Daily Trojan Magazine
A physicist, philosopher and neuroscientist walk into a bar
Multiple fields offer explanations for whether or not humans have free will or are bound to a deterministic timeline.
By SHRUTI SHAKTHIVEL
The Big Question
In college, amid the bustling campus grounds and late-night study sessions, an undercurrent of introspection flows through young adults’ minds. It’s a time of vibrant exploration, where the world feels boundless and daunting. Every decision seems to carry the weight of a thousand possibilities. As we navigate through our late teens and early 20s, we find ourselves standing at the precipice of adulthood, grappling with questions that have echoed through the ages: What is my purpose? Where am I headed? Who do I want to become?
For those of us on the cusp of post-graduation, these questions take on a heightened urgency. We’re poised on the threshold of a new chapter, teetering between the familiar comforts of academia and the uncharted territory of the “real world.” It’s a juncture that often sparks what some might call a “quarter-life crisis” —– a tumultuous period of soul-searching and self-discovery that exposes the fundamental uncertainties of existence.
At the center of this labyrinth lies a philosophical conundrum: the age-old debate between free will and determinism. Are we the pioneers of our fate, charting our course through the expanse of possibility? Or are our lives predetermined, woven into the fabric of the universe by forces beyond our control? These questions have puzzled thinkers for centuries, defying easy answers and inviting exploration from every angle.
Thematic references
Popular literature and cinema are bathed in this debate, encouraging perceptive readers and viewers to grapple with this existential dilemma. Take, for instance, Frank Herbert’s “Dune,” where the protagonist, Paul Atreides, finds himself forced into a destiny beyond his choosing. Despite his initial reluctance, Paul embraces his role as the prophesied savior, the Kwisatz Haderach, tasked with shaping the fate of the world.
Paul’s journey is one of duty and destiny, as he grapples with the weight of his lineage and the expectations placed upon him by those who came before. Paul’s unique relationship with time is especially captivating as his dreams offer glimpses of past, present and future intertwined. Paul’s story reflects the struggles of fate and free will, a reminder that the boundaries between choice and inevitability are often blurred. As he weighs decisions based on visions of what is to come, Paul confronts the age-old question: Are our lives predetermined by the currents of time, or do we possess the power to shape our destinies?
If you haven’t seen “Dune” (2021) or “Dune: Part Two” yet, that’s OK. The themes of free will and determinism underscore other popular films. Denis Villeneuve, the director of the “Dune” films, grapples with similar questions in his earlier film, “Arrival” (2016). The film tells the story of Louise Banks, a linguist, who learns the language of aliens that have come to Earth. They come bearing a gift so that in return they can ask for humans to help their alien world 3,000 years in the future.
This gift that they brought is their language which allows them, and eventually Louise, to see time as nonlinear and thus be able to see the future. The central idea is that language influences our perception of time. Humans see time the way we read a line on a piece of paper. You start and move forward, but you cannot see beyond the present moment.
These aliens, however, have a circular language that enhances their understanding of time so they’re able to see the past, present, and future all at once. In the film, we see how this affects Louise. As she becomes more immersed in the language, she experiences visions of her future. Despite knowing the painful consequences that will follow certain decisions, she decides to make those same decisions anyway. Villeneuve’s film presents a deterministic argument that not even knowledge of the future can change what happens.
Christopher Nolan’s films make subtle but somehow blatant arguments for determinism as well. Or at least the films struggle with the concept that humans have free will. In the film “Inception” (2010), the crux of the story hinges on Leonardo DiCaprio’s character placing a thought deep in someone’s subconscious to influence a decision they make so that not only are they convinced they made the decision out of free will, but the thought also influences decisions they make in the future. The ending of “Inception” suggests decisions can be made from a false sense of choice.
In “Interstellar” (2014), similar themes emerge when Matthew McConaughey’s character learns that the supernatural signs he uses to guide his decisions are not aliens or ghosts but, rather, a future version of himself planting breadcrumbs to guide his past self.
Villeneuve and Nolan are a few of the many directors, writers and storytellers who have contended with these philosophical questions and suggested reasons as to why our lives may be out of our hands while simultaneously in them. The lack of popular media — that I know of — creating a strong argument for free will could be because it’s obvious that we have free will and it’s more fun to contemplate the alternative. Although, I think the story is much more complex.
Definitions
Navigating the intricacies of the free will versus determinism debate requires not only clear definitions but also an exploration of the nuanced perspectives offered by scholars across various disciplines. Scott Macdonald, an assistant professor of physics and astronomy at USC, offered an analogy to define determinism as the idea that “somebody wrote a book, the story of the universe, and everybody is in that book, and everything that person has done or ever will do is already written in that book.” This notion suggests that our choices are illusory, merely following a predetermined path.
