Determinism -- Indeterminism -- Each present moment is open to new opportunity

Newtonian physics was totally based on the idea that everything in the physical universe (the soul was non-physical) is determined: we can predict precisely what will happen.

Indeterminism is the most obvious aspect of both quantum theory and dynamical systems theory. Almost every experiment in quantum theory is based on events that are unpredictable - observing the decay of an atomic nucleus, observing which way a photon goes through a polarising filter, observing electrons going through the slits in a two-slit experiment. In quantum theory the indeterminism is usually thought of as absolute: this is what it looks like, taken at face value. David Bohm had an alternative to quantum theory based on an underlying unobservable structure that was determined ("the implicate order") but this is much more complex and has very few adherents.

In dynamical systems theory (based on Newtonian Mechanics) the laws of physics remain deterministic but one looks at systems where in practice it is impossible to determine the future.

Determinism undermines the idea of free will (even if, strictly speaking, they are compatible). By contrast, in an indeterministic universe the new can always break in at any moment.

The Newtonian Universe was based on a projection of the notion of a machine (the seventeenth century was the era of elaborate clockwork automata) onto the whole universe. Science was born through the deliberate rejection of Aristotle’s more organismic approach. Yet dynamical systems theory (and in particular, complexity theory) brings back the idea of the whole: reducing something to its constituents is informative, but it’s only half the story. The other half is the study of the properties that emerge when the whole is put together.

The application of quantum theory to living creatures in Mae-Wan Ho’s controversial book The Rainbow and the Worm suggests also that these emergent properties - which are much more pronounced in quantum theory than in classical theory - define what an organism is.

All this (as I discuss in section A of morality) changes the way I think of the world and hence the practicalities of the way I relate to the world.

The Newtonian picture of the machine is based on combining determinism with the programme of reducing the whole to its parts. Each part is completely defined without reference to the other parts; the parts then interact through forces. The Aspect Experiment shows that this picture is fundamentally wrong. The whole has properties that do not reside either in the parts or in their relations. The idea of a joint quantum state that cannot be reduced to states of the parts shows that the whole is radically more than the sum of its parts.

This view makes sense of what is going on when we become aware of anything in the external world. I claim that this is the basis of consciousness (see my file Consciousness. It makes sense of the picture of participatory reality developed by Merleau-Ponty and others. In a participatory universe the basis of all our living is the "I-thou" relationship that we have with other things, which we can now recognise as an expression of the fact that whenever two things interact they have a joint quantum state; they are no longer separate systems.

Newton was an atomist; atoms are the basic parts of the mechanistic paradigm. But since the seventeenth century science has also used the idea of a field: a physical entity that is distributed through space. Light is propagated through a field, and in modern quantum theory every physical entity can manifest itself as a field. A field is infinite, and responds as a whole to any change in any part of it.

The aim of classical Newtonian science was to predict exactly what would happen, in numerical terms. The philosophy of dynamical systems theory (which recognises indeterminism as a practical reality, if not a fundamental one) is that pattern is more fundamental than exact specification. A system is understood through the patterns that it manifests. These can be expressed completely precisely, but they are not single numerical quantities. Examples are the strange attractor for the Lorentz equations, or the nesting of invariant tori that govern the motion of oscillating systems.

This changes ones methodology. Instead of trying to predict exactly what is going to happen - the paradigm of control - one recognises the pattern that is dominating at anyone time and operates within that pattern. Co-operation with an existing pattern replaces control and forcing into a pre-conceived goal.

Newtonian science is based on the detached observer. He (always male) receives pure, complete, factual information about the world. In the process of Newtonian observation, the world is not affected by the observation, and the observer is affected only to the extent that abstract information is increased. The observer can then, through prediction, manipulate the world to achieve precisely the desired effect.

While information remains an important (though controversial) topic in modern physics, it now rests always on the idea of interaction. With the exception of dualistic theories such that held by the early Wigner, the "observer" is not a disembodied intellect, but is another physical entity, interacting with the system: the distinction lies in size rather than nature. In interaction, both systems are changed. "Information" is what I make out of this change once it has occurred. There is no such thing as unembodied information which I can dispassionately contemplate.

This is a distinction that is only confusedly implemented in quantum theory so far. The approach of "consistent histories" expresses it quite clearly, but the more old fashioned approaches still cling to the idea of the disembodied abstract observer.

If one disposes of the observer as disembodied intellect, then one also disposes of the controller who, through pure will, acts on the universe to bring about precisely the desired effect. Instead, I am a physical entity involved in the drama of mutual interaction. Organisms like myself do not control the world, they participate in the world. Hence the appropriate philosophical model for understanding the world is that of participatory reality.

On the other hand, through the creative possibilities of indeterminism, I am a source of action in the world. I cannot deny my influence in the world. The appropriate moral response to my being in the world is thus one of embracing this engagement and accepting this responsibility, rather than pretending to have a controlling ability.

The paradigm of control led to the social model of individuals competing for control, and that to the Darwinian model of the evolution of organisms through competition. This has been extended in modern times through the anthropomorphic and unscientific claims of writers like Atkins and Dawkins.

The work of Lyn Margulis, at first controversial but now regarded as orthodoxy in limited areas, has indicated that evolution can only really be understood in terms of co-operation. Systems co-evolve along with their environment (this is also a consequence of moving from a mechanistic approach to an organismic, dynamical systems approach). Any species which just focuses on competition is almost inevitably heading for extinction.

This conception then may have moral implications. "You can’t get an ought from an is" is true, but our "oughts" are inspired by what we think "is". If we are engaging responsibly, identifying patterns and working with them, in a universe where the basic structures and rules are those of co-operation, then it seems to make sense for us also to look for co-operation, for mutual benefit rather than domination.

In a deterministic universe there is no place for freedom. In an indeterministic universe freedom is not prohibited. But, more positively, quantum theory the phenomenon of complementarity (the fact that there are always infinitely many possible, mutually contradictory, logical frameworks within which to view things) makes possible the notion of creativity. Complementarity is most simply illustrated by the duality of wave and particle. It is the participating observer who determines whether it is the wave or the particle that manifests. More generally, it is the participating observer who, by actively forming one logical framework out of the many possibilities allowed by the quantum description, makes sense of what has happened. This is the essence of freedom: not choosing between given choices (a mechanical randomiser could do that) but building a new framework of meaning, that comes into being alongside the determination of the framework (see Consciousness). This means that, in every act of participation (perceiving) I determine how I perceive (the framework of meaning) and hence what I perceive.

In a creative, quantum universe, participative engagement means being willing to embrace this deeper freedom. It is not a freedom that stems from the operation of a disembodied will, but a freedom that flows from what I am, and from the whole range of possibilities for what I might be.