Last week I'd linked to a few interesting paper in the
philosophy of physics relevant to certain aspects of Mormon
theology. (here and here) All
of these issues about time and cosmology are quite relevant, in my
opinion, to the way the free will debate is raised in Mormon
theology. There are two reasons for this. The first is that the
discussion of libertarian free will rather explicitly depends upon
a notion of time as determining freedom. The second is because
Mormon theology requires an actual infinity of both space and time.
That was easy to do with naive adoption of Newtonian views of
space and time in the 19th century. It is much more difficult to
do with the knowledge of modern cosmology which puts definite
limits on space and by most accounts puts a definite beginning to
time. As I've mentioned though, the obvious rejoinder is an appeal
to Linde bubble universes. (Partially discussed in the above
links) In a Linde multiverse there are bubble universes forming
from sufficiently flat space-time due to quantum fluctuations.
Even though Linde universes are controversial and definitely
speculative, they offer a way to explain LDS theology. The problem
is that the adoption of a Linde multiverse has implications for
free will. (I touched on this the other
day)
The reason for this is simple, from outside of a universe the universe appears to be one whole. The very notion of a present is difficult to accept. Further if there is information flow between universes, it would appear to be very difficult to argue that it could only flow to the beginning of time. (And indeed in a big bang, the beginning wouldn't be a pleasant place for a material being to live) The basic implication, while somewhat speculative, seems to be that Mormon cosmological assumptions entail the adoption of a thoroughgoing four dimensionalism. (i.e. seeing the universe as a whole, rather than spatial objects moving through time)
The philosopher Theodore Sider has actually written a lot of four dimensionalism. For those interested in this view as well as some of its benefits, I'd encourage reading his paper "Four Dimensionalism." He also has a nice overview of his book Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time in a paper called "Precis of Four-Dimensionalism."
The question is whether four dimensionalism is compatible with a notion of free will. I suspect that really depends upon how one conceives of free will. If free will entails that the future not exist in any serious way, then clearly it has difficulty. The response to this is to ask what assumptions regarding temporality this notion of free will rests on. I think that the issue of time, from what I can see, has largely been neglected in the discussion. This is why, I think, so many Mormon critics of libertarian free will have appealed to Nietzsche and Heidegger. Admittedly the critiques as yet have not been well defined. I don't think anyone's written a paper making use of these criticism. Those familiar with the discussion of temporality in Heidegger though will quickly see how Heidegger ties together both freedom and temporality. Probably the best discussion of this is actually in Heidegger's deconstruction of Lebniz' monadology called The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic. The last chapter primarily grapples with just this issue. While fairly similar to certain discussions in Being and Time its particular approach is quite relevant to the free will debate. I'll probably discuss that in more depth in the future.
Just a brief note that Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews had a glowing review of Sider's book. Also note this nice resource at the Oxford web site for the book.
Sounds interesting. I see now how a bounded universe poses an expecially subtle problem for Mormon theology. Although I have to confess the absolutely, unimaginably huge scale of the cosmological panorama is almost beyond human grasp.
When I think of us in "The Universe," the image in my mind is a Hubble Space Telescope shot of some beautiful, color-enhanced spiral galaxy standing in for The Milky Way. But that is a false image. We aren't really out there 10 million light-years away, looking back on the Milky Way as a single galaxy, we are right here in the middle of it, stuck on planet Earth. In a sense, humanism presents more "reality" than astronomy or cosmology. I'm right here, not perched off in intra-planetary space taking in astral panoramas.
That doesn't detract from the validity of cosmological inquiries, of course.
PS: the problem of the free will connected to the space time considered as a 4D continuum is extremely interesting. I heve considered this problem since a long time now and my personal answer was the following: If the universe is a 4D substance the apparenct succession of instant between past present and future is certainly an illusion. Then it is in fact our brain which see the time running in this way. in the 4D word the history is writen in an a temproal way and then we are not free at all. However we are free in a certain sense because we dont know that we are not free. indeed we dont know the future and all the mechanism in our brain are not conscious. I Think then that it is the brain which create a coherence with the creation of consciouness and give us the illusion of a free will. If i want to take this cup i can think that i use my free will but in fact the brain is motivated by external paramter (stimulus) and internal parameter ( the brain is a super computer closes on him self a little bit chaotic).
So i think that there is no free will problem if we can give a answer to this question : what is a thought, what is a color or what is love in term of a 4D space time ? .
For me the philosophy of the 4D universe lets open this question for the moment but i think that we have probably to be open to new discovery. De Chardin proposed a long time ago that the ''spirit'' of an object could be a diifeernt aspect of the 4D universe. for me the aim of the 4D philosophy is to describe matter by functions in space time : the best that physics can do is to apply some number at each point of the universe in order to characterize the matter and its causality. However to describe is not identical to define the universe and it could be that the consciouness is a different aspect of the reality not reducible to the precedent philosophy.
I think I may have linked to this one before. However those interested in the above might find the entry from the Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics by David Rea helpful. It is a nice overview of all the issues and objections.
My thought is:
The Universe = Infinity, Eternity, and Existence.
Infinity, eternity, and existence are boundless.
The scientist observes the universe in segments.
An egg is a segmented view of the universe.
Comments are more than welcome.
My website is DenniSys.com
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble