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)