|
CHAOS THEORY:
FREE WILL IN A PREDETERMINED WORLD
by
Karey Perkins
Why do events happen as they do? What made eight-year old Bobby decide to punch his five year old sister Suzy in the nose rather than buy her an ice cream cone? Was he exercising his free will, simply making a choice to do "what he wanted" to do (although revealing a gross lack of character and responsibility)? And, under exactly the same circumstances, could he have chosen otherwise and bought her ice cream instead (or any one of a number of options)? Or was he simply programmed by his genes and environment (and infinitely regressive causes of each of those) to do so, with the responsibility for his act far beyond his control -- for in fact, his "chosen" act could not really have been chosen, in this view.
This is one of the great debates of philosophy: the free will/determinism question.
Determinism holds that, given infinite ability and the time, scientists could predict all causes of human behavior, and all results of those causes, right down to the end of the world. Their seemingly fantastic argument is tacitly accepted by most of modern Western society, which is comfortable with the machine metaphor of the world and human nature, and the Newtonian cause-effect explanation of events -- a universe that functions according to predictable laws (right up to and including human behavior). The tenets of hard determinism are as follows:
All events are caused (no randomness)
Every cause necessitates its effect (the entailment of causality)
Freedom and causation are incompatible
Therefore, since there is causation, there is no freedom (specifically, no contra-causal freedom; that is, no ability to choose otherwise given the same human being in the same circumstances)
The machine metaphor dominates: That God/the world is a like a giant computer so that if we cloud know all the laws of nature, and if we could predict the exact position and velocity of all the particles in the universe, then we could predict the whole future history of the universe, right down to the number of hairs on your grandson's head.
Thus there are no accidents or chance events.
Several other theories (libertarianism, soft determinism) offer alternatives to hard determinism. I would like to suggest another alternative to hard determinism: that, similar to the idea of Chaos Theory in physics today, the world may SEEM to be run by perfectly predictable, tightly linked cause-effect-cause-effect occurrences; however, in actuality, randomness suffuses the universe constantly, making our inability to precisely predict future events not merely a result of our lack of time, ability, or resources, but really a result of the universe's unpredictability. I will explain Chaos Theory and then I will give several examples.
Chaos Theory is the result of physicists' observation that, at the subatomic level, individual particles behave unpredictably. That is, no modern physicist deals the with activities/actions of an individual particle at the subatomic level, mainly because he simply can't. The particles at this level show no predictable pattern of behavior. The physicist is relegated to averages of the many particles' combined activities, which DO form a pattern. Thus, when the particles' averages are taken, a pattern is formed, and prediction is possible -- for the group taken as a whole.
The scientific method is based on a certain repeatability; that is, if the scientist repeats the exact same set of circumstances, the same result(s) will be gleaned. This allows the scientist to generalize, predict, and understand the nature of the universe, which is just what the hard determinist says should happen (and is, in fact, one of the main tenets of hard determinism). That is, tenet #4 (above) says that there is no ability to choose otherwise, or to have circumstances turn out differently, given the same person in the same set of causal circumstances. However, at the subatomic level, if the scientist repeats the same set of circumstances, the same results do NOT occur. At the subatomic level, the hard determinists' thesis #4 is refuted.
One may argue that the subatomic level can be ignored; in the big world, Newtonian physics still works. I would like to give examples of how, on a "supra"-atomic level, real life imitates photons. That is, we can only observe patterns of behavior in humans and the world, but randomness infiltrates the universe. Thus, we can predict patterns reasonably well most of the time, but not exact individual behavior in any one given circumstance or instance (no matter the time, resources, or abilities that we might have to do so).
Example A: The computer model. One can program randomness into a computer program. For example, in a spreadsheet for inventory control, the programmer might have to estimate at what point in time he will receive stock from a vendor. He knows that 70% of the time, the vendor will come through for him on time, although he does not know which of any of those times will be the times the vendor will be punctual. The programmer can then create a spreadsheet in which 70% of the time, the stock will arrive on time, but NOT program or know which of these times will be the "on time" instances.
