Thus, the antimatter of the twin universe exists and evolves next to us in its own part of the cosmos, where time flows in reverse. Its evolution may convey to us hints regarding how our reality will unfold. Does this imply that the future is predetermined? If so, then what is the meaning of all our plans and actions, all our striving? In other words, does this negate the existence of free will entirely?
DISCLAIMER: The reflections below are not intended as a formal theory, but rather one of the "conceptual pathways" developed in the novel.
In my view, some profound, all-encompassing predetermination does indeed take place, but not because our universe has a couple. The twin universe plays its role — a very important role! — in transmitting signals to us from the future, in constructing a labyrinth of events-meanings ‘from both sides of time’ — those events and those meanings that our mind is capable of perceiving. However, this is only an illustration of a more global principle, often associated with super-determinism or, more broadly, with hidden-variable hypotheses. It suggests that yes, on some fundamental level, everything may be strongly predetermined — and, therefore, free will is an illusion. Yet, it’s almost impossible for us, within our scales and timeframes, to distinguish this illusory freedom from the true one.
Here is what the protagonist of Cogito Man says on this subject:
Quantum mechanics — our only functional method to peer into the microworld — does not even try to answer the question of how everything is fundamentally organized. It is nothing more than a statistical description, a set of clever procedures for calculating the probabilities of what can happen as a result of processes unknown to us. The principle of super-determinism specifically applies to these processes, arguing that there is no place for randomness — all changes are subject to strict rules. The apparent stochasticity of quantum mechanics is only a consequence of our ignorance of what is actually happening — at the energies, dimensions and times inaccessible to us. And what is accessible to us is very far from the true microcosm, from the Planck length scale — the lower theoretical limit of extension as a physical quantity. You see, the very smallest-scale world, described by our theories and probed at in our colliders, is about eighteen orders of magnitude away from our macro-reality — this is the difference between my height and, for example, the radius of a quark. And from the radius of that same quark to the Planck length, there are almost the same eighteen orders of magnitude; that is, we can only hypothesize, calculate and verify up to halfway to the truly microscopic world — give or take a few orders. Personally, it’s somehow difficult for me to imagine that physics ends at the quark— but we are fundamentally unable to take much of a step lower. The energies involved in those processes are excessively high, and there, in the realm of those huge energies, all interactions converge — this applies to our universe, its twin counterpart and the global space, including the conscion field. Somewhere out there, probably through the phenomenon of quantum gravity, a unified picture of the past and future is being built...
Therefore, one can only speculate on those processes. They are probably non-linear — our entire world is non-linear, fractal and chaotic, and it’s reasonable to assume that this is how the universe as a whole is structured. It is generally accepted that these processes are completely deterministic, for why should they be otherwise? Thus, it would appear there is no freedom at all — however, not everything is so bad. Even in a deterministic system, some anomalous evolution can still occur — with loops and cycles emerging, violating causality. And on the long path from the Planck scales to ours, there are many other opportunities for introducing elements of randomness. For example, due to the laws of non-linear dynamics — where phase trajectories converge, these dynamics will begin to fluctuate stochastically. Or because of the irreversible loss of information — if we assume that our universe is not an isolated system, that is, something can leak from it, which I personally do not doubt... But most importantly, within the framework of our perception of the world, free will can be considered practically unrestricted, because it, our perception, in the overwhelming majority of cases, is even more illusory than this very freedom! Why? Here’s how it’s explained in the novel:
“Any of our thoughts, memories, reflections, decisions are associated with some physical processes occurring in our body, in particular, in the brain. An external conscion field may also play a part in it, which does not change anything: all the same, these processes last for a certain time — say, milliseconds — and involve the interaction of a very large set of atoms and elementary particles that form our bodies — and, well, our B Objects. Each of these particles can be imagined as an aggregate of countless elements of the Planck microcosm, whose states change much faster. Our mind absorbs an unimaginable multitude of changes, events and catastrophes at that Planck level — and the boundaries of this multitude, due to the huge difference in scale, cannot be clearly defined. And their fuzziness, according to the principles of non-linearity, can grow immeasurably when passing all the way from micro to macro... Basically, we can say the following: Planck-level determinism, whether it exists or not, simply cannot be felt and, most importantly, comprehended by us. Yes, ma’am, comprehended!” he repeated with emphasis, turning to Iva. “I will not speculate on the deeply subconscious level, but at the level of consciousness, we are always dealing with a crude and incomplete illusion of true causes and effects. Perhaps we all constantly receive very specific signals from the future, but the vast majority of them cannot be perceived by our minds in understandable forms. It’s like a vortex on a planetary scale, in which the behavior of individual dust particles cannot be recognized. Just as no one considers the state of the individual cubic microns of air in a gust of wind filling the sails of a boat — although the behavior of the vortex arises from them. Or just as the eye cannot discern the intricacies of the dance of the water molecules in the depths of the ocean. It needs a familiar spatiotemporal scale: the crest of a wave, the outline of a galleon — and later its wreckage on the rocks... We and our events — and, most importantly, our conceptions of them — are approximate entities with blurred outlines, sketched high above the fabric of the universe with a very careless brush!”
