d's omniscience implies knowledge of . what we will do" but not "what we would do had we been created". It is necessary that G-d create the universe and allow it to have a life history in order for G-d to be Omniscient in regard to the events in that history.

Of course we still require the validity of that basic postulate of quantum physics which allows a multiplicity of options. However, we do not need to consider quantum physics and our new phenomena as separate laws. Instead we can consider our new "free" process to be a more fundamental phenomenon in nature than quantum physics, so that it includes within itself the multiplicity of options of quantum physics as well as the radical free-choice ability. Quantum physics could then be considered a special limited case of this phenomenon, i.e. operating in those instances where the decision between options is not "free", as it is in its general form, but is instead PDR. We canthen consider determinism to be a further special, even-more-limited case, where the decision occurs neither freely nor PDR but rather with 100% probability in one set way, so that in effect no options exist.

Free Will: Probabilistically Determined Acausality

According to religion, man can freely choose his actions. However, according to science, man's activity is governed by his genetic structure and his environment (all that occurs to him). In our analysis here we assume that indeed man can freely choose his actions from among infinitely many variations but that the probability of his choosing some particular action is determined by genetics and environment. Then, in analogy to the randomness of quantum physics, we consider the actual choice of

action to be totally maepenaem OT lilt: UIUInary causal structure of events. Instead, the choice of action is decided on by a free-willed mechanism.3

Of course, the more that one chooses that which is easier, more convenient and so on, the less one's self-control and will power are developed, the more one's ability to choose freely atrophies and the smaller the likelihood of choosing the correct way.

Quantum Physics, Intuition and Free Will-the Role of Quantum Physics in the Free Will Question

As phenomena in themselves, quantum processes are' insufficiently radical to allow the operation of free-willed activity. However, the very existence of quantum processes shaners the myth that all physical processes must be deterministic, and thus opens the door to acausal processe5 such as "free will".

Although it is easy to imagine deterministic processes, quantum physics teache! us that these are really random at their most fundamental level. The fact the result is violently counterintuitive indicates to us the inadequacy of our intui tion regarding what is, and what is nol physically possible. Thus, although the extreme acausality required for free-will

Footnote 3: We can evade problems of "hidden variables' Bell's inequality and so on (see d'Espagnat) b pointing out that even in the free-willed cas where the event is not random. this is only due t the effect of some outside cause which forces th quantum event to occur as it wills the event t occur-there are no hidden variables within th system itself which determine how it will occu Rather, it is another system outside whic "imposes its will" on the Quantum event forcing to act that way.

…………………

NEEDS TYPING OF MISSING SENTENCE

P152-3 procsses is also violently

possess a Tree WllI,ana Ignore tne alreaayproven-fallible indirect intuition regarding what is physically possible.

However, the problem is deeper than merely a conflict between current physics and our intuition and beliefs.

Part III

Even if we are prepared to rely on our intuition and to accept a limited form of quantum physics (limiting it!) validity to non-free will processes) and to accept the new phenomenon' of free will. there remains a very serious objection to the existence of free will, not from physics itself, but from logic and nature in general (Le, the law of causality).

Regardless of whether or not mental events are dependent on individual quantum processes, and whether or not these processes are random, free or determined, the very idea of free will seems logically impossible.

If a person decides to act in a specific way (even though he could have acted otherwise) then we could say he has exercised free will only if he acted this way for a reason. If he chose this specific action at random, without reasons, then it is not a free-willed choice'but a random one. On the other hand, if there is a reason/motive for his choice, then this choice was determined by the reason/motive. Since this motive was in turn determined by his prior

"Why did you do that action rather than

another?"

"Because it was the right thing to do." "Why did you do the right thing?" "Because I feel one must do the right

thing."

"Why did you feel that?"

"Because I believe in G-d,"

"Why do you believe in...?" "Because..."

"Why...?"

"Because .....

One can see that there must always be a

"why" question which always leads to a "because" answer. If there is no answer then the act is the result of a random process. If there is an answer to every question then this shows that the action was determined.

It is impossible to understand how a decision can be rational and deliberate without being determined as weill This is the central paradox of free will: if a choice is to qualify as free will it must be rational, which implies it is determined -but if it is determined it is not free. Nevertheless. people firmly believe they have free will. Thus, at the core of the free will issue there lies the very fundamental issue of the logical/rational versus the intuitively believed. In addition, as we saw previously, at the outer level lies the issue of free will

indeterminacy versus the indeterminacy :~

of quantum physics. Thus, since botlt "

physics and logic rule out non-random "free" choice, a belief in the existence of free will implies a belief not only in the incompleteness of physics as we know it but in the defectiveness of logic itself.

