Recovering from the Loss of Free Will

 PSI Blog 20240304 Recovering from the Loss of Free Will

 

Belief in free will: One reason regressive physics and cosmogony has been so durable.

Photo by Mohamed Nohassi on Unsplash

 

In "Religious Roots of Relativity" I pointed out why Einstein and the Big Bang Theory became so popular. You were born without religion, but it is unlikely you were raised without believing in free will. Most of the 4000+ religions have taken advantage of this, emphasizing that you are entirely responsible for all your decisions. Even in a secular society, we must hold people responsible for their behavior. Intelligence involves the response to the environment. Society has the means to handle inappropriate responses regardless of anyone’s belief or nonbelief in “free will.”

 

None of this becomes much of a problem unless you take physics and the rest of science seriously. It really comes to the fore in the advent of Infinite Universe Theory and the coming demise of the “Last Creation Myth.” Mere acknowledgement that univironmental determinism is the universal mechanism of evolution is enough to push one into what I call “deterministic realization” and the rejection of free will. This strikes folks in varying ways ranging from an epiphany, shock, depression, or elation.

 

In this regard, I just received this pertinent question from Jesse, who obviously is a deep thinker and understands my scientific philosophy:

 

Did the realization that you do not have free will bother you at all? The contemplation that ultimately your decisions aren't really decisions but simply predictable outcomes from your biological machinery when facing the exact forms of motion that you face?

 

It bothered me at first. Gave me that sinking feeling in my stomach like I was in free fall.

 

But then, like many things, I accepted it with this philosophy. "If I act and live my life like I believe in free will, does it really matter if I actually believe in it or not?"

 

Another take would be that free will is what we call the emergent phenomenon of infinity vs our brains and bodies. This phenomenon clearly occurs, the physical mechanism being microscopic infinity instead of divine spirit is frankly not important?

 

Jesse:

 

Nice to hear from you. With regard to free will, I had this to say in the Preface to "The Scientific Worldview":

 

The univironmental idea had an intense personal impact. In my experiments I had always considered myself outside the reactions I was observing. Now I was a crucial, historical part of them. My physicochemical model of the world ran wild. For more than a week I was in a fatalistic daze as I thought, still somewhat narrowly, but certainly not conventionally, “We are all chemicals and all our behaviors are chemical reactions.” This was a giant, if somewhat clumsy, step outside systems philosophy. In this new way of thinking, whether we consider ourselves chemicals, systems, microcosms, or just plain folks made little difference—all are influenced by both the within and the without. Behavior was simply the motion of one portion of the universe with respect to other portions. This simple yet profound conception was radically different from anything I had known. The dictionary didn’t even have a word for it. I gradually recovered by savoring the newfound perceptiveness. I would never look at anything in the same way again.[1]

 

Looks like the “deterministic realization” had a similar effect on you. Folks have said that The Scientific Worldview “blew their minds,” etc. It turns out that most people never think that deeply about anything and therefore can never know what the Infinite Universe is really all about. Of course, us newly edified, eventually get over it like you did and continue to act mostly as if we actually had free will.

 

It is impossible to consider the trillions of causes involved in your next decision. On the other hand, you might want to know about a few of them, as I demonstrate below.

 

I remember displaying a cursory rejection of free will as a freshman in college in my debates with liberal arts students. By then I had a little bit of science, but the major reason I was a believer in “there are causes for all effects” stemmed from my hands-on farm background. That probably was why I could not accept Einstein’s massless particles, time dilation, and 4-D spacetime, getting a C in Physics 1a for my trouble. Despite all that, I did not get the “deterministic realization” until I began "The Scientific Worldview" from the standpoint of the determinism-indeterminism philosophical struggle. By then, I had witnessed some vehement arguments among scientists who espoused opposing views over the interpretation of data. I found out soon that these always occurred at the frontier of science—no one needed to debate or get excited about stuff that was already settled.

 

In the ‘70s we studied a lot of dialectics and the meaning of contradictions. That helped me to focus on the frontier. I read New Scientist magazine, which was pushing a lot of Big Bang Theory stuff that seemed silly to me. After all, there was no cause ever given for the effect that supposedly resulted in the explosion of the entire universe out of nothing.

 

So now that we have surpassed the “deterministic realization,” what do we do? As a scientist, it is relatively easy. I am particularly interested in what causes what effects. Unless you are a regressive physicist, you will want to know what is colliding with what. That also implies the overall importance of history in producing the present. That is why even otherwise naïve scientists document their work by citing those who came before. It is why I have accumulated over 9,000 literature references in the last six decades. I want to know where my ideas came from so I can get more of them and avoid the ones that fail observation and experiment.

 

Human progress has accumulated a hugh database containing evidence that should not be ignored or contradicted, along with false, self-serving claims that should be pointed out, challenged, and forgotten. It is fun being part of that and knowing we all get to “change the world” even though we know also that each event follows from the infinite nexus of previous events.

 

Be reminded, however, that the determinism-free will debate always will be with us, commencing with the birth of each child. Most folks, particularly theologians, philosophers, regressive physicists, and cosmogonists cling to the free will assumption as if their life depended on it. They are probably right, especially with regard to their continued employment. Remnants of our religious birthright remain to produce the stickiness that is evident in the popularity of the Big Bang Theory. Even scientists who have given up the assumption of free will, such as evolutionist Jerry Coyne, still cling to the BBT. “Compatibilists,” such as philosopher Daniel Dennett, have moderated the contradiction by accepting a passé form of causality in tune with the fundamental assumption of finity.

 

Causality

 

It turns out my own youthful assumption that “there are causes for all effects” was insufficient. I subsequently discovered there were two types of causality:

 

1.   Finite universal causality

2.   Infinite universal causality

 

Number one assumes a finite number of causes can produce an effect. Mathematics tends to require that and it was the basis of Newton’s classical mechanics. The best demonstration of it was “Laplace’s Demon," a theoretically omniscient being that could predict and postdict effects without error. That was destroyed by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, although he and his compatriots failed to recognize its grand significance.

 

Number two is founded on my Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). That may be hard to understand until you assume, with infinity, that matter is infinitely subdividable. The proof of this is the fact all repeat measurements have a plus or minus error associated with them. It is the basis for my “neomechanics,” which simply is classical mechanics with the inclusion of infinity.

 

Next, I had to discover exactly what was a cause. The hint was Newton's Second Law of Motion in which the motion of the collider decreases as the motion of the collidee increases. In other words, all causes involve collisions. This demand went by the wayside with the arrival of regressive physics. Thus, for instance, regressive physicists were allowed to promote the centuries' old and worthless assumption of “attraction” and Einstein was able to promote his mysterious 4-D “spacetime” assumption as the causes of gravitation. Actually, I found out the physical cause of gravitation is as simple as Newton’s Second Law. It is obvious that gravitation is an acceleration. What has always been missing is the accelerant, which like the air we breathe, is invisible to us. I was able to revive Einstein’s rejected aether in devising my “Aether Deceleration Theory of Gravitation.”[2] I was impressed by all the evidence for aether, which was necessarily being summarily rejected by regressive theoretical physics. It turns out that the “free will” trope and Einstein’s perfectly empty space trope were birds of a feather. Both led the march toward the “Last Creation Theory.”

 

In conclusion, “deterministic realization” will strike many of us as we dismantle those silly theories. Everything that happens is part of an infinite univironmental chain of events, with the abandonment of free will being part of humanity’s growth. Despite the unyielding demands of physics, we still can have the necessary “feeling of freedom,” while rejecting any notion of free will itself.

 

 

PSI Blog 20240304

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”  There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/TSW].

 

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.