Is Physical Reality Absurd?

[RArvay]

Is Physical Reality Absurd?

I know that the question is ambiguous, but within a proper context, it can be usefully addressed by physicists (of which I am not one).

The key context of the question involves the dispute between those who argue that physical reality is deterministic, and those who argue that quantum (true) randomness is a basic principle of physical reality.

I contend that these two may each be partially correct, but they are not the only alternatives. They form at best an incomplete set of models. The third principle involves volition, or free will.

Let’s look first at determinism.

According to my understanding of this concept, everything is pre-ordained. The universe is like a movie reel, or like a computer program, that has already been recorded, and is now playing out. In this scenario, there is no true randomness, but only the illusion of it. The analogy is that of a shuffled deck of cards. If we cannot see the order of the shuffle, the cards seem to be in random order, but if we watch carefully enough, we will know the exact order of the cards. Determinism rules out volition, and makes of us at best, conscious observers of our own lives, with no hope of choosing our thoughts, words or deeds. To me, this makes physical reality to be absurd, and indeed, it makes science absurd, since every scientific thought depends not on logic or fact, but only on the predetermined reactions of scientists.

Does any sane person actually live his life based on the belief that he has zero control of his own thoughts, words and deeds?

If I contend that there is free will, do deterministic factors dictate that I so contend?

Next, let’s look at quantum randomness as I understand it from extracts of Neils Bohr’s writings.

According to this concept, subatomic events are subject to happen at purely random times within certain constraints such as half-life. The exact timing of these events may occur without reference to previous events in the chain of causation. Returning to the analogy of the shuffled deck of cards, it matters not how closely one observes the shuffle, for when the cards are turned up, their order is unrelated to the observations of the shuffle.

If this is true, then subatomic events can manifest themselves in unlikely, but possible, macro events. The description of these events as unlikely are negated if there are infinite numbers of opportunities for these unlikely events to occur. If it’s possible to happen, it happens—and what scenario is utterly impossible? If everything that can happen must happen, then another way of saying this is that at the largest scale, nothing happens. If the coin lands both heads and tails, the only thing that happens is that it lands, period.

Regarding determinism, some people seem to accept that they are robots incapable of making independent decisions. Regarding randomness, some people are happy to believe that at its heart of hearts, the universe dictates that all possible outcomes will occur, resulting in such absurdities as that of entire galaxies populated by clowns on unicycles, something that not everyone might find absurd, but I have confidence that you get the point.

I understand that its being dismal does not rule out a conclusion, be it deterministic or random. I accept that in principle I might be a robot or a toss of the dice.

But I also accept the idea of utility. If a conclusion has no useful consequence (and determinism surely does not, nor ultimately randomness) then I feel justified in seeking more useful answers to my questions, especially when the facts demand such a search. A conclusion from which I can make no decisions is a useless one.

One of these overarching facts is that of my own consciousness. Science has not explained that. Many proposals abound, but they may all be wrong. It is consciousness which gives us the perception that we have free will. Why should we dismiss that perception, when both mysteries (consciousness and volition) seem so interconnected?

The proposed existence of free will, even though it demolishes the present paradigm of natural-materialism, is a completely rational alternative concept.

We perceive that we have free will, and that perception may very well be due to the fact that we do indeed have free will. One can debate the exact definition of free will, but at a minimum, it makes us participants in our own lives, capable of at least some degree of control over our thoughts, words and deeds, with at least some degree of independence from the dictates of causation or randomness.

Free will may go even deeper than that, to the very foundation of physical reality. It may be that the universe seems finely tuned to support conscious, technological civilizations, because in fact it is indeed finely tuned, according to some volitional cosmic intent.

In the end, the universe may indeed turn out to be a madhouse, but if it is not, then we err greatly by assuming it to be one.
.

[muon200]

No.
Beyond your absurd question, the "free will" aspect deserves more discussion using math and the Linguish Anguage. People who use "free will" in debates of physics seldom describe "will" and they focus on the freedom aspect. That style is obsolete.

The will of a person evitably achieves a "mind over matter" result. Effort is required to assert a will.

Free will is defeated evitably by logic. If a person understands the logic of taking an action, then free will is limited in most cases. An intelligent person might avoid going against logic in a rebellion so that free will is not defeated by what is most profitable, practical, and agreeable to the mob.

Glossary

evitable - the opposite of inevitable

linguish anguage - a written language that uses the statistical dynamics of all languages to avoid using math to describe a physic