Chapter 13.                            (continued) 

                         

                                                                              Charles S. Peirce.

Quantum theory breaks the backbone of classical determinism. At the tiniest level that we have been able to study, events are not connected by single paths of direct cause and effect. They are connected by forces that do not obey exact laws of cause and effect, but instead can be described only by laws of probability. The consequence for humans is that life is full of uncertainty, or to be exact, probabilities. In science, the usual term for this kind of system “stochastic”. Most of the time we know to a high degree of probability what is going to happen next, and also, with a fair degree of reliability, how we may be able to influence what is going to happen next, but we never know for certain what is going to happen. This view was anticipated by American philosopher and scientist Charles Peirce in the 1890's and has been further developed by many thinkers right into the twenty-first century.^4,5

We can and do act in bold, informed, calculated, and skillful ways, and our actions alter the probabilities of the various events that may happen in the next few seconds or decades, but it is also true that we can’t ever act so intelligently or skilfully that we can be 100 percent sure of any outcome, good or bad. The elements of surprise and risk are built into reality.

   

If the true picture of reality and our place in it is that stochastic, one begins to wonder how we manage to get anything done. What mental models guide us to effective action in such a scary environment? The answer lies in viewing the human mind itself in a way that is consistent with quantum theory, namely in the Bayesian way.

Simply put, none of us would truly engage in everyday life if we did not see ourselves as being free. In my dealings in everyday life, of course I believe in free will. I get out of the way of oncoming landslides or buses, I go to work to earn my pay, and I hold people responsible for their actions. I expect other rational adults to do the same. I applaud decent actions and reprimand mean, unethical ones. I calculate odds of both the material rightness and the moral rightness of nearly everything I do. The Bayesian view of the mind, combined with the quantum picture of reality, affirms and draws into sharp focus my everyday picture of myself. Free. Responsible. Scared.

The Bayesian model of the human mind is an appropriate one to integrate with the quantum model of the universe because it portrays the human mind in a way that is consistent with quantum uncertainty. A sense-data-processing, probability-calculating, action-planning operating program—refined by trial and error through centuries of biological and cultural evolution—is going to be more likely to enable the organism that uses it to survive than is any other survival program we could propose.

The mind software that runs on the brain hardware is presently defying all computer simulations and other models we have devised to try to imitate or explain it. In other words, the details of the programs that run on the brain’s protoplasmic hardware are even more of a mystery than the enormously complex neuron hardware itself. The mind, which is only an evolved variation of the larger phenomenon of life itself, spots patterns in sense data. In fact, some of the models of reality that the mind uses to guide its choices and actions have been worked out by whole societies over generations.

Finding patterns in the flows of matter and energy around us and calculating ways to exploit them is what our minds do. So far, we have not been able to pin down exactly how they do this. But in spite of our difficulties with comprehending what happens when we are comprehending, the Bayesian model of the mind is still useful and workable. With it, we can do some serious reasoning.

So far, we have shown how the Bayesian model of the human mind is integrated with the socio-cultural model of human evolution and the quantum model of the physical universe. We are thinking creatures, learning—sometimes over generations—by Bayesian means, individual and collective, to improve how we deal with this probabilistic universe. Bayesianism. Cultural evolution. Quantum uncertainty. With this tripartite model to support us, we are ready to draw some further powerful conclusions.

Notes

1. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York, NY: HarperOne, 1952), p. 19 of URL link. https://www.dacc.edu/assets/pdfs/PCM/merechristianitylewis.pdf.

2. Vassilios Karakostas, “Nonseparability, Potentiality and the Context-Dependence of Quantum Objects,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Vol. 38 (2007), pp. 279–297. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.3696.pdf.

3. Robert Bishop, “Chaos,” Edward N. Zalta, ed., Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 edition, first published July 2008). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/chaos/.

4. “Indeterminism,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Accessed April 25, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism#Robert_Kane.

5. Charles Sanders Peirce, “The Doctrine of Necessity Examined,” originally appearing in The Monist, Vol. 2, (1891–1893), pp. 321–337. http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/necessity/necessity.html.