Jonas Kaplan, an associate professor of psychology at USC’s Brain and Creativity Institute, echoed this description, defining determinism by saying, “Everything in the universe is the result of prior causes. If we trace everything back [to] the Big Bang, and if we perfectly understood physics, we could predict the outcome of the whole universe from its very beginning, or from any other point.” According to this perspective, everything unfolds according to a fixed and predetermined trajectory.
Yet, defining free will introduces a fresh layer of complexity. Gabilan assistant professor of physics and astronomy Vera Gluscevic explained free will as “a phenomenon whereby our choices as human beings cannot be predicted from fundamental laws of physics as we understand them right now.” In contrast to determinism, which posits a preordained universe, free will suggests that individuals possess genuine agency to shape their paths.
Macdonald further elaborated on the concept of free will, conceptualizing it as the absence of a pre-written script, where individuals chart their course through life, influencing their future through conscious choices.
Similarly, Benjamin Callard, an instructional professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago, emphasized the notion of unforced choices, suggesting that genuine free will entails the ability to act without external compulsion. “Free will, if we have it, is the ability to make unforced choices,” Callard said. “So if we have free will, then we do things for reasons, but nothing, not even our reasons compel us or determine us or necessitate us to do the things that we do.”
These diverse definitions underscore the philosophical and scientific underpinnings that characterize the ongoing debate between proponents of free will and determinism. As we delve deeper into these contrasting perspectives, we begin to unravel the intricate debate over whether our lives are shaped by external forces or personal autonomy.
The logic underpinning each side
Given that the topic of free will versus determinism has strong roots in philosophical history, it’s intuitive to search there for an answer. Callard explained, “In a sense, it’s very simple that it seems to us that we have free will … [Practical deliberation and morality] entail that we have free will.”
Let’s imagine you’re deciding how to spend your Friday night. You can go to the movies, go out to the bar, stay home to watch “The Bachelor” or the other endless options that appear to be available to you. Practical deliberation — the process of deciding — only makes sense on the assumption that you can do any of those things. Similarly, morality is an important consideration in this debate. Without free will, how can you judge a person for their actions and hold them accountable if they don’t have the option to do otherwise?
If the answer isn’t free will, Callard asks, “How can we make sense of the idea that there are reasons that explain what we do but don’t determine what we do or do not force us to do what we do?” He admits that he takes the minority opinion among his peers and explains that the majority who accept determinism as the answer have reasonings based on physics and neuroscience such as the observations of Newton’s laws of motion or neurons firing in the brain.
Macdonald and Gluscevic, to my surprise, explained the opposite. Physics doesn’t provide a clear answer because the nondeterministic qualities of quantum mechanics and deterministic qualities of Newton’s laws of motion can’t be applied to the complex processes of human cognition and action. Newton’s laws say that if you know the mass, size, shape and all relevant forces in a system, you can predict what happens in that system. If you push a ball, you can calculate exactly where it’s going to end up.
Macdonald explains that since the universe is composed of atoms, that makes the universe a quantum model, and if you try to replicate the experiment of pushing a ball on an atom, the law of quantum physics can’t be used to predict the outcome. Rather, “quantum laws predict the probability, the likelihood of certain outcomes, but [they] cannot predict specifically any one outcome,” said Macdonald. The disconnect between the quantum laws and those that govern the size of everyday objects makes it even more challenging when it comes to trying to apply either set of laws to free will.
“The scale and nature of problems that we deal [with] in fundamental physics is very, very different from the scale of a problem like trying to model something as complex as a human brain and human behavior,” Gluscevic said. For that reason, “it’s a huge leap of faith to go from that aspect of our reality [to] now saying [the probabilistic features of quantum physics] admit free will.”
As a researcher rooted in data, Gluscevic recognizes the limitations.
“We know that our tools [to study physics], as we have them right now, have shortcomings. It’s an act of faith to make an assumption that with what we have right now, the understanding of fundamental particles and understanding how they behave when we have very, very simple systems, that we’re going to be able to take those components and take them all the way to explaining and understanding the human brain in detail in order to make predictions.”
Additionally, Macdonald makes an important distinction. Even if one leans on the indeterminate or determinate features of physics to support their argument, support is not the same as proof.
Perhaps the laws of physics are challenging to scale up to the level of human consciousness, but Kaplan is a strong proponent of determinism because neuroscience research has shown that “you can predict people’s choices from their neural activity well before they’re even aware of having made a choice.”
Kaplan studies how the brain works and how important functions in human psychology are accomplished, specifically using neuroimaging techniques. The functional MRI machine measures brain activity, and though it’s not a tool that reflects the laws of quantum physics, it does provide compelling evidence for deterministic tendencies in human outcomes. In response to Callard’s claim that because we feel like we can make a choice, we must have free will, Kaplan explains that neuroscience research shows the brain gives us the illusion of choice, but in reality, decisions are a product of cognitive processes rather than true free will.
