Quantum Physics, Panpsychism and Free Will - Part I
Quantum Physics, Panpsychism and Free Will - Part I
Quantum indeterminacy as the activity of a universal consciousness
Finally, my new paper on the relationship between quantum indeterminacy and free will has been accepted for publication and is online!
It is the follow-up of a previous paper dedicated to a similar topic, and of which you can find a summary in this post.
The issue that science and philosophy have with the question of free will is long and intricate. I have tried to point out some aspects in a couple of previous posts, here and here.
This last work is quite technical and, unless you are a physicist or a mathematician, you might find it hard to digest. Therefore, here I will try to summarize the rationale of the whole argument with a language that is, hopefully, more accessible.
To step into the subject gently and to clarify the context, let me start where the paper ends. Panpsychism: The metaphysical standpoint where everything is seen as a form of consciousness. Here I used the term ‘panpsychism’ in its broader sense. Panpsychism means “all is mind,” or “all this consciousness”, and one of its versions, the so-called ‘micropsychism,’ claims that all matter and its constituent particles are or possess a form of elementary proto-consciousness. On the other extreme stands the idea of the universe as a manifestation of universal consciousness—what in the contemporary philosophy of mind, goes under the name of ‘cosmopsychism.’1 All the cosmos is ‘psyche’ in the sense of universal consciousness, or what in the Indian Vedic tradition is identified with Brahman or the Absolute.
However, instead of considering cosmopsychism and micropsychism mutually exclusive, we could see them as complementary: All the physical universe described by science is not only the manifestation of a universal consciousness, but also every event, phenomenon, or, ultimately, all microscopic processes, are determined by that ‘universal mind,’ or ‘cosmic consciousness,’ by a self-concentration in itself. This global universal consciousness is also locally and microscopically active, down to the activity of molecules, atoms, and particles at each instant in time, and which, ultimately, still are itself. Every entity, and every process as well, is a ‘self-concentration’ of this universal mind in itself. All the microscopic and macroscopic processes, forces, and dynamical activity in the universe are the local expression of a universal Force, Will, Agency, and Intelligence (a point of view I described here). It is a Consciousness that is both global and local, works as a whole, and yet intervenes in each part of itself, determines the macrocosmos, and, at the same time, instantly determines and works out all the processes in the microcosmos.
To use a metaphor, imagine an ocean as a conscious entity with the power of self-determination–that is, it has agency, control, and causal efficiency–over all the processes of and in each of its waves, ripples, and water molecules. After all, this isn't a form of consciousness that is too alien. To a lesser degree, it applies to humans as well. We feel to be a unique entity with a singular subjectivity but also have some control over our bodily parts with movements, thoughts, etc. Even though we don't have any control over each living cell and molecule of our body, and the functions of our internal organs are mostly unconscious, we have, nevertheless, the ability to exert some willpower on the movement of our limbs, or other bodily parts, brain states, etc.
However, the question is whether those actions are the reflection of free will or are rather determined by our brain and body only? The materialist who believes in pure determinism would argue that all the activity of our brain is completely pre-determined by microscopic neurons, molecules, and particles subjected to strictly deterministic laws and conferring us only an illusion of free will.
The answer you will find in this work is that free will is true, but it isn't our will. That also is the free will of the universal consciousness acting in and through us. Once we embrace this dual vision where the macro and the micro, the whole and the part are ultimately the two aspects of the same dynamical eternally creative entity, then we can see things from a perspective that connects with what modern physics tells us. However, before we can get there, we have to deal with some conceptual and philosophical hurdles and some aspects of quantum physics.
Let me outline the conceptual difficulty first.
The main objection against the idea that we have free will and that quantum mechanics could have anything to do with consciousness or mental processes, let alone a universal consciousness or universal mind, is the so-called ‘standard argument against free will.’ I already amply discussed this here. To keep this (already too long) essay self-contained, here is a brief recap.
a) The ‘determinism objection’: If all of reality is ruled only by deterministic laws, then also all the choices we make must be causally determined by our brain activity and environmental factors that we can’t control. Therefore, we can’t have free will.
b) The ‘randomness objection’: If, however, the universe is ruled by some indeterministic laws and random or chance occurrences, and that would break the causal chain of events, this would make us behave randomly in an uncontrolled way that can’t be the result of rational deliberations and intentional actions. All our life would end in uncontrollable chaos.
