The laws of physics determine the history of the universe given initial conditions. But the initial conditions do not have to be the initial state of the universe. The state of the world at any time, including the future, will do.
If we say that the past causes the future because of the dynamical laws, then these laws equally cause the past given the current state of the universe. That is to say, causality is not a consequence of the dynamical laws and initial conditions. So when we invoke causality, we must be talking about something other than the dynamical laws—for example, explanations of emergent phenomena, like people. People can create new explanations of what to do next and choose between them, which makes them inherently unpredictable. Statements like 'the laws of physics made him do this' or even 'his mind made him do this' are not good explanations of someone's behaviour. People have genuine reasons for their decisions. Sometimes people are just running on automatic, but whenever they are faced with a problem, they can be creative and invent solutions. Moreover, though problems are soluble, people can always fail to solve their problems. This ability that people have to (fail to) solve problems and make choices is what I like to call 'free will'. If this definition does not map onto your notion of free will, then we can call it something else. It's just a word. But that is not an argument against any of the above.
0 Comments
|