I would like to ling you to a really interesting article from the Atlantic. Its about the future of the human mind. I plan on writing a longer post about this sometime soon, and yes I know, its been eons since the last post. Deal with it.
-EX
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
More on that last post
The Tau Zero Foundation is a really cool organization that is just getting going. Thhey are still workign on their website, but they have a lot of great information already, and plentyof links to keep you busy.
-EX
-EX
Monday, June 29, 2009
Randon thought about life.
I was born in the mid 80s. That statement can mean a lot of things, but to me in means that I was born long after we discovered that Mars was not full of alien life plotting to attack Earth. Oh well. As far as we know, we are alone. It’s humbling to think about how large, vast, and relatively empty space is. It is full of billions and billions of stars, yet as of right now we hardly have the technology to travel to the nearest one, only about 4.5 light years away, and to get there it would take at least 40 years. Yet, despite the vastness of it all I can’t help but to feel excited about the prospects of exploring new worlds.
The first place many people think of when it comes to the future of human exploration in space is a manned mission to Mars. While this I exciting, there is something that, to me, is much more exciting. That would be a planet orbiting one of the two stars in Alpha Centauri. This planet would be a fantastic candidate for finding life outside of earth. There are currently several projects looking at Alpha Centauri for signs of a planet. According to some models, the only location for this planet would be in the “Goldilocks Zone,” the habitable (for life similar to what is on earth at least) zone for life.
Imagine if a planet were discovered there. We now know of hundreds of extrasolar planets, almost all have been discovered in the last 10 years. I’m sure we will discover hundreds more. What I want is life. Not bacteria, but full blown life, little critters running around doing whatever they do. It would be the most amazing scientific discovery ever. What would it look like? Would it be based off the same building blocks of life that we are? A good chunk of the amino acids that make us up are found in space, so it seems plausible that life has the potential so share some characteristics.
The only way to know for sure is to go there (be it Mars or Alpha Centauri) and see for ourselves. It will only take a little under 50 years to travel to Alpha Centauri and send a message home, so it is within the realm of possibility that we can find extrasolor life with in my lifetime. Who knows, we might even be able to eat them, which would be really odd on more than one level.
-Elijah Xavier
The first place many people think of when it comes to the future of human exploration in space is a manned mission to Mars. While this I exciting, there is something that, to me, is much more exciting. That would be a planet orbiting one of the two stars in Alpha Centauri. This planet would be a fantastic candidate for finding life outside of earth. There are currently several projects looking at Alpha Centauri for signs of a planet. According to some models, the only location for this planet would be in the “Goldilocks Zone,” the habitable (for life similar to what is on earth at least) zone for life.
Imagine if a planet were discovered there. We now know of hundreds of extrasolar planets, almost all have been discovered in the last 10 years. I’m sure we will discover hundreds more. What I want is life. Not bacteria, but full blown life, little critters running around doing whatever they do. It would be the most amazing scientific discovery ever. What would it look like? Would it be based off the same building blocks of life that we are? A good chunk of the amino acids that make us up are found in space, so it seems plausible that life has the potential so share some characteristics.
The only way to know for sure is to go there (be it Mars or Alpha Centauri) and see for ourselves. It will only take a little under 50 years to travel to Alpha Centauri and send a message home, so it is within the realm of possibility that we can find extrasolor life with in my lifetime. Who knows, we might even be able to eat them, which would be really odd on more than one level.
-Elijah Xavier
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
88 and Standing Still
Imagine just having completed a superhuman feat. Maybe you saved a baby from a burning building or you are running away from a trap that you set for a group of North African terrorists. Now, whatever situation you’ve created for yourself, imagine running away from the danger behind you, and insert the theme song from Back to the Future. The majestic melody blares from the brass section, filling your spirit with the satisfaction and vigor that only John Williams can provide. Back to the Future is undoubtedly one of my favorite films, and there are many aspects that make it so. Rich character development, thick plot points, and excellent acting- they all move in concert to create a real masterpiece. But by and far, the part of the movie that I really love is the theme. Time travel is so cool. That’s the only way I can describe it. Since I was a child, I always pondered the details of time travel, and how it would happen. Of course, as I got older, the concept of time travel became less realistic to me. What did become more realistic, however, was the absurd and defeating concept of time. Stepping out of conventional or blinded thought, time is immensely confusing. It exists, with its own definition, in many realms- two of them being physics and philosophy. In some ways, philosophy has done a great amount to answer the question of “what is time”. Still though, there is no consensus, and when truly mulling it over, headaches are more than common.
