Entry 911 - Entry 913
Topics: Scientists/Probabilities/Free Will vs No Free Will
Published 12/31/21
Entry 911 - December 31st, 2021
There are a couple of issues with Sabine Hossenfelder's argument that we have no free will.
First, she points out how we can explain everything in the universe using differential equations, and in these equations, you need a beginning—and that was the Big Bang Theory. She then goes on to say that since we are made of particles from the Big Bang, we can also be deterministically "charted out." However, here is the issue with that argument: it focuses on the particles rather than the energy behind the particles. It focuses on the space and time in which they exist rather than the energy that upholds their existence beyond the changes in form these particles undergo.
The Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago, and it's quite obvious that the scientific community expects a gradual micro- and macroevolution of our universe and our species. According to the Big Bang Theory, it took millions, if not billions, of years to eventually create our bodies to inhabit. From this, we can derive that the particles making up our bodies have undergone a constant give-and-take of death and rebirth, taking many forms up until this point. The so-called initial condition of their form has constantly fluctuated in one way or another.
I think it's an easy escape to say we are deterministic and don't have free will, instead of questioning what we do and do not know and staying open to see where it leads us. This is a current problem in physics, where people think they can solve philosophical problems with a limited understanding of physics, but humility hits when new evidence emerges and destroys their previous arguments. This has happened repeatedly to major and minor scientists alike. Even Einstein, who notoriously got much of the universe right, was also proven wrong in some areas.
This recurring process in physics reminds us not to treat our current understanding as dogmatic truth that cannot be added to or taken away. Since science is constantly disproving and proving new theories, how is this deterministic belief that we are mechanistic biological robots with no free will any different?
Not only are there things we are trying to prove, but there are also topics we don't yet understand, such as consciousness. If we were able to find the fundamental reality of consciousness, we could very well prove that free will exists—we just need the evidence that life goes beyond initial conditions explained by differential equations.
Another point Sabine makes in her video is that you need to have multiple choices, but she argues that those other choices are mere fantasy and don’t prove anything significant about free will. She then concludes that this explains why free will doesn't make much sense.
From a deterministic point of view, free will wouldn’t work because it doesn’t fit into that limited frame of understanding. However, beyond the boundaries of that idea, it does. The problem with many physicists is that they don't understand the nature of personal reality at a fundamental level, making it difficult for them to see beyond the boundaries they have painted.
They think thoughts are only mentations stuck in our heads that have no importance, rather than recognizing how they transform into physical reality over time—a process that is verifiable. Werner Heisenberg's observer effect popularized the connection between our observation and the observable system, but there is still much to explore in this line of thought.
If we explore the depths of our thoughts as we do the depths of the universe and discover that we most likely live among a multiverse rather than a single universe, much of this deterministic and closed mentality around free will, will naturally dissolve.
The beautiful reality of parallel universes regarding the multiverse discussion is this: every thought carries an energy propelling it toward physical expression.
This desire is for the thought to become physical in our universe. We can understand this desire by examining what stimulates it in our hearts, all the way down to a mere tardigrade. If parallel universes truly exist, then parallel thoughts that never reach physical manifestation in our universe will indeed manifest physically in another.
Entry 912
Scientists should stop trying to use unverifiable sources to prove philosophical ideas such as the claim that free will does not exist.
It does more harm than religion by removing helpful, optimistic ideas about our ability to choose and discouraging people from taking responsibility to change their circumstances.
It's depressing, bent toward cause and effect rather than the bed of probabilities on which quantum physics lies. There is so much more to life beyond causal reality that we have yet to discover.
Take away people's lives, and they're dead. Take away people's meaning to live by convincing them they are reduced to predetermined actions, and you spread unnecessary apathy.
Entry 913
The problem with scientists who hold the limited viewpoint that free will does not exist is that they inherently don’t understand consciousness or its freedom through probabilities.
Scientists should not only study the macro and microcosmic levels of the universe outside themselves, but also study their inner worlds macro- and micro-cosmically.
If you don’t even understand that you are not the thoughts you think, the emotions you feel, or the actions you take, you will naturally struggle to grasp the idea that humans have free will. This is because you haven’t broken free from your own conditioned reactions and behaviors stemming from identification.
If I act on autopilot every time someone says a triggering word and never learn to consciously choose another reaction, my autopilot could be used as evidence for the belief that free will doesn’t exist.
But if I take the time to recognize when I’m unconsciously living from my identified patterns of thought, reactions, and conditioned responses, and when I’m consciously living so fully in the present moment that I am no longer a product of my past, then free will becomes an understood reality at a fundamental level of being.
Another issue these scientists face is that, because they do not know themselves deeply, they cannot deeply understand the tiniest particles making up the universe. "As above, so below" is not just a quirky saying—it’s an inherent truth that the largest patterns of the universe can also be found in the smallest ones.
The pattern of a human fingerprint can be seen in the rings of a tree stump. The Fibonacci sequence is seen everywhere, from the largest galaxy of trailing stars to the finest seashells. Regardless of scale, everything in the universe has consciousness. This means everything in the universe is endowed with free will—the ability to choose.
Everything visible and invisible not only has the ability but the right to experience what it desires. All exist on a bed of proven probabilities from which to choose. What’s the point of having multiple choices if you can’t choose? What’s the point of no free will if there is an infinite number of probabilities?
How do I know all this? Because I deeply understand myself conceptually. If I took the time, I could also prove it experimentally using math and physics.
Comments
Post a Comment