Free Will: Not a Choice

In the world of quantum mechanics everything is chance. You don’t know where an electron is until as it is flying around the nucleus of an atom. What you have is an equation describing the probability of finding the electron in a certain place at a certain time. Only probability, all we have is an equation describing a probability wave. When the electron is observed, the wave collapses, the electron moving from all states to only one. Assuming that we are real and not an elaborate dream of some odd piece of sentient sludge, it seems that quantum mechanics can tell us a little about the existence of free will.

How free are we to make choices in our lives? Let’s say we are talking about being able to do what you want, when you want, do I actually have a choice in the matter? For instance, I want to take a bite of the delicious sandwich I have sitting next to me. Is this a decision that I made for myself? Or am I “destined” to take a bite from the sandwich at that specific time? How did I come to the decision to take a bight of the sandwich? Was it something of my own doing, or was it my subconscious, forcing me to act at that moment? Actions are one way to interpret free will, but what about thinking? Is me writing these words on my computer an act of free will or is there another force driving what is going through my head? What is causing me to think?

I am looking at these questions from a somewhat scientific viewpoint, following my admittedly limited knowledge of these ideas. If there is one thing that sitting down and writing out my thoughts has made me realize is how little I actually know. That being said, I think I have a pretty decent understanding of the theoretical implications of the topics I will be discussing, even though the math behind them makes my head hurt and blood to come out my nose.

In the 1930s Erwin Schrödinger developed a though experiment. You may have heard of it, it was named after him (and a cat). It’s called Schrödinger’s Cat. There is a cat. It is in a box, but it is not alone. With it is a device comprised of a deadly gas sealed in a glass container, a hammer set to break the glass if the trigger is set off, the trigger, which is a Geiger counter, and a little bit of a radioactive substance. Over a period of time, Schrödinger used an hour, there is a chance that an atom will decay and set of the device, killing the cat. There is also a chance that no atoms will decay, leaving the cat with its life intact. Because of the weirdness that comes with the world of quantum mechanics an observer is required to see if the atom has decayed or not, until then it is in both states, decayed and not decayed. And so is the cat (perhaps decaying?). It is not until we opened the box that we can see if the cat is alive or dead. Even though the cat can be considered an observer (and also note that all the quantum weirdness goes away at macro levels) it is both alive and dead at the same time until the box is opened, its life is linked to the radioactive decay of the substance. It does not have a state until observed. This is also the view I take on parking tickets and bills

So what does all that nonsense about cats mean about free will? Well, since the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is all about the probable outcomes of choices, it seems that our lives are the sum of these millions and billions of choices going on all around us every day, shaping our world and perceptions. Everything you see and everything you know is only one possible outcome. Our world is on its own path determined by the random outcomes of past choices. The idea of probability and choices in quantum mechanics leads some (including me) to the many worlds theory, that every time a choice is made the world splits, creating two worlds; one where A is the outcome, the other where B is. In one world the cat is alive, in the other the cat is dead, and in another the cat is actually a tuna fish sandwich.

What is interesting about Schrödinger’s Cat is the cat itself. Until the box is opened the cat, in theory, exhibits quantum properties that disappear at macro levels. The cat doesn’t really have a choice on whether or not it is dead or alive. It’s all chance, and that’s one way to look at life: as a series of coincidences, not large choices. Our world (and by our world I am referring to the entire universe) is unique, the only one of its kind. There are many like it, differing in only the placement of a single electron. We have no control over the path that we are on, and like the cat in the box there is little we can do to change the outcome of situations. It is not predetermined, it is chance.

The question of fate versus free will in now no longer valid. We are not on any specific path, but behind us we leave many different universes where the outcomes of those choices are slightly different. To put it somewhat abstractly, we do not make choices, choices make us.

On a larger level these choices might seem trivial. As I mentioned earlier, the cooler properties of quantum mechanics disappear in larger systems, such as a human (or a human brain cell). On the microscopic level particles can tunnel through objects, become entangled with each other and share properties, and disappear then reappear again. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but everyday objects tend not to do things like that. Prisons work because the walls are solid and people can’t just walk through them. There is a small (really really small) chance that one day you will accidently walk into a wall and go straight through it, but don’t plan on it happening, you might get stuck in the wall. The cool stuff that happens at those small levels averages out once you get up to macroscopic levels, leaving us with the world we know and love, a solid world.