From the varied responses, it’s clear that, despite compelling arguments and evidence, philosophy or science doesn’t provide clear answers. Callard interestingly points out that trying to connect “a claim about neuron firings to a claim about free will, or from a claim in physics to a claim about the wrongness of lying” and related moralities is not yet entirely possible. But if there were to be a claim connecting science to philosophy, the bridging claim would “have to be a philosophical claim” that includes ethical, philosophical and metaphysical implications.
Implications for morality
If determinism is part of the answer, what would that mean for the ethical moral implications that our current judicial system relies on? As pointed out earlier, if people are destined to act as a result of the sequence of events stemming from the Big Bang, then we must consider what it means to punish someone for committing a crime.
Kaplan provides an optimistic perspective explaining, “We have to hold the [convict] responsible. But we do have to think about what conditions led to a life that makes someone likely to do those kinds of crimes. And we need to address those underlying conditions that led to that. It also can give us more empathy for the person who commits a crime or does something wrong, because we know that in a lot of ways, they are a victim of their own circumstances.”
So in this view, determinism does not absolve individuals for their actions, but rather understands the cause-and-effect nature of events and how they accumulate as time progresses.
Are free will and determinism exclusive or can they coexist?
The debate supposes that one must consider the two sides as opposites but in fact, they can coexist, and it’s a popular opinion in the philosophical academic field. Compatibilism is the idea that determinism is compatible with free will, which is important because, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility.” Compatibilism defines free will as the “ability to do what one wants” and that the “truth of determinism does not entail that agents lack free will since it does not entail that agents never do what they wish to do, nor that agents are necessarily encumbered in acting.”
Let’s say you’re deciding between biking to school or walking. This morning, you made a commitment to hit a certain step goal, but now it’s raining and you don’t want to get soaked. You end up walking in the rain. It’s not because an outside force compelled you to or that you’re doing it against your will.
Compatibilism would explain that you weighed your options and you liked the benefits of walking more than the benefits of biking. Though it’s a tough decision, you did what you and only you wanted. Similarly, the deterministic feature of this situation would explain that there were no other factors in your history of experience that would have changed what you wanted.
If this is challenging to conceptualize, that’s OK. The takeaway is that the existence of compatibilism and other theories underscores the variability present in this debate and the numerous possible solutions that can provide a bridge between the sciences and philosophical ethical considerations.
Does this debate need an answer?
As we navigate the labyrinth of free will versus determinism, we inevitably encounter the question: Does this debate need an answer? The perspectives offered by scholars across disciplines shed light on the significance of grappling with this existential quandary.
Gluscevic underscores the profound nature of this philosophical inquiry, suggesting that it strikes at the core of human curiosity and existential inquiry. “It’s one of the most interesting questions that there is and there’s spin-offs of that question that lead to all sorts of questions [about] humanity: Why are we here? Where did we come from? Whose idea was this?” She posits that these “are ingrained in our souls pretty deeply,” compelling us to seek understanding and meaning in our existence. Gluscevic highlights how these fundamental inquiries permeate scientific exploration, serving as a driving force behind research endeavors.
Echoing this sentiment, Kaplan emphasizes the practical implications of the free will versus determinism debate. “It matters for a lot of different reasons. It matters for how we see ourselves and how we see other people. One of the things that some people are worried about is that if we don’t have free will, does that mean that we can’t hold other people responsible for the things that they do?” He suggests that the answer to this question holds profound implications for how we perceive humanity, particularly in terms of moral responsibility and societal structures such as punishment and reward.
Callard takes a definitive stance on the necessity of answering this question, asserting that it is paramount for our understanding of humanity and the world around us. “This answer needs to be answered more than pretty much any question needs to be answered. A very large amount of thought and practice depends on getting the right answer to the question. If we have the wrong answer, we are hopelessly confused about what we are as human beings and how the world works.” He argues that a correct answer is essential to avoid confusion and guide our thoughts and actions.
Evaluating these perspectives, it becomes evident that the debate between free will and determinism transcends academic discourse, permeating the very essence of human existence. While the quest for a conclusive answer may remain elusive, the process of inquiry itself yields invaluable insights into the nature of consciousness, agency and the human experience. Thus, whether or not this debate requires a definitive resolution, its exploration catalyzes deeper introspection and understanding.
When life seems so vast, amorphous and long, comfort can be found in believing a path is already laid out, and we navigate life with a sense of direction, that we just need to find our “purpose” to find peace and happiness. Still, there’s a balancing tension of desire to feel in control and optimism knowing that you can take charge of your life and create your purpose.
Finally, Macdonald offers a nuanced perspective on the topic, acknowledging the limitations of human understanding and the possibility that some questions may remain unanswered.
“I think it’s nice that there are some questions that may not have an answer. Thinking about those questions and pondering them is still useful … There’s a lot we can learn in asking questions and thinking about questions that [builds] off the question itself that can guide us a lot in life and science and everything, even if it’s not answering the original question, ”Macdonald said. He suggests that the pursuit of these questions, even if they lack definitive answers, holds value in fostering curiosity and guiding our exploration of life’s mysteries.
