Thinking you have ‘free will’ is the best way to think you don’t have one
|Difficulty level: Medium|
One essential way of questioning free will is to think we don’t have one. There are quite several instances we could consider this stand for granted in philosophy and physics. Understanding the aspect is more important than seeking an answer to this question, where this article explains a few.
Imagine you have a supercomputer with you that could access every atom in the universe. With that, you could easily predict which team will win the next football world cup or whose going to cash in the grand lottery deal. What could obtain the outcome then, if you asked your computer for you to win a lottery next time? If that is the case, the computer checks with the possibility of an occurring event drawing it from the series of events that occurred in the past. In case if the answer is yes, does it mean you could go over the big deal?
There is a wider angle to this question. Take the chaos theory as one. Even a minor change in something could result in a change over a big set of events. With the effects you may produce knowing the future outcome, there are quite fewer chances for you to possess such a deal. Put differently, there is no information possible without interacting with the observer such that even that interaction counts for the outcome.
Everything has a beginning
The Physics of free will received a broad impact over the foregoing remarks. Other than a branch in philosophy, there are certain areas of interest one could study the laws of nature connecting with a cause and its effect. Therefore, for any physical theory, the question of free will is to explain in terms of the human mind, interpretation, cognitive development etc. cumulating under the choice of the observer.
As a matter of belief, consider those which constitute an observation in the real world. To any being, there has to befall a sensible world simply to observe with a feeling of choices to participate in an observation. In the same regard, we should also ask whether the laws of physics are consistent with the imperfect phenomenology that solemnly resolves the psychological conflict ever since the known civilization. What does one signify by choices? Or do we have a choice? These are certain questions one should differentiate before thinking about these things. Nevertheless, these questions composed of a choice and one diligent part to address in a systematic world view.
So far, the world we perceive from the laws of physics can be deterministic as well as probabilistic. They are not consistent with the observer significantly depends upon the realm of his/her access. One way we could convey this task is by giving it a name “choice” and not free will such that everyone should be self-sustainable thereby. Else, consider the proper word with as much freedom of choices that are never achieved through any observation.
Do we have a choice?
We do, in case if there is no freedom. What we experience with our senses in the material world is an ensemble of action bounded by the laws of nature. Every action by default accompanies the logic and reasoning of freedom. A particle, for instance, possesses a certain degree of freedom to achieve its domain in an isolated system. Once we heat the system, there arises against issues regarding the path of a particle. Thermodynamics grants entropy in this regard. But the deterministic nature is not much found of freedom. If they do, Maxwell’s demon converts this information into his choice of discovering the path. Principally when the observer recognizes what happens next, he/she then consider a set of laws that may resolve the task.
The freedom of choice is comparatively a weaker one in classical physics. There, the observer could achieve a measurement without intervening in the particle’s path at a given moment in time. This part of the observation, as we could think upon enduring pragmatically a successful one. But this is not the case in terms of free will.
Modern physics, as we know it doesn’t provide any specific path for the particle before finding it. This is a simple awareness that no such path is available before gaining access to particle’s freedom. In such a way, no two particles could coincide at a given path with the exact degree of freedom for accessing one particle at a time. Over these instances, S. Hawking famously quoted “ free will is not saved by modern physics but by chaos theory.” Thereby, the question of free will be in a kind of dispute in modern physics, with a random amount of choices.
Who is an observer?
In special and general relativity, where measurements are based on the coordinate system, the 
observer is somewhat the same with the coordinate system. To differentiate between an observer and reference frame remain moderately an issue in the theory. However, it is a successful theory of observation, no one is absolutely sure about the choice the observer has to define his domain in the theory other than the mathematical counterparts he/she is adding to.
The observer is an interpreter of measurement in modern physics. If he/she does so, we should consider the term decoherence to the fullest. No observer could interpret information to the fullest. There is supposed to be leakage of information into the environment where a perfect coherence is not possible; called decoherence.
Hence, to interpret information is not only a probabilistic assumption of modern physics, rather it also contains the mismatch between the choice of the observer and deterministic nature. One most appropriate example is Everett’s many world interpretations of quantum physics. Every time we perform a measurement in this type, there also exists a world that doesn’t count for the choice of the observer. Put differently, nature is not supposed to be interpreted as it is.
You are also an observer who could essentially think you have a choice to read this article. Interestingly, your brain is essentially a networks of neurons that obey the quantum laws. Your brain somehow constitutes your way of thinking or essentially your mind. The brain is then a biological element that obeys the laws of nature. What nature has to say about your choice is limited with your freedom to grasp what you are advancing to perform next. If you still believe you really have a choice to read this article, I suggest you better do…
For references and further readings please click here
Disclaimer: If there is something bothering you about the content of this page kindly visit the disclaimer page by clicking here.
© Quantuse
