Skip to main content

Free Will

On this page I will explain why free will as it is normally defined is nonsense. To do so I need to delve into the precise definition of it, and the definition of libertarian freedom. I will show that it makes no sense, and that we would not want free will if we had it.

While the opposite of free will appears to be very undesirable, that is a misunderstanding of how emergence works to give us control without being free in a libertarian sense. Instead of free will, we have self will which is determined, but it is determined by ourselves. Self will is what we actually want, because we want to be able to determine what we do, not just to act free from any constraints. Self will is compatible with determinism.

[Key Takeaway]

Free will as it is properly defined by philosophy is nonsense because nothing is ever completely free. We don't need or desire that kind of freedom. What we have and want is self will where we determine what we do.

Definition of Free Will​

Free will is "The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will." - American Heritage Dictionary

Free will is the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention" - Merriam Webster

"Libertarian free will is the philosophical view that individuals have the capacity to make choices that are not determined by prior events or causal laws, allowing for genuine alternative possibilities in decision-making." - Libertarian Free Will Explained

Each of these definitions describes an action that is done, and that action is described as a choice. That is, there are potentially two or more actions, and one ultimately obtains. The discussion usually focusses on the relationship to a cause, and particularly that there is no cause to the action. It is "free" from causation, which sets it directly contrary to determinism, the idea that everything is caused. We need to understand what causation is.

Uncaused means Random​

If something is not caused, then it is ontologically random. If something is uncaused then it could happen equally at any moment and at any place. The cause is the reason that something happens at a particular time and place. The ball flying through the window is the reason that the glass breaks. If the glass breakage was uncaused, then it could break at any time without any association with any other event in the universe.

We may define a cause to be an object, followed by another, and where all the objects similar to the first, are followed by objects similar to the second. - David Hume

Hume denied causality as a mechanism, but he did see correspondences between events: the cue ball hist the numbered ball, causing that ball to go in the pocket. Turning the picture around, things don't just happen out of the blue, they happen only when the right conditions preceded them.

If there was a uncaused thing then the condition before them happening is completely unspecified. It can happen at any time, without reason. Happening at any time is what we mean when we say it happens randomly.

It turns out there are thing that are uncaused in the universe: nuclear decay is not caused by anything in the universe. Therefor, nuclear decay occurs randomly. Indeed, the best random number generators are based on nuclear decay, and they are thought to be most random numbers that can be generated electronically.

Random would be Bad​

Any person that had a tendency to do completely uncaused things, that is they produce certain acts completely randomly, would be dangerous to themselves. They might randomly jump off a cliff. They might randomly decide to drink arsenic. Or drink from that can of latex paint for no particular reason. They might try to breath under water.

The fact is that people survive by doing the right thing nearly 100% of the time. You don't breath under water. You don't poke the knife in your eye. You don't hug the hungry lion. You don't eat foul tasting food. A hundred times a day you prove that you don't do random things.

Always a Reason​

In fact, if you think about it, you always do something for a reason. You eat dinner to cure your hunger. You go to bed because you are sleepy. You hold your breath under water. There is always a reason, and that reason is always based on your desires, and your understanding of how the world works.

The reason is the cause of your choice. You can not say that your will is free, because your will is caused by reasons.

Why People Think that Reasons are Free​

Here we get to the psychology of it all: People think that they pull the reasons for thin air, and that their reasons are unconstrained. "Sure, I don't drink latex paint, but I could if I wanted to." They believe their will is uncaused, and that reasoning is unconstrained by the universe.

The illusion of free will is seated in this idea that the reasons you come up with for an action are not caused by anything else. They appear to be completely uncaused, and just free floating ideas that could be employed by will without any regard to the universe.

You Can't Feel Yourself Think​

The illusion that your choices are independent from the universe is because they appear to come without any effort at all.

Consider this: think of the name of a city. Any city, just pick one right now. Pay attention to what happens inside you. Probably, the names of a few cities just came to you. They just appeared in your thoughts. You then probably considered a couple and picked one as your representative city. What you are not aware of is how those city names appeared in your mind.

