Thoughts and musings for general consumption
Conflict arises when there is a difference between the will of an agent and their environment. Typical examples of conflict include a dispute over a shared property line with a neighbor, two companies battling in the marketplace for brand supremacy, and a farmer facing drought and the loss of their farm.
I will explain, below, that free will is impossible given that any framework of conflict exists inside a larger context and equilibrium is never reached, so that there is never a moment where the causal chain is interrupted and free will is given a chance to step in and decide the next reaction.
In all of these examples, there is an agent and the environment. This assumes that the individual is separate from their environment. I actually do not really believe that is the case, ever, but it tends to be how people experience existence and is a useful framework for discussing conflict. In grade school science class we will learn about homeostasis, an system seeking to maintain an equilibrium. This is conflict. It’s also a fantasy. Every system is constantly changing and never really returns to a starting point unless under laboratory conditions. In nature, there’s no such thing.
With the neighbours arguing over a property line, the conflict is due to a difference in belief over where the line is between their two properties. That is the separation or boundary which defines an agent (either homeowner) and the environment (the other homeowner). For the agent, the environment is the other homeowner and also municipal bylaws, surveyor’s maps, and a fence company needing direction. The resolution of this conflict will come when the survey is complete and the city inspector verifies the property line. But the two neighbours, once friendly, may never exchange a kind word again.
With the companies battling it out, the marketplace is their environment. They can work on their products and marketing to try to get an advantage in that marketplace. They can also seek to influence the marketplace by lobbying politicians to impose regulations benefiting them and harming their competitor. Finally, they might merge to overwhelm another competitor who enters the marketplace. The resolution of this conflict will ultimately be some new situation in which the companies are allies or enemies but under an ever changing marketplace and regulatory framework.
With the farmer, well, they will either get bailed out, bought out, or give up. Farming is a hard life and the conflict is with everyone and everything imaginable. I doubt any year on the farm is exactly like another, ever, despite the dependence on the annual cycle.
Conflict, though, can also be fun. A game of Blokus, a battle of wits at a pub trivia night, a hockey rink roaring in appreciation of a goal. It is often healthy. We build muscle and cardiovascular fitness by stressing our bodies with exercise and resolve that conflict with rest and nutrition.
So, can there ever be true equilibrium in the world or do we just go from conflict to conflict? There is the question of scale. The ant’s battle to drag a leaf back to the nest, a global war of ideologies, galaxies flinging away from the massive black hole at their center. These all contain conflict and are conflicts. So there is no real equilibrium because every conflict is contained within a larger conflict. That is the endless cycle of interactions that we call causation. Knowing this, we still believe that the individual, the agent, is separate from the environment; but really how can that be?
What is it about people that allows us to break the causal chain and determine our next move that is not present in a rock rolling down a hill or in a mouse fleeing a diving falcon? Why do we think our thoughts are somehow exempt from causality? Are our neurons the aspect of us that is not governed by causality? Is it some quantum mechanics handwaving that makes it so? No, really, that’s not it. We really are just another expression of the universe, with no more ability to decide what we do next than an asteroid hurtling through space. This is not a comforting thought but I think it is important to face that truth if we are to truly understand what we can perceive of reality.
I invite anyone to refute this and explain how we can have free will in an otherwise deterministic universe. Every explanation I have heard or read so far involves hand waving and a refusal to answer the simple question: when do we break the causal chain?