Thus, either way, neither determinism nor indeterminism are compatible with the idea of free will. Free will is necessarily an illusion.
My standpoint is that the determinism objection is correct. If the universe is purely deterministic and is a giant mechanical clockwork, then there can be no place for a self-determining action. Because our brain activity is part of this mechanical universe, its agency also must ultimately be the result of a purely deterministic process. Once you posit that reality is strictly deterministic, you posit almost per definition that no free will can exist. Ergo, self-determination is not possible.
The second objection is directed against the ‘libertarians’ (like me, and no… that has nothing to do with politics) who agree with the determinism objection, but claim that indeterminism could be the backdoor for allowing the brain, or living cells to ‘harness’ (classical or quantum) indeterminism in Nature to allow for free agency. It is this underdetermination that leaves freedom for self-determination. This is a point of view that the libertarian philosophers and also some biologists and neuroscientists have recently adopted.2
However, while this is a first step in the right direction, it falls short of completing the circle. It still fails, or at least remains vague, in answering the randomness objection. The assumption of randomness being the origin, or ‘source,’ or a sort of ‘fountainhead’ for freedom of choice, doesn’t explain where that freedom of choice is supposed to come from. Tipping into a random sequence of events and exploiting whatever kind of indeterminacy makes you become a slave to these stochastic events as well. It remains something external to you. Ultimately it is still the external source with its unpredictability that determines your choice. It is not the subject—that is, ‘you’ (whatever that ‘you’ could be)—that makes a choice. There is no agent having agency, but a passive entity that can only wait for the random event to occur, and then have no other choice than that to be subjected to it. ‘Harnessing’ indeterminism does not confer any freedom of choice, it only delegates to the physical stochastic external source the ‘choice.’ It is like tossing dice. Try to ‘harness’ their outcome as a source for your freedom of choice. You will quickly understand that you are determined by something other than you. Not by your own free will. This standpoint is still rooted in the notion of the so-called ‘event causation.’ It envisages a duality between the agent and the events determining its actions. Once we make this separation we, again, posit almost by definition the impossibility of any form of free agency.
The only logical way out, other than surrendering to the deterministic and mechanistic worldview that ultimately brands any volition and freedom as mere illusions, is identifying the inherent indeterminacy in Nature itself as the conscious and free action. Your choice doesn’t depend on a random sequence of processes, rather it is the indeterminacy of Nature that is the conscious choice. It is a universal consciousness, a cosmic mind, or a Mind at large, as A. Huxley once called it, that by an act of self-concentration into itself determines the sequence of processes.
For example, if an atom decays at time t1, instead of time t2, the orthodox interpretation is that this is just a random phenomenon. Or, if every time one measures the spin of a particle it shows up alternatively with 50% probability in the spin+ or spin- states—that is, ‘randomly’—physicists will tell you that there is no reason, no hidden cause, or ‘hidden variable’ that makes one particle acquire upon measurement a state rather than another state. It is an acausal sequence of events that happen ‘randomly,’ just out of the blue for no reason at all. But, when one questions the ontology of this state of affairs, and asks deeper philosophical questions beyond an abstract statistical formalization, about the nature of quantum indeterminacy one doesn’t receive answers. Stating that quantum mechanics is without ‘hidden variables’—that is, ‘really’ or ‘ontologically random’—means nothing. It is only a wordplay, that implicitly invites us to stop thinking. And, at any rate, it can’t be taken as evidence for the absence of a final cause, an aim, or purpose in Nature.3
To the contrary, I claim that we could equally well take the panpsychist standpoint and argue that the observed indeterminacy is the result of a volitional act of Nature in and through the behavior of the particle. The atom’s decay or the particle’s spin is the choice of a global universal entity in itself. It is neither you as the observer who collapses wavefunctions (a popular interpretation in fashion nowadays but not very consistent with quantum mechanics) nor some consciousness in the particle (the micropsychist’s claim) but the action of a universal consciousness into itself.