Example B: The student model. One can predict, given a certain amount of data, that John Doe, student in Prof. Perkins's English class, is a "B" student. One may further predict that about 80% of the time John will perform slightly above average, though not excellently, on test and papers, while about 20% of the time, he may perform averagely or below average. He has a certain amount of energy, skills, and intelligence to perform at a certain level, but one cannot know WHEN he will apply it, and WHEN he won't. The hard determinist would say that if the time, resources, and knowledge were available, a close examination of genetics and environment would reveal which tests John would perform well on and which John would perform poorly on. The Chaos Theorist would say that there is too much randomness in the interaction between genetics and environment to make this prediction.
As long as this randomness exists, it may be that while John has the normal capacities of a "B" student, he could fail the class entirely or make an "A" instead. Perhaps his grandmother happens to die that semester so he must fly home for an extended period of time and miss innumerable class (such incidences -- death of grandparents -- seem to happen quite often among my students, I might add), so he is handicapped by the absence to the point that he fails the class. Or perhaps John happens to acquire a particularly motivated and intelligent girlfriend that semester, who, seeking a successful mate, bestows her desired affections only after John has studied diligently. Thus, John attends each class and performs well on exams, making an "A" in the class.
Example C: The medical model. Let us say a certain disease (a virus or bacteria, say) causes a condition in the nervous system that causes pain in the limbs. However, in one or two cases, the virus or bacteria is shown to be present in a test designed to reveal its presence, but the patient feels no pain in the limbs, despite the fact that 99% of all other patients with this disease have this pain. We then observe that 99% of the time, the virus/bacteria affects the nerves, but sometimes it does not. Does the doctor predict when and with which patient these symptoms will amazingly not occur? No...he can only predict that there is a 99% chance the pain will occur. The prediction of the individual's lack of symptoms was not possible.
The same is true of "miraculous recoveries." Not too rarely, doctors predict a patient will never walk again, yet the patient miraculously does. Also, sometimes a doctor will predict that a cancer patient is terminal and then the cancer unfathomably disappears. Sometimes credit is given to "prayer" or the willpower of the patient -- but then there are instances of other patients with equal amounts of willpower and prayers, who do not recover. Randomness determines who recovers and who does not.
Example D: The psychological model. Thirteen year old Jimmy Lee is depressed. His school psychologist has identified this. Also, since he has been six years old, he has gone hunting with his grandfather and is now quite proficient in the use of a rifle. He has a crush on twelve year old Patricia Sue who has rejected him, and now he is angry. He is exhibiting rebellion against authority and violence with peers -- he is increasingly involved in physical fights. His divorced mother has just moved to a new town, and he knows no one here. Will he take up his stock of weapons and gun down his parents, junior high school authorities, and his classmates? One can only predict the probability of this happening, not the particular individual's actions with certainty. Randomness accounts for the fact that one young boy in this situation would act in one way, while another would act in an entirely different way. the hard determinist would say: "No, that's not so, with enough information, we could predict the outcome." However, Chaos Theorists would say that even with all the necessary information, it would still be incomplete. Randomness exists.
Example E: The sociological model. In a violence ridden ghetto, a poverty stricken, drug addicted single mother raises eight children: four of these children end up in prison or dead; four come out unscathed. Although their genetics are the same, the hard determinist might argue their individual biologically determined personalities and unique combination of genes supply enough difference to account for different outcomes. However, the Chaos Theorist would argue that randomness accounted for each of their particular gene combinations as well as their particular and unique (and random) environmental events that resulted in unique outcomes. While one might predict that there is a 50% probability that a child with such an upbringing would end up in prison or dead, one would be unable to predict with 100% probability WHICH children would be the ones with such a fate, nor if any or all of them would.
Conclusion: All one can do is predict large patterns resulting from an average of many participants or factors. Doctors can look for patterns in diseases, psychologists can look at patterns in the human psyche, social workers can look at pattens in society and social groups, physicists can look at patterns with particles. One can then predict the PROBABILITY of an outcome, but never the exact outcome for an individual particle or person. **
There is randomness in the world. The next question is: what accounts for randomness? Is it the idea of "free will"? That is, thought which is free? Perhaps - stay tuned for the next paper...
Notes
**To paraphrase Walker Percy, science (the realm of cause-effect or stimulus-response dyadic events) deals in generalities, and can predict general outcomes, MOST of the time; however, art (such as the novel) deals in particulars -- the life, choice and reality of the individual soul, which transcends science.
|
|