Physics Ends the "Free Will" debate

"A man is a sum total of his experiences"...

Recently I came across a video in YouTube, which was shared through my LinkedIn connections. According to Newtonian mechanics, the destiny of a particle is already determined. Einstein, being a deterministic agrees when he said that, " God doesn't play dice". However, Heisenberg comes and introduces the concept of uncertainty. That is there is always an uncertainty associated with the position of the particles. Thus, the video concludes that the destiny of the particles is not predetermined and since it involves certain uncertainty, leads to "Free will".

There are some holes in that argument. First Heisenberg uncertainty principles more specifically says that it is not possible to determine the position and velocity of the particle simultaneously, in which case, he quantifies the error. If we assume that position and velocity together describe the state of a particle, then the argument in the video may seem plausible.

However, now quantum nanostructures exists that restrict the movement of the particles. In such case, although it is not possible to determine the exact state of the particle, there is a definite probability for the particle to exist in within the structure i.e in a boundary. Consider the case of tunneling effect (Tunnel Diode), the electron in the box cannot get over the energy barrier if doesn't have enough energy. However, once it acquires sufficient energy, even though this energy is less than what is required to jump over the energy barrier, it could tunnel through the barrier due to its wave nature. In either case, whether it remains trapped within the box or it exits the box by jumping over the energy barrier or by tunnelling, there exits a definite probability depending upon the energy input and the barrier. In other words, the state i.e. inside or outside the box is determined by its energy. By extension, the one who controls this energy determines the particles destiny. The probability of the particle existing within a nanostructure follows a well defined Gaussian distribution, under some conditions.

So, I argue that though the particle state at any instant of time cannot determined with sufficient accuracy, on an average the state of the particle could be estimated as it is based inputs and the system in which it resides. Similarly, in the case of "Free Will", while it may not be possible to predict a particular thought of an individual at any given instant, the average behaviour (thought process) of the individual or group would converge based on what his inputs were at the time and the system he has been a part of. In other word, the "Free will" is bounded and its average behaviour is predictable and can be influenced (i.e. basically no "Free will") by genetic, economic and environmental factors.

Factors that may determine an individuals destiny

Genetics

Like energy which determines the particle state, genetics is one of the factors that could influence the development and maturity of a person. There are studies that find correlation between school performance and genetic predisposition. This is the case of physical performance also. For example most of the Marathon title were held by the Ethiopians. One of my friends in my Masters class was from Ethiopia and he said that it is not all Ethiopians who have the ability but only people coming from a particular tribe. This tribe happen to be a hunter-gatherer group for a very long time and have evolved to have the endurance required to survive in their environment. So, isn't that destiny of the individual determined, in a broad sense? Of course, he is still free to choose what he does, but his genetics only permits certain things...!

Economy

It is another factor, that influence the development and thought process of an individual. The development of the "free will" itself seem to be interlinked with economy or the families income. A study in UK, apparently showed that the children from poorer families tend to have some parts of their brain smaller than other kids, which affect their performance in their school. So, being born in poor family, already determines the level of academic achievement the child could achieve. Irrespective of whether he wants to or not. In other words, his destiny in a broad sense is determined. The only "free will" he/she then has is how to act in such a way to reduce disadvantage... even for that he is at a disadvantage... because it is the brain that makes this reasoning.

Environment

In the first two factors, I discussed the natural elements that affect the development. The third is environment. A child born to a poor family in a locality is more likely to involve in criminal activity (deduced based on bayesian inference), if the last two factors are true. Even if the child has reasonable intelligence and school performance, he or she could never realize his true potential if the environment is not right. As a personal case, during my 9th grade, I developed a fully herbal mosquito repeller. It was tested in the Vector Control Research Centre (VCRC) in our home town, thanks to one of my teachers who trusted me. However, everyone my parents, my school and even the scientist at the VCRC only discouraged me from further developing the product (Once I get a job one of my first work would be to fully develop that). This is an exact example of how environment could prevent one from realizing his/her full potential. The only "Free will" I had/have is to determine if I want to continue my fight or kill myself.

What if there is complete "Free Will"

Complete free will would be akin to having zero mean white noise. In such a case, there would be no behaviour patterns that companies could use to sell their products, predicting election outcomes won't work, banking will become cumbersome, economy will crash, etc.

Anyone who have visited Amazon would know that Amazon suggests items based on the items that you are checking. The system that does that is called a recommender system, a piece of machine learning software. Consider that there is no pattern, then the systems results would make no sense... every item would have equal probability.

