I’m currently reading Stephen Hawking’s most recent book (co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow) “The Grand Design” and was pleased to find the following paragraphs about free will.
“Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? We might think that a chimpanzee is exercising free will when it chooses to chomp on a banana, or a cat when it rips up your sofa, but what about the roundworm called Caenorhabditis elegans—a simple creature made of only 959 cells? It probably never thinks, “That was damn tasty bacteria I got to dine on back there,” yet it too has a definite preference in food and will either settle for an unattractive meal or go foraging for something better, depending on recent experience. Is that the exercise of free will?
Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”
So if you don’t believe me, perhaps you’ll believe the most celebrated physicist alive today. The idea of free will is just unscientific, folks. Let it go.
Why does it matter?
As I explained in the book, most of our problems in life come from believing we, and the people around us, have free will. When you take away the concept of free will, you also take away the concepts of guilt, anger, anxiety, stress and fear, because they are mostly tied up with the idea that humans can control their decisions and actions. When we realize that this concept is nonsense, and we truly let go, those negative emotions go with them.
My mum is visiting from Bundaberg today and we got talking about philosophy this morning over coffee (as you do). I mentioned that the universe is eternal and infinite (because it incorporates all of space and time) and she pointed out that when she was growing up, that was how the Catholic nuns described God. I agreed and said the only difference between the universe and the Christian version of God is that a) the universe isn’t interventionist (i.e. it doesn’t make exceptions to the laws of physics in the lives of favoured individuals) and b) we are not separate from it.
Her sticking point seems to be DNA. When I mentioned that, at an atomic level, our bodies are just constant swarms of atoms, moving in and out, coming and going, she pointed out that the constant is our DNA. Of course, for starters, the non-human DNA in our bodies out-numbers the human DNA by about 10-to-1 – so you are 90% non-human.
So, even your DNA isn’t a constant. So if you say “I am my DNA”, you’d have to decide WHICH VERSION of your DNA you are – the version you had at age 5, or the version you have now?
Anyway you slice it, you are not the same person today that you were 10 years ago. Our concept of having a solid, constant identity doesn’t stand up to analysis.
When you keep in mind that 99% of the atoms that are your body today were something (or someone) else 5 years ago and, over the course of the last 14 billion years, have been countless different animals and inanimate objects…. and before that, they were part of a distant sun…. how can your sense of being an individual entity, separate from the rest of the universe, remain intact?
In this latest experiment, researchers have removed the human interference in deciding whether or not the system is “open” or “closed”. Without trying to explain the science (because it’s way over my head), the results are fascinating. Essentially the article suggests that photons (and, by extension, all other sub-atomic particles) are NEITHER particles NOR waves. Instead, the concepts of “particles” and “waves” are ideas that we are placing on quantum particles because our brains aren’t able to understand what is truly going on. Here’s Anil’s conclusion:
It’s a notion that takes us straight back into Plato’s cave, says Ionicioiu. In the ancient Greek philosopher’s allegory, prisoners shackled in a cave see only shadows of objects cast onto a cave wall, never the object itself. A cylinder, for example, might be seen as a rectangle or a circle, or anything in between. Something similar is happening with the basic building blocks of reality. “Sometimes the photon looks like a wave, sometimes like a particle, or like anything in between,” says Ionicioiu. In reality, though, it is none of these things. What it is, though, we do not have the words or the concepts to express.
If physicists come to the conclusion that the nature of reality is something stranger than they can even conceive or have concepts to express – and you are made of that reality – what makes you think you understand what or who you truly are?
Imagine you had magic glasses you could put on that allowed you to see the world around you at the atomic level. What would you see? For a start, the outlines of your body, where it starts and stops, wouldn’t be so easy to determine. Every second, MILLIONS of atoms are leaving your body, shed from your skin and via your breath. Of course, every second your body is also ABSORBING new particles, via your breath, your food, photons entering your eyes, etc. Wouldn’t you see a huge, swirling mass of activity? The air around you, the furniture, other people, inanimate objects – would all be a mass of swirling atomic and sub-atomic activity. Surely your concept of what you are would change dramatically. Just because our senses have evolved to perceive just a minute fraction of the information that is available, should we base our identity on anything but the full picture?
Chrissy and I were sitting around a campfire near Noosa last night, talking about dreams.
Most people have no problem with the idea that the world that exists inside their dreams, including themselves, their friends, family, inanimate objects, etc, are merely thoughts, brain spasms over which they have no control. They would have no problem agreeing that the entire world inside their dream exists totally and completely inside their minds. They totally accept that all of those people, events, their own bodies, the entirety of the dream universe – have no reality outside of their mere thoughts.
Yet, when you suggest that the “waking” world also exists totally inside their minds, they struggle to accept it. Why? Because it feels different. It feels more vivid. But this feeling, too, exists only inside the dream. When you are in a dream, how often do you question the reality of the dream? Doesn’t it also feel vivid? Haven’t you woken up saying “wow, that seemed so real!”
And have you ever had one of those dreams where you know you are dreaming? You suddenly realise you are in a dream and you just accept it. You relax, saying to yourself “well it’s just a dream, so nothing is real, let’s see what happens next and enjoy it!”
Well that’s exactly what enlightenment is like. You realise that the waking state is also a dream – that you, your family, your friends, the entire world exist only as thoughts, as concepts – that in reality, they are all just atoms, frenetically interacting with each other, eternal, immutable, and completely governed by the laws of physics. Waking up from this dream, you think “wow, this is just a dream – let’s sit back, relax and enjoy whatever happens next!”
