If I am to construct a personal philosophy, I see no alternative but to start at the very beginning. Like Descartes, I am confident of my own existence. I am also confident that I appear to observe a coherent external universe. Starting from only those convictions, and the conviction that reason can create a true picture of existence, I see three possibilities.
1. The physical universe exists, roughly as I observe it.
2. Some external entity is deceiving me into believing the universe exists.
3. I am somehow unconsciously deceiving myself into believing the universe exists.
In either of the latter cases, I arrive at an impasse. I have no knowledge, and no capacity to obtain knowledge about either the deceiving entity or the mechanism of self-deception. If either of those options is the truth, it would be impossible to make rational decisions, because I have no information. I would have to either guess (randomly) something about the nature of the deception and act based on that, or assume nothing and act randomly.
However, if the first option is correct, I do have information on which to make decisions. Given a choice between acting randomly and acting on the basis on information which is possibly (but not necessarily) correct, I believe I have no alternative but to choose the lesser evil and accept the existence of the physical universe as I observe it.
Given the existence of the universe, one can begin to draw conclusions based on the available evidence. Some of the philosophically relevant conclusions I draw include the following:
1. The universe operates based on a set of unchanging rules. (like gravity)
2. The universe appears to be of finite age and size; it had a beginning, is expanding and will have an end.
3. The universe is such that it permits the formation of stars and planets, and hence life. It seems that this state depends on a relatively small range of values for physical constants.
The next logical question to ask is why these things are the case. Why does our universe have the rules it has? Why do the conditions we observe seem to be almost exactly right for life? In my research, I uncovered a list of possibilities that I feel is complete:
1. The Absurd Universe - Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
2. The Unique Universe - There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
3. The Multiverse - Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a universe that allows us to exist.
4. Creationism - A creator designed the universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence.
5. The Life Principle - There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.
6. The Self-Explaining Universe - A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist."
7. The Fake Universe - We live inside a virtual reality simulation.
I reject the first option on the grounds that is infinitely improbable. I also reject the seventh on the grounds that it does not explain anything; presumably if we exist in a virtual reality world, whoever or whatever created that world exists in some kind of universe of its own, which would require an explanation. The only way this could be possible is if the programmer is some kind of being whose existence is not caused or self-caused, in which case #7 becomes #4. This leaves options 2-6.
Work done by Stephen Hawking and others suggests that it is highly unlikely that our universe is part of an infinite consecutive chain of universes that have existed forever; among other things this would require our universe to end by collapsing down into a "Big Crunch", which has been shown to be a dubious theory. This means that if #3 is correct, the multiple universes must be concurrent, and must have all began at the same time. #3 also implies that the number of parallel universes must be exceedingly large if not infinite. Further, it implies that the multiverse have universes with many different variations of physical constants, unlike, say, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which (in most interpretations) postulates a large/infinite number of concurrent universes sharing the same physical properties.
So, now I arrive at a point of divergence. The specific version of hypothesis #3, as above, and hypothesis #2, suggest (on their own) a non-anthropocentric universe. In those views, life (and consciousness) is merely an accident of physics, much like many of the other strange phenomena observed in our universe. In stronger interpretations of this view, like those held by Trent and Taylor, consciousness makes no difference to human function, and is merely akin to "a computer observing another computer and analysing its actions". The stronger interpretations also hold that this kind of universe does not leave a place for any idea of God, and therefore strongly suggests God does not exist.
On the other hand, hypotheses 4-6 suggest that life, and by extension consciousness, hold a unique place in the universe. I believe that any of these interpretations also imply a purpose for consciousness, even if it is only to survive and observe the universe. These intrepretations also leave a place for God, as presumably a conscious creator provides one of the few answers as to why our universe might have a special place for life.
I tend to lean more towards the second set of theories for two reasons. First, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the argument from causation, that is, that everything that occurs has some cause, some answer to "Why/How did this occur". This is the basis for reason, and something I cannot reject. I believe causation to be the case for our universe and everything in it, as even random and probabalistic actions are subject to some degree of causation. However, if the universe has not existed forever (as we have previously discussed) then there must have been a "first cause", which was either uncaused or self caused. I believe this makes a "creator" of some kind more probable.
