The Home of Jon » Philosophy

Are there such things as absolutes?

Jon — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:39:12 +0000

What are absolutes? Their definition is self describing. They are truths; things that remain true despite any sort of circumstance. Things that we know, beyond any shadow of any shred of doubt, are correct. They are not relative to anything – they merely exist in their own right.

Do any absolutes exist? I believe this is an important question. For even if we cannot determine any absolutes save one, this would still logically prove the existence of a higher ’sentience’. What do I mean? I intend to explain that.

First, let us start with an example of an absolute. Here is an absolute – you will die. Of that I can be absolutely certain. Alternatively, from that point, since you will die, we know that you must now live – meaning that we are also absolutely sure that you exist. There is no denying it with any sort of circumstance – at this very moment we are absolutely sure you exist. Let’s have one more example – the impossibility of something being itself and not itself. It is abstract, but it essentially means is that A cannot be both A and not A. In a more concrete sense, we can say the same thing by saying that contradictions cannot exist in nature. That statement is absolutely true.

We see then, that at least some absolutes do in fact exist. We might not be able to comprehend or discover them all, but we know that they do exist. What significance does this hold if any?

Absolutes, by definition are not relative to anything; they merely exist in their own right. Thus, in the absence of any outside environment or interaction they would remain true. What I mean is this; if the human race were gone and extinguished, and no other sentient mind was present to comprehend these truths, the truths would still exist. They might be useless because there no minds to comprehend them – but they would still exist, waiting for the next ready mind willing to encompass them. Thus, if no sentient minds are present, A still cannot be both A and not A. If you were the only person in existence and there were no external minds to comprehend or interact with you, it would not change the fact that you would still exist. The quality of that existence is another matter.

We see then that absolutes are by logical extension of the definition, objective. What does objective mean? Let us define it this way; something that is objective is something that retains its attributes (it remains the same) outside the human mind. Let’s consider one of our former examples, existence. Given, the concept of existence is defined by the human mind and language and would not then be objective. What I mean is, though the concept of existence is a human concept (because we are human), you existing, and the fact that you existed is a quality that you possess/possessed (if you died). Despite whether or not there are any sentient minds there to comprehend it, you still retain/retained that quality. I am not talking about our conception of the quality, I’m talking about the quality itself. (In this mode of thinking, if I refer to a rock, I refer not to my concept of the rock, but the rock itself – though this analogy only extends to a certain point because we have not resolved that the rock is absolute). And the quality can exist on its own because it is able to by definition.

Now that we have determined that at minimum, some (at least the two mentioned) absolutes do exist (and there might be many more). Now that we have defined them, there remains the problem of their origin. Where did they come from or what were they produced by? Well, let’s think first of a quality of absolutes. I think it would be a safe to say that only a sentient mind could be aware of absolutes. A tree is not aware of absolutes. A dog is not consciously aware it exists – it merely does. Thus, one quality of absolutes is that only a sentient mind is able to be aware of them. This is not hard to stomach and sits well with the common sense. But if sentient minds are the only things capable of comprehending absolutes, that leaves us with the problem of the definition of sentience. However, that is another topic entirely. Let us assume that we all know what we are talking about when we refer to sentience. Now if this quality is true, that only sentient minds can be aware of absolutes, then the origin of absolutes must be traced back to an original sentient mind. In other words, if absolutes require sentient minds to be understood, it must have been produced by a sentient mind.

Free Will

Jon — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:36:51 +0000

Do we as humans have true free will? It is a very thought provoking question. Many have pondered it. Yet, knowing what we know today, realizing the truths of the 21^st century, what can we say about the subject of free will?

Well, in order to answer that question we need a definition of free will. What is free will? The simple definition is this – the ability to make a choice of your own will, freely, without coercion. I would add to that definition the ability to carry out those choices. When we say ‘will’, we mean your own intellect, your personhood, your mind. Some would say brain. But we will get to that. In summary then, free will is the ability to make and carry out a choice that you yourself have made, free of coercion or force.

Well, then, do we indeed possess such a thing? Let us consider this – what is it that our minds rely on to make their choices? Our brains of course. It is the seat of our intellect, where our choices are made. What then do the rules of physics say about our brain? The simple answer right now is that we don’t know. The mathematization of our brains has been attempted, and it has failed. Right now we simply can’t figure out exactly how the brain works. We know a lot about it and a lot of how certain components work – enough to allow us to do complex surgeries and the like. But the why and the how of the brain, considered as a whole is depressingly incomplete. It may remain that way for a long time to come. For the sake of patients with certain brain diseases, we hope not. But let us make some educated guesses about it. Our brain is goverened by things called synapses – it is like the circuits of the brain. Electrical impulses are sent across them; the information that we have stored in our brain. These synapses are built out of the things that everything in the world is made up of – atoms. And these atoms are made up of elementary particles. With modern science and quantum theory we know how to predict the interactions of these particles. If this and this happens, then this will result. Seems pretty simple and innocent.

If we can predict with precision what happens with these elementary particles and these atoms, then we can predict – theorectically – what larger molecules will do. Molecules are made of atoms, biological structures are made of molecules, synapses are made of biological structures, and the brain is composed of synapses (and other things, which are also made up of atoms). And the brain is the seat of our intellect. Now imagine we have a theoretical computer, with infinite computational ability, and it was able to compute whatever you gave it instantly. If this computer were able to scan all the atoms in your brain, all the particles, then the computer could tell you will exact accuracy, the very next thing you would do. This is because it can predict with precision where all your particles are and where they are going right? With this information, it can calculate what will happen next with all your particles. And if it can predict was happens with all your particles, it can predict what your brain will do, since it is composed of particles. And if it can predict what your brain does, it can predict what you do.

What is the point of this? It is the main thrust of the argument. If we are merely the sum of our particles, then we have no free will. That violates the main clause of our definition of free will – the choice that must be free of coercion or force. If we are merely the sum of our constituents, then we have no choice at all in what we do. It is all decided for us by the physics. Free will is merely an illusion created by the human mind.

But wait. Despite the fact that such a computer is both theoretically and physically impossible, are our particles guided by deterministic forces? With the advent or quantum theory the short answer is no. Each elementary particle that exists has something called a wave function. It is a mathematical description of these particles (though a particle is an improper term for these elementary objects). It seems odd that a particle would have a mathematical wave function since particles and waves are fundamentally different. For an explanation of this phenomenon I recommend reading Quantum Reality by Nick Herbert. These waves are very similar to most waves that we encounter in the regular world. However, the quantum world is very different from the regular world. These waves are different from our everyday waves in the fact that do not carry energy. The amplitude of a wave is the measure of how high is oscillates from its ‘rest’ position. The energy of a wave is the amplitude squared. However, for a quantum wave, the square of the amplitude is not energy, it is probability. That seem very abstract and not quite real, but it is in fact as real as the world you stand on. Quantum waves are peculiar again in another way – because of the peculiarities of the quantum world, having a high amplitude does not always result in a larger probability.

What is our point? The point is that all particles are guided by these rules. Thus, all physical forces are fundamentally and inherently probabilistic. We can never say with absolute certainty that a certain result will arise from a given set of preconditions. We can say that something has a high probability of happening, but we can never say that absolutely that a certain event will happen. Now we know that the Moon will never spontaneously combust because a random atom split and caused a chain nuclear reaction. That is a different situation entirely. For macroscopic objects such as the Moon, the probability of such an unlikely event happening is so huge that it would take longer than the lifetime or the universe for it to happen. For a random synapse, not only is it’s firing likely, it is normal. Though it is macroscopic compared to the quantum world, it is composed of much less particles than the moon is. Detecting what might be the most probable thing a synapse would do might be possible in a certain situation, yet not possible for another. The point is that for such a thing as a synapse, the probability of it firing at a particular instance is not so astronomically high that talking about probability is irrelevant. Especially considering the internal structure of the synapse and how the myriad of parts determine whether it fires or not.

Even if the probability was astronomically high, we must again look to physics for the answer. A certain particle’s wave function is not solely determined by itself and its immediate surroundings. There are other forces that contribute to its state. This immediately invalidates our previous argument. What else then contributes to a particle’s state? If it is local objects it is irrelevant because (for the sake of the argument let’s assume) say for any event we were able to determine with high probability what was going to happen. So high that it would be irrelevant to talk about the possibility of the event not happening
. Physicists however have proved that any view of reality, if it is consistent with quantum theory (which we know to be true), must be non-local. What does that mean? Local means anything that could have interacted with our object in the past. Someone on the other side of the world is local to me, because that person could have conceivable interacted with me or my atoms in during the lifetime of the universe. However a galaxy on the other edge of the universe could not have possibly interacted with me. It is so incredibly far away that light from it has not even reached me. Since the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, if light itself has not reached me, then nothing in that galaxy could have interacted with me either. It is non-local. Physicists have proven that objects can be influenced by events that are non-local. In fact, objects must be influenced by events that are non-local; it is the only way that our view of the universe is consistent. That means that two galaxies colliding on the other edge of the universe, whose light hasn’t even reached us, is able to affect a particle in your morning coffee.

What is the significance of this? First let me put forth a recent finding in physics. Using information about background radiation in the universe, we have determined that the universe is flat or infinite. If we have an infinite universe, we have infinite space. It is a well known fact of physics that in the vacuum of space such things as virtual particles can erupt from nothing and then disappear just as quickly. Such things happen at random and cannot be predicted. Picture this then; at any instant there are an infinite amount of virtual particles roiling up out of the quantum froth that are affecting the particles in your brain this very moment. And that means that an infinite amount of random events are affecting the probability of a particular event. Counted on whole then, any event can be said to be random. In practice this is not true – certain events have a certain probability and other events have another probability. However, on the whole, events can be said to be random. Applying this argument to our human brain, it is impossible to say that we are merely the sum of our particles. The world, the universe, and us, are not deterministic.

There remains the argument however that we are merely responding to stimuli. Even if our thoughts are not predetermined by our constituents, aren’t we merely responding to input given us, and in that way is not our free will stolen from us? I would say no. Responding to stimuli is living. We need stimuli to survive. Free will enters the picture when we must decide what to do with our stimulus. The presence of the stimulus itself does not nullify free will – in fact it is the opposite; it allows free will to exist. How could we choose freely between two choices if there were no choices?

Most of preceding argument leaves out entirely one of the most common held beliefs. The preceding arguments are based solely on physical grounds. Most people in this world believe that everyone has some sort of ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ that is their true person. Their true will. A soul, being by definition super-natural, is not bound to the laws of the physical world. Applying the common beliefs of the properties of the ‘spirit’, we can say that it is not deterministic and is free to choose between stimuli and choose without coercion (unless it is from the outside). If the seat of the intellect is indeed located outside of the physical world, as most believe, then free will is left to the supernatural forces governing that soul. (Depending on what you believe, a god or other entity may be the ruler of such supernatural forces).

Considering the topic or free will then, I believe it can be said with considerable assurance that we as humans indeed have free will, no matter which argument you take. Though some are easier to argue than others, I believe each point has its merit and validation. Your choices and decisions are indeed your own – you will has been freed.