Did you think of Berlin? If not, why not? Surely you know of the city. Of course you can't think of every city, but what constraints were placed on the cities that you thought of? Why did the first couple cities appear without effort, and why not others.

We can't feel ourselves think. We don't really have any insight into why those particular cities appeared. They came out of some subconscious process which you are not aware of. And they appeared to come without any effort.

Unaware of how Choices are Gathered​

Same thing happens with choices of action. You face a situation, and so a couple of different courses of action present themselves to you. Because the choice appear to come without effort, you have the illusion that they are completely free. Choosing one course of action appears to be completely free, when in fact it was highly constrained by your prior knowledge and desires. That is the source of the illusion: you think you could choose anything.

In fact there is a definite process whereby the mind comes up with possible options for action. This is what the brain does: figure out possible options for action. The options that appear are highly constrained to your own needs and desires, and ultimately the one that you pick will also be one compatible with your desires at the moment.

Still We Will It​

I hope for the above you see that the source of the choices and your selection of them is entirely a deterministic process. There is one more thing to understand: that process of selecting a course of action is you. If there is anything that is you, it is that process that curates and selects possible actions.

When you enter the ice cream store, and pick Cherry Garcia, rest assure that that choice is indeed your choice. It may be determined by the situation that is more complex that you can fathom, but it is you that is doing the determination, and nobody else.

Some people worry that if their choices are determined, that it means something else is running their bodies, and they have no choices. It is the opposite. You actually determine your choices as fully as you might if you had a free floating soul. There is nobody else making those choices for you. Sure, you always choose the course that fits your needs and desires, and so that is somewhat predictable, however it is exactly what you want to do.

Concise Explanation​

Free will by definition can not exist in a determined world. The "free" in free will means undetermined.

We don't actually want our wills to be undetermined, that would be randomness. Instead, we want them to be determined by us. I want my will to be entirely determined by my needs and desires. The last thing I want is a completely free will. We want self will.

The confusion exists because of thinking that "thinking" is outside the universe, and there for any will determined by thinking would need to be free of constraints within the universe. But that is a mistake. Thinking is a process that goes on WITHIN the universe, and we want our will to follow our thinking. Therefor we actually want a will that is determined by our thinking, and thoughts are part of the universe.

Yet the universe itself is not entirely determined: there exists quantum indeterminism. That gives the universe enough freedom (randomness) that our thoughts actually determine our will. We actually do make decisions, but we do so precisely because will is not free.

Background Randomness​

Our self will is enabled by another aspect of the universe: quantum indeterminism also known as quantum randomness.

Each of us has physical needs and desires which operate completely deterministically. The quantum indeterminism creates a random background UPON which our deterministic needs and desires then dominate.

If I desire to go to the store today, there will be millions of little barriers I will have to overcome (I have to open the door, I have to start the car, etc). But my desire to go to the store dominates what actually happens to me, because I resist the background opposing things I find in nature. My consciousness actively fights against the things that would prevent me from going to the store.

Quantum randomness also prevents (in most cases) my actions from determining your actions. It acts like a lubrication allows each of us to determine our own course. Without quantum indetermination, we would all be locked together and rigidly determined by every action that happened before us. A small breeze might cause us to do what we don't want.

Where is the Self?​

Some people imbue some special magical meaning to their concept of "self". The Buddhist "anatman" is denying something that I don't understand why anyone would believe exists. There clearly is a concept of self that is just as elusive as that of free will.

My concept of self is quite a bit more pragmatic: The self is your skin and everything within it. There is a locus of control. I can talk to people and am convinced they are conscious entities. (Actually the self is a little more extended than that, but lets not digress.) This concept of self is certainly pointing at something that exists.

Just because your reflective consciousness doesn't know it until a fraction of a second later, does not mean that YOU didn't make the choice. That would be like saying "you don't sweat" because you didn't know you were sweating.

Rewinding the Universe​

You don't make decisions because if we rewind the universe without changing the situation you would always make the same choice.