Similarly, based on public sentiments, there are many studies in the world that try predict election outcomes. Isn't it how the Tories utilized the public opinion to come to power in Canada or Mr. Modi in India. If the public opinion is totally random, then it is highly likely that the results would be inconclusive.

Banking and Economy (stock prices) would also suffer. Bloomberg has a team of experts in analyzing sentiments from different source to predict stock prices. What if the opinions are random?
Similarly, if the Banks could not predict the user behaviour they could not invest and the banking will collapse.

And no boutiques for girls would stack up only pink...:)

There would be no racism, stereotypes, xenophobia, etc.

To conclude, "Free will" is bounded by the system in which it exists... Breaking the system is not always possible, as was found by Galileo, Edward Snowden and the like...!

Harper’s Red-Herrings

Stephen Harper is now widely acclaimed as the master of “Fear Politics”. The twin pillars of his political strategy are the Islamophobia and Xenophobia, which I consider are red-herrings for the inadequacies of his economic policies. 

Islamophobia:

Bill C-51

The two terror attacks in Canada gave Mr. Harper sufficient political leverage to enact his controversial Bill C-51. However, what Mr. Harper failed to explain and what the public and opposition failed to ask is: How is the bill expected to bring down 'lone-wolf' attacks? Both of these attacks seemed to have been enacted by individuals whose emotional/mental state is questionable. One is a drug addict while the other dreamed of becoming a martyr when his attempt to start a business in Quebec failed. So, does Mr.Harper have methods to predict the acts of mentally/emotionally unstable individuals? With the provisions of the bill, even if the agencies manages to imprison each and everyone who has even accidentally come across ISIS propaganda, it is likely that these type of attackers would likely to take another cause. I believe, psychologically, they want to prove/feel important. If so, wouldn't it require a different approach?

Further, I really suspect, if the intention of the bill is solely to protect the Canadians against terror attacks. It can easily be misused to oppress opposition. I mean what would prevent Mr. Harper to classify Mr. Trudeau, for example,  as a "sympathizer" when Mr. Harper comes to power again?

Niqiab issue

Thankfully, the Federal Court of Canada struck down the ban on Niqiab during the public citizenship oath. This may look like an isolated incident. However, when taken together with the Quebec judge refusing to hear the case of a women wearing hijab, it seems likely a coordinated strategy to harass the Muslim community in Canada. The judge cited the regulation on wearing head coverings and shades in the courtroom. Would the judge apply the same rules to Nuns, who cover their heads? If not, aren't these discriminatory practices aimed at alienating and harassing a community? I also wonder, how are these Niqiab/Hijab bans likely to bring down terrorist incidents? Is this issue more important than the economy that is tanking?

What is more appalling is why no one asked these questions? These issues made the highlights in dailies but everyone seems to forget to ask these questions? And isn't denial of justice in the name of religion against Canadian Values?

Refugee prioritization

Another controversial issue, that should have awakened the conscience of Canadians is the Federal Governments move to prioritize refugee settlements based on religion. This goes against the accepted International norms in the issue. By such acts, the Federal Govt. is acting similar to ISIS and "Boko Haram", whom it claims to act against. Apart from setting a bad precedent in the International politics, these acts are likely to diminish the stature of Canadian values and Canada's role in International politics. I wonder, if the Canadians are aware and OK with this?

Further, what is the reasoning behind this? I wonder, what are the movies Mr. Harper and his MPs are watching before making up policies :)

Xenophobia:

Harper keep on harping how immigrants are drawn towards Canada for business prospects because of the stable economy while his MPs' were busy making racist comments, "Brownies stealing Canadian jobs". I'm not sure how far is this true or who is being compared to make these statements. But I do know that, from IMF's economic outlook, Western GDP is slowing down consistently for the past few years while the Asian economy is on the rise. In this case, if people are immigrating for economic reasons, they are most likely to immigrate to the Asian countries as many Indians and Chinese had done during recent times. Further, I wonder if the MP was insinuating that their immigration systems are broken. If so, whose responsibility is that?

I have not read any news where Harper or his minions trumping Canada's education prowess. In any case, many Asian countries fair much better than Canada in primary education (when accessible) and US fairs much better than Canada in higher-education and research  (when accessible) . So, if there is exodus for education, it should be towards these countries. Having said this, I believe the immigrants were mostly drawn towards Canada for her values (free thought, free speech, etc.), which Mr. Harper seem intent on destroying. 

Another of Harper's policies, could downright be construed as "cheating". According to his Express-Entry pool for Canadian residentship, applicants are required to have at least 5 years of stay in Canada to realize the category's full points. However, according to his Four-in-Four-Out policy, immigrants should leave Canada after 4 years, and is unlikely to get the full points required to get them an invitation for Canadian Resident status. It also fails to differentiate between the researchers who are exempt from LMO from the general general immigrant workers. Wouldn't this policy create brain drain? Wouldn't that likely to affect economy?

