Why I Think About Free Will

I’m constantly drawn back into this topic for a few reasons.

Firstly, although it has been debated since the beginning of philosophy, it seems to be something that we may have forgotten is largely unsettled. Even though the philosophical debate is still active and full of controversy, most of us live assuming one of the philosophies of free will is true. I’ll describe the three main branches of philosophical thought below.

Secondly, it matters. We do have beliefs about free will and they affect every aspect of our society. Briefly, what we believe about free will directly translates into how we view the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is the foundation upon which we build most of our ethical systems.

Thirdly, I think most people are wrong. Most believe that as humans, we uniquely have the ability to act freely within a purely deterministic universe. As a PhD student at MIT, I’m surprised that even here most are convinced of something which is empirically wrong. Sometimes this angers me. Sometimes it saddens me. Sometimes it motivates me to write out my thoughts on the matter.

Three Camps of Philosophical Thought

I’ll do my best to describe the philosophical problem of free will and the main solutions to the problems that create three main camps of thinking. Note there are many subgroups within each branch. Most of my information on the framing of this topic comes from, A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will by Robert Kane.

Here are two postulates:

1. The universe is deterministic.
2. There is free will.

If we accept those two postulates then we need to ask whether they are compatible. If you agree that these two postulates are compatible there then is no real problem and you’re done. If you think these postulates cannot simultaneously be true, then you have a problem to solve. There are two options. Either 1. is false or 2. is false.

If you believe that 1. is false then you are called a libertarian (not to be confused with the political orientation). This choice is not so simple and requires arguing a couple of extra points. First, you have to replace determinism with something else. Then you have to again ask if what you then replace it with is itself compatible with free will, its own separate and equally difficult task.

Lastly, you can decide that 2. is false. For people in this camp, there is no need to replace free will with anything else. You solve the compatibility problem by deciding that the free will postulate is incorrect.

I’ll summarize the choices in the table below. I think it’s clear that compatibilists and hard determinists get off easily (not to say they both didn’t think hard about the problem). They both decide that there is no real problem: 1 and 2 are compatible or 2 is false. Libertarians have to get way more creative to replace 1 and then argue that their replacement is compatible with 2, which often leads to some wacky explanations. Again, each of these main groups has many different flavors.

	Compatabilist	Hard Determinist	Libertarian
1. The universe is deterministic	Yes	Yes	No
2. There is free will	Yes	No	Yes
Outcome	No problem	No free will	We’ll get back to you

My Philosophy of Free Will

I would argue that most people are compatibilists. Simply put, most of us feel that we have free will. If we know enough science to realize that 1 is true then we’re forced to come up with some resolution and we’re so convinced of 2 that we have to come up with some argument for why it’s okay.

Eventually I’ll try to put a run down of the main compatibility arguments for sake of good philosophy. For now I’ll just run down my thinking.

1. The universe is deterministic.

This is definitely true. Any acceptable model of the physical universe, classical or quantum physics, is deterministic. Again our own experience of cause and effect shows this to be true and we developed classical physics based on these principles, which get us pretty far in the macroscopic world.

But… there were problems with classical physics. Some huge errors actually, which I encourage you to read about. Suffice to say we discovered the quantum world and quantum physics. Quantum physic is relevant because it’s how probability, in the form of “quantum randomness”, sneaks into the discussion of free will.

I’ll show you: Quantum physics aside

Quantum mechanics is based on the Schrodinger wave equation, another postulate. But if we accept that postulate, then we are endowed with a powerful model of the universe that is the basis for your favorite technology – microelectronics.

Back to Schrodinger. The wave equation evolves in time and space in a purely deterministic way -that’s the math of the equation. So where does the random probability come from that everyone talks about? It comes from the fact that we don’t know what a Schrodinger wave equation is. It’s a math equation, but in physical reality, it has no meaning. So again, it is time for philosophy to interpret the meaning of a ‘wave equation’.

If you were taught any interpretation of the wavefunction in school it was probably the Copenhagen interpretation. In this interpretation, measurement “collapses” the wavefunction, which causes the set of many possible states of the system to reduce to one in a probabilistic nature. Suffice to say there are many problems with this interpretation but since this interpretation has been mostly replaced we won’t bother too much.