So what does this imply for this whole fate versus free will thing? Well if the world around us is controlled by a bunch of probabilities and chances, what hope is there for free will? None, if you as me. So its fate then? Actually, also no.

Wait what?

I said neither. Looking at the universe from the many worlds standpoint every possible choice that has ever been made has happened (is happening) in some parallel universe. It just happens that you are in this world. There is another version of you who decided to skip work today, dye her hair red, and fly to Thailand. That might not have been a choice for you this morning, especially if you are bald, a man, and already in a world where Thailand no longer exists due to the Thai-Aussie war in 1980 where the Australians attacked Thailand with dinosaurs then nuked the entire country.

Now that we have gone way off into left field, why not continue the journey?

Those worlds are around you right now. In the same exact place this world is. As an observer, we are interpreting only this world. We also exist in the other worlds too. Only we can’t observe them. I might go deeper into this concept in the future, but you are going to have to trust me on this one for now.

Limiting your interpretation of the workings of the world to an argument of fate versus free will seems inaccurate. It is much more complex and dynamic. The universe is an extremely complex system with all the parts moving together and interacting in ways that are difficult to imagine. We live in but one of the many possible outcomes of a large probability wave function that has collapsed into the way we perceive the world. The world is happening, we are simply watching.

From my world to yours,

Elijah Xavier

Free Will and the Human Condition

During my second semester at college, one of my professors gave the class an assignment to write about evil from the perspective of the three Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). For the sources, all of the students were required to interview a rabbi, a pastor/priest/etc, and an imam. Being Jewish, I chose to start off my interviews with a rabbi, assuming I would have a strong foundation of understanding. I set up a meeting with the campus rabbi, and we met and got to talking about evil. In the end, however, we ended up straying to angels and humans. During that conversation, the rabbi said something that really struck me, but it couldn’t quite fit it in with the topic of my paper. I ended up forgetting about the quote. Only last night did the memory resurface when Elijah and I decided on our topic for today. The rabbi’s quote was this: “God gave humans free will, but not angels. I guess you could say that humans are more privileged than angels when it comes down to it”.

Free will has always been a difficult concept for me to grasp. When the rabbi made his claim about humans and angels, I was a little taken back. First off, since when is it an accepted truth that free will is desirable? What if there are those who want to be guided through life by a determinant force? For some people, the idea of constantly deciding and choosing may be a daunting and uncomfortable thought. Secondly, is it really that clear that humans are given this ‘gift’? Religions frequently fight over whether or not God has reign over earth in the physical sense. Does God cause an earthquake? Does God get you that new job? Answers vary depending on whether you ask a Calvinist or a Sunni. After pondering the accuracy of the rabbi’s comments, I began thinking about free will on a larger scale. When trying to make an argument of definition, an effective method is to say what something is not. This brings us to a common philosophical crossroad: free will vs. determinism. There are a lot of things to say about both, but this essay will concern itself mostly with the concept of free will, occasionally crossing over to examples of determinism for comparison.

If I want to stop typing right now, I will. And I will continue again when I want. That is, essentially, free will. Or at least it feels like it. Free will is dependent on one major condition: options. There must be at least two truly available options to choose from so that the actor has the opportunity to exercise will. This concept cannot be tested unless there are multiple possibilities. Some philosophers argue that the lack of outside influence is a second condition to free will. They say that a forced action cannot be a true test of free will because of external factors. While it seems obvious to take both conditions into account when pondering the existence of free will, there needs to be a clear separation in understanding between the first and the second. Options are almost always available. Even when an actor is confronted with just one object, they can refuse. For example, a man is offered only one soda, and he doesn’t take it. But when external influences are factored in, the argument becomes less clear.