It can be assumed that most people, at least in Western culture, begin to learn about time in the same way: a linear structure that consists of past, present, and future. Within this structure, time is not infinite, but instead has a starting point. There is an inherent distinction, then, between infinite past and infinite future. In this model, the past is defined, whereas the future is not, leading to separate levels of definition in reference to infinity. Yet, measuring infinity is neither logical nor possible. Infinity is ultimately conceptual. The only left-brain activity it can be used in is mathematics, and even then it is only reserved for answers. Finite past and infinite future cannot work in the same formula, and therefore this understanding was fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, the idea of the present is extremely difficult to prove. If time is infinitely large, then it is also infinitely small. Philosophically, it would be impossible to pinpoint one single moment as “the present”, if all moments can be divided into smaller moments, each stage of which passes by more quickly than the last.
Eastern philosophy, much like other aspects of their culture, has seen time from a very different viewpoint. Hinduism and Buddhism are just two examples of major religions that believe in Eternal Return, the idea the universe is cyclical and will repeat a pattern infinitely. Eternal Return presents time as a completely different manner. In this system, time surrounds existence, whereas Western approaches say time defines it. This understanding of time is harder to refute because it becomes part of a larger definition of the universe. While they still have the understanding that the cycles are infinite, subscribers to this idea don’t see existence within the bounds of time, but instead the bounds of cycles. As somebody who was born in the United States, just trying to understand this world view is difficult, and after a while, it becomes easier to move back to the evolution of Western thought and time.
One of the philosophical movements which has most affected our lives has been the debate between Realism and Anti-Realism. This debate has certainly spilled into the discussion on time, and it’s almost a sure bet that you’ve had these exact thoughts before. Realists believe that things exist outside of the human perception, whereas anti-realists believe that most things do not exist apart from the human mind. Any discussion on time will inevitably fall upon whether or not time exists at all in the first place. From the realist’s point of view, time has a steady and physical existence within the universe. Humans experience time as it exerts its presence upon them. But the anti-realist argues that time, like most things, is a construct of the mind. From their point of view, time is a manifestation of trying to understand existence. We constantly try to struggle with understanding our own existence, and mathematical measurements help us come to terms with that. We deal with those measurements on a daily basis, however, they are all quite arbitrary. For an anti-realist, time is as arbitrary a measurement as any other, used to link distance between events, but still nonexistent.
From a scientific standpoint, it can be argued that time does exist because of its link to the movement of our planet. While it is true that time is maintained in a more relative basis than some other measurements, it is still malleable and works within our needs. During the year, time is changed based on the seasons. Daylight savings is a method to use time to our advantage, and reap the benefits of sunlight. As recently as 2007, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez attempted to change his country’s time by half an hour. Even with the equalizing method of “falling back” and “springing forward”, we still need to step out of cadence and add a day to the calendar every four years in order to keep up with our own measurement system. There is no telling if our system is slightly incorrect, and will need to be revamped in twenty thousand years.
After significant consideration, I have to come to the conclusion that time does not exist in a philosophical sense. What this conclusion argues is that, while time is a visible construct, it is not a natural occurrence. Time can be (and has been) manipulated to serve human needs. There can certainly be a disconnect between what I am arguing as time and what Xavier is arguing as time, but for those thinkers who ponder the world from a sociological standpoint, measuring how fast life is moving is beyond the bounds of a possible definitive answer. That being said, if they ever invent time travel, well, then I am totally disproved.
My name is August Feldner, and none of this is original.
