BUILDING YOUR CASE
NEGATIVE
We
stand in negation of the resolution which states, Resolved: Science leaves no
room for free will.
In
order to clarify this debate, I offer the following definitions of science and
free will.o
First,
as defined by Oxford English Dictionary, science is “The intellectual and
practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure
and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and
experiment.”[1]
Second,
Doctor of Philosophy Kevin Timpe explains free will as “Minimally, to say that an agent has free will is to say that the agent
has the capacity to choose his or her course of action. But animals seem to satisfy this criterion, and we typically think that
only persons, and not animals, have free will. Let us then understand free will as the capacity unique to persons that
allows them to control their actions.”[2]
Thus
I offer three contentions to negate this resolution.
Contention
One: Advances in modern physics support the existence of free will on a small
scale.
David
Harrison from the University of Toronto explains in 2011 why modern physics is
a preferable lens for viewing the discussion of free will, stating that
[Einstein, Rosen
"Bell's Theorem,"
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html
This document was
written in February 1999 by David M. Harrison, Department of Physics,
University of Toronto 03/17/06.]
"Classical
physics provided a mirror that reflected only the objective structure of the
human being who was the observer. There is no room in this scheme for his
mental process which is thus regarded as separate or as a mere
'epiphenomenon' of the objective processes. ... [Through the] mirror [of
quantum physics] the observer sees 'himself' both physically and mentally in the
larger setting of the universe as a whole. ... More broadly one could say that
through the human being, the universe is making a mirror to observe
itself." --”
As
a result, Tom Hartsfield writes in 2013 that Bell’s inequality, an advancement in the mathematics of modern physics,
[Quantum Mechanics, 4-3-2013,
"Quantum Mechanics Supports Free Will," No Publication,
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/04/03/quantum_mechanics_supports_free_will_106499.html
Tom Hartsfield, 2013]
His
famous theorem, Bell's inequality, is an incredibly profound statement. This
relatively simple mathematical proof, when applied to experimental results,
gives us a choice: We must either give up determinism or give up the existence
of an objective reality explained by science and measurable by humans with
instruments.
(You
can read the gory details about the experiments here.)So if experiments on quantum
phenomena are reliable, then Bell concludes that determinism is false. Most physicists
agree.Essentially, quantum mechanics tells us that there are
things which we cannot know about the future, things which are not
predetermined but happen with some factor of chance or randomness. Although
many things in the world may be predicted, everything is not predetermined, and
our actions do not unfold mechanically in a manner predetermined since the very
moment of the Big Bang. Free will is preserved.
These
experiments are reliable as Koch writes that on the quantum level,
“The deathblow
to the Newtonian dream—or nightmare, in my
opinion—was
the celebrated quantum-mechanical uncertainty principle, formulated by
Werner Heisenberg in 1927. In
its most
common interpretation, it avers that
any particle, say, a photon of light or an electron, cannot have both a
definite position and a definite momentum at the same time. If you know its
speed accurately, its position is correspondingly ill defined, and vice versa.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a radical departure
from classical physics. It replaces dogmatic certainty with ambiguity. Consider an
experiment that ends with a 90 percent chance of an electron being here and a
10 percent chance of it being over there. If the experiment were repeated 1,000
times, on about 900 trials, give or take a few, the electron would be here;
otherwise, it would be over there. Yet this statistical outcome does not ordain
where the electron will be on the next trial. Albert Einstein could
never reconcile himself to this random aspect of nature. It is in this context
that he famously pronounced, “Der Alte würfelt nicht” (the Old
Man, that
is, God,
does not
play dice). The universe has an
irreducible, random character. If it is a clockwork, its cogs,
springs and levers are not Swiss-made; they do[es] not follow a predetermined
path. Physical determinism has been replaced by the determinism of
probabilities. Nothing is certain anymore.” On a larger level, characterizing