Secondly, in my opinion, the evidence suggests that life may have some unique place in the universe. I believe life displays properties that are distinct and far different than anything else in the universe (such as a tendency toward complexity), consciousness (which I don't think is just an illusion), and an ability to define new properties of the universe, like meaning, beauty or appreciation.
Still, I must concede I do not have sufficient evidence that either set of theories is correct or even very likely. I believe my analysis and observation is only sufficient to conclude that the second set is more probable. Therefore, I cannot base further beliefs on one strand or the other, but I must explore both in isolation. I believe they will lead to the same result in the end, but we will see in the next two posts.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Problem is Choice (1 of 5)
Having written mostly in this blog about "proximate" issues and my opinions on them, I find myself compelled now to address "ultimate" issues and my beliefs in relation to them. I am essentially talking about philosophy, and I imagine I will find this topic quite difficult, as I have no formal training in the discipline aside from one undergraduate course.
Despite the difficulty I may have on this topic, I feel that exploring it is necessary. Taylor brought this necessity to my attention by noting the fundamental basis of all practical beliefs must spring from a philosophical underpinning if one wishes to be consistent, as I do. He pointed out, for example, that my entire economic worldview is based on the premise that people have some choice in the outcome of their lives. If merit is not a matter of choice, but rather something determined solely by genetics and environment, then it is nonsensical that one person is more deserving of anything than another.
Further, if a person's decisions are not truly free, it seems to follow that no one can have moral responsibility for anything. If a person's choice to commit a crime is not actually a choice, but a certainty based on genetics and environment (external factors), the whole notion of responsibility seems absurd.
I must clarify that when I speak of choice, or free will, in this post, I am not referring to the compatibilist definition of free will (one has free will whenever another person is not forcing him to undertake a certain action). I am speaking of truly free will, by which I mean that one can make a decision that is not entirely based on causes outside his control.
Unfortunately, as Taylor pointed out, the scant evidence that exists from psychology and neuroscience suggests that truly free decisions are an illusion, and all decisions are a product of genetics and external stimuli. Current physics suggests that even if the universe is not deterministic but probabilistic, (as quantum theory suggests) quantum mechanics does not necessarily provide a mechanism for free will. This is for two reasons:
1. Quantum effects are unlikely to affect events at the scale of neurons and cells, they generally only deviate from classical physics at the atomic level.
2. Even if, though quantum entanglement or some other process, brain function is random or probabilistic as opposed to deterministic, this does not automatically provide for free will. Consider a hypothetical choice, where someone must choose between Choice A and Choice B. Suppose that we had the ability to rewind time, so that the exact same decision would be made in the same circumstances by the same person 10 times. Consider the outcomes under four different assumptions about choice:
I. In a deterministic universe, the choice is determined by the person's genetics and environment. The person will make the same choice all 10 times. Given full knowledge of the universe, the outcome of this choice could be predicted from the beginning of time.
II. In a probabilistic universe, the outcome of the decision could be predicted based on conditions in a probabalistic way. Given full knowledge of the universe, one could say that there was an 80% chance of choice A and 20% chance of choice B (for example). However, the quantum effects are not beholden (as far as we know) to any external cause.
Given a choice between moving one hand or the other, we would expect the quantum probability to be roughly even (or say 60-40 in favour of the dominant hand). However, there is no physics that I've read about that suggests the quantum probabilities couldn't be .99-.01, even though this would seem absurd. I guess what I am saying here is that from what I understand, quantum-based decision-making is difficult to reconcile with rationality. However, I am not a physicist or a philosopher, and must leave open to consideration a model whereby true free will is created by a model of the universe that is deterministic at large scales and probabalistic at small scales (like ours), and where the cerebral decision-making apparatus is affected by both causes and quantum probabilities (or quantum probabilities are affected by causes).
III. A random universe is essentially a probabalistic universe where all choices are equally probable. This seems even more difficult to reconcile with observed rationality.
