Einstein and Religion - with considerations of "Human Free Will"

by james_woods 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    OK, here is a small first step toward putting together a thread on this subject. The problem I had in getting started was how complicated the topic is - how to get it into an understandable form suitable for a discussion thread. I am starting with just these few topics:

    First - Einstein was, of course, Jewish. However, his parents were not conventional, traditional Jews. They did not observe the dietary rules, nor did they hold Jewish traditional holidays or ceremonies in the house. They were proud of their secularism. At an early age (said to be about 10), Albert Einstein was sent to a traditionalist Rabbi who instructed him in all the Jewish rules. Einstein briefly became a traditionalist - trying to get his family to use the Jewish diet, observe the festivals, and so on. However, by about the age of 12, he had independently rejected traditional Jewish thought and after that forever became his own source of religious tradition.

    Second, Einstein was deeply influenced by several philosophers. Goethe was one. Spinoza seems to be the closest to Einstein's eventual religious belief - a sort of pantheistic nature-God which is not personalized but is rather a manifestation of the entire cosmos. Einstein said this:

    While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they would hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements.

    Einstein's "God" was not a personal interventionist or "creator" - it was an inherent and inevitable part of the universe or cosmos. Some philosophers, such as Kant and Neitzsche, seem to be viewed by Einstein as a sort of non-serious philosophical recreation.

    Third - (and this is enough for a first post) - Einstein detested the notion of "Human Free Will". He believed that human thought (if taken to correct conclusions) was deterministic, or inevitable. Humans were not capable of a "free will" - all human activity and thought was eventually deterministic.

    That thought on free will came as a great surprise to me - but really, this was the fight he waged for the second half of his life against the probability rules of quantum physics. Randomization of what Einstein thought should be clockworklike determinism was something deeply alien to him both scientifically and religiously.

    Very interesting to me - my first religious experiences as a very young kid were the Presbyterians - well known for their belief in predestination. I rejected this before the age of ten as being too much of a constraint to human intellect and endeavor.

    Maybe I shall take some time to rethink this idea - that is, the notion of "Human Free Will", and whether or not it is really possible.

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    Great topic, James.

    Disregarding Einstein for the moment, from my readings, "free will" falls into a couple of broad categories. One is "can we make decisions without influence from anything outside of our own mind". That includes things like advice, product reviews, advertisements, etc., that may influence our decision, i.e., the decision wasn't made free of any influence. It would also include things like "do this or else".

    The second is generally concerned with destiny, i.e., due do physics, chemistry, the will of God or the foreknowledge of God, is the future set already and unalterable? If I am going to have a turkey sandwich for lunch tomorrow, is that future set (for whatever reason) and unalterable?

    I think Einstein was more concerned with the second variety, due to statements he made like "God does not play dice with the universe".

    Personally, I think that due to things like wave-particle duality, the uncertainty princicple, brownian motion, etc., there is no way to have a deterministic universe. It is also logically impossible for God to see the future and always be right and still have free will.

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    I agree with the point that Einstein was concerned about the deterministic nature of the universe - and this point has pretty well been decided in favor of non-deterministic random law (quantum physics).

    However, that in itself does not prove that true "Human Free Will" of the first sort is really possible. It may even argue against it - for example, if your mind is exactly, perfectly balanced at 50/50% on whether to buy a Lamborghini or a Ferrari - and then some quantum non-deterministic event in some neuron tips the balance over toward Ferrari -

    Is that REALLY your human "Free Will" - or is it just the outcome of quantum events which you cannot control?

    Maybe in the most critical decisions (the ones requiring great thought between A or B outcomes), humans really have no more control than Schroedinger's Cat has over whether the poison is released or not.

    BTW - the book that got me started on this is "Einstein and Kulture" by Gerhard Sonnert - 2005 publisher Humanity Books. It is a very deep and complex work, and I am rereading it for about the third time now since I bought it this summer.

  • designs
    designs

    James- Does the book discuss how the brain/mind is influenced by raw subliminal information.

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    Personally, I think free will of the the first variety cannot exist. In order to make a decision, you have to have some kind of knowledge that would influence you. For instance, if I popped into existence at this very moment with no prior knowledge, if you asked me what I wanted for lunch, you have to explain what lunch is. If you then asked me if I wanted turkey on rye or a salad with avocado and soft boiled eggs, I would have to know what those are or just randomly pick one, the equivalent of flipping a coin. I would argue that isn't a true decision.

    As for the second variety, I am not sure is it possible to know. I know we could try to measure it, but, the there are so many variable and the more accurate we try to get in our measurement, the more the affect the outcome (Heisenberg).

    I need to get that books, sounds quite interesting. I am currently reading "Why Does e=mc^2" by Brian Cox. Very enlightening (but pure physics).

  • james_woods
    james_woods
    James- Does the book discuss how the brain/mind is influenced by raw subliminal information.

    No, this book is about Einstein's cultural and philosophical background, not about science per se.

    Personally, I think free will of the the first variety cannot exist.

    After thinking about this subject for over six months now, I am beginning to think that I agree with this (for the first time in my life, incidentally).

    Einstein thought that it was a human mental crutch to absolve their anthropromorphic "God" of culpability in testing and punishing "human sin".

  • Terry
    Terry

    Will=trouble.

    But, only if man is designed and created.

    Why?

    Will removes the designed for purpose certainty and introduces chaos.

    This devolves.

    Into what?

    An alternate or default.

    Allowing a designed purpose to go awry is itself a purpose.

    The challenge of a design is its functioning according to purpose.

    FREE will must be free of something.

    Ask yourself what one thing does a human being design SO AS to fail?

    So that the failure itself is the measure of success......

    Wouldn't that be the literary character: God?

    By failing to create perfection due to bestowing free will upon His creatures the death of humanity occurs.

    So, only because these doomed and wretched are so...so...LOVABLE...this character (God) finds a goofy way of saving them.

    You see, this literary character (God) has to satisfy His OWN requirements by appeasing Himself with human sacrifice.

    Oh heck, I don't want to give away the ending.......

  • kepler
    kepler

    James Woods,

    Interesting topic. Makes me wonder what causes me to jump in and say anything at all - or just sit it out.

    As was noted above, Einstein clearly has reservations about quantum mechanics, a subject that seems to introduce even more levels of indeterminancy (?) since he passed on in 1955. But suffice to say that the notion of an electron not having a trajectory in space, but a probability cloud surrounding a nucleus - that bothered him. And it bothers a lot of people who are used to their senses showing a falling leaf on an autumn day dropping to the ground in a perceived spiral. The idea of not being able to tie down both momentum and position - that just doesn't make much common sense.

    But neither do notions that Einstein's special and general relativity propose and demonstrate experimentally, things like the passage of time varies with localization in space or relative velocities within it, reshaping geometry. Both relativity and quantum mechanics definitely modify Newtonian classical mechanics or dynamics, but it is also more than that. If energy e = mass x speed of light squared, then that also means that energy causes the same distortions as mass does in space. ...But let's stick to mass. Newton explains orbital paths in terms of attracting masses and balancing forces; relativity explains orbital paths by warping of space by mass or energy. That's a big difference. And it also means mass or energy warp space with respect to passage of time. As you approach large masses, time slows down. As you approach a black hole, it is as much as stops.

    A lot of religions ( we won't mention any here by name) are obsessed with timelines, so much so that one would expect that God would be wearing a pocket watch and watching the calendar. But Einstein's theory seems to indicate that time is PART of creation. If one's life is examined by God, then it would seem that all parts of it would be examined at once from a perspective outside of its orb, its circular passage from start to finish on this plane in which we exist.

    So, if God is watching from without, that leads us back to the problem of free will, choice, determinism. If God can watch our process from a perspective other than our momentary conscientiousness in a realm with the retarded communication potential associated with light, then does that not indicate God knows our outcomes already? I think Tolstoy used to wonder about this sort of thing with books like War and Peace. He spoke of individuals and historical trends or events: Did individual Napoleon or the the event Austerlitz loom larger - or can relationships be sorted out at all.

    Chaos theory I haven't read enough on to be sure (sic), but I believe it would get by in a Newtonian world simply on the basis of identifying effects like the sneeze of a butterfly causing a hurricane to form: extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. A knife edge difference can be made in an initial condition such as dropping a spacecraft from the moon to the edge of the earth's atmosphere. A tiny difference in angle or velocity and the result varies enormously: it skips out of the atmosphere, or it enters and lands in the Pacific Ocean to a reception by recovery helicopters. That one is easy enough to understand, but there are dynamic situations like that lurking or hidden everywhere, usually much more complicated.

    Does the Creator monitor things like that all over creation? Does the Creator do so at the level of electrons and atoms with the effects that Einstein protests? Did the Creator set the ball rolling with a big bang billions of years back with a Rube Goldberg device and windage that led to our being here to discuss this matter? I would say that the Creator did so to some degree, but we are left to argue or discover many of the details. On the other hand, having certainty about all this and left to dwell on it for another eternity does not seem like a situation I am any better equipped for.

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    I really meant this thread to be about Einstein's religion and philosophy rather than science issues.

    One thing I wanted to make clear was that when Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe" - he was absolutely NOT talking about an anthropomorphic creator like the JW "Jehovah".

    He meant the cosmic order of the universe itself - the orderly progression of everything.

    Einstein's gode was neither a "creator" nor an "interventionist" in human affairs.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Einstein was older and his mind was set so he could never come to terms with God playing dice with the universe, or some shadowy law that makes the universe exist and work. Everything is determined by what ever it is that make the universe run in 4 dimensions. So to him no free will'. Spooky action at a distance with faster than the speed of light communication violated his thoery of relativity.

    But I would like to know more detail of what is meant by free will in your considerations of the subject because "ultimate free will", will mean to be free of everything no matter what it is, or just free will of mind and to make choices with no preset determination as to our choice that could be determined with the computation of an infinitely superior computing device or God like intelligence.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit