Posted by Brian Hammond on December 03, 1999 at 21:00:46:
Hello. I'm researching a paper on Epicurus and
Lucretius's theory of the atomic swerve and how this
theory was used to defend the notion of free will: that
because atoms can abruptly swerve in their paths of
motion, not everything can be determined and thus
determinism is false (to make a long theory short and a
bit over-simplified).
I have read articles suggesting that the Epicurean
theory is similar to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
and say that some people believe in free will and
support this belief thus:
1) If everything we will do, even decisions we will
make, can be predicted by understanding the movement
of atomic and subatomic particles (such as in the atoms
in our brains and neural circuitry), then all our
decisions must be determined by these forces, and thus
we have no free will.
2) If we cannot predict with absolute precision the
speed and position of an electron within the probability
cloud around an atom, then it is possible that not
everything is determined, and it is possible that we
have free will.
At least, this is how I understand their support of
free will. Does this sound like an accurate represen-
tation of their belief to you?
It seems to me that this does not disprove determinism.
If premise 1) is correct, then it seems to me that
determinism is correct even if it is not possible for
human beings to predict exactly the motions of an
electron. The reason we cannot predict exactly where
an electron will be or exactly how fast it is moving is
because we need to have a particle such as a photon hit
the electron and then bounce off and hit our eye in
order for us to see it. If a particle hits the
electron, it may change its position or transfer energy
(momentum) to it. However, just because we lack the
ability to perceive subatomic particles without them
being disturbed by photons hitting them, and just
because this means we lack the ability to precisely
predict the location and speed of these particles, does
not mean that the particles move at random. (Does it?
Please, correct me if my understanding is flawed.)
Whether or not the future position or speed of a
particle is determined by whether or not the particle's
motion follows logical rules, not by whether or not we
can actually "determine" (as in "predict") where the
particle will be. As far as I know, we believe that
an electron's motion is determined by such forces as
the gravitational attraction and the magnetic
repulsion between the electron and the nucleus. If we
had greater faculties of perception and could know the
position and velocity of an electron without a photon
or other subatomic particle bouncing off of it, we could
predict with absolute accuracy where the electron is
and probably also where it will be in the future.
(Is this right?)
So, that is my take of Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle and how it relates to free will. Does this
sound logical? Did I make any mistakes you noticed, or
did I misunderstand any of Heisenberg's physics? I
would really appreciate some feedback, especially on
areas of Heisenberg's physics which I may have mis-
understood. (My major is philosophy rather than physics,
and I admit my understanding of physics is not too
advanced.) Can you recommend any books or websites
which will help clarify any of the elements of
Heisenberg's principle I am having trouble with?
Thanks,
Brian Hammond
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS