Free Will and Determinism

I recently read the introduction to History of Civilization in England by Henry Thomas Buckle (1821-1861). In this long essay, he outlined his dissatisfaction of history study being a collection of facts and called for its transformation into a proper science, which generates knowledge in the form of causal connection. He made many insightful remarks and one that got me thinking is about free will vs. determinism. He Obviously took the determinist position when he claimed that if he has enough information about the circumstance which his well acquainted friend is in, he can predict with certainty what his friend will do next. He keenly pointed out a problem of free will. Before we can have a meaningful discussion, I want to make explicit the essential conception of a free will. We think of a free will as an active agent capable of dictating one's thoughts and actions independent of one's experience or the given circumstances. Buckle's insight is that in order to freely will, we need to have another authoritative agent independent of deterministic laws to inject such decision into our consciousness given that the physical universe evolves according to deterministic laws. But how does that agent operate? Given that it lives in a world also evolves according to some deterministic laws, since it has to be free as well, it would require yet another free active agent. (This kind of reasoning is not unlike Descartes's notion of mind-body duality, which is wittily summarized as "ghost in the machine" by Gilbert Ryle.) Thus we enter an infinite regression that unsuccessfully evades the contradiction between determinism and free will.

This is a tough question because one is reluctant to give in entirely to either side. Some people suggested that quantum physics might hold the answer due to the truly random events allowed in quantum physics. I initially felt unsatisfied by such proposal because we want to think of will actively, instead of  randomly decides on things. But lately I came to realize that in observation of a single act, the two are indistinguishable! My worry was due to my subjective experience of activeness. Let's put aside the subjective content and imagine an experiment in which Buckle watches his well acquainted friend for a while and then predicts what his friend will do next. If free will exists, Buckle's friend will be able to decide on things independent of his experience and as a consequence, Buckle will not be able to predict with certainty even with all the information. In observation, that is precisely what you expect from a random event whose outcome is independent of the past. Although our subjective experience is too intricate to give us direct clues, the unexpectedness of a certain decision might have germinated from a seed of randomness allowed by quantum physics.

This resolution proposes that we give up the deterministic view, which arguably is suggested and supported by classical physics, to allow for some non-deterministic events, which is supported by quantum physics, our current best knowledge. This answer might still upset people believing in free will, because randomness seems to dismiss one's active control over his or her life. But the pursuit for the possibility of control only pulls us back to the infinite regression. While the moral implication in absence of an active agent is interesting to consider, I think I will spend more time on pondering about how quantum mechanics allows for randomness when all its laws, like those in classical physics, are deterministic (in probability). In quantum mechanics, randomness creeps in at the act of measurement whose outcomes' probabilities are predicted by input and laws, but not the outcome itself. I will subject further discussion on this topic to a future article. Let's revisit our thought experiment and introduce a modification: instead of predicting the exact action of his friend, Buckle will predict the probability of each possible action and we shall repeat the experiments many times (maybe with identical clones of his friend). If free will can actively control one's decision, Buckle's friend can decide how frequently he wishes to do a certain thing and thus he can manipulate the frequencies of each action rendering Buckle's prediction of probability incorrect. This is why the condition of "a single act" is needed in my statement of indistinguishability. However, this experiment is hard, if not impossible, to carry out because after each decision, the state of Buckle's friend changes and cloning the quantum state of Buckle's friend is impossible: we need to find some decision whose probability does not change when repeated. Hence a definite answer to whether free will exists, and if so whether it exists in the weak, random form or the strong, ghost form, is not known yet.

Regular Fasting in Weekend

I think the feeling of hunger is a vital part to one's sensitivity which aids the individual's survival by reminding that his or her mental state is bound to the physical being of the body. However, in daily life, I found that eating has often become a scheduled task which occurs at a regular schedule without regard to whether or not one feels the need to do so. (This is made possible by the modern efficiency in producing food and there is undoubtedly good reasons for it.) Arguably in modern age, an overwhelming emphasis is placed on the intellectual as opposite to the bodily in a fashion as if the two were separable and the body mainly exists to sustain the intellect. Gradually, eating as a task becomes mechanical and contrived. We often seek to disrupt this growing numbness by trying new food, but I think a better solution is to feel the essential feeling of hunger again by fasting. For the past few years, I usually skipped a meal on Saturday and/or Sunday and that helped restore my integral sense of body and mind.

What If a Tree Fell in a Forest and No One Hears...

This is a classic philosophical puzzle: what if a tree fell in a forest and no one hears, did the tree fall? I take this essentially as a question on existence: does something exist if it does not register on anyone's mind? The tempted answer is yes followed by the further question "but how do you know that?" The difficulty lies in the confusion of the knowledge of existence and existence itself. In physics, quantum mechanics has provided an amazing distinction between the two and I shall explicate that in a later article.

My answer is simple. The event exists, i.e. the tree fell, and if you ask how I know it, I will respond: you just told me that. My point is that the knowledge of existence requires existence whereas the converse does not hold in general or there is no way to test such condition: in the example, you have to convey that to me in the question. Because for us to know that something exists, we must observe it, i.e. in daily experience, existence and our knowledge of it are bundled together. (That explains the common confusion of the two concepts.)

P.S. Existence is a deep issue in many disciplines and it fascinates me for long. I will try to remark on it from different perspectives in the future.

Anxiety over Options

I thought at length how to "allocate" my content on the web. Nowadays, in stark contrast to the past, there are many portals for hosting/presenting personal content: social network sites, blogs, video hosting sites, photo hosting sites, etc. Sometimes, this creates anxiety as where to share a specific piece of content: maybe LinkedIn for professional stuff, Facebook for fun, etc. And the ease-of-use offered does come with a price which is the uniqueness of representation, what many people long for. So I have come to these conclusions:

1. personal websites are definitely not dead yet and I think its niche lies in the radical pursuit of identity, e.g. it is cool to own the domain name same as your name.
2. there is inherent ambiguity in the intended use of web services, e.g. your mother just friended you on Facebook, using Google forms as database (I recently went to a business school workshop in which the speaker built his minimal viable product using free/very cheap web services), etc.

I think seeing all the web services as tools is helpful. Like what Marx once said, the discovery of functions of an object is history, as opposed to viewing functions of an object limited to its initial design. A good example is apple, i mean, a real apple, not Apple, Inc. Imagine that scientists discovered besides of being a delicious snack, some scientists discover its anti-cancer effect someday. It might be argued that the anti-cancer effect has always been a function of apples and my point is really about the human knowledge of functions. But that is crucial bit: even if the function is eternally associated with a certain object, it is useless without our discovering it (c.f. the question about existence). And in fact, I do not subscribe to the view of regarding functions as inherent properties of objects, but human constructs instead.

Okay, back to the question on personal content allocation, my solution is to use this blog really as a public log (the term blog came from web log) and will share most of my meaningful thoughts here for the ease to maintain (and then put the links onto other social sites) and build a very simple website as a portal for unique identity.