The Concept of 'True' and 'False' and Implications for Free Will and a Mind
Moments of Thoughtfulness by Charles Sprague Pearce, 1882
I paddled my canoe into a small bay on a nameless Canadian wilderness lake and eased up near the base of a cliff rising up from the water. Rocks of various sizes, some as large as a small car, had tumbled down over the centuries creating a jumble of boulders that sloped deep into the crystal-clear water, providing an excellent fly-fishing spot for bass. The jumble of rocks was the present outcome of a chain of natural events that had unfolded throughout history.
Question: With regard to any naturally-formed rock pile at the base of any random cliff, would you argue about whether the end result was 'true' or 'false'?
You may think the question to be ridiculous. Any pile of rocks formed by natural processes is simply a pile of rocks. The idea of saying some piles are ‘true’ and others are ‘false’ is absurd––they are simply a fact of nature. But if one thinks more deeply about this, there are enormous implications for the existence of free will and a non-material mind.
When we see a tree that has naturally sprouted from a seed in a forest, we don't say it is 'true' or 'false.' Your friend would look at you rather quizzically if, when you observed a meteor streaking across the night sky, you said, "That is false." In a similar way, people might think you are losing your grip on reality if, while hiking in the mountains, you labeled some naturally-accumulated rock piles at the base of cliffs, as 'true' and others as 'false.'
In general, we humans recognize that the concept of 'true' and 'false' does not apply to the outcomes of natural processes, governed by the laws of physics and chemistry. The initial conditions of the universe and the chain of naturally occurring events produce outcomes that are simply brute facts of reality, whether they be piles of rocks, a meteor lighting up the sky, or a plant sprouting in a distant forest.
But here is the problem. If what you call your ‘mind’ is nothing more than some natural property of your brain, then everything you call a ‘thought’ or ‘belief’ is no different from any other outcome of natural processes, such as a bunch of random rocks brought together through a chain of natural events. Saying someone’s thought or belief is true or false makes no more sense than saying a pile of rocks is true or false.
The shocking suspicion: Yet we feel that ‘true’ and ‘false’ are not ridiculous concepts. But if they do have meaning, there are massive implications, not the least of which is that not everything in this world is a natural outcome controlled by chemistry and physics.
Is free will an illusion?: Last year, I produced a YouTube response to German theoretical physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder's argument that free will is an illusion. Hossenfelder argued that since the material world is all there is, everything is determined by physics, and free will is an illusion. We think we are making 'decisions' but, in reality, all our so-called 'decisions' are just natural outcomes of the initial conditions of the universe and the laws of physics. In my response, I pointed out that if we grant Hossenfelder's assumption (that the physical, material world is all that exists), then even 'thinking' is an illusion, being nothing more than a series of brain states determined by the initial conditions of the universe and the laws of physics––naturally produced rock piles that change over time through natural processes, if you will.
What is very interesting are the comments on my video––currently numbering well over two hundred. I am fascinated to observe that some strenuously argue that I am ‘wrong’, while utterly failing to realize that if they are right, then both our so-called ‘thoughts’ on the matter are actually determined by the same laws of nature and it is absurd to argue about who is ‘wrong.’
On other words, if the materialists are right, we have a situation precisely analogous to one pile of rocks asserting that it is 'true' and that another pile of rocks is 'false', yet both have been produced by the same laws of physics and the same initial conditions of the universe (if materialism is true).
But this kind of ‘thinking’ flies in the face of what is patently obvious to us––that is, that we actually do think and make decisions.
We observe ourselves deciding: Fundamental to science are observations, and we daily observe ourselves thinking and making decisions––not merely reacting to immediate sensory input, but mentally formulating future plans, and worrying about whether the rumour you heard was 'true' or 'false,’ but at the same time thinking it absurd that a naturally-formed rock pile would be ‘true’ or ‘false.’ Even more fascinating is that when we are doing our best thinking, we seem to be using non-material principles or rules that we never invented, cannot be seen with the eye, but without which we would live in a barking-mad world with no possible meaning and where concepts like ‘true’ and ‘false’ would never cross our mind, because we would not have a mind to cross. With our mind and these rules of truth we can postulate possible future realities that are far beyond where the current causal chains of nature have reached. Indeed, it appears that we can even ‘decide’ to intervene in natural processes to steer them toward future outcomes that they would not otherwise have attained.
Not only that, the scientific method has originated within our minds. But if we are self-delusional about our observations of what is patently obvious to us, then why should we trust any other so-called 'observations' we make about this world or the 'scientific method' that we have deluded ourselves into 'thinking' that we created?
The decision: And so we come to an enormously important choice. We can grant the obvious observation––that we have the capability to perceive non-material rules of rational thinking and make sense of what is going on in this material world. We can even think about how we might alter the course of material reality and, on the basis of these non-material rules evaluate each other's ideas and assertions to figure out if they are actually true or false.
The other option is intellectual suicide, which every materialist must do if they actually 'think' about their position, and admit that their beliefs, thinking, and decisions are all illusions, not to mention concepts like 'true' and 'false.' In their world, holding anyone 'morally responsible' for their so-called 'decisions' is as absurd as holding a pile of rocks morally responsible for how natural processes have configured it.
A third option is perhaps the most common of all––to live in denial. That is, to claim we believe in materialism and that “science explains everything”, but at the same time enjoy the benefits of real thinking and real decision-making. For example, Hossenfelder actually used a logical argument to explain why free will is an illusion, as if thinking and reaching logical conclusions were not illusions, thus undercutting her own thesis.
The inevitable implication: If our patently obvious observations of ourselves thinking and making decisions are to mean anything, then we must conclude that our mind consists of more than just a material brain operating under the laws of physics and chemistry. There is something about us that has the capability to grasp non-material, valid concepts such as 'true' and 'false,' and valid non-material rules that help us do logic and mathematics, and process material observations as well as non-material concepts to actually think and make very real decisions––not only about our current material context but for alternate, future outcomes that have not yet materially occurred. Furthermore, we can be held morally responsible for how we respond to the material world around us, especially other people.
A bigger implication: If we are to grant that we actually have a mind that can truly think and make decisions that are not merely physical outcomes of natural processes, then the unavoidable inference is that the supernatural (anything not dependent on natural processes) does exist, and a lovely question to then ask is this, “what caused the material world to come into existence?” I have written a short article on that here.
Further Reading: C.S. Lewis has a nice discussion of this topic in the first few chapters of his book Miracles which inspired a great deal of thought on my own part and, finally, this article. A pdf version of the book is freely available online.
Further conversation: If you would like to talk anonymously and confidentially with an online mentor about the spiritual aspect of life from a Christian perspective, you may do so here.
