The Birth of Physical Laws

Book Review: Free Will by Sam Harris

Well known atheist and New York Times bestselling author Sam Harris has authored a new book entitled Free Will that is dedicated to the proposition that free will is an illusion. The rationale is clear and compelling. It is a short monograph; the main content is about 70 pages. Although I disagree with the author's conclusions, I would consider it to be required reading for both atheists and theists.

Do we live in a deterministic universe? Is each future state of the universe determined absolutely by a prior state? Or is the opposite true? Can a certain state of the universe come into existence without absolute dependence on the constitution of a prior state? The key word is absolute. If, for example, in any new state of the universe, a random element is introduced, then that state is not absolutely dependent on the prior state. This view of the universe is labeled as indeterminism.

The problem with the notion of free will is that it appears to be incompatible with either form of universe. Mr. Harris lays out the reasons for this very clearly. This understanding of free will is labeled as incompatibilism.

A close analysis however proves that free will is compatible with both forms of universe. In the final analysis, one requires free will, and its implied vocabularies of will, choice and decision. if one is to choose to make an argument that free will is an illusion. If 'will' exists, if the individual is to be capable of doing anything at all, then without question, as will be shown below, it is free indeed.

First, free will must be defined and as Mr. Harris points out, that definition can vary and change over time from person to person.

NYU Professor of Philosophy Ned Block points out how in the face of incompatibility he decided to adopt a more restricted notion of free will. This position is labeled as compatiblism.

Tufts University Professor of Philosophy Daniel Dennett further refines a compatibilist view. We act because of reasons and further we share our reasons with one another. The concept of 'responsibility' is introduced as wearing its definition on its sleeve. We can be responsible to one another because we are capable of responding to one another.

University of Reading Professor of Philosophy Galen Strawson’s argument against free will is based on a definition of free will as the individuals being solely, ultimately, and singularly responsible for his decisions. Mr. Harris maintains similar positions throughout his book.

Must the notion of free will be glued to the notion of responsibility? Some theists propose that the answer is yes, implying that one is responsible to God, however this is a non-sequiter.  Free will can be a bona-fide subject of discussion in both created and non-created universes. The concept of free will, in and of itself, cannot be associated with a concept of responsibility, until one first defines the concept of free will and then answers the question: "To whom, if anyone, is one responsible?"  Free will can exist without regard to the asking or the answering of that question. 

All choices are constrained by the physical laws of the universe. For example, if one is starving and finds two bushes of berries, one red and the other blue, he must make a decision as to which one of them, if any, is safe to eat. He must eat, and his choices are restricted, but he is free to make a choice. This is absolute freedom in every sense of the word. He is not compelled by prior circumstances to choose red over blue or vice versa. He can flip a coin, or perhaps he can feed some of the berries to animals to observe their effect.

The ‘free’ in free will refers not to the quantity or quality of choices. It refers to the individual’s capacities to make a choice and to carry it out. If, in the example above, only red berries were found, the choice remained to eat no berries at all and to press on instead for more reliable food. Yes, death is the risk, but death is the risk of life itself.

Definition of Free Will

Free will is the collection of the following four capacities of a thinking agent:

1. The capacity to observe the present: options exist out of which one or more can be chosen. 
2. The capacity to observe the past: to use ones memory in the evaluation of the current options. 
3. The capacity to conceive of the future: to predict the probable net effect on future states of the different choices that might be made.  
4. The capacity to carry out a selected choice.

The net effect of the possession of free will, in a deterministic or indeterministic universe, is to act in conjunction with the physical laws of the universe to predict and cause the existence of a selected future state. The will of man thus becomes a physical law of the universe. In a non created universe, the physical laws of the universe have dictated that new physical laws will come into existence and we see them arise with each newborn child.  In a created universe we see the same thing and more, for we see our children as the continuous gifts of a loving creator who entrusts is with their care.  Are they not all newborn kings and queens, entitled to freedom of thought and peace on earth?

The autonomous thinkers of free will, be they atheist or be they theist, can reason together to create the rationale and the enactment that will cause to exist a selected future state of world peace. We are physical law of the universe, created or evolved, we can move the ancient mountains, in faith or in resolve.

