
In c.1932, James Murphy interviewed Einstein on his opinion about "causation", the "freedom" of the human "will", in respect to some of the views of Max Planck.

In c.1932, James Murphy interviewed Einstein on his opinion about "causation", the "freedom" of the human "will", in respect to some of the views of Max Planck.

In dialogues, Einstein-Murphy dialogue is a circa 1932 Socratic dialog between Irish science translator James Murphy and German-born American physicist Albert Einstein on the question of free will and freedom in the vein of Arthur Schopenhauer's human chemical theory based freedom of the will logic.

Overview
In circa 1932, Irish science translator James Murphy queried German-born American physicist Albert Einstein on the question of free will and freedom: [1]

“Murphy: I have been collaborating with our friend, Planck, on a book which deals principally with the problem of causation and the freedom of the human will.

Einstein: Honestly, I cannot understand what people mean when they talk about the freedom of the human will. I have a feeling, for instance, that I will do something or other; but what relation this has with freedom I cannot understand at all. I feel that I will light up my pipe and I do it; but how can I connect this up with the idea of freedom? What is behind the act of willing to light the pipe? Another act of willing? Schopenhauer once said: Man can do what he wills, but cannot will what he wills.

The Schopenhauer quote here, to note, comes from German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer’s 1839 Essay on the Freedom of the Will, which in turn is based on his mentor German polyintellect Johann Goethe’s 1809 human chemical theory of the affinity force theory behind the will, the gist of which was elaborated on further by Schopenhauer as follows:

“The will of the copper, claimed and preoccupied by the electrical opposition to the iron, leaves unused the opportunity that presents itself for its chemical affinity for oxygen and carbonic acid, behaves exactly as the will does in a person who abstains from an action to which he would otherwise feel moved, in order to perform another to which he is urged by a stronger motive.”

which comes from his 1844 second volume The World as Will and Representation, wherein he cites German chemist Justus Liebig's description of the reaction of damp copper Cu in air containing carbonic acid H2CO3, the balanced reaction of which is as follows:

$2 CuOH + H_2CO_3 \rightarrow Cu_2CO_3 + 2 H_2O \,$

To continue with the Murphy-Einstein dialog:

Murphy: But it is now the fashion in physical science to attribute something like free will even to the routine processes of organic nature.

Einstein: That nonsense is not merely nonsense. It is objectionable nonsense.”

Related to this, Einstein, in his 1932 “My Credo”, also commented the following:

“Strange is our situation here on earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose.”

Hence, in sum, it is "objectionable nonsense" to apply teleological causation theory to inorganic nature, i.e. non-carbon based nature (e.g. silicon reactions) as well as to organic nature, i.e. carbon-based nature (e.g. human reactions), and hence it would thus seem to be the case the idea of "purpose", that just like feeling of "free will", is something that needs to find reconciliation not in Aristotle's final cause, but rather in the nature of the force—specifically the exchange force—that mediates one's "seeming" sense of divine purpose, as Einstein put it. This is a large issue to grapple with, to say the least, but at least one stated in outline.

See also
● Einstein-Pascal dialogue

References
1. (a) Zucker, Morris. (1945). The Philosophy of American History: The Historical Field Theory (clouds, pg. 7; no duality, pg. 531). Arnold-Howard Publishing Co.
(b) Planck, Max. (1933). Where is Science Going? (pg. 201). Allen & Unwin.