Friday, October 7, 2022

John H. Gardner on Determinism, Quantum Indeterminism and Free Agency

  

Determinism, Quantum Indeterminism and Free Agency

 

Nineteenth century science was dominated by the ideas of mechanism and determinism. Everything in the universe was conceived to be made up of particles whose motions and interactions were governed by the laws of physics. Even life processes, including those associated with mental and emotional activity, were assumed to be explainable in terms of complex interactions among the particles making up the living organism. The physical laws were second order differential equational which could be, in principle, be solved to give the positions and velocities of the particles at any time in terms of their positions and velocities at any other time. This model, if correct, implies in principle the possibility of omniscience: given an intelligence capable of knowing the positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe at any instant, such as intelligence could then, by solving the mathematical problem, know all the past and all the future history of the universe in every detail.

 

But such a picture also implies determinism: all future states of the universe down to the most minute detail are completely determined by the state at any instant. In particular the entire history of the universe is determined from its state at the beginning. The Creator, then, from the moment of creation had finished his work. In the act of creation of the universe he created the whole history of the universe.

 

Of course he could have chosen to intervene at a later time. But what need to intervene unless his work was flawed? If he had it in his power to know the whole future why not do it the way he wanted it, from the beginning? We might speculate that another power, the power of evil, intervenes making it necessary for the Creator to in turn intervene to set things right again. But if two powers can intervene why not a third? And a fourth? This suggests that man also might have a dimension lying outside the realm of the physical universe also with the power to intervene, even if in a very limited way. But this is a denial of the mechanistic view described earlier in which all life processes are thought to be due simply to complex interactions among the particles whose motions are governed by strict physical law.

 

Hence, on the mechanistic view it seems necessary to deny the possibility of intervention at all and consequently of a Creator: the strict mechanistic view if atheistic.

 

Quantum Mechanics, though causal, provides quite a different view of nature. Rather than denying the possibility of intervention of a conscious entity into the Universe, quantum mechanics finds its meaning only in terms of such intervention as explained below. Attempts to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics without the necessity of assuming the existence of consciousness lying outside the realm of quantum mechanics have been unsuccessful and in fact there exist proofs of the impossibility of such a formulation.

 

Up to the present time there is no known experiment which suggests that quantum mechanics is not precisely correct. On the other hand classical physics, which can be shown to be a limiting case of quantum mechanics, is known to be only approximately correct.  Hence our experience leads us to choose in favor of quantum mechanics which rules out mechanism and determinism and in fact seems to demand the existence of conscious entities which are free to interact with mater in the Universe. The basic concept of Mormon theology that there exist two kinds of entities, intelligence and matter, the one to act and the other to be acted upon is wholly consistent with this modern view.

 

The mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics develops from the principle of superposition of states. According to this principle any state of a system may be written as a linear combination (superposition) of all possible observable states of the system. This quantum mechanical state is not perceived directly but rather Is consciously perceived only through the process of a measurement which picks out one of the observable states of the system. The measurement then forces the system into a new state, namely that which was observed in the measurement.

 

The mathematical function representing the state of a system therefore represents the infinitude of possibility: the conscious will imposes the actuality through measurement—beginning at the quantum end of a long chain of events leading to the perceived act. Hence, the consciousness is an author of life. Conscious man is an agent.

 

A penetrating analysis of the measuring process reveals a relationship between pairs of observables which illuminates paradox and which deepens our comprehension of experience. This relationship is expressed in terms of the accuracy with which we can measure each member of the pair: if one member is determined with perfect precision then, the other cannot be known at all; but if some imprecision is allowed in the determination of one member of the pair then the other can be known, but only imprecisely. The uncertainties in the knowledge we can gain of each, stand in an inverse relationship to one another.

 

These pairs of observables we speak of as being complementary to one another, and the relationship between them was generalized by Neils Bohr into a physical principle called the principle of complementarity. According to this principle various ways we have of looking at an experience may each have validity and may each be necessary for its description but may stand in a mutually exclusive relationship to one another. Neils Bohr spoke of truth and clarity as complementary quantities: one can achieve clarity only at the expense of truth and vice versa. This is a difficulty we have all experienced when we have tried to explain some phenomenon of nature to a child.

 

We can get some inkling of the deep content of the principle of complementarity from the illumination it provides to the paradoxical story of Abraham and Isaac. Soren Kierkegaard recognized in this story the transcendent character of faith. In other to achieve the promise Abraham had to be willing to give up the means to the promise through the sacrifice of his son Isaac. In the language of complementarity Abraham made the promise certain by taking an action which seemed destined to render the means to the promise totally and absolutely uncertain. He surrendered himself completely to the Lord, exhibiting a perfect faith. This is an instance of the most famous of all biblical paradoxes: he who would find his life shall lose it, but he who will lose his life for my sake shall find it. (John H. Gardner, “The Concept of Science,” in Science and Religion: Toward a More Useful Dialogue, ed. Wilford M. Hess and Raymond T. Matheny, 2 vols. [Geneva, Ill.: Paladin House Publishers, 1979], 1:20-21)

 

Blog Archive