Sociographofocosmomencaecia (Cosmocaecia)

In the year 3000, sociographofocosmomencaecia will be one of the words used to describe the human condition circa 2000. Its meaning is derived from its Greek and Latin roots:

• Socio - Group 
• Grapho - Writing 
• Focal – hearth, family, center of activity 
• Men – mental thinking processes 
• Cosmo - universe 
• Caecia – blindness

It is a twelve syllable word: Soc-i-o-graph-o-fo-cos-mo-men-cae-ci-a

The six constituent parts of the word are: Socio-grapho-fo(c)-cosmo-men-caecia

Sociographofocosmomencaecia describes a psychological condition, that arises in an individual, as a result of the enforcement, by a culture, society, group or family, of a focus on a collection of writings, to the exclusion of a study of the universe, for the acquisition of knowledge. The condition is manifest in a fear that prevents a rational observation of the universe as part of ones learning processes. One becomes blind to the universe, unable to question the authenticity and veracity of the writings as well as the contemporary local interpretations of the writings as promulgated by the group’s leaders.

Because the word is so difficult to use in speech it can be shortened to cosmocaecia, meaning blind to the universe.  However there are different forms of cosmocaecia that will be elaborated over time.  For example, John Lennon's assassin was preoccupied with the text of The Catcher in the Rye and this form of cosmocaecia might be termed as the word graphocosmomencaecia.  People can become psychologically blind to the universe (fail to see reality)  for many different reasons.

In today’s world, a child of a fundamentalist is sometimes admonished by family and culture to believe, without question, the local interpretations of a body of writing (scripture) that forms the basis for the groups belief system. This happens before the child has attained the mental capacities to fully understand and question the concepts. As the child grows  and his education begins in earnest,  he begins to realize that he can observe and understand parts of the universe from the exercise of his own mental capacities, and he begins to conceptualize the things that he perceives. When he observes phenomena that are discordant with the scripture, he will pose a question. He is confronted with anger and corporal punishment from his elders and he soon learns that it is better to keep quiet and to simply believe. A psychological condition of fear begins to set in.

This is sociographofocosmomencaecia. If unchecked, it will become deeply ingrained and very difficult to eradicate unless the child can attain cultural and political freedom. It can condition the mind to perform acts of unimaginable cruelty to ones fellow man, convinced that God himself is commanding torture and killing. The individual can no longer see the true nature of God that is evident in the universe by a simple observation that if God exists, we can all see the decisions of God.  We can see clearly then that what we have read in the scripture and what we have heard taught by religions scholars and clergy is in direct contradiction to the nature of God that we can see with our own eyes

[Note:  if you believe in God and you think you have this condition, the cure is to start to observe the universe, to see the decisions of God, and to understand that if God exists, you are dearly loved by God and never condemned for reaching out for truth, even when you are mistaken. It is from the decisions of God that  we gain the the knowledge that we are to heal the sick and find the lost.   If you live within a family or culture where such views are forbidden, your position is very difficult, and you might have to continue to play a part, but you can now see with your own eyes now that God does not condemn you for this. People are changing; atheists and theists from all over the world are working together to build a place for you to go where you will have complete freedom to believe as you wish.  Until you can see the path, in the day that the time is right, your might have to remain quiet within your own society or culture.  You may not live to see the promised land, but we will all get there someday. You are not alone.  In the eyes of God, and in the eyes of every rational theist and atheist, you are all courageous.]

In this human epoch, circa 2000, the people of the free societies leave the children of the sociographofocosmomencaeciacs to their fate. Man has evolved a concept that children are owned by their mothers and/or their fathers and by extension  the religious leaders of their society. As a result of a false  belief that this ownership cannot be questioned, the children are unprotected from this relentless assault upon their rational thinking processes.

Thus there rises a new generation of fundamentalists who must maintain a belief that their generational counterparts of other beliefs are evil or otherwise insufficient in the eyes of God. The end result is the world we see today, particularly in the middle east where a fight over a patch of land, deemed by groups of competing fundamentalist to be holy land, seems to be a fight to which  there can be no resolution, where even the God they believe in  must resign himself to the fact that the battles and wars will never end.

