scholarly journals On Determinism, Causality, and Free Will: Contribution from Physics

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 5-24
Author(s):  
Grzegorz Karwasz
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Recent Article ◽  
Sufficient Conditions ◽  
Human Action ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
Divine Action ◽  
Classical Physics ◽  
The World ◽  
Principle Of Causality

Determinism, causality, chance, free will and divine providence form a class of interlaced problems lying in three domains: philosophy, theology, and physics. Recent article by Dariusz Łukasiewicz in Roczniki Filozoficzne (no. 3, 2020) is a great example. Classical physics, that of Newton and Laplace, may lead to deism: God created the world, but then it goes like a mechanical clock. Quantum mechanics brought some “hope” for a rather naïve theology: God acts in gaps between quanta of indetermination. Obviously, any strict determinism jeopardizes the existence of free will. Yes, but only if human mind follows the laws of physics and only if nothing exists outside the physical limits of space and time. We argue that human action lies in-between two worlds: “earth” and “heavens” using the language of Genesis. In that immaterial world, outside time and space constraints, there is no place for the chain of deterministic events. We discuss, in turn, that the principle of causality, a superior law even in physics, reigns also in the non-material world. Though, determinism in the material universe and causality in both worlds seem to be sufficient conditions, to eliminate “chaotic”, or probabilistic causes from human (and divine) action.

scholarly journals Free Will in Human Behavior and Physics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasil Dinev Penchev
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Information ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Human Behavior ◽  
Physical World ◽  
Classical Physics ◽  
Quantum Bit ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The One

If the concept of “free will” is reduced to that of “choice” all physical world share the latter quality. Anyway the “free will” can be distinguished from the “choice”: The “free will” involves implicitly a certain goal, and the choice is only the mean, by which the aim can be achieved or not by the one who determines the target. Thus, for example, an electron has always a choice but not free will unlike a human possessing both. Consequently, and paradoxically, the determinism of classical physics is more subjective and more anthropomorphic than the indeterminism of quantum mechanics for the former presupposes certain deterministic goal implicitly following the model of human freewill behavior. Quantum mechanics introduces the choice in the fundament of physical world involving a generalized case of choice, which can be called “subjectless”: There is certain choice, which originates from the transition of the future into the past. Thus that kind of choice is shared of all existing and does not need any subject: It can be considered as a low of nature. There are a few theorems in quantum mechanics directly relevant to the topic: two of them are called “free will theorems” by their authors (Conway and Kochen 2006; 2009). Any quantum system either a human or an electron or whatever else has always a choice: Its behavior is not predetermined by its past. This is a physical law. It implies that a form of information, the quantum information underlies all existing for the unit of the quantity of information is an elementary choice: either a bit or a quantum bit (qubit).

scholarly journals Why anything rather than nothing? The answer of quantum mechanics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasil Dinev Penchev
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Big Bang ◽  
Mathematical Truth ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Philosophical Interpretation ◽  
The World ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Big Bang ◽  
In Virtue Of

Many researchers determine the question “Why anything rather than nothing?” as the most ancient and fundamental philosophical problem. Furthermore, it is very close to the idea of Creation shared by religion, science, and philosophy, e.g. as the “Big Bang”, the doctrine of “first cause” or “causa sui”, the Creation in six days in the Bible, etc.Thus, the solution of quantum mechanics, being scientific in fact, can be interpreted also philosophically, and even religiously. However, only the philosophical interpretation is the topic of the text.The essence of the answer of quantum mechanics is:1. The creation is necessary in a rigorous mathematical sense. Thus, it does not need any choice, free will, subject, God, etc. to appear. The world exists in virtue of mathematical necessity, e.g. as any mathematical truth such as 2+2=4.2. The being is less than nothing rather than more than nothing. So, the creation is not an increase of nothing, but the decrease of nothing: it is a deficiency in relation of nothing. Time and its “arrow” are the way of that diminishing or incompleteness to nothing.

Atonement and the Work of Christ

2018 ◽  
pp. 84-97
Author(s):  
William J. Abraham
Keyword(s):  
Human Action ◽  
Divine Action ◽  
The Core ◽  
The World ◽  
Action Theories ◽  
Core Meaning

In sorting through how best to understand the work of Christ we need a narrative that captures the core meaning of “atonement” and a way to deploy the various theories that abound in the tradition. At the root of the issue is a narrative of reconciliation that highlights the serious alienation that exists between human agents and God. Fixing this problem requires both divine and human action. Theories of atonement seek to spell out the divine action involved. Each has its own advantage in developing complementary descriptions of what has gone wrong with the world and how to fix it.

scholarly journals A Turing test for free will

2012 ◽  
Vol 370 (1971) ◽  
pp. 3597-3610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seth Lloyd
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Turing Test ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Theory Of Computation ◽  
Alan Turing ◽  
The World ◽  
Decision Making Processes

Before Alan Turing made his crucial contributions to the theory of computation, he studied the question of whether quantum mechanics could throw light on the nature of free will. This paper investigates the roles of quantum mechanics and computation in free will. Although quantum mechanics implies that events are intrinsically unpredictable, the ‘pure stochasticity’ of quantum mechanics adds randomness only to decision-making processes, not freedom. By contrast, the theory of computation implies that, even when our decisions arise from a completely deterministic decision-making process, the outcomes of that process can be intrinsically unpredictable, even to—especially to—ourselves. I argue that this intrinsic computational unpredictability of the decision-making process is what gives rise to our impression that we possess free will. Finally, I propose a ‘Turing test’ for free will: a decision-maker who passes this test will tend to believe that he, she, or it possesses free will, whether the world is deterministic or not.

Where in the world is God? On finding the Divine in Esther

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-191
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Newman
Keyword(s):  
Human Agency ◽  
Human Action ◽  
The Other ◽  
Divine Providence ◽  
Divine Action ◽  
Divine Agency ◽  
The World ◽  
Insight Into

The word “God” does not appear in the book of Esther. Some argue that this divine absence highlights human action over against Divine providence or sovereignty. I maintain, however, that it is a theological mistake to place divine and human action in separate domains. Divine action is not only the ground that makes human action possible; it is also the compelling spring that draws persons to act faithfully. Aristotle’s account of friendship sheds light on how friends act through one another, enabling each to become and do more than they would have otherwise. Aquinas’s discussion of primary and secondary causality provides compelling insight into how human agency relies upon Divine agency enabling us to move toward our true telos: communion with God. With Esther and Mordecai, one sees shared human agency: both rely upon the other to act. Even more, one sees how their faithfulness derives from their identity as persons in covenant with God, whose saving deeds on behalf of the Jews and the world make their lives possible.

On the Equivalence of Physical Theories

2021 ◽  
pp. 192-230
Author(s):  
Jill North
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Classical Electromagnetism ◽  
Classical Physics ◽  
Newtonian Gravitation ◽  
The World ◽  
Metaphysical Equivalence ◽  
Theoretical Equivalence

This chapter argues against formal accounts of theoretical equivalence in physics. It defends the importance of a theory’s picture of the world and its explanations of the phenomena, drawing on examples from classical physics, Newtonian gravitation, classical electromagnetism, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. The discussion draws a distinction between metaphysical equivalence and informational equivalence and argues that these are equally important to the equivalence of physical theories. The chapter concludes that there are fewer cases of wholly equivalent theories in physics than usually thought. However, this is not a problem, for it is still possible to talk about the various respects in which physical theories are, or are not, equivalent to one another.

scholarly journals A no-go theorem for theories that decohere to quantum mechanics

2018 ◽  
Vol 474 (2214) ◽  
pp. 20170732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciarán M. Lee ◽  
John H. Selby
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Theory ◽  
Incomplete Information ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Fundamental Theory ◽  
Classical Physics ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
The World ◽  
Physical Principles ◽  
Effective Description

To date, there has been no experimental evidence that invalidates quantum theory. Yet it may only be an effective description of the world, in the same way that classical physics is an effective description of the quantum world. We ask whether there exists an operationally defined theory superseding quantum theory, but which reduces to it via a decoherence-like mechanism. We prove that no such post-quantum theory exists if it is demanded that it satisfy two natural physical principles: causality and purification . Causality formalizes the statement that information propagates from present to future, and purification that each state of incomplete information arises in an essentially unique way due to lack of information about an environment. Hence, our result can be viewed either as evidence that the fundamental theory of Nature is quantum or as showing in a rigorous manner that any post-quantum theory must abandon causality, purification or both.

