Free Will and Constraint: The Solution to the Problem of Free Will

By Jamshid Farshidi

Free will is an essential problem in human knowledge that investigates the relationships between all creatures, including human beings, with each other, nature, and ecosystem. The immense impacts of free will on science, law, and ethics and, as a result, on everyday life of humans are undeniable. This is the reason behind almost two centuries of intense research by well-known researchers on this historic problem in the Western world. This book, based on a constructive modeling of the problem, provides its solution and analyzes its applications in science, law, and ethics.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Mar 31, 2015
• ISBN: 9781503544598

Jamshid Farshidi

Jamshid Farshidi is an Iranian American. He completed his education in Iran through his MS degree in mathematics from Sharif Institute of Technology in Teheran, in 1978, and received his PhD in the field of mathematical statistics from Michigan State University in 1991. Farshidi has spent his entire career in academia, teaching at universities in Iran and the United States. He has published several papers in his scientific area of interest, stochastic processes and their predictions. His major interests are in modeling of scientific problems and world issues. He is the author of the paper "Failure of Einstein's Theory and Mass-Energy Equation" and the book "Palestine-Israel: A Just Plan for Permanent Peace." Recently, he is living in Williamsburg, Virginia. This book is a result of his constructive modeling of the historic problem of free will, an essential problem in the history of human knowledge that has been remained unsolved for a long time.

Book preview

Copyright © 2015 by Jamshid Farshidi.

ISBN:      Softcover      978-1-5035-4460-4

                eBook         978-1-5035-4459-8

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 03/31/2015

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

705622

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SYNOPSIS

CHAPTER 1

Free Will And Constraints

Free will and Paradigms

CHAPTER 2 Problem of ‘Human Free Will’

Why metaphysical constraints are necessary conditions?

CHAPTER 3

The Solution To The Problem of ‘Human Free Will’

The physical universe

Basic properties of the random processes

Intuitive descriptive stru`cture of random (stochastic) processes

Brownian motion

Branching processes

Effect of uncertainty characteristic on the problems of ‘free will’

Prediction of random (stochastic) processes

Principle of minimal variance error prediction

Trends in random processes

Principle of human free will

‘Freedom of choice’ is distinct from ‘freedom to act’

Problems of rational and conscious choices in ‘human free will’

Conscious choices in human free will

Rational choices in human free will

Criterion for responsibility in human free will

False consequential trends in ‘human free will’

CHAPTER 4 The General Principle of Free Will

‘Freedom of choice’ is distinct from ‘freedom to act’

in general free will

Conscious choices in general free will

Rational choices in general free will

Criterion for responsibility in general free will

Effects of the ‘general principle of free will’ on science, law and ethics

CHAPTER 5 Applications of ‘Principles of Free Will’

Application to Physics

Why Quantum mechanic ‘free will’ is incorrect

Direct effects of the ‘general principle of free will’ on physics:

Physical universe paradigm

Application to Genetics

Direct effects of the ‘principles of free will’ on Genetics

Principle of human behavior prediction

Principle of human behavior prediction

Responsibility of humans for unconscious-irrational acts

Application to Neuroscience

Direct effects of the ‘principles of free will’ on Neuroscience

Confirmation of ‘principle of human free will’ by Libet experiment

Application to Biology

Darwinism and natural evolution

History of natural evolution concepts:

Describing ‘fitness’ as a mechanism

Interpreting ‘fitness’ as a biological theory

Application of ‘general principle of free will’ to natural evolution

‘Degree of tolerance for survival’ principle

Why Darwinian modeling in other disciplines is wrong

New Darwinian’s false theory of ‘free will’

Application to Neurology and psychiatry

Direct effects of ‘human free will’ on neurological psychiatry

Criterion for responsibility of patients with brain-related impediments

Application to Law

Thomas Hobbs and Sufism approach to Justice

Other approaches to justice

Direct effects of ‘principles of free will’ on law

Legal systems and free will

preventative legal systems

Retributive legal system

Revisionists concerns in legal systems

Criterion to recognize patients who incurred brain impairments

Application to Experimental psychology

Authorship processing of mind

Application to Ethics

Environmental Ethics

Feminist Ethics

Basic concepts and values in ethics

Direct application of the principle of ‘human free will’ on Ethics

Criterion for ethical accountability in human free will

Effects of power on ethics and law

Effects of the ‘ethical accountability’ principle on systems of values

CHAPTER 6 Universal Consciousness

Conjecture of universal consciousness

Conjecture of universal consciousness

On uniformity of human thoughts

CHAPTER 7 Free Will and Abstract Concepts In Philosophy and Theology

Analysis of Spinoza’s opinion

Why ‘Determinism and emergent behavior’ philosophy is wrong

Why emergent ‘free will’ is false

Why Incompatibilists’ approach to free will is wrong

Why Metaphysical Libertarianism approach to free will is wrong?

Why pessimism argument of Galen Strawson is wrong

Why Destiny and Fate approaches to free will are wrong?