There is a cure for Sociographofocosmomencaecia. If one can attain security within his culture  as well as the political freedom to express ones thoughts, one can then begin to observe the universe and question the authenticity and the veracity of the scriptures as well as the manner in which they are being interpreted within his group. One can once again face the universe in the position in which one was born, free of psychological constraints, equipped with the senses required to learn all that is desired to know.  We are all born in this position, but our control is quickly usurped.  This is a fundamental human right that is being denied all over the world today.  It is a human right that is not spelled out in any constitution of man. This is the right of the child.

As a result of the war in Iraq, the children of Iraq were exposed to a possiblity of political freedom and they have reached their teenage years now and have begun to reach for it. Youths are beginning to express opposing views. In March of 2012 these expressions were met with torture and murder as a result. Fourteen youths were kidnapped and stoned to death for wearing long hair and tight clothing that some fundamentalists construed as hinting at satanic or gay behavior. The scriptures were interpreted by the government of Iraq to mean that moral police could enter the schools to deal with these individuals. (Warning, The CNN video below contains graphic images of children, who in their murderers eyes were created by God, laying dead in the streets. Their attackers remain afflicted with sociographofocosmomencaecia, their young victims were searching for a cure.)



The United States issued a statement strongly condemning these killlings. However, no action was taken. The children of Iraq have been left to their fate at the hands of the fundamentalists. This failure to act is about to be repeated in Afghanistan, where the United States is preparing to hand over control of the country to the Talban, the fundamentalist group that provided protection for Al Queda, another fundamentalist group, that organized the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York in 2001.

In the year 3000, the people will see the path that man followed to eradicate sociographofocosmomencaecia. In 2012, we are peering into a densely crowded forest and we have not achieved a clear vision of that path. But we are coming to understand that there must be a plan.

It appears that among the required components of a viable plan would be the publication of human rights of children for protection against enforced beliefs, an entitlement to rational parentage or caretakers, and that they are not owned by any other entity. As the years progress the free societies of the world will no longer leave children to their fate at the hands of  sociographofocosmomencaeciacs.  The sociographofocosmomencaeciacs who run their countries will be disarmed, restrained, and cured.  The separation of church and state that helps eradicate sociographofocosmomencaecia will be spelled out in each liberated nation's constitution.

We still have a chance in Afghanistan. We are not required to turn these children over  to fundamentalists. The transformation of the nation of Afghanistan as a permanent outpost of freedom, to where oppressed people in the adjoining nations are invited to live, is the fitting and only noble response to the attacks on freedom.

Is this then one of the first steps of the plan, the transformation of Afghanistan? The free people of the world have the right, and the power, to make it happen, but will they have the sense of honor to those that sacrificed for freedom, and will they have the will?

Whether or not God exists, theists and atheists can see, with their own eyes, without benefit of any scripture or constitution,  the human rights of the child and they can work together to ensure they will no longer be usurped. In the year 3000, we will have our world of peace and the people will know of our sense of honor and they will know the absolute beginning of our will.

The End of The Problem of Evil

There exists an argument against the existence of God that is known as the Problem of Evil. Here is an example:

1. Assume that God exists
2. Assume that God is all-benevolent
3. Assume that God is all-knowing
4. Assume that God is all-powerful
5. Observe that evil exists.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

The reasoning is that because assumptions 2, 3, and 4 above are thought to be true (if God exists), and 5 is true, then assumption 1 cannot be true because God knows that evil exists, he has the benevolence to desire that evil did not exist, and he has the power to make evil cease to exist.  Therefore, God does not exist.

This argument has been made, in one form or another, for over a thousand years.  It is not a valid argument however because it suffers from the Fallacy of Exclusion.  Important facts that are evident in the universe are excluded from the reasoning and this leads to the faulty conclusion.

So let us analyze the problem of evil, this time including the evidence.  The flow chart describes the first stage of the argument.  We can see, with our own eyes, that it is man who creates evil in the manner in which he treats his neighbor. This is clearly borne out if you simply imagine that man disappears from the earth; there is no evil to be found, anywhere.

So we can see first of all that man is the creator of evil, whether or not God exists.  This argument can be falsified by showing where evil exists prior to the existence of man.  If you see it, please add a comment to let us know.

(Note, to simplify the argument, I am assuming that human beings are the only other thinkers in the universe, other than God.  It  is true, that if life has also evolved on other planets, then they may be behaving in an evil manner towards one another. The point is that, if God exists then it is the autonomous thinkers that have been enabled to exist who sometimes create evil, wherever they many be.)