It can be assumed that most people, at least in Western culture, begin to learn about time in the same way: a linear structure that consists of past, present, and future. Within this structure, time is not infinite, but instead has a starting point. There is an inherent distinction, then, between infinite past and infinite future. In this model, the past is defined, whereas the future is not, leading to separate levels of definition in reference to infinity. Yet, measuring infinity is neither logical nor possible. Infinity is ultimately conceptual. The only left-brain activity it can be used in is mathematics, and even then it is only reserved for answers. Finite past and infinite future cannot work in the same formula, and therefore this understanding was fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, the idea of the present is extremely difficult to prove. If time is infinitely large, then it is also infinitely small. Philosophically, it would be impossible to pinpoint one single moment as “the present”, if all moments can be divided into smaller moments, each stage of which passes by more quickly than the last.
Eastern philosophy, much like other aspects of their culture, has seen time from a very different viewpoint. Hinduism and Buddhism are just two examples of major religions that believe in Eternal Return, the idea the universe is cyclical and will repeat a pattern infinitely. Eternal Return presents time as a completely different manner. In this system, time surrounds existence, whereas Western approaches say time defines it. This understanding of time is harder to refute because it becomes part of a larger definition of the universe. While they still have the understanding that the cycles are infinite, subscribers to this idea don’t see existence within the bounds of time, but instead the bounds of cycles. As somebody who was born in the United States, just trying to understand this world view is difficult, and after a while, it becomes easier to move back to the evolution of Western thought and time.
One of the philosophical movements which has most affected our lives has been the debate between Realism and Anti-Realism. This debate has certainly spilled into the discussion on time, and it’s almost a sure bet that you’ve had these exact thoughts before. Realists believe that things exist outside of the human perception, whereas anti-realists believe that most things do not exist apart from the human mind. Any discussion on time will inevitably fall upon whether or not time exists at all in the first place. From the realist’s point of view, time has a steady and physical existence within the universe. Humans experience time as it exerts its presence upon them. But the anti-realist argues that time, like most things, is a construct of the mind. From their point of view, time is a manifestation of trying to understand existence. We constantly try to struggle with understanding our own existence, and mathematical measurements help us come to terms with that. We deal with those measurements on a daily basis, however, they are all quite arbitrary. For an anti-realist, time is as arbitrary a measurement as any other, used to link distance between events, but still nonexistent.
From a scientific standpoint, it can be argued that time does exist because of its link to the movement of our planet. While it is true that time is maintained in a more relative basis than some other measurements, it is still malleable and works within our needs. During the year, time is changed based on the seasons. Daylight savings is a method to use time to our advantage, and reap the benefits of sunlight. As recently as 2007, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez attempted to change his country’s time by half an hour. Even with the equalizing method of “falling back” and “springing forward”, we still need to step out of cadence and add a day to the calendar every four years in order to keep up with our own measurement system. There is no telling if our system is slightly incorrect, and will need to be revamped in twenty thousand years.
After significant consideration, I have to come to the conclusion that time does not exist in a philosophical sense. What this conclusion argues is that, while time is a visible construct, it is not a natural occurrence. Time can be (and has been) manipulated to serve human needs. There can certainly be a disconnect between what I am arguing as time and what Xavier is arguing as time, but for those thinkers who ponder the world from a sociological standpoint, measuring how fast life is moving is beyond the bounds of a possible definitive answer. That being said, if they ever invent time travel, well, then I am totally disproved.
My name is August Feldner, and none of this is original.
Warning - Your time is tick-tick-ticking away
In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe. – Second Law of Thermodynamics
This week I will be doing something that I didn’t think I would do. I am taking last week’s post and somewhat building off of it. Go back and read it now, it will save me a lot of explaining. So let’s start with the idea of life being a series of brief moments, think of it like a frame in a movie. Keep that though in the back of your head as you read this. Also, it might seem like I am going nowhere. That might be true, but we’ll have to wait and see until the end,
Time is weird. So is our perception of time. So is others’ perception of our time. You can thank Einstein for that one. It is part of Einstein’s theory of special relativity. The property is called time dilation. Let’s say there are two people in space, Robert and Candice, just kind of floating at the same velocity. They both have clocks that are in sync with each other. Let’s also say it’s currently 5 o’clock, and we are drinking manhattans, although that is somewhat irrelevant.
