Clockwork Universe Theory - Objections Due To Free Will

Objections Due To Free Will

Most arguments for free will are rooted in the sense that it is self evident and a natural outgrowth of our consciousness or soul. Supporting evidence includes a common sensibility of right and wrong independent of culture (ethics), a common regard for altruistic acts by humans (altruism), and a common curiosity as to origins and purpose; none of which are easily explained by the physical mechanisms of Darwinian selection pressures. These features do however suggest a spiritual component, which would be inderministic by definition since operating in a realm outside of nature and natural laws necessarily implies a lack of predictability based on those laws.

Indeed, so firmly ensconced is the popular belief in an individual’s freedom of choice as to generate an inordinate societal effort in the development of law and of religion to regulate behavior. The unthinkable consequence would be, that since free will is the necessary precursor of responsibility, its absence would remove any real foundation for ubiquitous social norms to include rewards and punishment for children, the treatment of neighbors, and especially for any criminal justice system; making all such efforts pointless at the core.

Another argument is that science lacks the tools to investigate, much less explain, how a clockwork mechanism consisting of electrons bouncing off neurons could give rise to the self-awareness needed to host free will. The assertion is that the axioms of mathematics and science limit their applicability in the most fundamental sense to a generalized description of physical motion and the transfer of physical energy neither of which can, even in principle, provide traction towards explaining the sense of being a free agent. Given these considerations, many assume the existence of a supernatural soul, not strictly governed by the laws of physics, which is thus the simplest explanation for the common, and daunting, experience of consciousness.

A counter argument to free will is that, while advances in neuroscience at the macroscopic level would not be determinative, a simulation of a living brain at the microscopic level, might conclusively demonstrate whether an individual’s choice was truly predictable or not. Whether this pivotal calculation is even theoretically possible using Newtonian dynamics, or not given the likely evolution into chaotic complexity, is somewhat moot since the resources required would almost certainly be beyond any means. That is not to say that model simulations cannot provide meaningful representations of and valuable insights into neural structures; but rather that a conclusive demonstration of predictability would require an intimate and precise comparison to the real time chemistry of a living brain, which would be more difficult.

At the most fundamental level, the question of whether the chemical activity of the brain is hidden behind the probabilistic veil of quantum mechanics continues to generate discussion as more and more biological processes that do exhibit quantum behavior are discovered. Generally, while most chemical reactions and diffusions active in biology are too large to be more than slightly random in a quantum sense, a few are not. And while large cascading events and their timing, often have smaller and more subtle triggers, most of the brain's functions seem to operate classically. Given the current uncertainty of the basic biophysics, the theoretical and practical difficulties inherent in any computational approach even for classical systems, and the innate sense of one's own existence, this latter consideration is unlikely to be conclusive for either side of the discussion.