Let us now observe the decisions of God unprejudiced by the psychological constraints and preconceived notions of the God described by our ancestors using the masculine pronouns as a father figure who requires fear and worship at the cost of eternal pain in hell..  Instead we will use Thea for the name of God, and we shall use the feminine pronouns for the rest of this analysis and we will watch all of the fears dissolve to nothing.

So, man creates evil, but still, Thea could prevent it.  Indeed, she could do this by simply removing from us our capacities of autonomous thought and free will.  If we were not thinkers, if we were like programmed robots instead, we would be incapable of evil because we would have no other choice but to follow our programmed instructions.

However, we can clearly observe the decisions of Thea:

• She has decided to create us, not as, computers, but as human beings, autonomous thinkers of free will.
• She has decided that we are not to live alone; instead we are given to live with each other.
• She has decided to allow us to make our own decisions as to how we will treat each other.

We also observe the overwhelming love that Thea has for us because she continues to entrust us with the care of newborn children.  The ancient undefined term 'all-benevolent' pales in comparison to Thea's love that we see with our own eyes.  We are entrusted by children, and good becomes clearly defined as living as a repository of trust for any such as these who look to us in trust.

So we can see that, while Thea could end evil by ending our existence, she instead allows us to continue to exist and she empowers us to know, without the need of a bible or a Quran or a priest or a rabbi or a cleric, what is good and what is evil and to alter our behavior in one direction or the other.

So, the fact that evil exists is not a proof that Thea does not exist.  It is only proof that she wants us to exist with each other, blessed by children, as thinkers with free will,  for the span of years that each of us have to spend upon this earth.

The following video displays another example of the Problem of Evil employed without correcting for the Fallacy of Exclusion:



In the video, the atheist asks the theist to answer as to how Thea gave free will to man.  The theist became confused; however it is proper to first ask the atheist to explain the precursor conditions that led to the Big Bang.  Science does not yet understand these conditions so the question as to how they caused the Big Bang is open for now.  So then, similarly open is the question as to how Thea succeeded in giving free will to man.  None of us were there to witness the creation event so the question as to how Thea achieved this cannot be answered as of yet.  We can only observe that, if Thea exists, she made the decision that man was to have free will because we observe that we have free will.  If she did not want us to have free will, we would not observe it.  So, by simply observing the universe, we find excluded evidence and we correct a false conclusion.

The atheist further confuses the theist by asking whether Thea can commit evil.  Let us observe the universe once again. We can all see, with our own eyes, that, if Thea exists then, prior to the creation of autonomous thinkers, there was nobody against whom she might commit evil. Once autonomous thinkers such as human beings were enabled to begin to exist, Thea could indeed have committed evil if she so desired.  But we can all see , by observing the Decisions of God, that Thea dearly loves man  and so we know that it is not the nature of Thea to commit evil.  We can see this without any bible or Quran.  We are dearly beloved by Thea, each one of us precious in her eyes, given to each other as gifts.

As for the choice of waffles or pancakes for breakfast, that form of universe only works when a man lives in isolation. The choice of waffles can never be evil, but the choice as to how one will treat his fellow man can be good, or something less than that.

However the waffle argument unveils an interesting technique for learning:  If you see a problem in the universe and it seems it should be blamed on Thea, if Thea exists, then take some time to project an improved  universe in your imagination and subject it to deep analysis to see if that form of existence is better than this one and why.  In essence, you are performing a thought experiment, imagining for a moment that you are God, and you are making the decisions that must be made in order for autonomous thinkers of free will to begin to exist.  If you come up with a better plan than that of Thea's, write it here or elsewhere on the internet and post a link in the comments below.

Thought experiments such as these will be part of the process as atheists and thesits learn to work together to build a world of peace.

The world is changing before our very eyes.  Theists are beginning to evolve and to question the authenticity of their parents religions.  They are observing the universe to see for themselves the decisions of God that we all can see and they are finding that the evidence disagrees with the caricatures of God as painted in the scriptures.  They are evolving their religions and providing clarifications to their children when asked to explain historical notions of God.  In this manner, each generation is becoming more beautiful than the last and humanity has begun the march down the path that will lead us, someday, to that world of peace.