On Abiogenesis and Free Choice
Hello, in a long discussion with a friend who argued against free choice and in favor of determinism, we came to the conclusion that the dispute between us is abiogenesis, and I wanted to ask about it, but first I will explain:
He claimed that if he had absolute, instantaneous information about all the atoms and the bonds between them and their physical and chemical properties in the world, he could know with absolute precision what would happen in the next moment, and the one after that, etc. In essence, we are all very complex robots, but with enough knowledge and physical-chemical calculations, it is possible to know absolutely what we will think and how we will act at any given moment. If so, there is no free choice, only the laws of nature and complicated mechanisms operating within them.
I argued that while this is true, there are deviations here and there from the “soul.” That is, there is a spiritual world that science does not see or deal with, and it influences thoughts and actions, and thus there is essentially free choice.
(In retrospect, it seems that I am using some unfounded assumption, that there is a soul (I do not define what that means), and the truth is that I will probably get confused with explanations in which it interferes with or influences the laws of nature…)
Ultimately, we came to the conclusion that it is possible to isolate the soul from the body in a theoretical experiment in which we completely copy all the particles of a particular human body to another place, and thus – if it lives and acts, it will seem that there is no soul, but rather it is an illusion of consciousness, and otherwise – it will be an inanimate body.
I wanted to ask in general terms what you think about this, not necessarily at length (I have a feeling you’ll say we’re both wrong). If you’d prefer to refer me to chapters from your books, that would be fine too. Do you address this specific question in your book on free choice? It could be the entire book, I haven’t had time to read it yet.
This is indeed the entire book. There is an article that summarizes it here on the site: https://mikyab.net/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%91%d7%98-%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%98%d7%aa%d7%99-%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%97%d7%95%d7%a4%d7%a9-%d7%94%d7%a8%d7%a6%d7%95%d7%9f/
In short, if you do not accept determinism, you must necessarily assume that the laws of nature break down at the point where a process based on our will begins. There is an electron that moves without any physical force acting on it. You are not getting involved in anything, you are simply stating it. The claim that there is no such electron assumes that the laws of nature govern all of reality and that there is no soul or spirit, which is an unfounded assumption. Furthermore, you will see there that determinism and randomness are two unfounded theses about which we have no observational information. On the other hand, free choice is the thing about which we have the most intimate experience. One can always say that this experience is an illusion, and the same can be said about determinism and science, which are themselves based on our a priori assumptions.
The experiment you were thinking of will not be useful to you. It is possible that a soul enters a given structure of a body. This is what happens in the biological world as well.
And all of this, of course, has nothing to do with abiogenesis. I didn’t understand how it got in here.
See also columns 645-6.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
