By Mogens Michaelsen
An article by Behind My Screen: "There is no Free Will: A Secular Argument" inspired me to write a little about the relation between the laws of nature and free will.
Many people think, that since the universe is governed by natural laws, it must necessarily be determined in a way that excludes free will.
The first argument against this, is the fact, that according to science the world we live in is not fully pre-determined in the sense that it is possible to calculate the present state if you knew everything about a state in the past. According to the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics this is due to the "Uncertainty Principle" which makes it impossible to measure both the exact location and the impulse of an electron at the same time. I will not go further into this here, but the implication of it is, that there is an element of randomness in the world/universe. Because Albert Einstein was opposed to this theory he said something like: "I don't think God plays dice". This is often used to argue, that Einstein believed in a personal "God" - which is actually not the case. It is more correct to view it as a metaphor, referring only to the question of randomness.
If we look at another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics called MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) it is a little more complicated. Here you have to make a distinction between a "world" and the universe as a whole. The reality which most people call "the universe" is only a single world in this theory, and this is only a part of the universe - a part of the universe in which we exist as observers. In contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation, MWI claims that there is no real randomness, because all the possibilities are actually realized, but any observer in our world will observe that he or she is still living in "the world". Since the state of this world is not fully predictable, there appears to be some randomness in the chain of events. The interesting question then is, if it is correct to say, that this apparent randomness is simply an illusion? Personally I would say that it is relative to the observer. If it was possible for an observer to observe the whole universe, there is no randomness. But if you are an observer in a "world" (which human observers normally are!) there actually is randomness in this world - objectively, that is.
My explanation of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics is very far from complete, but that is actually not my intention here. My intention is to explain, that no matter which interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is used, the existence of a given person in the world is not pre-determined, not even if the universe is 100 pct. deterministic!
The implication of this is, that your own existence as a living human being, is not a necessity, meaning that it is not simply a necessary consequence of the laws of nature. To be, or not to be, that is the question...
Where do all this connect to the question of free will?
Well, it doesn't prove that we have a free will, but it certainly doesn't exclude it either. Most people will probably say, that if everything is pre-determined in the simple sense of the word, you can hardly give any meaning to the concept of "free will". Free will would at best be an illusion, or something like that.
Now I will try to view the laws of nature from a different perspective. And I will do that by a simple example:
1) Imagine a person holding a small object in his hand, e.g. a cigarette lighter.
2) Ask this person to decide whether to drop the lighter or not. And tell him he is free to make the decision himself.
3) Tell the person, that if he drops the lighter within a minute, he will get 10 dollars. If he doesn't drop the lighter within a minute, it will be chosen by random, whether he will get 100 dollars, or no money at all.
Now, what you can "predict" is, that the person will perform some thinking before deciding whether to drop the lighter or not. But can you predict much else than that? Some might say, that his decision will depend on how much he needs how much money, but do you know that for sure? I don't think so - it is also possible that he choose to do the opposite of what he thinks the instructor expects, in order to demonstrate that he has a free will.
Does that mean, that you cannot predict much else than that?
Actually there is another important thing you can predict: If he choose to drop the lighter, you will see the lighter move towards the floor, due to gravity! Or to be more correct: If you see the lighter move towards the floor, you know that he must have decided to drop it. You also know, that the lighter would move towards the floor with an acceleration of 9.8 m/sec^2, if it was not for air-resistance. Of course the exact value of the lighter's acceleration is not relevant, but the fact that there is a natural law - the law of gravity - governing this movement certainly is. If the lighter could just as well move in a random direction with a random speed, the person cannot choose to drop the lighter, since he is not able to predict the movement, and since "dropping" is defined as involving a movement towards the floor. In short: he can only choose to drop the lighter if the laws of nature is like they actually are.
Conclusion: The laws of nature does not contradict free choices. The laws of nature is a necessary precondition for free choice.
---
Links:
Newsvine: Laws of Nature and Free Will
Newsvine: There is no Free Will: A Secular Argument
Showing posts with label Michaelsen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michaelsen. Show all posts
Monday, December 11, 2006
Monday, August 28, 2006
Meaning and Miracle
by Mogens Michaelsen
Today I heard about a Danish girl, who was out collecting money for poor children in Africa. She did that, in spite of the fact, that it was her 14-years birthday today.
Now, why should a young girl do that?
As I understood from the clip on TV, she had visited Mozambique in Africa just recently, and seen children living under very harsh and poor conditions. So her motive to collect money here in Denmark was clearly, that she wanted to help those children.