...
On the long journey from Planck-scale certainty to macro-level ambiguity, there are many loopholes through which either pure chance or the unpredictability indistinguishable from it sneaks into our lives. I call this the ‘probability gap,’ which manifests itself in everything — in ongoing events, in physiology, and in thinking, including decision making. Strict instructions from below turn into abstract philosophical musings — and the feedback between the future and the past is lost from sight. An inexorable order is felt much more softly — only as pressure from all sides in the direction of certain actions; I call this direction the ‘vector of causality.’ And what draws us there is something like a ‘flow of causality,’ consisting of swirls, whirlpools, countercurrents... We are not ordered around, as if we are on a parade ground, but probably at every moment, we more often than not act as the universe wants us to do. The consequences of our future actions are reflected in the ideas and motivations that lead us to these actions — as some kind of superposition of all our decisions, all our acts of quasi-free will.
...
We have lived and live the way we live, we have thought and think the way we think, also because the future event-consequence will inevitably happen. This applies even to non-sentient nature, while the intelligent mind greatly complicates the dynamics of processes, leading to paradoxical ideas, disarray and wavering in thought, and divergences in life’s paths. But — and this is a very big BUT: this very same mind and its extremely complex dynamics can also amplify the influence of true determinism, directives from the future, on our behavior in the present. It’s just a matter of luck...
The last statement relates precisely to the issue of meaning, and the answer is as follows:
“As I see it,” Steven continued, “the paradox is that the more implacable the determinism is in our lives, the more meaningful they seem to us and the greater weight our decisions and plans carry. Our mind, through many mutual influences, responds to what awaits us in the future, and it is this response that forms the meaning that you were speaking about — if the perception of this response by our brain, body and entire nervous system is in any way noticeable. It is precisely this meaning that moves us through life; we call it our mission — and this is what Mr. Kew felt as the invisible powerful hand. A mission is nothing more than an acute sense of the future: it’s as if the universe is incessantly repeating the word ‘halva’ — and there’s a sweet taste in our mouth. All our actions become rationally meaningful — I repeat, this is a consequence of cognition, of our propensity for abstract thinking and reflection. Without a mind capable of reasoning, there is no meaning whatsoever, but then the nagging question about it also doesn’t arise. Moreover, some of us perceive a glimpse of supreme harmony in events that occur — or are yet to occur. This is a primitive notion of harmony, but it’s still enough for lifelong inspiration! The feeling of harmony brings ecstasy — it’s as if one realizes that the heavens want something from him personally. This fills him with pride, which is not always possible to conceal. His life doesn’t seem empty to him, and he does not need models of happiness borrowed from the wider public. Although, from the generally accepted point of view, he may live in vain; his aspirations and actions may seem naive, even wrongful and contrary to the norms of society!”