scholarly journals Is Mind Quantum?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Kauffman ◽  
Dean Radin
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Physical World ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Classical Physics ◽  
Substance Dualism ◽  
The World ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Excluded Middle ◽  
Oriented Approach

If all aspects of the mind-brain relationship were adequately explained by classical physics, then there would be no need to propose alternative views. But faced with possibly unresolvable puzzles like qualia and free will, other approaches are required. We propose a non-substance dualism theory, following a suggestion by Heisenberg, whereby the world consists of both ontologically real Possibles that do not obey Aristotle’s law of the excluded middle, and ontologically real Actuals, that do obey the law of the excluded middle. Measurement converts Possibles into Actuals. This quantum-oriented approach solves numerous puzzles about the mind-brain relationship, but it also raises the intriguing possibility that some aspects of mind are nonlocal, and that mind plays an active role in the physical world. We suggest that the mind-brain relationship is partially quantum, and we present evidence supporting that proposition.

scholarly journals The indeterminist objectivity of quantum mechanics versus the determinist subjectivity of classical physics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasil Dinev Penchev
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Hidden Variables ◽  
Classical Mechanics ◽  
Niels Bohr ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Classical Physics ◽  
Physical Universe ◽  
Max Born

Indeterminism of quantum mechanics is considered as an immediate corollary from the theorems about absence of hidden variables in it, and first of all, the Kochen – Specker theorem. The base postulate of quantum mechanics formulated by Niels Bohr that it studies the system of an investigated microscopic quantum entity and the macroscopic apparatus described by the smooth equations of classical mechanics by the readings of the latter implies as a necessary condition of quantum mechanics the absence of hidden variables, and thus, quantum indeterminism. Consequently, the objectivity of quantum mechanics and even its possibility and ability to study its objects as they are by themselves imply quantum indeterminism. The so-called free-will theorems in quantum mechanics elucidate that the “valuable commodity” of free will is not a privilege of the experimenters and human beings, but it is shared by anything in the physical universe once the experimenter is granted to possess free will. The analogical idea, that e.g. an electron might possess free will to “decide” what to do, scandalized Einstein forced him to exclaim (in a letter to Max Born in 2016) that he would be а shoemaker or croupier rather than a physicist if this was true. Anyway, many experiments confirmed the absence of hidden variables and thus quantum indeterminism in virtue of the objectivity and completeness of quantum mechanics. Once quantum mechanics is complete and thus an objective science, one can ask what this would mean in relation to classical physics and its objectivity. In fact, it divides disjunctively what possesses free will from what does not. Properly, all physical objects belong to the latter area according to it, and their “behavior” is necessary and deterministic. All possible decisions, on the contrary, are concentrated in the experimenters (or human beings at all), i.e. in the former domain not intersecting the latter. One may say that the cost of the determinism and unambiguous laws of classical physics, is the indeterminism and free will of the experimenters and researchers (human beings) therefore necessarily being out of the scope and objectivity of classical physics. This is meant as the “deterministic subjectivity of classical physics” opposed to the “indeterminist objectivity of quantum mechanics”.

scholarly journals Sizing Up Free Will: The Scale of Compatibilism

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart T Doyle
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Human Action ◽  
Physical Processes ◽  
Natural Laws ◽  
The World ◽  
Previous State ◽  
Free Actions ◽  
The Universe

Is human free will compatible with the natural laws of the universe? To ‘compatibilists’ who see free actions as emanating from the wants and reasons of human agents, free will looks perfectly plausible. However, ‘incompatibilists’ claim to see the more ultimate sources of human action. The wants and reasons of agents are said to be caused by physical processes which are themselves mere natural results of the previous state of the world and the natural laws which govern it. This paper argues that the incompatibilists make a mistake in appealing to such non-agent sources of human action. They fail to realize that free will may exist at one scale, but not at the scales where they look. When free will is considered from the correctly scaled perspective, it does seem compatible with determinism and natural laws.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document