But that is not so special, after all - many people do that, and many young people too. I remember from my young days, when I was in Public School, that we were sometimes out collecting money for some organisation. Especially I remember selling postcards for UNICEF several times. But I also remember, that we were not only motivated by helping other children in the world through UNICEF. We were also highly motivated by the fact, that it gave us an opportunity to get away from the damned school!
So why should a young girl spend her valuable time doing something like that, on her own birthday?
Maybe she is simply a better person than most. Or maybe it is because she finds a lot of meaning in it?
I don't know if this girl is religious or not. You cannot judge that from her behavior, because non-religious people can certainly also show this behavior, and they are all good people - religious or not.
Suppose she is really not religious at all? Suppose she rejects faith, because she cannot believe in a God that allows human suffering, like the suffering of these African children?
Like many other people, she might not understand why God doesn't use his power to help people, since he is assumed to be a loving God. Why doesn't he make some more miracles?
Of course this is not so. She is clearly motivated by clean and pure love to her fellow human beings. And, as you might know: God is love!
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/
---
source: Newsvine
Today I heard about a Danish girl, who was out collecting money for poor children in Africa. She did that, in spite of the fact, that it was her 14-years birthday today.
Now, why should a young girl do that?
As I understood from the clip on TV, she had visited Mozambique in Africa just recently, and seen children living under very harsh and poor conditions. So her motive to collect money here in Denmark was clearly, that she wanted to help those children.
But that is not so special, after all - many people do that, and many young people too. I remember from my young days, when I was in Public School, that we were sometimes out collecting money for some organisation. Especially I remember selling postcards for UNICEF several times. But I also remember, that we were not only motivated by helping other children in the world through UNICEF. We were also highly motivated by the fact, that it gave us an opportunity to get away from the damned school!
So why should a young girl spend her valuable time doing something like that, on her own birthday?
Maybe she is simply a better person than most. Or maybe it is because she finds a lot of meaning in it?
I don't know if this girl is religious or not. You cannot judge that from her behavior, because non-religious people can certainly also show this behavior, and they are all good people - religious or not.
Suppose she is really not religious at all? Suppose she rejects faith, because she cannot believe in a God that allows human suffering, like the suffering of these African children?
Like many other people, she might not understand why God doesn't use his power to help people, since he is assumed to be a loving God. Why doesn't he make some more miracles?
Only fools would say, that she is a lost soul, going to hell when she dies, because she doesn't believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Bible!
Of course this is not so. She is clearly motivated by clean and pure love to her fellow human beings. And, as you might know: God is love!
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/
---
source: Newsvine
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Why Intelligent Design is not a good idea
By Mogens Michaelsen
If you know just a little about what science is, it is quite easy to see that ID is wrong. So easy that most educated people are probably tired of the discussion by now. From the scientists point of view it has only been relevant to argue against it because there were a risk of ID "polluting" science. But this defense of modern science were clearly necessary - and extremely important for our future as a civilization. Even the Catholic Church recognize this today, I have been told!
This doesn't, however, solve the problem completely. Some religious people will probably just try to invent a new variant of creationism, because they feel somehow suppressed by modern society. Our world is massively dominated by science and technology, in such a way that religion is forced in the background. This is what makes a lot of people frustrated, I think.
It is mainly because of this, people fabricate ideas like ID, and claim that it is a scientific theory. You actually don't get much respect from others, if you cannot label it science. In order to defend this, you have to invent some kind of proof, like "irreducible complexity" or the like.
This way you end up in a situation where you think you have to prove what you believe in. But this situation is hopeless, simply because it is impossible to prove the existence of God, or an "Intelligent Designer", or whatever you call it. Another problem is, that many supporters of ID don't really understand what a scientific proof is. They tend to think, that a proof is absolute and finite, and this misunderstanding is rather important.
In science there is no such thing as absolute proof. At a given time in history you have a set of theories that fit the facts you have from observation. If new observations falsify one of these theories, you have to find another one. This is of course a simplification, but it is enough to make my point here: Scientific truth are changing in time. A correct theory can change into an incorrect theory, or change its limits (like Newton/Einstein). Most scientists have no problem accepting, that a theory has to be dropped in this way! There is not much personal involvement in it.
Now, let us suppose someone was able to prove the existence of God?
Everybody would of course be forced to accept it, but does that make them believers in the religious sense? Some religious people might be tempted to accept this as a good thing. But before you do that, remember that a scientific theory might be falsified later!
Few religious people would want to, or be able to, give up their faith, just because of that. Because your faith concerns your identity as a human being, whereas your believe in, say, Big Bang, is more like the shirt you are wearing: you can always change it.
So you see: it is actually a GOOD thing, that God's existence cannot be proven!