Why Logical Determinism is compatible with free will?

Why Omniscience approach to free will is wrong

Why Predeterminism approach to free will is false?

Why Compatibilitism approach has some correct elements of ‘free will’

Why ‘free will as lack of physical restraint’ has some correct elements of ‘free will’?

CHAPTER 8

Free Will In Eastern Philosophy And Theology

Theological concepts related to free will

Free will in Zoroastrianism

Principal beliefs in Zoroastrianism

Principle doctrines in Zoroastrianism

Concept of savior

Concepts of heaven, hell, and the final judgment

Free will in Zoroastrianism

Connection with Judaism and Christianity

Connections with Islam

Free will in Judaic philosophy

Free will in Christian Philosophy

Free will in Islam

Connections with other religions

Misconceptions attributed to Islam

Analysis of WikiIslam claims on Islam

CHAPTER 9

Free Will And The Theory of Creation of The Physical Universe

Conjecture of creation of the physical universe

On modeling the ‘existence of the Omni-Creator’

References and Notes

SYNOPSIS

Free will is one of the essential multi-disciplinary problems in the history of human knowledge. Rooted in the ancient philosophy and religion of the Eastern world, ‘free will’ is the problem that investigates the relationships between all living creatures, including human beings, with each other, nature and ecosystem. This is the reason behind the intense research by well known scientists, philosophers and theologians of the Western world on this subject for over a period of two centuries. Among the researchers who attempted this problem (in their works,) we see the names of famous scientists Darwin (in his book Origin of Species, and his notes), Descartes, Poincaré, Heisenberg, Einstein, Schrödinger (in his book What is Life?), Hawkin (in his 2010 book The Grand Design), as well as the well known philosophers Hobbes, Locke (in his book Second Treatise of Government), Schopenhauer, Bergson, Spinoza (in his book Ethics), and the theologians Martin Luther and Thomas Aquinas. The research of these scientists, philosophers and theologians have been followed up by several other researchers, including several contemporary researchers at the present time.

While the great researchers presented different views on free will based on their fields of knowledge or beliefs, they suggested no or even a partial solution to this historic problem! The major deficiencies in their views were the restrictive perspectives they imposed on this problem, which on one hand led to ignorance of the inclusive nature of this problem, and on the other hand caused lack of implementation of the comprehensive knowledge necessary to solve it. Their specific approaches in physics, biology, and theology reflect this fact. For them, the problem of free will was reduced to the basic question of: are the concepts of free will and determinism —natural laws, logical rules, or theological creeds,— compatible? Those who defined free will as ‘freedom from determinism’ were called incompatibilitists, as they believed determinism to be incompatible with free will, and those who held ‘determinism is compatible’ with free will were called compatibilitists. These approaches to the problem of free will are still in use by recent scientists, philosophers and theologians.

In this book, however, by adopting the accurate definition of ‘free will’, which is the settled definition among all scientists, philosophers and theologians, the solution to this problem is obtained. This solution, which is presented as: ‘general principle of free will,’ is the result of constructive modeling of this problem. Its special case for humans is presented as ‘principle of human free will.’ The solution deliberately has been expressed in its intuitive form —rather than abstract form,— for easy understanding of general reader, without loosing its theoretical accuracy. The enormous applications of this solution in science —including physics, biology, etc.— theology, law and ethics demonstrate its immense value as a comprehensive multidisciplinary theorem. These applications range from (1) correcting effect of the principles over several fields of science and philosophy, that result in removal of some of their old principles, to (2) establishing new principles in these fields. As examples, we can mention the criterion for conscious choice, and the criterion for responsibility in human free will, that play essential roles in law and ethics.

In specific application to the science of physics, rejection of some false arguments on the problem of ‘human free will,’ based on quantum mechanic, that deny this concept, leads up to exploration of the correct scientific model for this science. This model recognizes all the essential properties of random processes that exist in the physical universe, not just random properties of particles in quantum theory. Specifically, it concludes that physical universe should be: (A) a paradigm consisting of a ‘4-dimensional space-time,’ realm, in which (B) events occur randomly, with uncertainty characteristic —that each event occurs as a state in a random (stochastic) process that consists of a past history of states, a present state, and future states, all entirely subject to a probability (chance) system, while at each fixed moment of time or at each fixed value of probability the occurrence of events is deterministic. As an important consequence, this constructive modeling resolves the so called ‘old problem of free will’ —a long lasting problem in the literature that is sometimes referred to as the dilemma of determinism. This dilemma holds a false conclusions in physics, as well as a false moral dilemma, that entails: "how are we to assign responsibility for human actions if they are caused entirely by past events?"

