Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 1:17 am
You seem to assume there is a solution, but my impression of what you write is that you have not apprehended the depth of the problem. Therefore, your will to seek a solution is premature.
Allow me to ask: What titles on contemporary (American) issues would you recommend if I were to ask you for say five or six? I certainly expect that as an author you have read many in the course of research. I will share my own if you wish.
Which titles are important reads?
Alright, let me start with one work I studied that might be of interest in this context: the English translation of Emmy Noether’s original 7-8 page paper. Noether’s theorem is dense but revolutionary; it essentially links symmetries in physical systems to conservation laws. This isn’t just physics for the sake of physics—Noether’s work touches on the fundamental structures that determine how the universe behaves. Here's the link to that translation:
http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/articles/no ... rt186.html.
Let’s dive into why Noether’s work is so significant in understanding free will and even how we think about governance and moral responsibility. At its core, Noether’s theorem reveals a profound connection between the symmetry of a system and conservation laws. Every single law of physics — from how planets orbit the sun to how neurons fire in our brains — is ultimately a variation on this theme.
Noether showed that if a system has a certain kind of symmetry, then there’s something that must be conserved. For example, if a system is symmetric in time, meaning the laws of physics don’t change from one moment to the next, we get conservation of energy. If a system is symmetric in space, meaning the laws don’t vary from place to place, we get conservation of momentum. These aren’t just arbitrary rules; they’re fundamental truths about how the universe behaves at every level.
Now, when it comes to our brains, the firing of neurons, and the decisions we make, we’re talking about a whole network of physical processes unfolding according to these same conservation principles. Think about it: every action potential that zips down a neuron’s axon, every release of neurotransmitters at a synapse, every muscle that twitches as a result — they’re all governed by the same conservation laws. Energy isn’t created or lost in our thoughts or actions; it’s transformed, directed, and conserved, maintaining the closed system of physical law that Noether’s theorem supports.
When we talk about choice, agency, or moral responsibility, these are human constructs built on the very physics that keep our universe predictable and stable. Every “choice” we make is essentially the result of energy conserved and directed through the specific patterns and processes in our brains, influenced by our biology, past experiences, and the external stimuli around us. If our brains, like all physical systems, are subject to these conservation laws, then it follows that our decisions are not the product of an uncaused or free agent, but rather the natural outcome of these deterministic processes.
So, why does this matter for democracy or governance? Well, if our behavior is governed by deterministic laws, then perhaps we need to rethink how we approach concepts like responsibility, punishment, and even policy-making. Shouldn’t our laws and policies be designed with a recognition of the real drivers of human behavior — these fundamental, immutable laws of physics — rather than assuming humans possess absolute free will?
In short, Noether’s insight into conservation laws is not some abstract principle disconnected from daily life; it’s a framework that forces us to look differently at the very foundation of human decision-making, morality, and governance. I’d be curious to know where you see these ideas aligning — or not — with the depth of the issues we’re discussing. I’d be genuinely interested to hear why you might feel this isn’t relevant, too shallow, to discussions around free will, moral responsibility, or even democratic voting. To me, the deterministic nature of physical laws, as framed by Noether’s work, plays directly into debates about human agency and our social constructs. I’d love to hear where you see the disconnect or, on the other hand, if you think there’s value in drawing these ideas together.