You may have heard of Clarence Darrow from the Scopes Monkey Trial. What you may not know is that in over one hundred murder cases where Darrow was working for the defense, only one of his clients got the death penalty. Darrow frequently used arguments concerning free will to clear the defendant (who had already confessed to murder) from the most capital of punishments. Darrow would constantly bring up questions of how much power the concept of free will truly had over people, and use it to separate his defendant from his defendant’s actions. When Darrow was defending Leopold and Loeb, two young teens who had kidnapped and killed a fourteen year old for no apparent reason, he produced one of the most eloquent and moving defenses. In it, Darrow is quoted as saying:

“Nature is strong and she is pitiless. She works in her own mysterious way, and we are her victims. We have not much to do with it ourselves. Nature takes this job in hand, and we play our parts. In the words of old Omar Khayyam, we are only, "Impotent pieces in the game He plays Upon this checkerboard of nights and days, Hither and thither moves, and checks, and slays, And one by one back in the closet lays." What had this boy to do with it? He was not his own father; he was not his own mother; he was not his own grandparents. All of this was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and wealth. He did not make himself. And yet he is to be compelled to pay.”

Darrow’s defense methods were compelling enough to work almost every time, but he was bringing up major philosophical questions. Based on his logic, the boys had murdered, yet they were not at fault. Instead, they were products of an environment which they were powerless to change. It may sound cliché, but this mode of thinking is a slippery slope. If the boys are only results of their parents and their neighborhoods, then their parents are results of their parents, and their neighborhoods are results of its founders, and the chain continues infinitely. The domino effect takes place and puts everybody out of blame. These are two important caveats to Darrow’s defense, but we will get back to the idea of the infinite and the blameless in a little bit. Instead, let’s take this idea of environment and expand on it.

As I said before, I can stop typing right now. However, I cannot stop breathing right now- at least not automatically. I can’t stop myself from shivering in the cold or sweating in the heat. I can’t stop myself from blinking, from closing my eyes when I sneeze or flinching if something approaches me. The fact is, there are multiple levels of conscious action that we as humans have to deal with, and some of them are not as malleable as the others. Hold your breath right now. Hold it as long as you possibly can and don’t read past this sentence unless you’ve started breathing again. If you’re reading this it means that you stopped holding your breath. Why? Obviously, it’s because your body is programmed to breathe. While we have some control over respiration, its counterpart (the heart) cannot be stopped from beating. In fact, there are a whole host of functions going on in our body right now that we have absolutely no control over. Even the smaller functions like digestion and the breakdown of amino acids- they will happen no matter what we do as long as we are alive. Our bodies are machines; they are programmed to stay alive. I chose to walk to work in the morning. Whether I walk one particular route over another seems to be my choice, but it is resulting in the same end game: going to work to make money to make sure I can pay for food and water which keep me alive. It seems that in this scenario, free will is coupled with a determined path that the body will take. I can choose the route, but the end goal will be the same. The only way to get out of that cycle, of course, is to die.

It is important, then, to look at what understanding the world would become without the concept of free will. Going back to Darrow’s defense in the Leopold and Loeb case, he argued that the boys were not guilty because of their inability to determine their own development. Ultimately, they could do anything and be blameless, because they had no say over their most fundamental surroundings. If this is the case, then the slippery slope prevails again and nobody is responsible for anything they do. There is no good or evil, there is no right or wrong. Instead, the fault is pushed back to whoever acts as predecessor. A lack of free will would completely destroy any moral code that existed in any given society. It can therefore be argued that free will is an essential concept to accept for the mere reason that it creates order and development. When people act under the presumption that they are responsible for their actions, they are (generally) more careful, more prudent and less disruptive. There will always be exceptions to this rule, but every society lives under a certain morale code in which subjects are responsible for what they do. Whether or not free will exists, it has proven itself a progressive and useful idea.

The final point I want to make here will most likely cross over into Elijah’s category, because it needs to deal with math. It is a generally accepted principle that the universe and time are infinite. Understanding that infinity is not a number, but a concept, there is no equation that can be applied with infinity and make sense in a realm outside of mathematics. Taking that into account, we can discredit the idea of determinism as an alternative to free will. If free will did not exist, it would imply that we were all on a pre-defined path, basically acting out scenes in a play. However time is infinite, and infinity cannot be pre-defined; it has no beginning. Therefore, we may fall victim to the machine of our bodies, the environment or the stars and planets, but we do have free will. We have to choice to steal or pay, to tell the truth or to lie, or to drink grape soda instead of coke. Infinity, while an astoundingly complicated concept for the human brain to understand, is what we can thank for any order that society has maintained in its development. We have free will within a somewhat predetermined system. Infinity causes chaos and order. It’s the ying and the yang, and it gets you every time.

My name is August Feldner, and none of this is original.