Philosophical Musings 4 QuantumBrain

Abstract

In the following discussion I address the role of quantum mechanics with regards to a deterministic universe set in the context of free will. The constraints placed on us by our current understanding of the universe set out the limits of what we can know about free will and indeed any other aspect of nature of this kind. These arguments are used as a basis for my own direction in pursuit of a truer understanding of the universe.

Reality and measurement

It seems that there can be a lack of distinction between the nature of measurement or observation and the nature of what is real (reality), amongst scientists and philosophers alike.

Our understanding of the universe is largely based on the construct of quantum mechanics and since its conception has revealed many surprising aspects about the laws of nature, but non as important to us as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Briefly put, HUP states that so called conjugate variables of a quantum system cannot be know simultaneously e.g. the momentum and position of an electron. By considering the universe as a collection of quantum mechanical systems, which we believe it to be, the HUP can be expanded to encompass all aspects of nature. There is nothing surprising about this. The universe is in a sense unknown to us, we can predict its behaviour with some probablility, but can never determine exactly how things will pan out. However, this is not to suggest that the universe itself plays out in a random fashion. The key to understanding this point is to grasp the meaning of what reality is, and how it may be different in its nature to the restrictions of measurement.

Quantum mechanics can be fun.

What we measure is of course different to reality, we know this to be a consequence of HUP, but this is not the point of the discussion. Because measurements of reality are limited by HUP, and turn out to be probabilistic, does not necessarily mean reality itself is probabilistic. It is important to draw the line between the nature of observation and that of reality

The HUP is a limitation on measurement and therefore we cannot claim that reality is indeed probabilistic. This distinction forms the premise of this argument.

What is reality?

The laws that govern our universe restrict the information we can obtain from any system and so we can only predict with uncertainty in any ‘billiard ball’ model how it will evolve. Reality could be different however, it can never be deterministic in the sense that we could predict it, but it may be internally deterministic. By this is meant that nature herself could ‘know’ precisely what reality is. This in turn destroys the notion of free will. On the other hand, nature may not know what reality is, and reality itself may be subject to constraints similar (or perhaps identical) to those of measurement (HUP).

Are we free?

This question has been of great interest to many great philosophers throughout history. There is a huge desire as an intelligent species to provide a solid answer to this conundrum. But how could we ever know if the universe affords us free will? Unfortunately with our current understanding of the universe, and in particular that of quantum mechanics, we can not know anything of this sort, and so in philosophy it shall remain.

Remarking on our understanding

Quantum mechanics undermines determinism, however, it is not an argument for free will. Since free will, if we believe it to exist, must form part of reality which we can never know with complete certainty.

Scientific direction

What has been said up to now is completely factual and is based on our current understanding of the universe. My own opinion is the following. I believe free will does exist, it is something I can only believe in, I suppose it is a faith. Quantum mechanics (along with evolution) is one of the most proven scientific theories in existence and for this reason I believe also in the HUP. So I have three options, either to accept reality to be internally deterministic, indeterministic or that it has some other nature I have not explored yet. Any way, if I knew which one it was, I would form an argument in favour of my belief in free will. Being as I have no choice but to remain ignorant of reality, I see no point in forming arguments of this kind.

This way

It is my view that questions concerning free will, the existence of god and our very own conscious existence (cogito ergo sum) can be futile endeavours if not tackled from the correct angles. In particular, the quest for a better understanding of consciousness. Although philosophy can be a rewarding and worthwhile exercise, I believe it will fall short in providing a true understanding of consciousness. One flaw with using philosophically grounded arguments for proofs concerning consciousness is that it uses consciousness to unravel the very mystery of consciousness (Prof. Robert Winston). Perhaps for this reason it is bounded by limitations we are unable to address as possibly conscious beings. I believe this aspect of human endeavour will be fruitful if explored in a scientific context based on theory and experiment. We may never arrive at a full understanding, but it may bring us a little closer.

Matthew Broome 21^st October 2008

Links

Chris Crawford - Free Will & Determinism

Christian Neuroscience Society - Quantum Mechanics & Free Will

The conflict between scientific and religious ideas has been a huge player in shaping the world we live in today, culturally, economically and politically. At first it appears obvious why these two apparently contrasting groups of ideas have managed to alter, so much, our very own human existence. Achieving this not only in their own right, but in doing so, as trains of thought that so often oppose each other. To comment on scientific inconsistencies throughout religious texts is not what this discussion aims to address and not worthwhile employment for any philosophical debate. Indeed, the very essence of a debate between these two schools of thought is that of their inconsistencies and differences on many levels.

Many would argue that science will eventually reveal all of nature’s hidden gems and answer all of its fundamental questions. Of course they would have a challenge to fight off religion which already has answered some of these philosophical questions based on scripture and in many cases a divine belief. If faith and scripture are the basis of religious argument, can science ever hope to combat this rigid and strict reasoning?

The real question I would like to address is this: Do science and faith need to be consistent in their content to be consistent not only in their objectives but also the fruits of the respective human endeavors, these being finding the answers to fundamental questions of life, the universe and everything? My immediate and only answer is no. If science and religion ask the same question but arrive at different answers is either of them wrong? And can we justify such poignant questions with just one answer? Indeed, is there only one answer? If so, one of them must be wrong, right?

Quantum mechanics reveals to us that the one gauge we have on reality, measurement, is not certain, and the answers to questions we pose reality are probabilistic in nature. This is a fundamental premise to quantum mechanics and is known as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. With this in mind, not forgetting its scientific origins, we can not expect simply, on a measurement front, to achieve one answer to any fundamental and important question about reality or existence.

In brief, science by its own limitations can not achieve in any case, one hundred percent accurate, definitive and single, answers to many questions of life, the universe and everything. Religion could claim to already have done so. In some religious frameworks for example, the notion that we are here on this planet in transit to the afterlife, during which we shall experience heaven, is one answer religion has given for our existence.

However, there is an overriding theme which needs reflection in the context of science and faith. One solid conclusion can be drawn from the fact that there is an inherent uncertainty of measurement in science as well as in the notion of an afterlife claimed by some belief systems. The objective in both major aspects of human thought and endeavor, to arrive at the answer to life, the universe and everything, is capped by the uncertainty of reality.

Returning to the title question, it would appear that although methodology of achieving the answers in science and faith may differ in many respects, the difficulties they face are common. As a concluding thought; if it is impossible to reach the answer in its fullest form, is there any need to get closer to it?

Matthew Broome 15^th September 2008

Since the dawn of human kind we have strived to answer fundamental questions on existence and reality in the hope of reaching a pure truth.

As part of our quest for a better understanding of ‘mind and matter’ and that of a conscious being, indeed what consciousness itself really is, we are opening the doors to new ideas. It is our hope that we shall first come to the right questions needed as scientists to investigate this area. After which who knows what nature will throw at us.

This space will be used as an arena for philosophical debate. And in the spirit of such everyone is invited to contact us to share their opinions and comments which we will share with the community through this very space.