What do physicisits have to say about this?

Free will and Physicists

Among physicists today it is an almost universally accepted maxim that one bears responsibility for the possible immoral uses of one's research results. In the past all the' great scientists have been philosophically-even mystically-inclined, and all deeply believed in one moral code or another. Scientists today, although in general not belonging to a religious group, would nevertheless unequivocally assert that certain actions are totally immoral and should not be committed. For example,

wanton killing, purposeless torture and

needless stealing are all universally seen as wrong without any reservations. Implicit in this deeply held belief is the surety that man can choose whether or not to commit these actions and that he "should" choose not to.

However, those very same physicists who believe this also claim that quantum

physics governs all processes at their most fundamental level. Since as we have seen a quantum universe cannot contain freewilled decisions, the explicit belief of contemporary physicists in quantum physics

is logically incompatible with their implicit belief in man's free will.

, misunderstood, ignored, denied. Much has

been written on the subject of free will, but the vast majority are attempts to deny the contradiction by redefining "free will" and by proposing similar semantic tricks. Since an admission of the reality of the contradiction would involve a vast upheaval in physics and a possible influx of ideas

EDIT: TYPE MISSING SENTENCE: commonly associated.....

that questions of free will are outside the realm of physical inquiry and belong instead to the realm of philosophy, This approach would be a valid one except for one fact: these scientists themse'lves run their own lives as though they do believe in free-willed choice, and they clearly deeply believe in certain should's and should not's that they feel man can freely choose to obey or disobey.

Thus, their basic philosophy of life is inconsistent with their belief in the fundamental validity of quantum physics. True intellectual honesty would demand a rejection of one of the two-free will/mor

ality or quantum physics-or at least a frank admission that a serious contradiction exists, between, their life philosophy /deeply held intuitive beliefs and their intellectual/scientific beliefs.

Physics is a study of the workings of the universe at their most fundamental level, and it encompasses all actual phenomena in the universe. Of course the fact that even physicists run their lives as though free will exists is no proof that it does

indeed exist. However, it is a very strange creature indeed which can live its life with total conviction that a certain fundamental phenomenon exists, plan its actions as though this phenomenon exists, and atthe same time spend its lifetime investigating other natural phenomena with the implicit assumption that the deeply believed-in fundamental phenomenon does not exist.

Physicists should open themselves up to the problem of the existence of free will as a valid question in physics, rather than

relegating it to the realm of philosophy. It is

………

EDIT: MISSING SENTENCE at top of p154: my contention that this is demanded by ....

P154-5 Part IV The Acausality of Free Will: a Prescription for Further Research

In order that free will exist. the two following requirements must be fulfilled: Requirement 1: more than one option exists at a decision point;

Requirement 2: an option can be selected "freely" a) not randomly, as in quantum physics,' and b) not deterministically as implied by the rationality of a truly free choice.s

Therefore if one believes that free will does exist, then one must postulate the

'existence of some radically new type of interaction-one that "transcends" 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.

Footnotes:

4 Requirement 1 has been shown possible by quantum physics. but requirement 2 is contradicted by quantum physics since the laner states that options are selected at random.

5 The idea of a truly free non-random choice implies a choice made after careful deliberation rather than by caprice. Free choice must be rational to be free. If it isnol. it is caprice, which is random. To be rational, a choice must be based on reasoning. Reasoning 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 fonh. Therefore free choice is self-contradictory I

Gunvtn::ii:lllun:

The Objection from Logic

How then is this contradiction defended? The answer is that it is overlooked,

EDIT: MISSING

till then, a formulation of quantum physics -(and its connection to classical physics) -would have been arrived at a hundred years earlier. Of course, this is hindsight. However, perhaps we can benefit from this hindsight by trying to extend quantum physics in such a way that we can incorporate yet more of what is required to support free will-Le. by trying to incorporate requirement 2 into physics, as much as we can.

Of course this seems intuitively impossible and/or absurd to us now, but so would the probabilistic determinism of quantum physics appear to the prequantum physics community.

The Acausality of Free Will: a Rationale and Ramifications

What logical justification could there be for assuming the possibility of acausal processes, and what could possibly be the physical origin of such a radically acausal phenomenon?

Perhaps the answer could be found in the greatest mystery of all-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.

FOOTNOTE: . Indeed, there is perhaps a very close connection between the onset of free-willed consciousness and the origin of the universe. See Wheeler.