the motion of the atmosphere. The solution predicted by his computer program
varied widely when he entered starting values that differed by only tiny
amounts. This is the hallmark of chaos: infinitesimally small
perturbations in the equations’ starting points lead to radically different outcomes. In 1972 Lorenz coined the term “butterfly effect” to
denote this
extreme sensitivity to initial conditions: the beating
of a butterfly’s wings
creates barely
perceptible ripples in the
atmosphere that
ultimately alter
the path
of a
tornado elsewhere. Remarkably, such a butterfly
effect was found in celestial mechanics, the epitome of the clockwork universe. Planets
majestically ride gravity’s geodesics, propelled by the initial rotation of the
cloud that formed the solar system. It came as a mighty surprise, therefore,
when computer modeling in the 1990s demonstrated that Pluto has a chaotic orbit,
with
a divergence time of millions of years. Astronomers cannot be certain whether
Pluto will be on this side of the sun (relative to Earth’s
position) or
the other
side 10 million years from
now! If this uncertainty holds for a
planet with a comparatively simple internal makeup, moving in the vacuum of
space under a sole force, gravitation, [it has implications regarding] what does it
portend for the
predictability of a person, a tiny insect or an itsy-bitsy nerve
cell, all of which are swayed by countless factors?
All
of this leads Dr. Michio Kaku noting in 2013 that,
“So what does
that mean for free will? It means in some sense we do have some kind of
free will. No one can determine your future events given your past
history. There is always the wildcard. There is always the possibility of uncertainty in
whatever we do. So when I look at myself in a mirror I say to
myself what I'm looking at is not really me. It looks like me, but it’s
not really
me at
all. It’s
not me
today now.
It’s
me a
billionth of
a second
ago because it takes
a billionth of a
second for light to go from me to the mirror and back.
This
is furthered by the work of,
“Here's the rub: the Nobel
prize winning condensed matter physicist Philip Anderson, [who] wrote a famous article entitled ‘More is Different’ in 1972 where he defended
the view that the laws and principles he studied as a condensed matter
physicist were emergent and there are plenty of phenomena exhibited by
macroscopic systems whose existences cannot be predicted directly from an
underlying, microscopic theory. In other words, the information
obtained from the whole can’t be explained by the sum of information
from
each
individual
element.
Simply put, just
because matter in the universe- including all atomic constituents in the human body- obeys
certain physical laws, it really doesn't follow that the choice itself must
also be bound by the same laws. There is a huge gap here which is not explained by this line of
reasoning. This is simply bad logic.
To summarize the basics of this argument,
Stephen Cave writes for the Atlantic in June of 2016 that
Stephen Cave, 6-10-2016,
"Free Will Exists and Is Measurable," Atlantic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/06/free-will-exists-and-is-measurable/486551/
“On a different note, Alexander and some other commentators
point out that quantum mechanics demonstrates that the world
is not straightforwardly deterministic. In this, they are right:
quantum indeterminacy implies that physical
reality has an irreducibly probabilistic nature. Other readers have pointed out that even
classical physics does not always allow us to accurately predict what will
happen: According to chaos theory, any of an incalculably huge number of tiny
differences in initial conditions can lead to radically different outcomes. (At least, that’s the excuse weather forecasters use for getting it wrong.) This too is a fair point.”
All in all, current science suggests that
because of the inherent unpredictability of small particles and the huge array
of permutations surrounding any single event, science supports the notion of
free will.
Contention
Two: Current scientific methods for measuring free will are flawed.
The
groundbreaking study that lead to many scholars assuming free will does not
exist is called the Libet experiment, an experiment in which participants were
told to randomly choose when to move their hands. Then, their brain activity
was studied, and it was concluded that the subconscious mind predetermines
human action, thus eliminating the possibility that free will is a conscious
experience. Since this study in the early 1980’s, many scientists have attempted to replicate the results in order to come to the ultimate conclusion that free will
is an illusion.
Dr.
