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
~J
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