So, where there is a mind, there is meaning, which is its interpretation of conscious or subconscious signals from the future. Without a mind, there is no meaning, but the burden of seeking meaning vanishes as well. And as for profound predetermination, it is best to consider it an inescapable law of nature. You cannot, for instance, force two electrons within the same quantum system to occupy the same state — the fundamental Pauli principle forbids it. This is a strong limitation of our free will, yet it hardly causes us distress. Moreover, were this prohibition absent, there would be no one around to get upset at all: it’s this principle that ensures the stability of electron shells in atoms, allowing for the existence of complex chemical elements and, ultimately, us. Or, for example, a segment of the event space determining what happens and what doesn’t might be inaccessible due to the laws of non-linear dynamics — the trajectories of our destinies, converging and diverging, never occupy the entire volume of this space, remaining confined to a specific subset of it. Some possibilities, describable in familiar terms, are fundamentally unattainable in reality. And note: whenever we attempt to make a decision, we have previously ‘signaled’ to the universe with our mind about this intention of ours. And then we carry out the decision that we made, having already ‘informed’ the universe of its specifics... Maybe we are subconsciously tuning ourselves to receive guidance on both the decision and its execution? After all, we’ve already exerted our freedom to some extent — by desiring to solve a particular issue, ha-ha...
To conclude, we can say that free will is not about doing whatever we want — this is fundamentally impossible, as follows from all that’s been said above. It lies in unpredictability, in the fact that none of the macroscopic entities, including us, know in advance which of the pathways permitted by the universe we will choose!
The comforting illusion of free will stems from a disparity in scale – from the fact that the Planck scale is so remote from us. This is why our perception of cause-and-effect relationships is so fragmented, leaving sufficient room to introduce an element of true randomness – which can occur due to the principles of nonlinear dynamics and the possible openness of our universe.
Here’s an interesting analogy: although quantum mechanics and the element of randomness within it are not directly related to the nature of our thought, the “randomness” of quantum mechanics and the “freedom” of our will both stem from a common source: the lack of knowledge about the deeper processes that define reality. From our perspective, constrained by the volumes of data we can observe with our eyes, comprehend with our minds, and visualize with our not-so-rich imagination, the nature of any phenomenon – including our own decision-making – is practically indistinguishable from randomness. This is just as quantum mechanics cannot precisely foresee the moment when, for example, an excited hydrogen atom will be willing to emit a photon.
To emphasize: the events that happen to us may be predetermined, but they are fundamentally unpredictable. This provides hope for a wide probabilistic gap, which, at our level of scale and energy, looks very much like free will. It’s a perfect simulation; no one will spot the trick. And as for those who know... Well, they’ll keep quiet. And let everyone else preserve their interest in life!
By the way, hints from the future don’t really spoil our illusion of free will. First, the paths to the same future can diverge – due to the probabilistic gap and the turbulence of the causality flow. Second, these hints can be misinterpreted by the conscious mind; it’s far from certain that we can flawlessly assemble all the pieces of the puzzle. Glimpses of the future might not be predictions but rather involuntary fantasies, fabrications, or delusions – just like any of our other knowledge. So, not only is predetermination barely perceived by our consciousness, but a prediction is not always a sentence. That is why, for example, one may attempt to radically change predicted outcomes.
All of the above leads to the question: does reliable knowledge truly exist, or do randomness and unpredictability fundamentally prevent its emergence? Fortunately, things are not so bleak – it does exist. Despite our rough and fragmented perception of objective reality, human thought – both individual and collective – is far from being chaotic, meaningless, or kaleidoscopic.
We accumulate in our minds stable reflections of reality and renewable thoughts and opinions about certain recurring events. So, why is this possible? Here’s why: we should not separate observed phenomena and those observing it, that is, you and me, including our thoughts, reasoning and conclusions. All these are processes at the level of the fabric of the universe, involving a huge number of elements of the true microcosm. Some subsets of Planck’s ‘pixels’ are responsible for the phenomena themselves, and some — for our thoughts about those phenomena; these subsets are different, but their dynamics may be more or less synchronized. And when this coordination, this correlation becomes stronger, we call it knowledge about the phenomenon. If a phenomenon is persistent — that is, the dynamics of the corresponding Planck subset is reproduced again and again — then our perception of it also becomes steady. And we can work with this perception using our ability for abstract thinking: we refine it, sharpen the formulations, and, in the end, tighten the entire structure with the steel bolts of mathematics...