You seem to be saying that you are expecting the choice to be different if you rewind the universe back. But that is exactly the opposite of making a decision.

You make the decision based on your needs, desires and the situation. You make the choice that way because you make the choice. That is what we mean by "decide"

If you roll the universe back with the exact same situation, needs, and desires, of course you make the same decision. Why would you think if would/could be different?

If rolling the universe back meant that you would/could make a different choice in a particular situation, that would mean that you are not making the decision. That would mean that your decisions are random, and not based on your needs, desires, and situation. If you don't make the same choice, it means that something else is making the choice

Questions​

Your "self will" simply steals the "job" of "free will" by making a mockery of "free will" and trying to claim it's something other than what it is according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

A couple things, I appreciate your comment, you are NOT wrong, but it is a little more complicated -- and I am taking some shortcuts. You should read and understand that Stanford page in the fullest.

Yes, traditionally it has been dualists who see a separation between the universe and the soul that argue specifically that the will is determined by the soul, but NOT by anything in the universe. They then say that the soul is not determined by anything in the universe either. It is free of the universe, which means it would be free of material needs like hunger, air, not bleeding out, etc. I am not exaggerating this: they believe that everything you do is a sheer force of will that is not determined by anything in the universe.

I am not mocking free will, I am trying to show the logical consequences of the above mentioned beliefs which are incoherent. You can't have it both ways at the same time. There is no evidence that the soul lives outside the universe. If you believe the soul is separate from the universe than we have politely agree to disagree, because nothing else I say will make sense.

Once you accept that the mind is actually part of the universe, you recognize that it must be determined, and it is determined in a way that keeps you alive. If it didn't, you would have died long ago. It is actually a very good thing that it is determined. You learn that lions are scary, and you avoid going anywhere near them. These are not arbitrary acts unrelated to the universe, but in fact the well operating determined machine of the mind.

To insist then that the soul is not determined by the universe, by what you have learned about the universe, would leave you -- if you draw the logic to the conclusion -- that your soul would make choices unrelated to your situation, and possibly quite deadly, random ones.

If you go back to the Stanford page, you will see that they cover all possible meanings of free will, including the position take here, but also including all the competing positions.

I would agree that 'you' made the choice, because it was made by your brain. But isn't the point that 'you' didn't consciously make the choice?

You have a mind which is both conscious and subconscious. The subconscious acts in ways that are for the most part trained by the conscious. I don't know which muscles I activate in order to walk, but it is clear that walking is something that I learn consciously and is now run by the subconscious.

Just because your reflective consciousness doesn't know it until a fraction of a second later, does not mean that YOU didn't make the choice. That would be like saying "you don't sweat" because you didn't know you were sweating. You do many things that you are not aware of, but that doesn't mean that something else is doing those things.

References​

See more on Free Will:

Q&A​

Extras​

Then as for "will" these are simply the thoughts that drive your actions. Thoughts are real physical things, they are processes that happen in the brain. So in that sense the will is just as real as the brain is. The causal chain is all the interactions that involve conservation of energy and momentum. You swing the bat, it hits the ball, the ball flies away. The original swinging was caused by thoughts in your brain. The causal chain should be clear -- except it includes everything that interacts with anything, NOT just the thing people identify as being "the cause". That is basic determinism. At the same time, you have completely random events happening. The interrupt the flow of determinism by injecting non-deterministic energy and momentum into a part of the system. Pay attention to how this affects the world. If a lonely atom is whizzing by, it's course might be altered completely. However, an atom in a emergent structure, such as a solid, would NOT be greatly effected, because the emergent properties of the solid RESIST these incidental random events. You (your brain, your body, your memories) are emergent structures which resist the quantum indeterminism, but the quantum indeterminism does interfere with the sea of material we are floating in. Without the indeterminism, my decision to move my little finger might ultimately affect your choice to go out for dinner because everything thing is lock-step tied together. The quantum indeterminism breaks that lock step, allowing the separate emergent structures to function INDEPENDENTLY.