I was introduced to an interesting theory about a year and a half ago, and the impact of that theory is such that I find myself recalling it quite often even now - and despite the fact that I don't believe it is true. The theory is the following:
If you consider every possible variable leading up to an action or choice of an individual, they are doing the only logical thing considering all variables, and thus, are doing the best they can at all times.
I'll try and explain. Imagine an all-seeing being - an entity that can see absolutely everything that has ever happpened ever. If this being considered a human being - their upbringing, the elements that went into their personality, their history, their genetics, everything - and then considered that person's actions, it would see that every action that they took could be attributed to all these things that led them to that point. If this being could see every circumstance which relates to a person, however small, than it could logically trace every action that person takes to a particular circumstance or circumstances. And, logically, it could predict what actions and choices that person would make in the future based on those circumstances.
Thus, every action that a person takes is dictated by the infinite myriad of circumstances which led them to that point, and thus, they are doing the best they can be expected to do at all times. This theory was told to me by my psychiatrist at the time and I believe he was telling me the theory in order to allow me some sort of forgiveness for my stepfather - if I could view his actions as the result of the circumstances that shaped him, I could come to forgive him in time.
That didn't happen, and I loathe this theory with every fibre of my being because I find it constricting. Something about it strikes a chord of horror within me - it feels too much like logically proving that there is no free will. But, as the psychiatrist patiently explained to me, free will is a variable that is considered also.
I DO NOT LIKE IT.
Still, an interesting discussion topic.
And now, a pretty picture, and the quote that was attached to it. The artwork is called Shadow of Doubt.
"Your ignorance is my bliss."
2 comments:
I, too, have come across this theory - I believe it was "The Omnipotent Demon" or "The All-Knowing Computer", something like that. (I love Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon)
If I (feed into a computer the data about/theorise an entity that knows) information about the mass, direction, speed, energy, etc etc etc about every single particle that exists, the computer/demon could calculate when those particles would collide, and how they would interact when they did. From there, one could trace every cause back to it's component effects - establishing that the macro has roots in the micro, all of which is cold and logical and not able to be changed. Thus everything is predetermined by the things that came before. This is the "weak emergence" theory. Goodbye, free will.
BUT...
There's a rather interesting opposing idea that I first came across in New Scientist (article link: http://www.mail-archive.com/mythfolk@yahoogroups.com/msg00089.html - it's not the NewScientist website as they charge to view old articles). The main points being that while weak emergence says that everything can be broken down to it's root causes, strong emergence says that there are higher laws that come into play which change the way things happen. The point at which strong emergence APPEARS to come into play is the computational limit of the universe, given it's age and number of particles that make it up.
There are all sorts of implications here - my favourite one being that even basic basic life forms cannot be accurately predicted by breaking it down into its component parts. So - to draw my own conclusion here - as long as the calculation to predict your thoughts from the interactions of the millions upon millions of neurons in your brain exceeds the computational limit of the universe, then your thoughts are unpredictable - and thus, your own. Welcome back, free will.
I have thought this since like the age of ten, the problem is it doesn't change anything, even perception remains the same to me.
Post a Comment