Does free will exist?
This is in a sense a rhetorical question, because it cannot be answered in a falsifiable way. That is you may have an opinion/belief with regard to that question but you can never prove it to someone with a different point of view.
Nevertheless, let’s explore the subject just for fun.
First of all, what does free will mean? It turns out that simple attempts to define free will implicitly assume that it exists, which renders the question about its existence meaningless. A more rigorous treatment leads to the conclusion that free will cannot be defined, which also renders the said question meaningless, though in a different way.
So, let’s start as simple as possible. Of course, your idea of free will may be different, but for me free will implies the possibility to influence the future, no matter to what an extent. In other words,
Given free will, I can act in more than one way.
Note, however, a subtle problem in the previous sentence.
The verb “can” already implies free will.
Indeed, if I am predetermined to act in a single way then all phrases starting with “I can …” are mere delusions. Either I will do that or I won’t, and it’s not up to me to decide which option will come true.
So now that we have recognized the fact that our language assumes existence of free will let’s move forward.
There are two ways to question the existence of free will:
- Could I have acted differently than how I did?
- Can I act in more than one way?
The two questions above may seem equivalent but they subtly aren’t. The first one allows an interpretation automatically leading to a negative answer. Everything boils down to a very philosophical question
Who/what am I?
If I am, among all other things, all of my past, then of course I - the present me - could not have acted differently - that would simply be not me! To make it less abstract, consider a very concrete example:
Could I, William the Conqueror, who conquered England, not have conquered England?
Absolutely not! Because then I wouldn’t have been William the Conqueror.
If you agree with such logic, then you must admit that free will doesn’t exist in the past. Whereas stripping oneself of one’s own past as an inseparable part of one’s identity reduces the first formulation to the second one.
So here it is again
Can I act in more than one way?
A simple “no” precludes any further elaboration, so let’s suppose that the answer is “yes”, which leads to the next question about the source of free will.
So, here I am, offered to choose either the red pill or the blue pill. I believe that both outcomes are possible. What will determine the actual outcome?
I realize that my actions are not constrained to taking either one or the other - I could equally well take both or go biking instead. The binary choice is merely for illustrative purposes, as the simplest example on which the problem can be analyzed. So I am facing a pure dilemma.
Suppose that I have no reason to prefer one pill over another. Or, maybe there are good reasons to take the red one, but since I don’t actually care about pills but rather about free will I may pursue the answer to a different dilemma - do I possess free will not to act as circumstances dictate? And if I disobey my own reasoning, would it indeed be manifestation of free will or just a bug in my reasoning?
In any case the situation looks like unstable equilibrium that can be ended by an external force so negligible that its nature can never be proved. It appears as mere randomness.
So is it just a global silly source of randomness that will influence my choice? If so, can it be called free will?
Or even without any randomness at all. In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics both choices are realized, each in its own future. Imagine that the universe is a game - something like chess but much much more sophisticated - played by a computer that explores all possibilities. It tries this course of action till the game ends (or some criteria is met), then backtracks and tests the other option, and so on. Every branch of such a full search is perfectly deterministic and at every decision point all branches are taken. But for poor me is there effectively any choice at all?
Thus, even the presence and feasibility of multiple choices doesn’t equal the existence of free will.
I am inclined to believe in a world governed by simple physical laws at its core. I don’t at all feel uncomfortable at the thought that it is merely a simulation or that I am only a very complex structure that has emerged out of a zillion of primitive particles held together by relatively simple interactions. I realize that my conciousness behaves as if free will exists but at the same time my common sense tells me that it is just an illusion. But it is a really wonderful illusion!