Lorraine Ford
Lorraine, thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree that physics doesn’t actually specify what causes “random quantum number jumping” and, by your framing, that it's not something mysterious or external, but rather matter itself assigning values to its own categories. You’re saying this assignment isn’t uncaused in the chaotic sense, but is an intrinsic action of matter—a kind of agency native to the constituents of the universe itself.
And I think I see how that fits your broader point: the universe is standalone and self-sufficient—it doesn't rely on anything outside itself to do what it does, including assigning new values or “jumping” states. The creation/change aspect isn’t floating above or external to matter; it is matter.
You’re rejecting the idea that randomness or determinism can account for free will, and instead frame volition as this very act of self-assignment—a logically coherent, single-step process that isn’t dictated by equations or injected by external randomness. Agency, in this view, is endogenous to matter. Am I right so far??
That said, I also believe intrinsic (quantum) randomness is real and fundamental. And I don’t see that as incompatible with what you’re saying at all. To me, intrinsic randomness isn’t a foreign intrusion or “uncaused input” in the spooky sense. Instead, it provides the ontological openness necessary for agency/volition to exist at all. Without it, everything would be causally nailed down in advance and ongoing.
So here's how I’d reconcile our views (tell me if this works for you, too):
Intrinsic randomness defines the space of possible outcomes, not through classical uncertainty or epistemic gaps, but as a real feature of the world. Then agency – matter itself –acts on that open field. It assigns values to its own categories, not randomly, not deterministically, but logically, contextually, based on the state of things it “knows.” So randomness makes the system open; agency makes it selective. In that sense, intrinsic randomness and volition aren't in opposition. The former imparts openness (freedom from constraint); the latter brings direction and structure.
Does this interpretation feel compatible with how you're conceiving things? Or do you still see the application of randomness – even in this limited ontological sense – as problematic?