Red-herrings of Economic inadequacies:

Harper didn't stop/reprimand his MP  for his racial comment. He, however, is trying to alienate and harass communities by progressively enacting policies. Since, there were not consistent opposition, I wonder if the Canadians have finally abandoned their values they stood for over the years and were onboard with Mr. Harper. 

I would have at least been happy had some one asked, "Mr. Harper, Could you prove that your policies have worked rationally using data?" I also, believe these pillars of Mr. Harper's political strategy are designed to divert attention of the Canadian public from real issues - inadequacies of his economic policies

Frugal Living may cost your job!

In the last few years, there have been many pages cropping up with tips on frugal living. I have also shared my views and practices in my previous post, on frugal living. However, since every micro-economic decisions has its implications to macro-economy and vice versa, I’m trying to offer here a different perspective.

Frugal living is based on the concept of reducing expenditures while maximizing one’s health and economic benefits. It is based on identifying the necessary expenditures from unnecessary expenditures and to act smartly. However, such acts, is also likely to reduce demand for products, which are likely to result in increase in unemployment as the owners and CEOs try to max-out their profits at the cost of employees, curb innovation, etc. These consequences would likely reduce Governmental income, which would increase the debt-to-GDP ratio (as GDP would reduce due reduction in demand) leading the country into the vicious cycle of austerity. This is depicted in the following graphic. 

A Simple Case Study - eschewing smartphones:

In my perspective, avoiding smartphones (cell phones, if possible) is one of the easiest ways of saving money and probably have enough to invest. However, when the demand for smartphones reduce, first the low cost manufacturers followed by the premium phone manufacturers would see a reduction in demand. This will force them to optimize their investments in a such a way so as to maximize their profits. One of the easiest ways to do that is laying-off employees. They would save money from the salaries of the laid-off employees as well as the exploitation of current employees. When there is a fear for lay-off the current employees tend to cling to their jobs by putting on more hours and working during weekends/holidays. This increase in unemployment is likely to affect the country’s economy adversely (though not that of the CEOs’ or the boards’). Further, in their effort to prioritize investments, they would also cut funding to many research programs, resulting in unemployment and loss of innovation. Further, app manufacturers, game developers, etc. would lose their market, leading to further unemployment. This would have adverse effect on economy as unemployment and debt-to-GDP would rise. Thus saving some bucks by avoiding a product is likely to throw-up people in streets without jobs.

Finally, for people wondering where do I stand, I stand with frugal living. Why? I’m in search of a job and I simply cannot afford otherwise. On the other hand, I strongly believe that the rich should spend more (preferably proportional to their asset) but in general, it is the poor who is spending more all over the world!

Austerity begets austerity?

Currently most of the western countries are embarking upon some form of austerity measures (reduction of debt-to-GDP ratio), to various extents. In some cases, these measures are forced by its neighbours and allies (Ex: Greece).  There are many info available on austerity measures. However, I tried to put my hypothesis in simple terms. My hypothesis is that austerity only leads to further austerity measures, until the country goes broke or some innovative steps are taken to break this vicious cycle, depicted in the figure below:

While being one amongst the many suffering because of these measures, what confounds me is that why none is asking the right questions:

• Explain how these measures would help us in the short and long term? (in layman terms but quantitatively not equivocally!)
• Countries have been deploying austerity measures since 2008.  Prove that it has worked!
• If some are being benefitted by these measures, who are they and why? Why not others? When would other be benefitted?
• Irrespective of many economic theories and empirical studies that would support anti-austerity, why are you deploying those measures? Why are the banks forcing such measures? How they reason it will benefit our economy?
• It is a simple business/economic knowledge that spends cuts are good only if they become investment. This principle is well known to almost all CEOs and CFOs. If so, show how the spending cuts have generated more income, in an attempt to reduce to the debt-to-GDP ratio.
• Who is responsible for the mess, in the first place?

I'm no economist but a "student" interested in the socio-economic-strategic affairs. I have tried to put, in simple terms, how austerity would only breeds further austerity until either the cycle or the country is broken. I would very much like to hear the counter arguments to this hypothesis! (Please leave your thoughts in the comments below...)

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity#cite_note-Blyth-18

Blyth, Mark (2013). Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019982830X.

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2012/04/27/the-impact-of-fiscal-austerity-in-the-eurozone/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/confusion-about-the-deficit/?_r=0

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TheLightningfromGreeceStrikesGermany_kpfabian_300115.html