This post marks an attempt at explaining my underlying philosophical view. As the title implies, it will set forth a logical progression from Cartesian rationalism to the currently accepted view of empiricism to determinism (or a variant thereof) to my belief that free will does not exist, explaining along the way why I believe what I do.
From the very beginning, the only thing I can know with any certainty is that I exist. I think, therefore I am (Cogito, ergo sum - Descartes). But in what way do I exist? Am I a brain inside a human body? Am I, like in the movie the Matrix, floating inside a machine, this entire universe an illusion electrically fed into my brain? Am I a lunatic locked in an asylum, completely unaware that this entire universe is a figment of my imagination?
All of these are possibilities, and there is no way for me to determine with any certainty which is true. What is true, though, is that the physical laws in this universe/matrix/my imagination are consistent. I pick up my book, let go, and it falls to my desk. Gravity constantly pulls on me, and I cannot deny it. Water boils in strict accordance with temperature and air pressure.
Therefore, as long as this universe (or matrix or imagination) continues to exist in this form, I am willing to accept all things that can be empirically shown as true for this universe. But which hypotheses should I accept and reject when it comes to explaining this universe? Is gravity some force that drags all masses together, or is it a secret army of leprechauns that runs around holding everything down? Fucking magnets, how do they work? Here is where I apply Occam's Razor. The simplest hypothesis that accounts for all results is the one that I'll accept as true.
Granted, I cannot perform every single experiment and rediscover all of science just to satisfy my own questions on truth and certainty, so I also accept as true discoveries that are made and presented to me with sufficient evidence. If a peer reviewed paper says it, I'll consider it. If nearly everyone is in agreement with it, I'll accept it. For a lack of a better way of saying it, I'll accept the status quo unless I have very strong evidence not to.
My physics is a bit dodgy, so humor any mistakes I make in this next paragraph. From this view, I believe the universe is composed of matter and energy. Let us assume that Laplace's Demon can exist.
For those of you unaware of Laplace's Demon, read the following illustration. Imagine a tiny box. Imagine that, just for an instant, you know with perfect certainty the exact location and velocity of every particle in that box (this violates Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but just make the assumption for the purposes of this experiment). Furthermore, you know there is no way for anything to enter or escape the box: no light, no heat, no tunneling little mouse, nothing. With the knowledge you have and sufficient computing power, can you extrapolate from the data you have of that one instant the location and velocity of every particle from then until the end of time? Now imagine this box contains the entire universe, wouldn't that imply that the entire universe is predictable?
The counter to this is that the at a very small level, particles are not deterministic, but probabilistic. That there is a 90% chance a particle may be in one spot and 10% chance in another, and there is no way to know, even with perfect knowledge, which is true. Even then, with sufficient computing power (exponentially more than required in the example above), Laplace's Demon could calculate every single one of the quickly growing towards infinite possibilities.
If every conceivable possibility for the universe could be thus calculated, that has some interesting implications. The first is that nothing happens at random: everything has a clear precedent and cause. From that, we can conclude that as our science advances, we can create predictive models with more and more precision, though never with perfect certainty (again, it's impossible to know the exact location and energy of every particle).
The second, and in my opinion, more interesting implication is that there is no free will. If every possible universe can be calculated complete with all of their particles and energies, then all possible compositions of thinking matter can be calculated. Since our minds are physical objects (yes, yes, I know Philosophy of the Mind is an entire field of philosophy. So is epistemology, yet I'm going to skim over those entire fields with just a few words), we can conclude that all thoughts are a result of physical interactions.
Your mind is the firing and functioning of a set of neurons. These neurons are activated by a series of physical events; the chemistry of your brain, the input coming in from various external factors, etc. Change just some of these factors, and your thoughts will be different. The end result is that we have no actual control over our thoughts, they are all result of our initial state and all of the experiences we have had since then.
The result of this is that economics, psychology, cognitive science, etc eventually all belong in the natural sciences, and that once they are developed to a certain point, they will be.
But this lack of free will has the implication that my original premise, the fundamental axiom of my entire philosophy, "I think, therefore I am," is instead "I am, therefore I am."
Short version of this entire post: the universe exists. Unless it doesn't.
No comments:
Post a Comment