Always learning. Always wrong.
Free Will in Five Minutes
There are two popular theories about free will which are incompatible with each other and with reality. The positive position is that we, as human beings, have this magical thing called free will that is independent of physics and causality, which allows us to make truly “free” choices. The negative position is that we are mere particles, and so there is no free will and life is meaningless.
The error in both of these theories is that they are conflating two propositions which are actually independent of each other:
- Human beings can do whatever they want.
- The decisions of human beings are not wholly deterministic.
The positive position is that both of these statements are true. The negative position is that they are both false: our decisions are deterministic, therefore we cannot do whatever we want.
But hold on a second, and let us see if we can use some Science here. Proposition 2 is false. The decisions of human beings are wholly deterministic, because the universe is entirely deterministic.¹ Does this mean that Proposition 1 is also false, as the popular negative position holds?
Of course not. Your actions are entirely determined by your wants. All determinism tells us is that our wants themselves are entirely determined by physical processes. This even has the advantage of being intuitive²: even when I do things I don’t want to do (like math homework), I have some greater want in mind that makes them worthwhile (like graduating from college).
You can do whatever you want. But as the staggeringly important philosopher Robert Nozick has observed,
No one has ever announced that because determinism is true thermostats do not control temperature.
This position is known as compatibilism.
1: Some accounts of quantum mechanics disagree, but the lack of determinism in those accounts certainly has nothing to do with human decision-making processes.
2: Though please remember that intuition is not any kind of proof, and not very good evidence either.
| This entry was posted by WrongBot on April 21, 2011 at 1:00 pm, and is filed under Problems in Philosophy. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 10 months ago
I’m sorry, “some accounts of quantum mechanics disagree”? The only serious interpretation of quantum mechanics requires that particles have no definite position or momentum, or change of energy or time, with any given measurement. All of the accepted modern physics is based on the principle of uncertainty. Moreover, physics is not wholly deterministic, and a great degree of physics deals with probabilities, especially in systems where statistical mechanics or quantum mechanics are applicable. Our known physical laws, while highly accurate, are only approximate.
However, your point that the lack of determinism doesn’t affect the human decision-making process is not entirely false, since neurons are relatively large physical systems and the most likely outcome greatly outweighs a less likely outcome. Yet, could you reasonably rule out the possibility of rare physical outcomes, especially without any argument or evidence?
about 10 months ago
Ben,
According to the Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM (which is the best interpretation currently available, as argued at length here), quantum systems are entirely deterministic.
But that is besides the point. It is preposterous to propose that some spooky non-physical force affects the evolution of quantum systems in human brains and only in human brains, such that we have free will. It may not be strictly impossible, but we are talking about science here. Wishful thinking is insufficient; inference to the most likely explanation demands that we accept determinism as the only reasonable conclusion.
about 10 months ago
Yo dawg, uncertainty is based upon the physical limits of measuring tools we can possibly have. It’s deterministic in theory, yet undeterministic in practice. Read the original journals rather than watch the “science” channel specials. Also, free will means that the particles creating your neurons can destroy entropy. I fail to see the difference between the particles which make an apple vs. the ones which make your brain. Thin about it; your cat is made entirely of water and cat food. You would have to say that either the particles of water and cat food have free will, or the certain alignment of cat food particles gives it free will. I say that if you take a cat food created brain out of a cat, it will no longer make “free will” decisions. Yet, “quantum mechanics” says that the neurons in the cat brain creates free will? Wha? The cat’s brain is cat food, and I suppose you wouldn’t say that cat food has free will? Would you?
about 10 months ago
I’m an undergraduate physics student currently studying quantum mechanics, so the material is fresh in my mind. The nondeterministic nature of quantum mechanics is a fact of nature, not a flaw of measurement. It’s not simply that we don’t know all the attributes of a particle at a given time, it’s that there aren’t any determinate values.
Here’s the Wikipedia article on the Uncertainty Principle. The second paragraph restates what I mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_Uncertainty_Principle
about 10 months ago
Hi,
I would like to reply to the following passage:
“Your actions are entirely determined by your wants. All determinism tells us is that our wants themselves are entirely determined by physical processes.”
Would this not imply that, given the fact that we cannot directly control the physical mechanisms that occur in our brains, the feeling of freedom that often accompanies the awareness of a want, is a mere illusion?
Say that an individual at a certain moment wants X, because X is in her sight and looks delicious. Although she may feel free in her choice of giving in to her want or not (eating it or not), the choice she eventually makes may itself be illusionary. She may feel she made the right choice by not eating it (because of her diet), but actually ‘the choice’ of not eating it was a mere outcome of deterministic brain mechanisms.
We could infer from this scenario that certain external stimuli (the perception of X) caused her to become aware of her want (as an outcome of deterministic mechanisms that are typical of her brain). This seems to imply that she did not choose her wants, and her ‘choice’ of giving in to the want or not is not a choice after all.
about 10 months ago
Brandon,
I’m not sure what you mean by “illusion.” When I choose to eat a donut my choice is caused by the delicious nature of the donut, the configuration of my brain as determined by my past and the process of evolution, and so on. But this doesn’t change the fact that I like donuts. Determinism can explain our decision-making, but it does not explain it away. We still make choices, but those choices are a part of physics. This article, especially the illustrations, may be a better explanation.