Mahir S. Ozdemir explains why this method of deciding if free will is flawed
for four reasons. First, he writes that,
[Mahir S. Ozdemir, Ph.D.,
1-27-2015, "A Scientist’s Defense of Free Will," Creativity Post,
http://www.creativitypost.com/science/has_neuro_science_buried_free_will]
“The assumption behind all this empirical evidence against free will is that conscious decision takes place at an
instant which can be compared with the neural activity corresponding to it.”
The
problem with this analysis is that there is a fundamental difference between
the brain’s action of signalling to organs and the brain’s awareness of this signalling. Just like
with infants learning speech, the level of awareness of this learning occupies
a spectrum of consciousness rather than a binary switch of aware or unaware.
Second,
Dr. Ozdemir continues that
[Mahir S. Ozdemir, Ph.D.,
1-27-2015, "A Scientist’s Defense of Free Will," Creativity Post,
http://www.creativitypost.com/science/has_neuro_science_buried_free_will]
“Another
fundamental aspect which is widely overlooked in these studies is that they provide no proof
whatsoever that brain activity could happen without conscious decision taking
place.” The evidence against free will comes with the interpretation
that it is possible for the brain to take action without somewhere first
deciding to take that action. This assumption, which these studies rely on, has
never been proven. “A
methodological flaw that
strikes me as odd is that these experiments always involve a test
subject fully aware of the choice they are going to make.”
Ozdemir argues that this is problematic because
it provides an oversimplified picture of the real decision-making processes in
the brain as well as involving only procedural memory in the process. This is
negative because it again reduces complex brain processes to a point where they
are no longer wholly relevant to the examination of a broad topic such as free
will.
Finally, Ozdemir notes that the experiments
which supposedly render free will a false concept all hinge on the notion that
decisions are governed by the laws of nature which make up classical physics.
Despite the fact that humans may be unable to break such laws, as evidenced by
our inability to fly or accelerate with more force than the product of our mass
and acceleration, that does not stop humans from making decisions that defy
these laws. The outcome of such a decision does not matter; people can decide
to attempt to fly or survive in a vacuum whenever they want, and this
represents an exercise of creative free will that is unbounded by the rational
laws of physics.
Contention
Three: Science has a limited capability to describe the world.
Science,
in our Western conception, is very limited. For centuries, humans have
practiced science through allegorical mythology, through the practice of alchemy,
and by turning to spiritualistic tradition to explain their lived experiences.
Our modern understanding of science is also limited by our advances in
technology. For example, we cannot test the bounds of space travel without the
right equipment, just as we cannot delve into the matters of the human
unconscious without more accurate tools. The science of today will not be the
science of tomorrow.
Meredith
Bryan for CNN in 2010 explains,
Meredith Bryan,, 12-7-2010,
"3 mysteries science can't solve," No Publication,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/12/07/o.science.mysteries.not.solved/
“It's only in the past 80 years that experts have lined
up behind the big bang theory, which
took off after Edwin Hubble's 1929 discovery that the billions of galaxies in the
universe are not fixed in place but rather moving away from each other,
presumably launched by the explosion of some very hot primordial atom.”
indicating that even the most fundamental questions about our
existence are yet to be solved with our conception of science.
She furthers that we cannot even identify the exact number of
species on this planet due to the unpredicatbility of genetics. Due to this ever-changing
process engaging with science, it cannot be stated that science leaves no room
for free will as an absolute, definitive statement. At this point, there is no
unified theory of everything to describe how electromagnetic, strong, and weak
forces interact with each other in the same way that science has yet to
reconcile completely with religious experiences and beliefs. Realistically,
science still leaves room for infinite possibility.
To
affirm the statement that science leaves no room for free will is to state that
within our inexact methods of studying the universe, there lies no possibility
for the existence of free will; due to the limits of science, such an absolute
statement ignores the vast secrets in the world humans have yet to discover.
