Credit: Reid Murray | Managing Editor for Design and Lucy Lawler | Managing Editor for Content
The Philosophical Corner is a monthly column dedicated to the exposure and discussion of philosophy.
In the battle of existential ideas, there exists two entities: free will and determinism.
Due to the various angles from which one can argue for each side, this battlefield is unimaginably complex. The amount of prerequisite knowledge needed, along with the simple fact that there is no right answer, furthers the intricacy of this topic.
Free will
Although definitions of free will can vary from person to person, my definition postulates that “one could have done otherwise.”
The free will argument does not attribute free will to everything, but instead, only to organisms with an internal, abstract consciousness — notably, humans. In turn, it accepts the premise that the physical realm is guided by the laws of physics and evolution.
Looking through this lens, if a rock were to be thrown, its trajectory would be determined by physics. If it were to strike a window, the specific damage would be proportional to the velocity and size of the rock.
When reversing this series of seemingly physics-governed events, there is one lingering question: Does the chain of events begin with the choice the human made to throw the rock in the first place — in other terms, the human’s free will — or is the human just another moving part in the continuous physics-governed chain?
Of course, when dissecting free will, there lies another problem: the idea of want.
Can we “will” our wants?
If I want to eat cake rather than ice cream, but I choose to eat ice cream anyway, can I really have wanted otherwise?
Sure, let’s say I choose ice cream fully knowing I actually want cake, hence claiming my free will. One may think I overcame my wants and desires in doing so.
With that being said, there seems to be a hierarchy of wants, competing with one another for existence. What controls the superiority of wants if it isn’t free will?
One’s wants are simply another piece of a chain controlled by physics and evolution. The want for cake likely came to existence from a preconceived event, such as witnessing an appealing advertisement or undergoing an imbalance of blood glucose levels.
Determinism
Determinism argues that humans are controlled by the same forces that control inanimate objects, namely physics and biology.
In this realm of physics and biology, rules and laws are set in place in order to produce the “perfect” conditions for life.
According to determinism, from the moment of conceivable time — for instance, at the Big Bang — there began an innumerable amount of simultaneous chain reactions, all of which were dictated by physics and biology, and eventually led to this present moment.
For example, when it comes to cake versus ice cream, a determinist would say the want to claim my free will in choosing the ice cream triumphed over my want for a specific dessert, the cake.
However, there is one glaring exception to determinism and it lies within quantum mechanics.
The role of quantum mechanics
When focusing so far beyond the molecular and atomic levels of reality that one has reached into the subatomic, predicting the superposition of a particle is near impossible.
Famously expressed as Schrödinger’s cat — but also known as the double-slit experiment — many quantum physicists believe that a particle can exist in multiple positions simultaneously — which is known as superposition — but when measured, the wave function collapses to occupy just one position.
Take a coin being tossed in the air. It has multiple states — in this case heads and tails — that can coexist until the coin lands and can be measured.
Many physicists believe this unpredictability is a fundamental characteristic of subatomic particles and that accepting the premise of life’s concrete unpredictability discredits the ideals held by determinism.
Finding biological evidence
Determinists often apply the same rules of physics that are applied to inanimate objects to humans, yet there also exists evidence within the human psyche and internal dialogue.
Rather than physics of the natural world, biology is now brought into question — specifically, the evolutionary drives that are guided by natural selection.
Instead of the choice of sleeping in or getting up being based on free will, the determinist would say this choice was made according to evolutionary mechanisms of sufficient sleep or individual success.
When analyzing such an equally balanced debate between the free will and determinist theories of decision-making, one question arises: Why is the notion of free will much more popular?
Free will versus determinism
Imagine if society were to accept determinism as fact; all responsibility, from individual to societal, would then have to subside and institutions, including the justice system, would crumble. If human beings are dictated by physics and evolution, then it must follow that there cannot be individual responsibility.
In fact, according to current scientific understanding, the idea of free will is an evolutionary trait derived from higher human cognitive ability. By believing in free will, our species gained the advantage of metacognition and ethics, carrying out premeditated decisions that aided in reproduction and survival.
In the depths of my mind, I know determinism to be true. Determinism supports the notion of a materialistic world, a concept that is only logical to me, yet I cannot allow myself to actively believe in such a reality that fails to differentiate my actions from those of a rock. Every decision, judgment and act of sympathy or kindness stems from a certain belief in free will, and without it, one loses all humanity.