As they drift along, their clocks remain synced. Bur Robert is somewhat impulsive (he also might have had one too many manhattans) and he decides to turn on his super futuristic jet-pack-type-thing and zoom off at a significant percentage of the speed of light. Pretend that Candice can read Roberts clock at great distances, Candice looks down at her clock and sees it ticking away normally, the second hand moving around the clock at a normal pace. She then looks at Robert’s clock. Something strange as happened. The second hand on his clock is moving very slow. Robert then catches a glance at Candice’s clock. It seems to be moving very slow too. He checks his own clock to make sure; it’s moving at the “correct” speed.
This is the world of relativity. Other cool stuff happens too, but I won’t go into that right now. The important concept for this article is as follows: the faster you travel relative to another observer the slower time will pass for you. The same happens when you are close to a high gravity body (slowing of time). The math behind this is fascinating and beautiful. And it’s been tested too! On the Apollo missions they had two clocks that were synced when they left Earth, and when Apollo returned, more time has passed on the clock in the ship (due to the ship being further away from Earth’s gravity, time moved quicker). When you fly on an airplane time will move slower, but at those speeds the difference is just about insignificant.
And this brings me to a complaint I have about science fiction, especially Star Trek. They never account for time dilation, probably because it you make for less interesting stories. Imagine the hero flying to rescue a planet form the evil empire that is invading, traveling at a large percentage of the speed of light he arrives at the planet to find that not only is he too late to rescue the people, but the evil empire has collapsed long ago and now monkeys rule the planet (note, this is kind of what planet of the apes is about, which is cool!). Most science fiction invent some kind of faster light plot device like hyperspace to get around this problem, but I almost feel like that is cheating.
So we have established that time is elastic, but what about its flow? Can time go in reverse? What about sideways (I’m not even sure if that’s a real concept)? Take a look at the quote at the beginning one more time and give it a think.
What does that mean? What is entropy, and what does it have to do with time? Entropy is a complex subject, with lots of sub topics, so I’m going to use a simple version of it. In large systems, such as a room or a universe, entropy is the universe evening itself out. Say we have a large room. It is completely closed off, and because we have magic powers we are able to put a hot gas at one end of the room, and a cool gas on the other end. We let the imaginary barrier down and the gases mix. As this happens, the higher energy hot gas particles will have random collisions with the lower energy cool particles, transferring some of the heat via kinetic energy. If we let the room sit long enough the temperature will be consistent throughout the entire room. This is entropy. Statistically, it is possible for the system to separate itself again, but the chances are very small.
It also occurs at the atomic level through radioactive decay. Over a period of time (sometimes minutes, sometimes millions of years, depending on the element) the atom will decay from one element to another, until it has shed all of its sup atomic particles. If the universe keeps expanding, its ultimate fate will be a universe that is full of these subatomic particles drifting through space. No planets, no stars, no gas clouds. It will be very boring. If you want to read a really cool story about this, check out Isaac Asimov’s The Last Question (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html).
Entropy moves forward. It is the arrow of time. Although in the short term it is possible to reverse entropy (like in biological systems), in the long run it is inevitable. In this grand scale time seems to flow with entropy. Only one direction is possible when the scale gets large enough.
Time to bring everything together! Last week I talked about how life is a series of chance events. This combined with entropy leads me to believe that time is forward flowing, a small event occurs, time moves on, and another small event occurs. These events make up the flow of time. Once something has happened you cannot go back and undo it. The universe has split and we are in the one that we are in. Time can move slower or faster depending on our perception of it, but never backwards.
However, because of other properties of relativity, you might be able to curve space-time and…well…that’s another entry.
From my world to yours,
Elijah Xavier
This week I will be doing something that I didn’t think I would do. I am taking last week’s post and somewhat building off of it. Go back and read it now, it will save me a lot of explaining. So let’s start with the idea of life being a series of brief moments, think of it like a frame in a movie. Keep that though in the back of your head as you read this. Also, it might seem like I am going nowhere. That might be true, but we’ll have to wait and see until the end,
Time is weird. So is our perception of time. So is others’ perception of our time. You can thank Einstein for that one. It is part of Einstein’s theory of special relativity. The property is called time dilation. Let’s say there are two people in space, Robert and Candice, just kind of floating at the same velocity. They both have clocks that are in sync with each other. Let’s also say it’s currently 5 o’clock, and we are drinking manhattans, although that is somewhat irrelevant.