As strange as that might sound there is nothing in known physics that prevents us from taking this viewpoint seriously.
This is the first answer to the randomness objection: our brain, mind, and consciousness, or will, do not need to depend on any form of indeterminacy, or must ‘harness’ randomness to be free. The intrinsic indeterminacy that we know permeates all the cosmos, is itself the effectuation of a free self-determining volitional act. Quantum indeterminism is the will, the choice, and the expression of the universal in and through the particular—that is, in the atom, molecule, or particle. If something contains all, is all, and even is all the quantum process it contains in itself, it necessarily must determine those very same quantum processes because there can’t be anything outside itself determining those processes.
This is my quantum version of the so-called ‘agent causation’—the view that places at the root of agency a being, not a process. Most philosophers and scientists remain vague and abstract on who or what this ‘agent’ or ‘being’ is supposed to be. What I call ‘libertarian panpsychism’ puts things upside down: The Whiteheadiean process of becoming is the expression of a universal agent causing it. This ‘quantum agent causation’ makes a choice and then the process manifests, not the other way around. It is a macroscopic being that actualizes in itself microscopic processes. It is a space of pure creative potential that doesn’t depend on anything but itself. It is its own cause—that is, what theologians would call ‘causa sui.’
Once we take this standpoint, it should no longer be difficult to see why these microscopic processes appear to us as ‘random.’ In other words, there is a deeper intelligence underlying reality, universally, and that is cosmically active in every point of space, and at any instant in time.
Notice that this entails one-in-two paradigmatic shifts. First, if there is an illusion, it is that of having the sense of a singular self-hood. Our individuality with its mind and consciousness, is a ‘partition,’ a ‘speck,’ or a ‘projection’ of the universal Consciousness and Mind. There is no ‘subject’ in the conventional sense, other than a mental demarcation of the cosmic mind in itself. Secondly, since we are the projection of the One, also every aspect regarding questions about our free will must be translated into this universal context: If there is free will it is not ours (of those illusionary subjects with their distinct personalities and characters) but still the will of the One. In a sense, one could say that, indeed, we aren’t free because there is no one to be freed. Deep down our will isn’t ours in the first place. And yet, that Will can’t be other than free, because, it is all there is and, therefore, there can’t be anything left it could be freed from.
I know, I know… it sounds contrived and too metaphysical. But, once one gets acquainted with this metaphysical perspective, it results in a very coherent worldview. Lots of aspects that previously appeared mysterious or led to logical inconsistencies, now become almost natural and self-evident.
Recall also that this isn’t an entirely alien idea in modern physics. For example, the American theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler introduced in the late 1980s the concept of “it from bit”. This idea suggests that every physical quantity, every “it,” derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-or-no indications. Everything in the physical world, including particles, fields of forces, and even spacetime itself, is fundamentally information-theoretic in origin. Wheeler’s “it from bit” concept is rooted in the idea that the universe is fundamentally made up of information. He argued that the act of measurement itself creates reality and that the observer plays a crucial role in shaping the outcome. This perspective challenges the traditional view of physics as a discovery of an objective reality and instead suggests that reality is created through the act of observation. Ultimately, it seems to suggest that the universe discovers itself by observing itself through the perception of cognitively limited but conscious entities, like us.
This “it from bit” metaphor also makes a step in the right direction but, again, falls short of completing the circle. We must be able to see things also from the complementary side, namely the “bit from IT” perspective. Everything (or every “bit”) is a self-concentration of IT in itself.
However, as usual, metaphors are much too vague. The technically educated will point out that things aren’t as simple as that, and may come up with a natural and legitimate objection.