Today the most popular interpretation of the wavefunction is something you may have heard on the PopScience airwaves: Many Worlds Hypothesis. The many-worlds interpretation is the one with all of the parallel universes in which every possible version of you exists. Although it sounds crazy, it’s the most popular interpretation currently because it resolves some of the hand-waviness of Copenhagen. The main point is that this interpretation is completely deterministic. No probability enters at any point. The different outcomes of quantum physics materialize in separate, parallel, and completely deterministic universes.

The determinism postulate is on solid ground.

Okay, so determinism is pretty solid. Classical physics is deterministic, which matches our intuitive experience. Quantum physics is deterministic in both mathematics and interpretation. There is no randomness to mix into the universe. However, let me note quickly, for all my libertarian friends and anyone unconvinced by determinism, that adding any amount of randomness to 1. makes the problem of compatibility harder, not easier. How can I have free will when my actions are partially random? It makes me feel less free. Again it’s slightly beside the point but if we had to go there it wouldn’t be pretty. Randomness doesn’t help.

2. There is free will.

Okay. Finally. We’ve arrived at the heart of the problem. Is there, or is there not free will? At this point, I’ll say that much of the disagreement between compatibilists and hard determinists comes from the definition of free will itself.

If you accept the narrow definition of free will that compatibilists use, then they are right. One example of a definition that some compatibilists would use is to say that an individual is free if there are no externally applied restraints on that individual. So long as you’re not restricted from pursuing your desires, then you are free. If you are not imprisoned or oppressed in any way then you would be free by this definition.

The free will that really matters is the one that asks whether is a world free from external constraints, are we free to act? Is there an internal constraint imposed by a deterministic universe? I believe there is. I may be free to pursue my desires, but am I free to choose them? I’m not.

Simply put, at no point were ‘you’ involved in creating the circumstances that produced ‘you’ and the actions that ‘you’ therefore produce. Think about it. You didn’t choose your parents. You didn’t choose where you were born or how you were raised. If you have a soul, you didn’t choose that either. Basically, everything that defines ‘you’ was determined by external circumstances. What is the freedom in that?

For me, that’s the philosophical way to view this. And it really ends once you realize there is no space for you to make any choice that wasn’t determined by the universe. In other words, if I returned to a previous state in my life I would proceed in the exact same way, committing the same errors and having the same success. There is no other possible outcome. Many of us imagine returning to the past with a more experienced brain, but then that’s not the same ‘you’ making a different choice. That just says if you were a different person, you would have acted differently. Still no place for free will. Of course, that’s true. But if you were exactly the same, there is simply no way you could choose to do otherwise than you did before. If in each moment you’re not free to do otherwise, how can you be free?

Enough Philosophy

Okay but enough philosophy. You don’t care about all that because when you make a choice you feel it, and you know you’re free. As I’ve said in other places, meditation has been life-changing for me, and it’s primarily for the reason discussed here. While western popculture may relegate meditation to the latest relaxation trend (with science to back the claims or not, which there are), meditation is actually an experiment.

Meditation is like the methods section of a paper or science report. It just tells you the steps for executing the experiment. The many exercises of meditation are like recipes in a cookbook. If I were to name that cookbook I would call it: “The Nature of Conscious Experience”

I’ll quickly note that I’m mostly talking about one meditation practice commonly called mindfulness.

Meditation is a purely empirical practice. It’s an experiment that requires no equipment and can be conducted at any moment. Doing these experiments reveals that there is not center to conscious experience. In other words, there is no ‘you,’ which is equivalent to no free will. If you notice consciousness, you’ll see that everything is appearing in each moment out of nothing. Every thought, sound, choice, and feeling is appearing in conciseness without any effort on your part.

This is the real proof of the lack of free will. This is real evidence and it’s constantly available to us to check in each moment. The experience of conducting these experiments can feel a lot like discovering your blind spot. Normally you’re not looking for the blind spot and therefore do not notice it. And you might be fooled to think that no such thing existed. However, there is a blind spot. And there is a simple experiment that you can do at any time to prove this to yourself.

1. Take a piece of paper and mark an X on the left side.
2. About 5 ½ inches away from the X, mark an O. Make sure they are horizontal to each other.
3. Cover your right eye.
4. Look at the O with your left eye. The X should disappear. If it doesn’t, move the paper back and forth until it disappears. (You need to be about 1.5 feet away from the paper.)

To complete the analogy to the blind spot, the ‘self’ is sort of the opposite situation. When you don’t look for it, it is there. However, when you look for it, it is nowhere to be found. Empirical observation is what we should believe. So just as we should believe that there is a blind spot when we search for it, we should believe that not finding the ‘self’ when searching means that there is no ‘self.’