As they drift along, their clocks remain synced. Bur Robert is somewhat impulsive (he also might have had one too many manhattans) and he decides to turn on his super futuristic jet-pack-type-thing and zoom off at a significant percentage of the speed of light. Pretend that Candice can read Roberts clock at great distances, Candice looks down at her clock and sees it ticking away normally, the second hand moving around the clock at a normal pace. She then looks at Robert’s clock. Something strange as happened. The second hand on his clock is moving very slow. Robert then catches a glance at Candice’s clock. It seems to be moving very slow too. He checks his own clock to make sure; it’s moving at the “correct” speed.
This is the world of relativity. Other cool stuff happens too, but I won’t go into that right now. The important concept for this article is as follows: the faster you travel relative to another observer the slower time will pass for you. The same happens when you are close to a high gravity body (slowing of time). The math behind this is fascinating and beautiful. And it’s been tested too! On the Apollo missions they had two clocks that were synced when they left Earth, and when Apollo returned, more time has passed on the clock in the ship (due to the ship being further away from Earth’s gravity, time moved quicker). When you fly on an airplane time will move slower, but at those speeds the difference is just about insignificant.
And this brings me to a complaint I have about science fiction, especially Star Trek. They never account for time dilation, probably because it you make for less interesting stories. Imagine the hero flying to rescue a planet form the evil empire that is invading, traveling at a large percentage of the speed of light he arrives at the planet to find that not only is he too late to rescue the people, but the evil empire has collapsed long ago and now monkeys rule the planet (note, this is kind of what planet of the apes is about, which is cool!). Most science fiction invent some kind of faster light plot device like hyperspace to get around this problem, but I almost feel like that is cheating.
So we have established that time is elastic, but what about its flow? Can time go in reverse? What about sideways (I’m not even sure if that’s a real concept)? Take a look at the quote at the beginning one more time and give it a think.
What does that mean? What is entropy, and what does it have to do with time? Entropy is a complex subject, with lots of sub topics, so I’m going to use a simple version of it. In large systems, such as a room or a universe, entropy is the universe evening itself out. Say we have a large room. It is completely closed off, and because we have magic powers we are able to put a hot gas at one end of the room, and a cool gas on the other end. We let the imaginary barrier down and the gases mix. As this happens, the higher energy hot gas particles will have random collisions with the lower energy cool particles, transferring some of the heat via kinetic energy. If we let the room sit long enough the temperature will be consistent throughout the entire room. This is entropy. Statistically, it is possible for the system to separate itself again, but the chances are very small.
It also occurs at the atomic level through radioactive decay. Over a period of time (sometimes minutes, sometimes millions of years, depending on the element) the atom will decay from one element to another, until it has shed all of its sup atomic particles. If the universe keeps expanding, its ultimate fate will be a universe that is full of these subatomic particles drifting through space. No planets, no stars, no gas clouds. It will be very boring. If you want to read a really cool story about this, check out Isaac Asimov’s The Last Question (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html).
Entropy moves forward. It is the arrow of time. Although in the short term it is possible to reverse entropy (like in biological systems), in the long run it is inevitable. In this grand scale time seems to flow with entropy. Only one direction is possible when the scale gets large enough.
Time to bring everything together! Last week I talked about how life is a series of chance events. This combined with entropy leads me to believe that time is forward flowing, a small event occurs, time moves on, and another small event occurs. These events make up the flow of time. Once something has happened you cannot go back and undo it. The universe has split and we are in the one that we are in. Time can move slower or faster depending on our perception of it, but never backwards.
However, because of other properties of relativity, you might be able to curve space-time and…well…that’s another entry.
