There is a poignant scene in the movie Forrest Gump, where Forrest is standing before Jenny's grave and talking to her as if she were still alive. In the course of his soliloquy, Forrest muses about one of the greatest questions to confront humankind: Is everything that happens to us just random chance or is there a direction and purpose behind it all? For his momma, life was like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're going to get. For Lieutenant Dan, life was supposed to follow a predictable course - his surviving the loss of his legs wasn't supposed to happen.
Forrest concludes: "Jenny, I don't know if Momma was right or if, if it's Lieutenant Dan. I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe it's both. Maybe both is happening at the same time."
- http://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/forrest-gump/quote_8882.html
I recently posted a piece about Divine intervention that goes to the heart of this question. In that post, I recounted how my niece had survived a tornado only to die in an ATV accident a few years later. The post, of course, elicited a number of comments that zeroed in on the chance or destiny dilemma and underscored the fact that we tend to see things as either/or propositions - a choice between two options or extremes.
In religious circles, the question is often framed as one of predestination vs free will. Indeed, this question has occupied religious thinkers throughout human history and has engendered distinct camps within the Christian community. And, as with many other questions, both sides in the debate appeal to the Bible to support their position.
This debate, however, has not been confined to religious circles. Psychology Today frames the debate in these terms: "Do humans have the ability to make their own choices and determine their own fates—a concept more commonly known as free will? Or our people's futures determined solely by powers outside of their control, like the physics and biology of the brain? The question of free will has long challenged philosophers and religious thinkers, and scientists have examined the problem from psychological, biological, and genetic perspectives."
- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/free-will
In another article on their website, Dr. William Klemm discusses The Practical Meaning of Free Will. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/memory-medic/201902/the-practical-meaning-free-will He relates that the general consensus seems to be that there is no such thing as free will. He cautions, however, that "Those who have already decided against free will frame the issue so that no other conclusion can be drawn." He offers the following as proof of this assertion: "For example, people will say that every action or event has a cause. Therefore, the event was determined and did not occur 'freely.'” Klemm continues: "Another argument is that every action or event has a certain probability of occurrence, ranging from zero to 100% chance that it will occur. Thus, the argument is that anything that can occur will occur, eventually. If it has a low probability, happening may just take a long time. It does not require being willed into existence."
Klemm goes on to imagine a debate between a generic "determinist" and "free-will believer." He redefines the terms so that the debate between the two sides can continue on a more even footing, and the free-will believers actually have a chance of winning it. He writes: "As for 'free' will, or 'free' won’t, the premise is that one has two or more available choices and that nothing compels selection of one over the other."
It seems to be almost self-evident that many of us think in these terms - that our lives consist of a number of choices between available options. Indeed, even former President George W. Bush framed his tenure in the Oval Office in terms of Decision Points. But the questions remain: Are these choices an illusion? Do we really have free will?
What happens to the debate, however, if we introduce a concept that has been promoted by more and more cosmologists in recent years - the multiverse? Long time readers of this blog know that I have been fascinated by this theory since reading Our Mathematical Universe by Max Tegmark a few years back.
It is not my purpose in this post to discuss the merits of the Multiverse Theory. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that this is a legitimate thesis within the scientific community. The notion that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes is not easily refuted or dismissed by those who study such questions, and a significant number of them have concluded that it offers the most reasonable explanation of the true reality of the space which we inhabit.
In Our Mathematical Universe, Tegmark summarizes the implications of his hypothesis thus: "In an infinite space created by inflation, everything that can happen according to the laws of physics does happen. And it happens an infinite number of times. This means that there are parallel universes where you never get a parking ticket, where you have a different name, where you've won a million-dollar lottery, where Germany won World War II, where dinosaurs still roam Earth, and where Earth never formed in the first place." p. 123, Our Mathematical Universe, by Max Tegmark, published in New York by Alfred A. Knopf in 2014
In this model, there is another you out there with the same name and life story up to this moment in time. One (or more) of you decide to finish reading this post while another one (or more) of you decide not to finish it. Each one of your decisions branches off into an infinite number of potentialities, and this phenomenon is further complicated by the fact that everyone around you is experiencing the same thing!
Think about that for a moment. Doesn't that have some very interesting implications for the debate between those who believe in free will and those who hold a determinist view? I find it extremely interesting that both the Bible and modern scientific thought point in the same direction - that Forrest Gump had it right. I think maybe it's both. What do you think?
Forrest concludes: "Jenny, I don't know if Momma was right or if, if it's Lieutenant Dan. I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe it's both. Maybe both is happening at the same time."
- http://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/forrest-gump/quote_8882.html
I recently posted a piece about Divine intervention that goes to the heart of this question. In that post, I recounted how my niece had survived a tornado only to die in an ATV accident a few years later. The post, of course, elicited a number of comments that zeroed in on the chance or destiny dilemma and underscored the fact that we tend to see things as either/or propositions - a choice between two options or extremes.