IV. A universe that is not a closed system would allow for free will. If sentient beings have a "soul" or some non-physical aspect that can influence physical reality, then there would be a source for "self-caused" effects to determine decisions. This solution, however, seems to conflict with lack of evidence for non-corporeal existence. It cannot, however, be entirely ruled out. It just seems less likely than the other solutions.
Free will is of course only one of many of the philosophical positions I will need to construct if I am to be sure that my practical beliefs have a solid an consistient underpinning. I will leave this post here, and in the next one I will start building from the ground up.
Despite the difficulty I may have on this topic, I feel that exploring it is necessary. Taylor brought this necessity to my attention by noting the fundamental basis of all practical beliefs must spring from a philosophical underpinning if one wishes to be consistent, as I do. He pointed out, for example, that my entire economic worldview is based on the premise that people have some choice in the outcome of their lives. If merit is not a matter of choice, but rather something determined solely by genetics and environment, then it is nonsensical that one person is more deserving of anything than another.
Further, if a person's decisions are not truly free, it seems to follow that no one can have moral responsibility for anything. If a person's choice to commit a crime is not actually a choice, but a certainty based on genetics and environment (external factors), the whole notion of responsibility seems absurd.
I must clarify that when I speak of choice, or free will, in this post, I am not referring to the compatibilist definition of free will (one has free will whenever another person is not forcing him to undertake a certain action). I am speaking of truly free will, by which I mean that one can make a decision that is not entirely based on causes outside his control.
Unfortunately, as Taylor pointed out, the scant evidence that exists from psychology and neuroscience suggests that truly free decisions are an illusion, and all decisions are a product of genetics and external stimuli. Current physics suggests that even if the universe is not deterministic but probabilistic, (as quantum theory suggests) quantum mechanics does not necessarily provide a mechanism for free will. This is for two reasons:
1. Quantum effects are unlikely to affect events at the scale of neurons and cells, they generally only deviate from classical physics at the atomic level.
2. Even if, though quantum entanglement or some other process, brain function is random or probabilistic as opposed to deterministic, this does not automatically provide for free will. Consider a hypothetical choice, where someone must choose between Choice A and Choice B. Suppose that we had the ability to rewind time, so that the exact same decision would be made in the same circumstances by the same person 10 times. Consider the outcomes under four different assumptions about choice:
I. In a deterministic universe, the choice is determined by the person's genetics and environment. The person will make the same choice all 10 times. Given full knowledge of the universe, the outcome of this choice could be predicted from the beginning of time.
II. In a probabilistic universe, the outcome of the decision could be predicted based on conditions in a probabalistic way. Given full knowledge of the universe, one could say that there was an 80% chance of choice A and 20% chance of choice B (for example). However, the quantum effects are not beholden (as far as we know) to any external cause.
Given a choice between moving one hand or the other, we would expect the quantum probability to be roughly even (or say 60-40 in favour of the dominant hand). However, there is no physics that I've read about that suggests the quantum probabilities couldn't be .99-.01, even though this would seem absurd. I guess what I am saying here is that from what I understand, quantum-based decision-making is difficult to reconcile with rationality. However, I am not a physicist or a philosopher, and must leave open to consideration a model whereby true free will is created by a model of the universe that is deterministic at large scales and probabalistic at small scales (like ours), and where the cerebral decision-making apparatus is affected by both causes and quantum probabilities (or quantum probabilities are affected by causes).
III. A random universe is essentially a probabalistic universe where all choices are equally probable. This seems even more difficult to reconcile with observed rationality.
IV. A universe that is not a closed system would allow for free will. If sentient beings have a "soul" or some non-physical aspect that can influence physical reality, then there would be a source for "self-caused" effects to determine decisions. This solution, however, seems to conflict with lack of evidence for non-corporeal existence. It cannot, however, be entirely ruled out. It just seems less likely than the other solutions.
Free will is of course only one of many of the philosophical positions I will need to construct if I am to be sure that my practical beliefs have a solid an consistient underpinning. I will leave this post here, and in the next one I will start building from the ground up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)