From my world to yours,
Elijah Xavier
Friday, May 29, 2009
Free Will: Not a Choice
In the world of quantum mechanics everything is chance. You don’t know where an electron is until as it is flying around the nucleus of an atom. What you have is an equation describing the probability of finding the electron in a certain place at a certain time. Only probability, all we have is an equation describing a probability wave. When the electron is observed, the wave collapses, the electron moving from all states to only one. Assuming that we are real and not an elaborate dream of some odd piece of sentient sludge, it seems that quantum mechanics can tell us a little about the existence of free will.
I am looking at these questions from a somewhat scientific viewpoint, following my admittedly limited knowledge of these ideas. If there is one thing that sitting down and writing out my thoughts has made me realize is how little I actually know. That being said, I think I have a pretty decent understanding of the theoretical implications of the topics I will be discussing, even though the math behind them makes my head hurt and blood to come out my nose.
In the 1930s Erwin Schrödinger developed a though experiment. You may have heard of it, it was named after him (and a cat). It’s called Schrödinger’s Cat. There is a cat. It is in a box, but it is not alone. With it is a device comprised of a deadly gas sealed in a glass container, a hammer set to break the glass if the trigger is set off, the trigger, which is a Geiger counter, and a little bit of a radioactive substance. Over a period of time, Schrödinger used an hour, there is a chance that an atom will decay and set of the device, killing the cat. There is also a chance that no atoms will decay, leaving the cat with its life intact. Because of the weirdness that comes with the world of quantum mechanics an observer is required to see if the atom has decayed or not, until then it is in both states, decayed and not decayed. And so is the cat (perhaps decaying?). It is not until we opened the box that we can see if the cat is alive or dead. Even though the cat can be considered an observer (and also note that all the quantum weirdness goes away at macro levels) it is both alive and dead at the same time until the box is opened, its life is linked to the radioactive decay of the substance. It does not have a state until observed. This is also the view I take on parking tickets and bills
So what does all that nonsense about cats mean about free will? Well, since the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is all about the probable outcomes of choices, it seems that our lives are the sum of these millions and billions of choices going on all around us every day, shaping our world and perceptions. Everything you see and everything you know is only one possible outcome. Our world is on its own path determined by the random outcomes of past choices. The idea of probability and choices in quantum mechanics leads some (including me) to the many worlds theory, that every time a choice is made the world splits, creating two worlds; one where A is the outcome, the other where B is. In one world the cat is alive, in the other the cat is dead, and in another the cat is actually a tuna fish sandwich.
What is interesting about Schrödinger’s Cat is the cat itself. Until the box is opened the cat, in theory, exhibits quantum properties that disappear at macro levels. The cat doesn’t really have a choice on whether or not it is dead or alive. It’s all chance, and that’s one way to look at life: as a series of coincidences, not large choices. Our world (and by our world I am referring to the entire universe) is unique, the only one of its kind. There are many like it, differing in only the placement of a single electron. We have no control over the path that we are on, and like the cat in the box there is little we can do to change the outcome of situations. It is not predetermined, it is chance.
The question of fate versus free will in now no longer valid. We are not on any specific path, but behind us we leave many different universes where the outcomes of those choices are slightly different. To put it somewhat abstractly, we do not make choices, choices make us.
On a larger level these choices might seem trivial. As I mentioned earlier, the cooler properties of quantum mechanics disappear in larger systems, such as a human (or a human brain cell). On the microscopic level particles can tunnel through objects, become entangled with each other and share properties, and disappear then reappear again. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but everyday objects tend not to do things like that. Prisons work because the walls are solid and people can’t just walk through them. There is a small (really really small) chance that one day you will accidently walk into a wall and go straight through it, but don’t plan on it happening, you might get stuck in the wall. The cool stuff that happens at those small levels averages out once you get up to macroscopic levels, leaving us with the world we know and love, a solid world.
So what does this imply for this whole fate versus free will thing? Well if the world around us is controlled by a bunch of probabilities and chances, what hope is there for free will? None, if you as me. So its fate then? Actually, also no.
Wait what?