EDIT: MISSING SENTENCE top of page 155

which originates and operates via acausality can almost be expected to exhibit freewilHype acausality where consciousness is involved.

Another question arises asto theoriginof free-willed consciousness: if man is the only species possessing a free-willed consciousness, and if man evolved, then we must suppose that free-willed consciousness evolved. However, how could one

type of phenomenon, matter ruled by probabilistic determined randomness (POR)

give rise to a qualitatively different phenomenon via evolution? How could POR 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 POR 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: conscious

result. we can consider free will ana 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-Leo when many options

exist for how an event will occur but it occurs in a probabilistic way rather than freely.

Thus it can aimost be expected that free will "transcend" quantum processes in some way. Since consciousness is our only

The Measurement Problem of Quantum Physics

Everyevent is "recorded" automatically as it oc~urs 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 ofthe natural universe. If their actions result from random/determined processes, then these actions are likewise random/deter

mined, 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

……..

EDIT: type missing sentence at top of p156

P156-7

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

willed consciousness is a unique pheno

menon and perhaps is uniquely qualified to "collapse the quantum wave function",1

PartV

We are left with essentially three options.

OPTION A: MISSING SENTENCES, top of p 156 2nd column

1) This would have important ramifications for the

issue of Contra factual definiteness, Bell's inequality and so forth. (See d'Espagnat.) In addition.

based on the idea postulated by Wheeler, perhaps

only a free-willed consciousness can bring real;.

ty-retroaCtively-to the universe, (See Wheeler.) 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",

.~.............. .. IU 'IULUI al IdW ana cnance, life

emerged from non-life and man evolved

from lower life forms, Thus, qualitatively,

man, animal, vegetable and mineral must

follow identical physical laws; human

mental activity is no exception.

All events including mental events Occur in a PDA way, and thus free will is

physically impossible. In addition, if cau

sality 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. Qf

course people are not logical, and thus many people feel that they are responsible

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

G-d created the universe and instituted a system of "natural law" to run it. All events occur in accordance with this natural law, except when G-d intervenes in nature. If quantum physics is correct, then the state of the universe at any time follows in a probabilistically determined ran

dom way from the initial created state of

the universe. Therefore, everything that

occurs does so as a direct result of some

combination of G-d's choice of initial state, G-d's choice of system of natural laws, and randomness. Clearly, G-d cannot expect

EDIT: TYPE IN MISSING TOP OF p 157

result, l]-O cannot nOlO man responsible for his actions. Of course many men, not realizing that they really do not have free will, will believe that they are responsible, i.e. that they do have free will. However, they are wrong.

Option C

G-d created the universe in such a way that it follows the PDA laws of quantum physics-except for consciousness, which is a higher phenomenon. Man is conscious and has free will and is responsible for his

actions because:

1) Quantum physics (PDR) does not hold in the realm of human mental processes.

2) A causality-defying process allows man to freely choose his actions in a rational way without this choice being determined due to its rationale.

Thus if we wish to believe in man's

moral responsibility, and if we wish to be consistent, we must reject the universality of quantum physics and we must reject the seemingly logical demands of causality.

Bibliography

Bum, E.A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern

Scienca (revised edition). N.Y.: Doubleday, 1954, See especially pp. 64-67, 75, 94,

d'Espagnat, Bernard. "Quantum Theory and Reality,"

EDIT: Missing top p157 column 2:

IS Incompatible with the basic belief that man has free will. This basic incompleteness of science is due to its implicit assumption that there is no G-d and that man is essentially a product of chance and is a purely physical being, and that therefore consciousness is a physical phenomenon as any other, It is this assumption which makes science incompatible with our most deeply held beliefs,s Indeed, if one had to choose in which to believescience or moral responsibility-surely most scientists would reject contemporary science and choose free will.

This of course does not mean that one should reject science: on the contrary, one is simply clearing away what is not science-using scientific reasoning to show that certain assumptions are not only unproven, but are also logically incompatible with those beliefs we are most sure of, These assumptions are not science; they are philosophy.

8 In this way, by removing the unscientific assumption that there is no G-d, purpose or free will, that man is not unique and soon, one also prevents the pseudo-scientific circular logic of using the assumption that these do not exist to "prove" that they do not exist.

Scientific American, Nov, 1979, pp. 128-140.

Wheeler, J.A. "Beyond the Black Hole," Some

Strangeness In the Proportion. N.Y.: Addison

Wesley, 1980.

……………

FREE-WILL-1.PDF , FREE-WILL-2.PDF

making phenomenon, choosing which

reality it wishes to create. Thus a free

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.

for their actions, and have invented the