...
So, knowledge is a stable correlation between groups of elements at the lowest micro level. One could say that in phase space, our thinking and the phenomena of reality are drawn to the same attractors. The universe “thinks” about us and these phenomena together! It may be that we ourselves turn our minds toward it, on our initiative, enabled by the probability gaps. Or, perhaps, this is the natural evolution of the Planck world, reflected in our apparent desire for knowledge and its accumulation — that is, in the sensation of the meaning of the desire for knowledge. Or it’s probably both.
Here, we must underscore a critical aspect related to reasoning and its underlying mechanism, based on the presence of an external image of consciousness, the B Object, with which the brain maintains a constant dialogue.
Maybe the main role in the formation of knowledge is played not so much by the brain as by its reflection in the external field, the B Object. I’m inclined to think so because our body is an extremely complex biophysical system, the functioning of which already requires a myriad of correlations. Maybe the coherence of events and thoughts is transmitted to us through the conscion field, through its waves, its vortices? Maybe it is precisely this that enables us to acquire knowledge — resulting from the deep-micro-dynamic convergence of our minds and phenomena that surround us? Is this why our specific human capacity for cognition is so great?
...
The B Object is an antenna, a receiver of future correlations of Planck pixels relayed to us by the pair universe, their decoder and amplifier. Random strokes of ink are connected into unsteady letters, and in the handwriting of their writer, one can sense the nervous trembling of their reader — the future of their reader! This is a symbiosis of an inert, conservative brain and a sensitive, fast-reacting B Object, holding its nose up to the cosmic wind and straining forward from the leash, while our clumsy physical body trails behind it, formulating its lazy thoughts. But the role of the body should not be belittled: it, being a target for external stimuli, accumulates experiences from which meanings are formed!
This logic extends to the macroscopic manifestations of Planck-scale microprocesses – that is, to what is conveyed to us by the info-labyrinth built from the dynamic interplay between our universe and its pair. This includes clues from the future that the twin universe helps to transmit, translating them from the language of the micro to the language of the macro for very massive, very slow and terribly uncomprehending us! These are hints that we can then interpret and reformulate into familiar images, sensations and words.
The conscion field and the B Object increase sensitivity to signals from the future, and our minds are able to greatly magnify the amplitude of interaction with this future. The faintest hint interpreted by my brain in a form familiar to me — through a word, a melody, an image — can have a profound influence. I recognize it and remember it — despite the multitude of other stimuli constantly attacking my brain.
The same applies to the impact on the future. Let’s imagine a logical chain: a dancer — a graceful wave of her hand — the delight of a man in the stalls — a bouquet in the dressing room — a love affair — a wedding — the birth of a child, a future genius who invents a technology that destroys the planet... Or, let’s say, nothing works out between them; he becomes bitterly disappointed in women, concentrates on his work — and himself invents something that changes the fate of humanity... In this case, a minor fluctuation in the conscion field — a love affair — can be identified as the main reason for the bifurcation of the sequence of albeit unlikely, but quite possible, events.
...
The conscion field is a powerful amplifier of our actions and their consequences! Amplification occurs through our minds, our emotions, ambitions, reflections. Words possess immense power; every author knows this — and thoughts do, too. A word or thought can unite a segment of society, capture minds, and create a powerful flow of conscion waves. This is how typhoons of events and torrents of consequences are born. The conscion field transmits signals to billions of radio stations, turns up the volume, and brings the separate parts together. Roles are assigned, dramas are outlined, and the names of geniuses or villains are trumpeted forth. A radio play on a huge scale is being created for our consciousnesses.
We differ from animals not by free will but by the most dramatic illusions about it!
By the way, reflecting upon the info-labyrinth constructed from opposing directions, and on the model of paired universes in general, one is compelled to ask: might every thermodynamic macro-process realized over the Planck microcosm necessarily correspond to an inverse macro-process? In other words, could it be that universes are never born in isolation – and this is a law of nature, a law of symmetry, a law of conservation?
