Thursday, June 10, 2010

Musings....

Okay, so this turned out to be very long...

Throughout history, man has harbored the selfish belief that they mean something and can have an influence on the Universe, all-the-while quite oblivious to their insignificance. I must give a small warning - here we must be cautious; we will be exploring the thoughts of great thinkers in modern physics. Einstein marks the birth of this so-called "modern physics" and it is with Einstein that science strays away from common sensual understanding. The ideas I will discuss here require abstract thought, and do not seem immediately natural, or for that matter, realistic.
Let us begin with an excerpt from a eulogy that Albert Einstein gave for a close friend in 1934...

"Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

Einstein is referring to the relativity of simultaneity, a consequence of his theory of special relativity. This is the concept that simultaneity—whether two events occur at the same time—is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame. Before eagerly trying to examine such notions in the vast arena of our own elegant universe, let's apply them to a smaller one. The universe in which the Underground Man exists, (a character in Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground) for example.
The Underground Man tells his imaginary audience in the very opening of his monologue that he "was a spiteful official." A few pages later, he denies this. He says that he "was lying ... when [he] said he was a spiteful official." From the perspective of the Underground Man, the first statement occurred before the second, perhaps a few minutes later - the time between the two statements filled with bitter monologue. For the reader, when we immerse ourselves in the Underground Man's universe, the events of both statements are also sequential. Here however, the linearity is expressed in the amount of space between the statements in a physical sense - the space between the two statements is filled with printed paragraphs of translated Russian literature.
When we discontinue our immersion in this smaller universe and come back to our own, we change our frame of reference. We can now observe the universe of the Underground Man objectively. We will call his universe Notes From the Underground. In this universe, both self-contradicting statements that the Underground Man makes exist simultaneously in two separate places at the same time. In fact, every statement that the Underground Man makes exists simultaneously. The timeline in the universe of Notes From the Underground breaks down. Time, here, is an illusion - every moment is happening, and always will, as it always has, simultaneously forever. Everything that the Underground Man will say or do, cannot be changed, because Notes From the Underground (which is his universe) will not change.
I do not mean for this to prove anything in terms of the autonomy of the Underground Man - yes he is not an autonomous being because he exists within the determined universe of a novel, however, that was a metaphor that I created to aid in the explanation of the relativity of spontaneity. My aim here is greater, for I wish to convince you that no one is autonomous. Let us remove the constrictions of the "novel" and examine whether or not the Underground Man is or is not autonomous in our universe.
The implications of Einstein's theory of special relativity are, to say plainly, disturbing. As the eccentric artist David McDurmott spells out for us, "this moment in time that we're experiencing has always been here and always will be - this moment in time … this is a permanent fixture of the universe". Autonomy of the self...free will...does it really exist? How can it if everything we will ever do has been done and is being done forever? Hard modern physics suggests that free will does not exist. This is a very troubling notion for not just you or I, but also the brilliant minds that work with the mathematical equations that prove these ideas, from Brian Greene to Micho Kaku. Brian Greene offers the Multi-verse theory as consolation. Though fascinating, I do not find it comforting in the face of the dissolution of free will - if every possible choice is made in infinitely many universes, in reality, there is no choice because you will make every choice. Brian Greene is content to accept the illusion of free will within the reference frame of this particular version of the Universe. Perhaps this is healthy.
These implications of the inexistence of autonomy have caused quite a stir in the philosophical and scientific community. One scientist in particular, to be specific, a neuroscientist by the name of Benjamin Libet, decided to examine what happened within the brain when a person made a choice. He did so in an experiment in which he asked volunteers to wiggle their finger at anytime they chose within the space of three minutes. By attaching an electrode to the skulls of volunteers, he was able to record an impulse in the brain called the "readiness potential" that appears when a person makes a decision. This readiness potential had been observed in previous studies, however, Libet wanted to examine, specifically, human will within a decision - so he also recorded the time when a volunteer consciously willed the action of finger movement.
The results were shocking. Libet found that the readiness potential occurred before the person decided to move their finger, and not even just before...but a full 30 seconds before. And so the question was raised - here asked for you by Neurologist V.S. Ramachandran - "if his will came in 30 seconds later, how can the will… have been responsible for the hand movement?"
The unsteadying answer is that will could not have been responsible. And so, we are forced to ask, in the face of not just abstract physics but also hard experimental evidence, are we autonomous? No, it does not seem that way. In the opening of Sir Francis Crick's book, The Scientific Search for the Soul, the renowned scientist states:
"You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.

What more is this than a way to say that we are no more than a piano key? Though he denied it, though he fought it, the Underground Man, in his universe or in ours, is not autonomous.

3 comments:

  1. I've been having arguments with people regarding the existence of 'free will' for years. In recent years, I've come to the conclusion that the answer doesn't matter to me. (Quite liberating, that!)

    It remains a question of interest nevertheless. ;)

    And while I could respond to your musings, jumping from form to form, it's 3am and you're arguing the side I argue more often then not.

    I can't really find a good argument FOR 'free will'. And I think this is because we lack a good definition. Cognitive science and quantum physics both have rendered the common definition of 'free will' unuseful and juvenile. Doesn't do me any good in its' commonly understood form.

    Somehow I also sense that the idea is too tied to the idea of individualistic identity. The common concept of 'free will' is too tied to our egos and doesn't apply to other theories of identity.

    Yet, I still sense that it's a useful concept! So, how should we define 'free will' given our contemporary understanding of the universe and the human condition? What is will? And what is freedom?

    Browsed in from Ms. Absher's blog btw.
    And now, bedtime!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I love that Einstein quote!

    Very well woven. This article flows naturally whilst continually sparking interest. That is something that many articles of the scientific or philosophical kind tend to break, in pace or just in losing the voice of the author. Articles are about sharing observations and I like that you did not remove yourself from the essence of the article; the alternative being an article that bores with lack of passion.

    I cannot tell whether it is easier to believe in free will or determinisn. I think it is pretty easy to choose between tea and cake or death. Then again, am I incapable of choosing death? The scenarios that would implore to choose death must be from some external action of extreme gravitas. Considering both situations of my state of mind, one in normalcy and one in suicidal melancholy, would my proteins and neural message systems already be conditioned to organically decide my fate thirty seconds before?...

    In a somewhat related sense, I think it is amazing how we keep discovering the bodily explanations for things we always attached to the concept of a human soul. Emotions and morals being detectable by brain scans... I would say it has a darkly beauty.

    And science scaring us with explanation is not entirely rational of humanity. We assume that a life without willful choices is cold and frightening. But humans are not computers, our perception of life can never be purely objective and we can never truly feel out of control of our choices. Even then, I think it is natural of humans to connect their lives with the structure and events of a narrative; people sometimes see their life as a book. And as this article deliciously demonstrates, novels are a true example of the nonexistence of autonomy. My suggestion is not to fret, we still enjoy books- well, some of them, depending on a person's chemicals. The author of a book is always external to the characters, even in an autobiography. Some interpret this governing force as a god, I prefer to think of it as the more chaotic and natural probability of events. If we look at life as a palette that is infinetly predetermined by way of our choices, we could see it as a massive array of roulette wheels in some bizarre synchronization powered by our organic functions; it is still surpising, good or bad, to see where the ball rolls. Just as it is exciting to read the end of book, despite that the ending always is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. An existential argument for free will..."You can always choose to take your life"

    ReplyDelete