A friend of mine (a passionate
Newcastle fan, although not from around there, I should maybe point out) recently
observed how good it was to see Newcastle win at Old Trafford and how the Man
United fans revealed their true colours by leaving the ground a whole five
minutes before the whistle was blown, giving up on their so-called team before
the fat lady had sung. Perhaps they should start supporting Arsenal, as they’re
alright now aren’t they, and most United fans probably live closer to the
Emirates than Old Trafford anyway (I assume he meant the home ground of Arsenal,
although the comedians among you might want to point out that this could even
be true in relation to the actual Emirates, famous for bringing untold riches
to the blue side of Manchester) You would never see the passionate,
bare-chested Geordies North do something as despicable as that, he declared.
Tempted as I was to direct him towards footage of Newcastle supporters pouring
out of the St James’ Direct Arena at half time, their team four-nil down to
Arsenal, and to thus miss their team perform what many would describe as one of
the greatest comebacks in recent premier league history, I instead contemplated
the illusion of choice.
I began supporting Man United
when I was six, in 1996, as they were beginning their ascent towards being the undisputable
(for a time) kings of the Premier League. Now don’t get me wrong, I say this as
though I remember it, of course I don’t, supporting United was just a thing I
did and that’s roughly the earliest age I can remember doing so. I have vague
memories of Cantona, talked about in reverence, but can’t really remember much
about him retiring or even playing. I’m pretty sure I have a distinct memory of
Beckham’s half-line goal vs. Wimbledon, but who knows whether those are false
memories implanted by countless montages.
Anyway, I was probably around six
when I began supporting them, but did I actually choose to support them? I guess in some ways I did; looking at it
now, and performing some amateur psycho-analysis, I go to the fact my older
brother supported them. But then, that doesn’t mean I automatically should
support them; if I were of a kind, if I had a particular dislike for my
brother, or merely a slight rebellious streak, surely I would choose their
fiercest rivals? Even if I didn’t hate my brother, which I didn’t, most of the
time, surely I had some modicum of independence, even at six, to choose a team
for myself. But alas no, perhaps as the youngest of three and always eager to
impress my big brother, I duly followed in his steps. But is this a choice I
ask you? it wasn’t my fault that I was raised in such a way that as the younger
of two brothers I was inclined to follow his lead on a lot of matters such as
this and it certainly wasn’t my choice that it was United that he chose.
In fact whose fault was that,
that United were the team he chose? I have no idea, it wouldn’t have been our
father, who for one wasn’t into football when we were that age and anyway had
spent some time of his life in Kent and some of it Liverpool, so United would
have been far from the natural choice. I suspect it was a combination of my
brother’s friend being a United fan (oh god this chain could go on forever) and
the fact they were winning… “Aha! Glory Supporter, I knew it!” You might say.
But I mean, come on, he was eight for
god’s sake – what do you expect, him to be some sort of football hipster,
rejecting the fashionable choice at the time and instead choosing a team
languishing mid-table (Newcastle, say)? Any team in the PL would have been
glory supporting for us, in the Premier League desert that is the mid-South
West (Swindon, who I do vaguely follow are the nearest team to set foot in the
top tier). Well, yes you might say, support your local team, but again, he was
8! He wanted to be able to watch football every week, and as mentioned the only
way he could do so was by picking a PL team, and from there, the only logical
choice is United. Any other and I’d label him a football hipster and a fake.
So is it basic cause and effect
then, classic determinism, in which case, it wasn’t a choice at all, as appears
to be one philosophical response to determinism:
“if an action was caused or
necessitated, then it could not have been done freely, and hence the agent is
not responsible for it.” Paul Russell; Freedom
and Moral Sentiment: Hume's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility
In fact in that same breath,
Russell then argues that events are either causal or random, but neither imply
any responsibility:
“...then it is inexplicable and random, and thus it cannot be
attributed to the agent, and hence, again, the agent cannot be responsible for
it....Whether we affirm or deny necessity and determinism, it is impossible to
make any coherent sense of moral freedom and responsibility”
So according to Russell, we can’t
really take any sort of responsibility for our choices. But then, free will is
one of the never-ending philosophical debates, so quotes from one, or even
countless philosophers on the subject may not be helpful. Also, these were the
quickest ones I could find, and make the most relevance for, so maybe especially
these ones are useless. Instead let’s look to the cold hard facts of Science.
After a quick wiki, you’ll find
that apparently, early science assumed the world and universe as deterministic.
Excellent, nothing’s ever our fault, done. But no, inevitably it’s going to get
more complicated than that and, enter everyone’s favourite buzzword, Quantum
Mechanics. Which actually make sense on a lot of levels, not least of which the
fact that if we do make decisions, it happens somewhere in the recesses of the
brain, and likely on a quantum level.
As a physics student, I have a fairly
decent grasp of QM and all you really need to know is that everything comes
down to probability – that chair your sat on will support you an incredibly
high percentage of the time but there is a chance that all the particles could
line up perfectly and you’ll end up on the floor. That chance maybe
ridiculously small, once in a number that is more than the age of the universe
in seconds. But importantly it’s not a zero chance. For all intents and
purposes it may as well be though. Anyway, it’s a stochastic system; different
events are labelled with different probability. Its non-deterministic, in that
two different systems with the exact same preceding events could have different
outcomes, maybe 70% one way and 30% the other.
So QM is telling us that the
universe isn’t deterministic, but this doesn’t mean I, or you, have what we
might call traditional free will, because we’re still following these
probabilities – 70% of the time I will support United, and 30% of the time I’ll
choose Arsenal, but it isn’t up to me which path I follow, it is quantum
randomness. This idea is picked up by no other than Stephen Hawking in his book
Grand Designs:
"the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes
are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as
determined as the orbits of the planets...so it seems that we are no more than
biological machine and that free will is just an illusion”
So the most famous living
physicist doesn’t believe in free will and philosophers can’t agree, after centuries
of debate, but obviously, as a United fan lacking the Mancunian drawl, I am a glory supporter.
P.S.
If like me, the discovery that
Stephen Hawking thinks we are all biological machines following natural laws
slightly shocked you, maybe made your life and all its choices seem
insignificant, fear not, I leave you with Erwin Schrödinger, of cat fame and
one of the founding fathers of Quantum Mechanics, and his thoughts on the
matter:
“So let us see whether we
cannot draw the correct, non-contradictory conclusion from the following two
premises:
(i)My body functions as a pure
mechanism according to the Laws of Nature.(ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them.
The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I — I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt 'I' — am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature.” Erwin Schrödinger, What is Life (1944)