Are we free?

David W. Agler

The Pennsylvania State University

Free Will

Our powers

The Great Chain of Being

  1. We are not God
  2. We are not stuff
  3. We are something more than animals

Perhaps what elevates us above the beasts are our powers.

Natural non-living objects (rocks)

  • Natural objects cannot even be said to act or make choices
  • Rocks do not choose to fall down a mountain
  • Eraser does not make any choices

Inanimate stuff of the universe makes no decisions.

Artefacts (bicycles)

  • Artefacts (human-made objects) are just like natural objects
  • They do not exert any choice on their own
  • Insofar as they “make choices”, these choices are due to someone else (actions are programmed)

Example: my self-driving car didn’t freely choose to drive off the cliff.

Animals

Animals (the beasts) are ruled by instincts, genetics, their desires.

  • Unlike natural, non-living objects, they do perform actions
  • But these actions are due to strongest, most immediate desires or instincts
  • They cannot override these desires or weigh the long-term pros and cons.
  • Their behavior can only change if outside forces change their desires, e.g., rewards, punishments, conditioning.

Animals (continued)

The behaviors of animals are determined by

  1. the prior state of their body
  2. the laws of natural world: chemical reactions, neurological events.

Humans

  • Like animals, many of our actions are due to our biology and prior conditioning
  • But, we humans are unlike (1) natural, non-living things, (2) plants, (3) artefacts, and (4) animals.

We have a special power: free will!

A Mysterious Power

Exercise

  1. Do persons have free will?
  2. If persons have free will, then what is this ability?

The Importance of Free Will

R1: Distinguishes persons from beasts

  • Important for understanding who we are (our place in the world)
  • We are not cogs in a machine
  • We have some control over our own destiny

Free will view of personhood

Object \(O\) is a person if and only if \(O\) is capable of free will.

Exercise

Are we the only beings that are free?

R2: Nec condition for responsibility

The following is often accepted:

If \(O\) is responsible for action \(A\), then \(A\) was performed freely by \(O\).

The contrapositive of this is:

If \(A\) was not performed freely by \(O\), then \(O\) is not responsible for \(A\).

The idea is that you are not responsible for actions that you were “forced” to do.

Examples

  1. Tek is driving but someone rigged his car so the brakes would go out. He crashes his car.
  2. Tek is working late, someone drugs his coffee, and he crashes his car.
  3. Tek is brainwashed to always smile when he sees a baby.

Praise and blame

When we think about responsibility, we often think about praise and blame.

  • If we praise (blame) you for action \(A\), then you are responsible for \(A\).
  • If you are responsible for \(A\), then you did \(A\) freely.

You don’t deserve blame for an action you were forced to do.

Exercise

Create an example where someone does not deserve praise or blame because they did not do that action freely.

Defining free will

Acting on your desires

Acting on your desires

Object \(O\) is free if and only if \(O\) can satisfy \(O\)’s desires without interference.

flowchart RL
    A[A wants X]
    B[A does X]
    A e1@==> B
    e1@{ animate: true }

Examples

  1. Tek wants to grab some BFFs, he grabs the BFFs. Therefore, action is free.
  2. Tek wants to ride his bike. He rides his bike. Therefore, action is free.
  3. Tek wants to leap over Mt. Everest. He can’t. Therefore, action is not free.

Problem

  1. You want BFFs
  2. You acted on that desire.
  3. Free actions are those actions where you act on your desires.
  4. Therefore, your action was free.

Problem: where did that desire come from?

Determined desire

Suppose your desire for BFFs was due to:

  1. advertising
  2. addictive banana-air pumped into the store
  3. global cereal shortage
  4. man threatening your life unless you buy BFFs
  5. brain operation causing uncontrollable desire for banana cereal

You acted on your desire, but the act was not free because your desire was determined by someone else.

Determining desires exercise

Exercise

  1. Be a conspiracy theorist. What is a way that the Illuminati (secretive global elite, the 1%, the Freemasons, The Bilderberg Group, Davos Class) try to control what we desire?
  2. What is a non-conspiratorial way that our desires get strongly determined by something outside of us?

Controlling your desires

Skip.

Ability to do otherwise

Ability to do otherwise

Object \(O\) is free if and only if \(O\) does \(A\), \(O\) could have done otherwise (not-\(A\)).

flowchart LR
    O[O]
    A[O buys BFFs]
    nA[A does buy BFFs]
    O e1@==> A
    O e2@-.-> nA
    e1@{ animate: true }

Ability to do otherwise

Object \(O\) is free if and only if \(O\) (now) is faced with two mutually incompatible actions \(A1\) and \(A2\) and \(O\) can chose either of the two options.

flowchart LR
    O[O]
    A[O chooses BFFs]
    nA[A chooses BB]
    O e1@==> A
    O e2@-.-> nA
    e1@{ animate: true }

Ability to do otherwise

In contrast, if you do not have the ability to do otherwise, then you are not free.

  1. When Tek’s brain is programmed to desire BFFs, he cannot act otherwise.
  2. Therefore, he is not free.

Garden of forking paths

People who believe that free will is the ability to do otherwise often view lives as a garden of forking paths.

flowchart LR
    a[David]
    a1[Doctor]
    a11[Marries]
    a12[Single]
    b1[Philosopher]
    b11[Marries]
    b12[Single]
    a e1@==> b1
    b1 e2@==> b11
    b1 -.-> b12
    a -.-> a1
    a1 -.-> a11
    a1 -.-> a12
    e1@{ animate: true }
    e2@{ animate: true }

A person’s life turns out one way but it could have turned out differently if they acted differently.

Your garden

Exercise

Do one of the following:

  1. Create a diagram where your life turns out differently if you acted differently (used your free will in a different way)
  2. Create a diagram where a celebrity’s life turns out differently if they acted differently.

Additional clarifications

C1 - Moral and legal

C1: Free will is metaphysical not legal or moral.

  1. “You can’t hurt others.” = “Hurting me would be illegal.”
  2. “You can’t hurt others.” = “Lying would be morally wrong.”

You are metaphysically free to hurt others even if it would be illegal or morally wrong.

C2 - Physical possibility

C2: Just because \(X\) is physically possible for \(S\) does not mean \(S\) is free to do \(X\).

  1. Physically possible for me to run 4 minute mile.
  2. Physically possible for me to escape prison (gravitational shift causes lock to open) but I am not free to do so.

C3 - Causal capacity

C3: Free action is not simply a causal capacity

  1. I have a causal capacity to digest meat. I am not really free to digest meat (not an action done by me).
  2. I have a causal capacity to dodge a hit. Strange to say I did this voluntarily.

Free will seems like an active power tied to our will / volition / choice rather than a reactive causal power done automatically by our bodies.

Understanding vs. speaking

van Inwagen gives the following example:

  1. We are free to speak English (decision, choice, act of will)
  2. We are not free to understand English. We do this automatically if we know the language (can’t help it).

C4 - Exercising an ability

There is a distinction between having an ability and having the power to exercise that ability. Free will involves the latter.

  1. I have the ability to ride a bicycle
  2. I can’t exercise that ability if my leg is broken

So,

  • Free will \(\neq\) having an ability
  • Free will entails power to exercise an ability

Summary

Metaphysical freedom

  1. is not the moral / legal conception
  2. is not what is physical possible for us
  3. is not a reactive causal capacity (e.g., digestion, understanding English)
  4. is having the power to exercise an ability rather than simply having an ability

Clarifying freedom

Create your own examples of the following:

  1. An act a person is metaphysically free to do but is immoral or illegal (or both).
  2. What is physically possible (does not violate physics) but you are not free to do.
  3. Something you do reactively (e.g., digestion, understand English) but is not free
  4. An ability you have but where you cannot exercise that ability

Free Will Thesis

Free Will Thesis

Free will thesis

There is at least one humanlike creature that is free: for at least one action \(A\), they can do \(A\) or not-\(A\).

Ingredients for theory of free will

Ingredients

  • The free will thesis is contextualized against the way the world is.
  • The world can be one of two ways:
    1. Deterministic
    2. