on the subject of ''free will'

While emailing back and forwards to a friend who's scientifically minded (and credentialed), we got into the nitty-gritty of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, and what it all means as far as 'free will' is concerned, and our daily lives.

My friend doesn't believe in any 'genuine' free-will, in that the choices we make are all, in a sense, 'determined' by forces or systems beyond ourselves (technically speaking, by downward causative influences).

During one email I wanted to reference a quote of Freeman Dyson that I included in my book, Be and Become. Only to find it not readily available on the net. Surprising.

So, I thought that for future reference (for my benefit) I'd provide it here, in addition to the context within which I used it (at least the context of the email):

Question (raised by a friend):

Paraphrasing: "If we have free choice, how do you reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics time after time? You've answered that we individually and collectively create reality but that really side-steps the question, or repeats the part of the question. The question is, if we do, why do we always choose in such a way as to maintain the quantum mechanics predictions?"

My response (broadly):

The left-wing of the TOA "houses" the infinite. As before free-will is bathed in, no, spreads across the infinite, in a way that is not able to be reduced to anything finite (or constrained by any knowable system).

Think about this: If free-will (which 'spreads across', or ranges across the infinte) could be reduced to ANY mathematical expression, or be 'determined' by some system in a way as to reduce that infinite spread), then it wouldn't be 'infinite'. What then is left to 'spread across' and connect with 'the infinite', if not consciousness, or mind through the agency of 'free-will'?

So let's take it as a matter of faith (pun intended) that free-will is endemic to existence, to live, to even choosing what to wear to work etc.

The dilemma here is how then does that which begins from unimaginable profundity emerge into order and any form of predictability, or routine?

Ah, that's where the Big Bang is so instructive. .. Order takes time to 'congeal', to 'self-organise'. First immense chaos and energy, only later 'congealing' into order, stars, systems, structure, and most importantly, 'predictability'.

In other words, the system (universe) took time to ... remember, and to develop 'habits' ('physical laws')!

So, on the right side of the TOA (the result side) we see order, grouped with 'past' and knowledge', habit, routine, structure etc.

Left side = chaos, infinite, unpredictability. Right side = order, structure, predictability.

The latticeworks that we now observe (e.g. quantum mechanics, relativity, speed of light etc, ), have all 'evolved' to the point that they are now quite stable.

That stability gives the rock-solid (excuse the pun) predictability that you now see.

So unpredictable, 'stochastic' free-wheeling free-will of the entire universe (remember Freeman Dyson's quote -- see below), has been sufficiently habitualised to be what you now see, experience and rely upon.

Once again, the 'habits' and evolution of the physical system is now fairly stable. But free-will remains at the base level.

It's both at the same time.

The rock-solid predictability of quantum mechanics and de Broglie-Bohm is merely the universe's habitual stability, self-organised across aeons of time to be what it is now.

I think many (in particular, mathematicians!) lose sight of the genuine meaning of 'infinite' which is that it won't be reached through logic (ever), simply because reasoning and rational thinking (from the Latin, ratio) requires separation from 'it' (objectivity), but you can't get outside of 'it', since you're unavoidably inside 'it' (the infinite), and so in a deeper sense, you are 'it'.

That requirement (to get separate to it) means that we can't objectively deal with the infinite. It makes no sense to suggest otherwise, anymore than to suggest you can get "outside" of a community of which you are a member.

Hope this explains. I wrote a whole book on it. :)

The Freeman Dyson quote that I included in my book is this:

Quantum mechanics makes matter even in the smallest pieces into an active agent, and I think that is something very fundamental. Every particle in the universe is an active agent making choices between random processes.1

...consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron.2

update: on the subject of creativity

While considering the above arguments, I came across an interview of David Bohm by Michael Toms (New Dimensions).

It's wonderful that the originator of a great deal of mathematical work relating to quantum mechanics, has as well understood the limits of it (mathematics) as revealed in the interview:

Some of dialogue from that interview

Toms: "What I thought was the interesting point in Science, Order and Creativity was the importance that mathematics has assumed in science, that it's almost like if you can't come up with a mathematical formula, it's not a good idea, and that the pursuit of ideas has been kind of lost in the name of mathematics".

Bohm: "This is especially so in physics ... in physics the emphasis is now on mathematics. Now, even in the ancient Greeks there was a group of pythagoreans who believed that number was the essence of reality ..."

...

Bohm: "yes, the source of creativity is far more subtle (than thought), and it requires attention I say, awareness and attention I say which are more subtle mental processes than thought."

...

Toms: "in our society, and I think this permeates the West that if we're going to be creative we go to a seminar, in the sense that what happens is the scientific formula, the mathematical formula has also penetrated the process of how we think creativity happens, so that we can learn a formula about the way it works, the way to do something is a certain way. You're suggesting ... there is no mechanical answer to that because it will be different for everyone. It's kind of recognising that paradox as it were, and being willing to hang out with it, that allows us to be in the creative space."

Bohm: "yes, the principal barrier to creativity is the mechanical process which has its use, but it becomes part of us instead of just being used by us... it (the mechanical/thought process) comes to dominate us and our whole psyche. And we have to be aware of this mechanicalness that we're stuck in."

Toms: "This is what Krishnamurti meant that thinking is the problem"

Bohm: "Yes, thinking tends to become mechanical... which will handle a certain range of problems, but it is not really creative."

See also:

• Leading God: The Wonderfully New!

• 1. Norman Friedman, Bridging Science and Spirit, Living Lake Books, St. Louis 1994, p. 27.
• 2. Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge of Chaos, Penguin Books, London, 1989, p. 190.