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/
If you know just a little about what science is, it is quite easy to see that ID is wrong. So easy that most educated people are probably tired of the discussion by now. From the scientists point of view it has only been relevant to argue against it because there were a risk of ID "polluting" science. But this defense of modern science were clearly necessary - and extremely important for our future as a civilization. Even the Catholic Church recognize this today, I have been told!
This doesn't, however, solve the problem completely. Some religious people will probably just try to invent a new variant of creationism, because they feel somehow suppressed by modern society. Our world is massively dominated by science and technology, in such a way that religion is forced in the background. This is what makes a lot of people frustrated, I think.
It is mainly because of this, people fabricate ideas like ID, and claim that it is a scientific theory. You actually don't get much respect from others, if you cannot label it science. In order to defend this, you have to invent some kind of proof, like "irreducible complexity" or the like.
This way you end up in a situation where you think you have to prove what you believe in. But this situation is hopeless, simply because it is impossible to prove the existence of God, or an "Intelligent Designer", or whatever you call it. Another problem is, that many supporters of ID don't really understand what a scientific proof is. They tend to think, that a proof is absolute and finite, and this misunderstanding is rather important.
In science there is no such thing as absolute proof. At a given time in history you have a set of theories that fit the facts you have from observation. If new observations falsify one of these theories, you have to find another one. This is of course a simplification, but it is enough to make my point here: Scientific truth are changing in time. A correct theory can change into an incorrect theory, or change its limits (like Newton/Einstein). Most scientists have no problem accepting, that a theory has to be dropped in this way! There is not much personal involvement in it.
Now, let us suppose someone was able to prove the existence of God?
Everybody would of course be forced to accept it, but does that make them believers in the religious sense? Some religious people might be tempted to accept this as a good thing. But before you do that, remember that a scientific theory might be falsified later!
Few religious people would want to, or be able to, give up their faith, just because of that. Because your faith concerns your identity as a human being, whereas your believe in, say, Big Bang, is more like the shirt you are wearing: you can always change it.
So you see: it is actually a GOOD thing, that God's existence cannot be proven!
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/
Saturday, January 14, 2006
The Origin of Intelligent Design
by Mogens Michaelsen
Let me start by making it clear, that I am not an expert in evolution or biology. In fact, I am not a scientist at all. Therefore, some of my remarks about these issues might not be correct, or slightly misunderstood...
Following the discussion about "Intelligent Design" I asked myself this question: Why do the idea of ID come from United States of America?
I can think of the following possibilities:
I think you can explain much about the origin of ID by combining the 5 points above.
Another thing is, that ID in reality is meant to replace "creationism". If you ask why, a provoking answer might be: because creationism was hardly able to survive in the given environment! And not only that: there is only a slight difference between creationism and ID - much like the difference between a mutated bacteria and the original organism.
Quite interesting I think, but of course I am aware that this is only a speculative analogy, and not science.
Maybe I should add, that I am a deeply religious Christian myself.
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/
Let me start by making it clear, that I am not an expert in evolution or biology. In fact, I am not a scientist at all. Therefore, some of my remarks about these issues might not be correct, or slightly misunderstood...
Following the discussion about "Intelligent Design" I asked myself this question: Why do the idea of ID come from United States of America?
I can think of the following possibilities:
- America is the Intelligent Designers own country!
- For a long period USA has been the leading nation in the world, when it comes to science and technology, and still is. As a consequence, American life in general has become extremely dominated by science and technology, at the expense of other cultural factors. Some religious people experience this as a suppression of their religion.
- Although American culture has of course produced a lot of quality, the percentage of commercial garbage is rather high, I think. This makes millions of Americans suffer from "spiritual malnutrition", many of them without knowing it themselves. Some people, especially those without much education, turn to religion to satisfy their "spiritual hunger".
- Because science is clearly dominating modern life, your arguments is only taken seriously if you can label it "scientific". Religious and less educated people tend to view this as a lack of respect from the surroundings.
- America has always had some relatively strong Christian sects, none of which has been directly connected to, and supported by, the Government. Certain sects has been strong enough not only to survive the dominance from science (survival of the fittest?) - but strong enough to go into the more offensive role. Pat Robertson's support of president Bush is an example of this - ID is another.
I think you can explain much about the origin of ID by combining the 5 points above.
Another thing is, that ID in reality is meant to replace "creationism". If you ask why, a provoking answer might be: because creationism was hardly able to survive in the given environment! And not only that: there is only a slight difference between creationism and ID - much like the difference between a mutated bacteria and the original organism.
Quite interesting I think, but of course I am aware that this is only a speculative analogy, and not science.
Maybe I should add, that I am a deeply religious Christian myself.
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