In religious circles, the question is often framed as one of predestination vs free will. Indeed, this question has occupied religious thinkers throughout human history and has engendered distinct camps within the Christian community. And, as with many other questions, both sides in the debate appeal to the Bible to support their position.
This debate, however, has not been confined to religious circles. Psychology Today frames the debate in these terms: "Do humans have the ability to make their own choices and determine their own fates—a concept more commonly known as free will? Or our people's futures determined solely by powers outside of their control, like the physics and biology of the brain? The question of free will has long challenged philosophers and religious thinkers, and scientists have examined the problem from psychological, biological, and genetic perspectives."
- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/free-will
In another article on their website, Dr. William Klemm discusses The Practical Meaning of Free Will. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/memory-medic/201902/the-practical-meaning-free-will He relates that the general consensus seems to be that there is no such thing as free will. He cautions, however, that "Those who have already decided against free will frame the issue so that no other conclusion can be drawn." He offers the following as proof of this assertion: "For example, people will say that every action or event has a cause. Therefore, the event was determined and did not occur 'freely.'” Klemm continues: "Another argument is that every action or event has a certain probability of occurrence, ranging from zero to 100% chance that it will occur. Thus, the argument is that anything that can occur will occur, eventually. If it has a low probability, happening may just take a long time. It does not require being willed into existence."
Klemm goes on to imagine a debate between a generic "determinist" and "free-will believer." He redefines the terms so that the debate between the two sides can continue on a more even footing, and the free-will believers actually have a chance of winning it. He writes: "As for 'free' will, or 'free' won’t, the premise is that one has two or more available choices and that nothing compels selection of one over the other."
It seems to be almost self-evident that many of us think in these terms - that our lives consist of a number of choices between available options. Indeed, even former President George W. Bush framed his tenure in the Oval Office in terms of Decision Points. But the questions remain: Are these choices an illusion? Do we really have free will?
What happens to the debate, however, if we introduce a concept that has been promoted by more and more cosmologists in recent years - the multiverse? Long time readers of this blog know that I have been fascinated by this theory since reading Our Mathematical Universe by Max Tegmark a few years back.
It is not my purpose in this post to discuss the merits of the Multiverse Theory. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that this is a legitimate thesis within the scientific community. The notion that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes is not easily refuted or dismissed by those who study such questions, and a significant number of them have concluded that it offers the most reasonable explanation of the true reality of the space which we inhabit.
In Our Mathematical Universe, Tegmark summarizes the implications of his hypothesis thus: "In an infinite space created by inflation, everything that can happen according to the laws of physics does happen. And it happens an infinite number of times. This means that there are parallel universes where you never get a parking ticket, where you have a different name, where you've won a million-dollar lottery, where Germany won World War II, where dinosaurs still roam Earth, and where Earth never formed in the first place." p. 123, Our Mathematical Universe, by Max Tegmark, published in New York by Alfred A. Knopf in 2014
In this model, there is another you out there with the same name and life story up to this moment in time. One (or more) of you decide to finish reading this post while another one (or more) of you decide not to finish it. Each one of your decisions branches off into an infinite number of potentialities, and this phenomenon is further complicated by the fact that everyone around you is experiencing the same thing!
Think about that for a moment. Doesn't that have some very interesting implications for the debate between those who believe in free will and those who hold a determinist view? I find it extremely interesting that both the Bible and modern scientific thought point in the same direction - that Forrest Gump had it right. I think maybe it's both. What do you think?
When a small event in one universe differs from its counterpart in another universe, the difference between the two universes would tend to grow with time. It wouldn’t take long before two universes were radically different. If there are an infinite number of universes, there might be two of them which have not yet had a difference, but I think not….yes, even with an infinite number. This means to me that there is unlikely to be a universe exactly like ours. The problem I have with the notion of a Me in each of many alternate universes is that any universe probably has had enough random variances from this universe occur long enough ago that I don’t exist in any of them. The Man in the High Castle series, viewable on Prime, dramatically explores aspects of the multiverse concept.
ReplyDeleteI liked Fringe. Walter, Walternate; Olivia, Fauxlivia. One NYC with the Trade Towers still intact. Besides, it was the last project in which Leonard Nimoy worked.
ReplyDeleteIf there are multiverses, each one either must be completely reset from time to time, or carefully controlled, much as I believe evolution is and was. That’s the only way in which the same people in each ‘verse could exist.
I like to toy with other ideas, one of which is that time is an artificial construct for human perception, and that the past, present, and future are all happening at the same time. That one has been around for long enough that it is a cliche.
Another is that when we die, we come back starting over in the same time frame and conditions but able to subconsciously apply what we learned from the previous life.
All great for speculative purposes, but the fact is we can only be sure of the conditions which we are experiencing right now in real time. Humans are after all, collectors of experience. Who’s to say that we are not only presently aware of part of the picture? Need to know basis?
BB