In application to biology, the ‘general principle of free will’ establishes a new principle with the aid of recent results in biology, that replaces the Darwinian survival of the fittest principle. These credible results, as instance, establish that: "evolution of amphibians, reptiles and mammals was as the result of expanding into empty ecological niches during dramatic changes in environment, not superiority over another in competition." The new achieved principle, that in biological evolution will be called the ‘degree of tolerance for survival’ principle, simply establishes the fact that: survival of species is due to their ability to tolerate dramatic changes in natural and/or physical conditions, up to a degree of tolerance, not "competition between large groups of species and survival of the fittest under environmental conditions’," in any sense of fittest, including strongest, superior or capable of passing on genes that Darwinism conjectures. As an acknowledgement of this principle, one can mention the displacements of large groups of people during recent wars in the Middle East, that naturally and based on instinct, searched for safe havens away from the disasters of war. This new principle in biology, certainly rejects all the theories in science and philosophy that followed Darwinism as the basic model. These theories range from ‘economical theory of Herbert Spencer,’ to the philosophies of Arthur Schopenhauer, Henri Bergson and many others who allegedly devised Fascism in Europe.

In application to genetics, the ‘principle of human free will’ provides a solution to a very old problem in this science, that inquires: can human behaviors be explained in terms of human brains, genes, and evolutionary histories? The solution, stated as a principle, asserts that: human behavior can be explained in any process of life, by human’s brain function, genetic and biological factors, as well as their environmental conditions, via their evolutionary history of behavior, as long as by ‘evolutionary history of behavior,’ we mean the ‘past random acts of human in the process of life. On the other hand, the seminal experiment of Libet in neuroscience, approves this established principle in science.

Specific application of the ‘principle of human free will’ to law results in an exact criterion for conscious acts of humans, based on the accurate principle for their rational acts, formulated in this book. This criterion amounts to determination of legal responsibilities criteria for humans under the ‘human free will’ principle. As an indication of its importance, one can refer to the well known quote of the U.S. supreme court: "free will is a universal and persistent foundation for the legal system in the United States."

Application of the ‘principle of human free will’ to ethics, leads to the ‘criterion for ethical responsibility of humans for their activities,’ that holds implications as to whether or not individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. As an implication, this criterion reveals the effect of ‘power’ on human free will. Another application affirms the role of ‘ethical accountability’ on the concepts of ‘humanity’ and ‘system of values.’

The problem of universal consciousness, rooted in Eastern philosophy and religion, is an old problem that has attracted attentions of several scientists and philosophers over a long period of time, including the attention of Erwin Schrödinger’s in his book: What is Life? This problem in its original form has been expressed as: Does conscious volition (ability to choose) impact the material physical universe? The ‘general principle of free will’ in this book, not only resolves the core problem of ‘conscious free will’ as a principle, but for a more general problem of universal consciousness provides an answer that explains under which mechanism this consciousness is possible. The answer formulates a conjecture based on recent knowledge in physics, engineering, natural sciences and ecosystem studies, that is presented as: ‘conjecture of universal consciousness’.

As conclusive remarks, the book provides a history of different views on the problem of ‘free will’ in several disciplines of philosophy and religion. The remarks provide reasons as to why some of the views are deficient or entirely false. For example, the principle of ‘human free will’ implies that individual human’s will and choices in life can coexist with an Omni-Creator divinity in the sense that: freedom is a God given natural right extended to the human beings in this physical universe. Do all religions agree with this conclusion? On the same line of thought, are the concepts of destiny and predestination correct?

This book has been written under the principle of constructive modeling: to explore the truth in phenomena, or to analyze a system with an aim towards suggesting a solution—i.e. ‘Building an axiomatic system with related rules of inference, that models a phenomenon or a problem with its essential characteristics reflected as axioms, and its effective factors for change reflected as rules of inference.’

In constructive modeling of ‘free will,’ inclusion of all fields of human knowledge, including science, philosophy and theology, is a necessity. Thus, it is essential to study the problem in science, not in philosophy. The book, therefore, reflects all the ideas of scientists, philosophers and theologians (right or wrong,) who contributed to this subject, to show the pathway that this author has reached the solution to the problem of free will, using scientific methods, in specifically devised scientific philosophy of epistemic science. Occasionally, these ideas are reflected verbatim to maintain their authenticity, and seldom they are rephrased without changing their content, to adjust the situation.

CHAPTER 1

Ahoy you, who is sitting in this majestic enigmatic place, stand and leave this virtual place. Don’t complain as to why, don’t argue to stay!

—Mawlānā (Rumi): quoting from Omni-Conscious

Free Will And Constraints

There is a long history of research over a millennia by well known scientists, philosophers and theologians on the problem of free will [236]. This problem in essence is an ‘epistemic science’ problem, not a problem in any specific discipline of science, philosophy or theology. It is one of the most important multidisciplinary problems in the history of mankind, that has essential effects in science, law, ethics and relationships between all living creatures, including humans, with nature and ecosystem. Thus, the reason behind the enormous attempts by scientists and philosophers to solve it. Unfortunately, almost all the attempts were restricted to developing approaches that reflect specific perspective (right or wrong) on this problem. While the researchers presented different views and interpretations of free will, they suggested no or even a partial solution to this historic problem! The major deficiencies in their efforts were restrictive perspectives they imposed on the problem,