|
Dear
Dr...
I am
writing you to suggest a refutation
to the “Liberty of Indifference”
argument for free will, and to
describe how an exploration of
particle behavior via the law of
conservation of energy addresses the
question of particle determinacy /
indeterminacy at a more fundamental
level of nature than expressed by
interpretations of quantum
mechanical particle measurement. I
hope these two points will help you
build a stronger and broader
consensus among philosophers
regarding the determined nature of
human will.
In
lecture four of his 24 lecture
series “Great Philosophical Debates:
Free Will and Determinism,” Dr.
Shaun Nichols relates the “Liberty
of Indifference” account wherein a
person who hypothetically chooses
between two completely identical
items cannot choose according to
reason, or other causal influences,
and hence makes a free will choice,
as an argument that, in principle,
extends the faculty of free will to
all of our choices.
A
solid refutation to this account can
be made by arguing that a choice
between two items, regardless of
their being identical, must be made
in an ordered manner. In other
words, the items must always be
presented to a person as a choice
between a first item and a second
item, or as a choice between an item
to the right and an item to the
left, etc.
Verbally, one item must be presented
first and the other item second. Two
dimensionally, one item must be
presented on the right and the other
item on the left, and one item above
and the other item below. Three
dimensionally, as with two items in
a room, the items must also be
presented as to the right or left,
or above or below, each other. Even
when the person is instructed to
make the choice conceptually at a
later time, the person must always
order the two items in her mind so
that one is considered first and the
other is considered second.
The
refutation of Liberty of
Indifference is accomplished by
conducting an experiment wherein a
person is “prompted,” or
conditioned, to select either the
first or the second item.
Alternately, experiments can be
devised, (or the findings may
already exist) to demonstrate
various natural propensities that
would predispose first-second,
right-left or higher-lower choices.
For example, such experiments may
reveal that left-handers would tend
to choose an item presented at their
left far more often than an item
presented at their right. I trust
the above suffices to describe this
refutation, but if you would like
more clarification, please let me
know.
Now on
to the presumably more important
description of how conservation of
energy can be used to demonstrate
particle determinism at the quantum
level.
First,
it must be understood that
conservation of energy is a physical
law that governs all particles,
including quantum particles, at
their most fundamental level of
interaction; a two-particle
collision wherein one particle
transfers energy to the other
particle. Second, it should be
understood that conservation of
energy is a physical law that has
never been violated in nature, (as
opposed to conservation of mass that
is routinely violated by microscopic
phenomena.)
The
argument is as follows; in a
two-particle collision, as governed
by conservation of energy, the
increase in energy of the second
particle is the direct effect of its
interaction with, and transfer of
energy from, the first particle.
Conversely the decrease in energy of
the first particle is the direct
effect of its interaction with, and
transfer of energy to, the second
particle. Thus, this transfer of
energy wherein one particle causes
the effect of increased energy in
the second particle is completely
causal.
Because this particle collision
example of quantum particle
causality takes place at a level of
nature more fundamental than that
addressed by the Heisenberg and
other uncertainty principles, which
take place at the level of particle
measurement, it more elegantly and
accurately than interpretations of
those uncertainty principles
describes the nature of quantum
particle behavior.
Hence,
because this conservation of energy
proof demonstrates particle
causality at a level of nature more
fundamental than that addressed by
various interpretations of the
Heisenberg and other uncertainty
principles that conclude quantum
particle behavior to be
indeterministic, and because the
macro world is clearly
deterministic, a new argument for
particle indeterminacy would now
need to explain and describe by what
matter quantum particles with an
initially deterministic nature
become indeterministic during
measurement and then resume their
deterministic nature in the macro
world. Not an easy argument, to be
sure.
I
understand that a deterministic
nature of particles is not
absolutely necessary for refuting
free will, given that their random
nature similarly refutes the notion.
However, I believe that closing the
door on the quantum determinincy /
indeterminacy debate would make case
for human beings having determined
wills as opposed to free wills far
more persuasive. Thanks you for your
work on this very important question
of human will, and I wish you every
success if you choose to advance the
above arguments.
Sincerely,
George
Ortega
White
Plains, New York
george_ortega390@esc.edu
cc:
Derk
Pereboom
Steven
Pinker
Owen
Flanagan
Bruce
Waller
Stephen Morse
Susan
Blackmore
Melissa Ferguson
V.S.
Ramachandran
Irving
Kirsch
John
Bargh
John
Horgan
Saul
Smilansky
Galen
Strawson
Daniel
Wegner
|
