This morning while I was exercising, I listened to a podcast on the great debate between determinism and free will. As usual, my mind wanders off and had some of my own thoughts in between those arguments of famous philosophers whose name I couldn’t really recall. Anyway, here’s what was in my mind.
First, I do feel the arguments for determinism is very strong and fit my scientific view. It appears there are strong causal relationships behind our real world events. On the other hand, I also strongly believe one’s will play an overwhelmingly important role in determining the outcome concerning one’s state, in particular, happiness.
The debate puts these two ideas, determinism and free will, at the opposite side of the coin — implies determinism precludes free will. Maybe. However, as any words of human language, its meaning is often complex (ambiguous) rather than simplistic. Whether determinism and free will are contradictory depends on our adopted meaning and understanding.
First, determinism. One meaning, which appears to be adopted by most of the philosophers in the debate, refers to the strict causal logic behind all events. If all input are given, and if we believe there are physical laws governs the reality, then the output is as certain as a math calculation. In a word, the latter event is “determined” by the previous events. The logic goes that the previous events are also determined by even earlier events, and so on, all the way to the origin of the universe (if there is one). Not only history, but all future is all predetermined. Perhaps, but there are a few wrinkles.
The first wrinkle is the quantum mechanics theory. Quantum mechanics argues that a state (of a particle, a collection of particles, or our mind and universe) cannot be easily defined in our usual sense. For example, we can’t pin any quantum particles to a mathematical precise spatial point, nor can we assess its precise motion (momentum). Be clear though, within quantum mechanics’ framework, the physical state is still well defined and the idea of later states can be determined/calculated from earlier states/inputs is still supported. Thus it does not contradict determinism. But determinism no longer really means what we originally think it means before quantum mechanics.
The second wrinkle is the complex theory, best known as the chaos theory. Complex theory is not really a theory but rather a mathematical observation that a deterministic process can lead to unpredictable results. A butterfly flaps its wing in Tokyo may be the critical factor that causes the category 5 hurricane in the Caribbean (given all other factors equal). This does not challenge determinism. On the contrary, it is by definition deterministic. However, it differentiates the meaning of deterministic from the meaning of predictable. In the observation of complex theory, none of the limited pre-events (other than all) can be used to determine the outcome, except when sometimes, a tipping point may be reached and after that, the outcome is quite certain. Unless we grasp all the inputs (which is fundamentally impossible for real world unless we replay the entire universe from the beginning), the reaching of this tipping point appears very much to be a random event.
Now let’s move on to free will. Unlike determinism, this is much more ambiguous. What do we mean by free will? In one sense, free will means non-deterministic. Given all inputs to one’s physical body — more specifically, mind — the outcome is still undetermined, and it depends on one additional factor — one’s will. The problem here is that the will is undefined. If we define will as one’s brain activity, then these brain activities are still physical events and should be part of the inputs, that leads to determinism.
So some advocates of free will inevitably lead to the idea of the soul (and god) — the ultimate sinkhole of no idea of what we are talking about.
However, I would like to argue this is a rather narrow interpretation of free will. I think when we believe in free will, we are more in the idea of predictability. For example, does the condition that you having a gun pointing at my head asking me to hit my friend to be sufficient to predict that I will do so? Believing in free will simply mean the answer to that is negative. This latter interpretation of the free will, which I believe is what we really mean, is not fundamentally contradictory to determinism.
So this leads to my state of thinking. I do not deny determinism (though I am not one hundred percent support it either); I actually appreciate much of the logic and arguments behind determinism but I acknowledge that we do not know enough to be certain yet; I strongly believe in free will; I believe that one’s will is the strongest factor that predicts one’s outcome.
How do I keep these thoughts compatible, and have peace of mind?
First and by far most importantly, I think one’s belief is the tipping point to determine, I mean to predict, one’s later action. Once one had a certain belief, one would perceive events through this belief, and one would develop further ideas based on this belief, and most importantly, one would act based on his belief. By all measure, once one had a belief, one would assert one’s will according to this belief, and this will is often stronger than all other later external events to predict one’s action. Aren’t this a description of exercising free will?
Now, what about before we adopt this belief? Is it deterministic or not? If it is deterministic, doesn’t mean we are morally irresponsible for our action? Maybe and no. For the former, before we adopt any affirmative belief, whether it is deterministic is not important. What is important is whether it is predictable. If it is predictable, then other people can control the events around one’s earlier life to render certain belief into that person. To certain extents, this may appear true. We do adopt beliefs that are largely caused by our life before it. However, it is by far not predictable. All parents and teachers will have this experience that the kids may turn out to have their own beliefs despite all what we tried to foster. So maybe our mind and beliefs and wills are fundamentally determined by all events of the universe before me, but as long as it is utterly unpredictable, this determinism bears no significance at all. To any individual, before one adopts certain belief — by the way, one cannot really choose the belief, one believes when he believes — we could say that one’s will is in an ambiguous state, just like a quantum state (which probably is), and it can go either way depend on the events (a measurement for example). A measurement on an ambiguous quantum state cannot predict the result, but it does sometimes collapse the state into one or the other. So our parents and teachers and me here writing these sentences are all some sort of measurements: we try to determine what you believe. Our effort does not predict what you’ll believe, but it does have an effect to result in you adopting a certain belief. Why you adopt one belief versus the other? There are factors, but ultimately that is because of who you are. The outcome of your belief is your identity.
By the last claim, we are morally responsible for our actions and wills and ultimately beliefs. These defines who you are and you are responsible for results because of who you are. You may even adopt a belief that any other beliefs are questionable and up to debate and examination. In fact, that is my belief and having that belief (I cannot reason thoroughly why and how I developed that belief) defines me. That is who I am. And I am responsible for it.
Of course, what do we mean by responsible? Ultimately, that is also a belief. One may not, and many don’t, really believe in responsibility. For me, responsible simply means I don’t believe in blaming others. In another word, I am who I am. I cannot explain why I am who I am, and that is ultimately meaningless. What is important is I accept who I am. By accepting who I am, I hold responsibility for my action, my will, and my beliefs.
Now, audience, what is your belief? I cannot predict what you will think or believe, but having you read this could be a measurement to reveal who you are.
PS: I had this interesting analogy in mind but somehow I didn’t manage to put it in. Think about a good novel in a new book form laid in front you. Would the idea that everything inside this novel is already determined affect in any degree your reading experience? Probably not right? All it matters is that to you, the story is all but predictable. I think our life could be like a story. Whether our story is predetermined does not matter. All it matters is to us we are having a unique experience that our own state of belief is the strongest factor determining how our life plays out. Isn’t that sufficient?