I said neither. Looking at the universe from the many worlds standpoint every possible choice that has ever been made has happened (is happening) in some parallel universe. It just happens that you are in this world. There is another version of you who decided to skip work today, dye her hair red, and fly to Thailand. That might not have been a choice for you this morning, especially if you are bald, a man, and already in a world where Thailand no longer exists due to the Thai-Aussie war in 1980 where the Australians attacked Thailand with dinosaurs then nuked the entire country.
Now that we have gone way off into left field, why not continue the journey?
Those worlds are around you right now. In the same exact place this world is. As an observer, we are interpreting only this world. We also exist in the other worlds too. Only we can’t observe them. I might go deeper into this concept in the future, but you are going to have to trust me on this one for now.
Limiting your interpretation of the workings of the world to an argument of fate versus free will seems inaccurate. It is much more complex and dynamic. The universe is an extremely complex system with all the parts moving together and interacting in ways that are difficult to imagine. We live in but one of the many possible outcomes of a large probability wave function that has collapsed into the way we perceive the world. The world is happening, we are simply watching.
From my world to yours,
Elijah Xavier
Free Will and the Human Condition
During my second semester at college, one of my professors gave the class an assignment to write about evil from the perspective of the three Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). For the sources, all of the students were required to interview a rabbi, a pastor/priest/etc, and an imam. Being Jewish, I chose to start off my interviews with a rabbi, assuming I would have a strong foundation of understanding. I set up a meeting with the campus rabbi, and we met and got to talking about evil. In the end, however, we ended up straying to angels and humans. During that conversation, the rabbi said something that really struck me, but it couldn’t quite fit it in with the topic of my paper. I ended up forgetting about the quote. Only last night did the memory resurface when Elijah and I decided on our topic for today. The rabbi’s quote was this: “God gave humans free will, but not angels. I guess you could say that humans are more privileged than angels when it comes down to it”.
Free will has always been a difficult concept for me to grasp. When the rabbi made his claim about humans and angels, I was a little taken back. First off, since when is it an accepted truth that free will is desirable? What if there are those who want to be guided through life by a determinant force? For some people, the idea of constantly deciding and choosing may be a daunting and uncomfortable thought. Secondly, is it really that clear that humans are given this ‘gift’? Religions frequently fight over whether or not God has reign over earth in the physical sense. Does God cause an earthquake? Does God get you that new job? Answers vary depending on whether you ask a Calvinist or a Sunni. After pondering the accuracy of the rabbi’s comments, I began thinking about free will on a larger scale. When trying to make an argument of definition, an effective method is to say what something is not. This brings us to a common philosophical crossroad: free will vs. determinism. There are a lot of things to say about both, but this essay will concern itself mostly with the concept of free will, occasionally crossing over to examples of determinism for comparison.
If I want to stop typing right now, I will. And I will continue again when I want. That is, essentially, free will. Or at least it feels like it. Free will is dependent on one major condition: options. There must be at least two truly available options to choose from so that the actor has the opportunity to exercise will. This concept cannot be tested unless there are multiple possibilities. Some philosophers argue that the lack of outside influence is a second condition to free will. They say that a forced action cannot be a true test of free will because of external factors. While it seems obvious to take both conditions into account when pondering the existence of free will, there needs to be a clear separation in understanding between the first and the second. Options are almost always available. Even when an actor is confronted with just one object, they can refuse. For example, a man is offered only one soda, and he doesn’t take it. But when external influences are factored in, the argument becomes less clear.
You may have heard of Clarence Darrow from the Scopes Monkey Trial. What you may not know is that in over one hundred murder cases where Darrow was working for the defense, only one of his clients got the death penalty. Darrow frequently used arguments concerning free will to clear the defendant (who had already confessed to murder) from the most capital of punishments. Darrow would constantly bring up questions of how much power the concept of free will truly had over people, and use it to separate his defendant from his defendant’s actions. When Darrow was defending Leopold and Loeb, two young teens who had kidnapped and killed a fourteen year old for no apparent reason, he produced one of the most eloquent and moving defenses. In it, Darrow is quoted as saying:
“Nature is strong and she is pitiless. She works in her own mysterious way, and we are her victims. We have not much to do with it ourselves. Nature takes this job in hand, and we play our parts. In the words of old Omar Khayyam, we are only, "Impotent pieces in the game He plays Upon this checkerboard of nights and days, Hither and thither moves, and checks, and slays, And one by one back in the closet lays." What had this boy to do with it? He was not his own father; he was not his own mother; he was not his own grandparents. All of this was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and wealth. He did not make himself. And yet he is to be compelled to pay.”