At the microscopic and quantum level, everything is subjected to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and the laws of quantum mechanics are described in terms of probabilities, never by certain outcomes. In the quantum world, physical entities don’t possess a definite property and value, such as a precise position, energy, spin, etc. In most cases, the measurements are subjected to a degree of unpredictability, and the only way to translate this state of affairs into a quantitative science is to resort to a statistical description based on the probability function concept. But not just some arbitrary probabilities. Quantum mechanics is constrained by precise mathematical probability functions, determined by the Schrödinger equation and the Born rule (this is the ‘deterministic’ aspect of quantum theory). The (more or less infamous) wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical object that determines the kind of probability that an event is allowed to occur. For example, as already mentioned, it is an inherent law of quantum physics that the spin of a particle, say an electron, is indeterminate—that is, its outcome is considered to be ‘random’—and has a 50% chance of being measured as a “+” or “-” spin.
Moreover, in quantum field theory, the image of reality is that of an eternally ‘fluctuating’ field of particles and spacetime at microscopic scales, that leads to the creation and annihilation of so-called ‘virtual particles,’ which are particle-antiparticle pairs that briefly pop in and out of existence. At the smallest scale, the ‘Planck scale,’ the energy density of the vacuum can become extremely high, leading to significant fluctuations in the curvature of spacetime. The image below is an artistic rendering, more of a metaphor of what is really going on, but is enough to furnish an intuitive idea for the present context.
Therefore, here comes the powerful objection: If the quantum indeterminacy that affects all the cosmos everywhere and at every time, the so-called ‘quantum foam’ that in quantum field theory determines all the interactions in the universe, is the expression of a cosmic mind in action, this almighty deity must, nevertheless, obey its self-imposed laws of quantum mechanics as well. Because, if a universal mind would meddle around with particles, say their spin, we would expect this 50-50% chance rule to be altered. It is like manufacturing a biased die that, after tossing it several times, statistically favors a specific outcome you would like and, thereby, makes you repeatedly win. In principle, you could clean out a casino. However, you can be sure that, sooner than later, casino owners would easily detect fraud, because of the obvious infringement of the 50-50% probability law.
This is the statistical viewpoint of the (quantum) randomness objection. We can’t invoke quantum indeterminacy to justify free will conjectures. Because that will is bound to the probability laws of quantum mechanics and, if it were free to do whatever it likes, it would alter the laws of Nature. In other words, either our will—more precisely, the universal will—is bound to the laws of Nature and can’t be free, or it is free but then we should observe a violation of those natural laws.
After a century of measurements and observations marked by the success and effectiveness of quantum theory, nothing indicates this being the case. There is no evidence of particles playing with biased die. Einstein’s famously proclaimed that “God doesn’t play dice.” It turns out that, indeed, God does play dice, but they seem to be utterly useless to do anything creative.
That’s what led the Austrian 20th-century physicist Erwin Schrödinger (yes, the guy who came up with that famous cat experiment…) to ask the question: “Would physical indeterminacy give free will a chance?" His answer was: No. According to Schrödinger, it is impossible because: "… the direct stepping in of free will to fill the gap of quantum indeterminacy does amount to an interference with the laws of Nature."
The rationale of my paper is to show that this conclusion was wrong. Because it rests on a common fallacy: We always forget that probabilities are determined from time series. The temporal dimension of a stochastic event is too often left in the background as an irrelevant detail. And this leads us to the wrong conclusion.
This was the first not too technical introductory part. The next post will be somewhat more technical, but it will finally show where the error slipt in.
Cosmopsychism can eventually be extended from a pantheistic conception (the universe, or Nature, is the one-substance, or God) to a panentheistic idea (Nature is in this universal consciousness or God, but God is more than Nature.)
For example, physiologist and biologist Dennis Noble suggests that organisms may choose by ‘harnessing stochasticity.’ This would not allow that ‘choice’ to be free even if that were true. While, geneticist and neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell argues on similar lines in this very interesting debate with neuroscientist and primatologist Robert Sapolsky and, thereby, misses the same point.
Something that biologists like to do in a classical context when they say that mutations are ‘random’ and, therefore, conclude that there is no direction in evolution.