So this is the true power of meditation. It is an experiment that can reveal that there is no free will. Many people have continuously verified this experiment.

So any frustration I feel when I encounter otherwise smart people who believe in free will comes from the fact that there is really no good argument or evidence for free will. It’s my opinion that the best arguments are for lack of free will. In any case, the evidence shows that there is no free will. If you’re a true scientist then you must bend to the data.

Of course it would be pretty meaningless to be frustrated unless there were some real consequences. There are.

Consequences of Believing in Free Will

There are many who argue, even some hard determinists themselves, that free will is necessary to hold together society. Without it, hedonism is justified and the world will collapse to barbarism.

That’s a very naive response to accepting a lack of free will. It’s not that we’re completely losing our ethical values, we are simply redefining them. Something that perhaps many of us want to do anyway. And now there is empirical evidence upon which to base our values.

Responsibility

Usually, the first value that comes to mind is responsibility. If there is no free will then how is anyone responsible for their actions. Sure, in the current definition of responsibility then they wouldn’t be. But here is a better definition. People can be responsible for their actions while at the same time not being blamed for their actions. This is sometimes called the quarantine/rehabilitation model when applied to the penal system. For example, a bloodthirsty murderer is responsible for the deaths of their victims and should, therefore, be protected from society. But they are not a bad person deserving of punishment. We can retain responsibility while removing blame and accompanying punishment. Instead, every person is deserving of rehabilitation. If there was a way to turn criminals into Nobel peace prize winners wouldn’t we prefer that? A notion of responsibility which says bad actions are committed by bad actors, which deserve punishment, guarantees that will never occur.

Our current criminal justice system is truly barbaric. Yet from a point of view of responsibility with free will, it makes perfect sense. If you choose to do a bad thing then society is justified in applying consequences. Without free will, punishment is unjustifiable. Instead, criminals are looked upon with pity and society must either reform them or incapable of such means must sadly quarantine these individuals.

Regret

There is little need for regret. As you could not do otherwise, regret should not be an act of wishing outcomes had been different. Instead, regret can be the basis for gratitude. Regret can motivative us to see the current moment as an opportunity to not repeat past mistakes. And we can be truly grateful to have the experience of past mistakes improving our current outcomes.

Forgiveness/Compassion

Lack of free will opens the door to total compassion. We’re accustomed to limited compassion for limited people and circumstances. It’s applied based on our own bias and takes effort. If you take away free will, then all limits, bias, and effort evaporate. There is simply no place to stand except from one that has full compassion for every person.

Hate

There is no space for hate even for those who harm us. Taking actions to prevent or contain those who do us harm is perfectly compatible with love, compassion, forgiveness. There is simply no necessity to stay with the emotion of hatred. It serves little purpose other than to inform us that someone has injured us. Once that information is received, hate can be left to decay into the nothingness from which it emerged, having fully served its emotional purpose.

Final Thoughts

For this problem to be solved requires a redefinition of concepts somewhere. Compatibilists try to redefine free will in such a way that it says nothing about our lived experience, allowing them to keep this misguided notion alive. Instead, we should want to redefine our concepts and values to fit the reality of our experience. Which do you choose?

I hope I’ve shown you that from a philosophical point of view there are no good reasons to expect that anything like free will exists. Moreover, each of us can do experiments to test the hypothesis of free will ourselves. The data show that it is a false hypothesis. Lastly, and most importantly, that this realization is not one of doom and gloom, but conversely, the basis for much better human values.

We need especially the scientific community to shift and let go of a concept that is harmful to society. It wasn’t until the late 19th century that American doctors let go of medical dogmas and embraced scientific medicine. I hope that during the early 21st century every scientist lets go of the free will dogma and embraces a redefinition of our ethical values.

The meaning of life

It is natural to initially feel that accepting this view robs life of meaning. This need not be true. Just as the lack of an afterlife does not rob life of meaning, neither does lack of free will. Why should I be good if there is no afterlife? Because there are consequences in this life for yourself and the ones you love. Well if I’m not making choices then why should I care? Again, because there are still consequences for yourself and the ones you love. Simply put, even if we’re not in control, we want to have good lives. We cannot predict the future but we can all be hoping for the best outcomes. That gives life meaning enough.