Dear Arnold,
With pleasure I must confess that human mind is so creative and so ingenious to construct such fine arguments to get around even complex issues. A possibility gets created for a new direction. Even though I made a good effort, yet it is always possible that I may have missed certain points.
Indeterminacy is not the lack of knowledge or measurement: If we trace back the universe with entirely causal determinism, we would never be able to arrive at the origin, since a deterministic universe cannot come into existence from null reality. Since that would contradict the very determinism itself. And it is not a chicken and egg problem. On the contrary, if we presume that the universe is eternal then again we run into a problem, all existential processes must have been completed in the past of the eternity unless the universal phenomena was purely cyclic. Limited indeterminism allows both possibilities, a beginning or eternity. Yes, indeed the indeterminism must be limited, otherwise, there would be no constancy in any function, no pattern, no laws, no prediction.
"None such [undetermined quanta to determined macro] interpretations of the quantum level can be reconciled with the macro." This seems to be entirely agreeable. But I see it as -- macroscopic universe also must be indeterminate, within limits.
There are certain descriptions or function (in or beyond the universe) that are non-falsifiable. For example, mathematical theorems, and causality. Causality must hold, even if limited, otherwise the universe would become implausible. That is, if there is a definitive function (spontaneity) that gives rise to causality in a deterministic sense, then that function itself must be bounded by causality and determinacy. It is just transferring the function of causality to a different level, it does not get rid of causality at the most fundamental level. What I am suggesting is that in place of pushing the causality to a different level, it may be suggested to work with limited determinism. If the description of all fundamental entities had an analog detail which could not be described with finite number of parameters, yet its permitted transitions are only in quanta with only finite possible states, then it has unlimited resource to generate indeterminism, yet bounded by the limited possible quantum outcomes in any interactions. Given so many mathematical functions that may accept parameters of infinite range, yet producing finite discrete results, such an assumption might not appear as arbitrary.
"At the least, there is no obvious necessity that consciousness should be considered determined ...". Yes, in fact a relation between tangible material world and the intangible "conscious world", is not 'obvious' in the present, but a natural mechanism does exist, which seems to have eluded the consideration of the scientific community in relative plain sight.
I suppose, the most central argument is -- "... seeking to account for our sense of being causal agents, if only as the causally determined agents of randomly determined interpretations of causally determined events." While the statement is very nicely made to enmesh the agency and the deed, but the question remains -- how does the perception of "being causal agent" arise? The statement seems to strike in our minds as the definition of the 'sense of causal agency', but then it depends on our analytic mind to understand it as such. As I notice further on, this argument did not manage to avoid a metaphysical explanation to bring in willfulness; I am not saying metaphysical argument cannot be correct.
Your essay certainly offers a radically new perspective.
Rajiv