Darrow’s defense methods were compelling enough to work almost every time, but he was bringing up major philosophical questions. Based on his logic, the boys had murdered, yet they were not at fault. Instead, they were products of an environment which they were powerless to change. It may sound cliché, but this mode of thinking is a slippery slope. If the boys are only results of their parents and their neighborhoods, then their parents are results of their parents, and their neighborhoods are results of its founders, and the chain continues infinitely. The domino effect takes place and puts everybody out of blame. These are two important caveats to Darrow’s defense, but we will get back to the idea of the infinite and the blameless in a little bit. Instead, let’s take this idea of environment and expand on it.
As I said before, I can stop typing right now. However, I cannot stop breathing right now- at least not automatically. I can’t stop myself from shivering in the cold or sweating in the heat. I can’t stop myself from blinking, from closing my eyes when I sneeze or flinching if something approaches me. The fact is, there are multiple levels of conscious action that we as humans have to deal with, and some of them are not as malleable as the others. Hold your breath right now. Hold it as long as you possibly can and don’t read past this sentence unless you’ve started breathing again. If you’re reading this it means that you stopped holding your breath. Why? Obviously, it’s because your body is programmed to breathe. While we have some control over respiration, its counterpart (the heart) cannot be stopped from beating. In fact, there are a whole host of functions going on in our body right now that we have absolutely no control over. Even the smaller functions like digestion and the breakdown of amino acids- they will happen no matter what we do as long as we are alive. Our bodies are machines; they are programmed to stay alive. I chose to walk to work in the morning. Whether I walk one particular route over another seems to be my choice, but it is resulting in the same end game: going to work to make money to make sure I can pay for food and water which keep me alive. It seems that in this scenario, free will is coupled with a determined path that the body will take. I can choose the route, but the end goal will be the same. The only way to get out of that cycle, of course, is to die.
It is important, then, to look at what understanding the world would become without the concept of free will. Going back to Darrow’s defense in the Leopold and Loeb case, he argued that the boys were not guilty because of their inability to determine their own development. Ultimately, they could do anything and be blameless, because they had no say over their most fundamental surroundings. If this is the case, then the slippery slope prevails again and nobody is responsible for anything they do. There is no good or evil, there is no right or wrong. Instead, the fault is pushed back to whoever acts as predecessor. A lack of free will would completely destroy any moral code that existed in any given society. It can therefore be argued that free will is an essential concept to accept for the mere reason that it creates order and development. When people act under the presumption that they are responsible for their actions, they are (generally) more careful, more prudent and less disruptive. There will always be exceptions to this rule, but every society lives under a certain morale code in which subjects are responsible for what they do. Whether or not free will exists, it has proven itself a progressive and useful idea.
The final point I want to make here will most likely cross over into Elijah’s category, because it needs to deal with math. It is a generally accepted principle that the universe and time are infinite. Understanding that infinity is not a number, but a concept, there is no equation that can be applied with infinity and make sense in a realm outside of mathematics. Taking that into account, we can discredit the idea of determinism as an alternative to free will. If free will did not exist, it would imply that we were all on a pre-defined path, basically acting out scenes in a play. However time is infinite, and infinity cannot be pre-defined; it has no beginning. Therefore, we may fall victim to the machine of our bodies, the environment or the stars and planets, but we do have free will. We have to choice to steal or pay, to tell the truth or to lie, or to drink grape soda instead of coke. Infinity, while an astoundingly complicated concept for the human brain to understand, is what we can thank for any order that society has maintained in its development. We have free will within a somewhat predetermined system. Infinity causes chaos and order. It’s the ying and the yang, and it gets you every time.
My name is August Feldner, and none of this is original.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)