The debate surrounding this topic was ignited by Einstein and Bohr a hundred years ago. As soon as quantum mechanics emerged with the random collapse of the wave function, Einstein immediately questioned this very randomness — famously asserting that ‘God does not play dice’. Then, in the 1960s, John Bell formulated his theorem and derived the famous inequalities [1]. They were tested in numerous experiments, and it seemed that Einstein was wrong, after all [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. God kind of flips a coin — and we cannot tell in advance whether it will come up heads or tails. The scientific establishment stands firm on the position of true randomness, deeming it proven that at the level of the microworld – which ultimately determines our everyday, observable macroworld – complete determinism (i.e., that every event is initiated by another event serving as its cause) does not exist. Otherwise, one would be forced to accept a violation of established physical principles – for example, allowing instantaneous (faster-than-light) exchange of information.
Bell’s inequalities are derived from correlations in the behavior of entangled quantum objects (particles). Bell’s theorem relies on the critical assumption that the choices made about what and how to measure in experiments testing these inequalities are completely independent of the behavior of the very particles being measured. It is precisely this assumption that the hypothesis of superdeterminism challenges: it claims that what is predetermined (or orchestrated by a higher power, ha-ha) includes not only the behavior of the material world, and not only the behavior and consciousness of people, but even the behavior and consciousness when conducting experiments to examine the material world (or interpreting the results). All of this established at the universe's inception; therefore, predetermination extends even to those objects that have never interacted since their origin.
Mainstream science fiercely rejects this hypothesis, considering it a blatant example of a "conspiracy theory." Nevertheless, in the last decade, many serious scientists have turned to it – for example, Nobel laureate 't Hooft [7, 8]. A recent article by Sabine Hossenfelder offers a good overview of the views on this subject [9].
Let me offer my own perspective. Personally, the idea of superdeterminism resonates with me – but only to a certain extent. I am convinced that, yes, at more fundamental levels, there are processes taking place that determine, with some precision, both the phenomena of the material world and our consciousness. But I do not believe this precision to be absolute, nor that determinism, in an infallibly pure form, makes its way up to our macro-level and rules over our every step, every thought and every intention. The reasons for my disbelief are noted above.
As for the experiments testing Bell's inequalities, in my opinion, the flaw in their interpretation should be sought elsewhere. First, the existence of a paired universe – that is, a process oriented backward in time, which "struggles" and "negotiates" with our process (i.e., with our universe and its thermodynamic arrow) – could lead to quasi-nonlocality, which mimics instantaneous information transfer. Second, the probability distributions used in the justification of Bell's inequalities may overlook the tricks of nonlinear dynamics, translated up to our scale – say, the incompleteness of the occupied phase space and the lower limit in the convergence of trajectories. In other words, some events in our world are fundamentally precluded, or they occur purely by chance – and this is not reflected in the probability calculations. And of course, the very interaction between a quantum object and a classical detector present in all these experiments remains a profound mystery, yet it is entirely unaccounted for.
[1] Bell, J. S. (1964). "On the Einstein-Poldolsky-Rosen paradox." Physics 1, 195–200.
[2] Clauser, J. F., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A. & Holt, R. A. (1969). "Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories." Physical Review Letters 23, 880–884.
[3] Freedman, S. J. & Clauser, J. F. (1972). "Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories." Physical Review Letters 28, 938–941.
[4] Hensen, B. et al. (2015). "Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres." Nature 526, 682–686).
[5] Giustina, M. et al. (2015). "Significant-loophole-free test of bell’s theorem with entangled photons." Physical Review Letters 115, 250401.
[6] Shalm, L. K. et al. (2015). "Strong Loophole-Free Test of Local Realism." Physical Review Letters 115.
[7] G. ’t Hooft. (2016). "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." New York: Springer.
[8] G. ’t Hooft. (2020). "Deterministic Quantum Mechanics: The Mathematical Equations." Frontiers in Physics.
[9] Hossenfelder, S. and Palmer, T. (2020). Rethinking Superdeterminism. Frontiers in Physics.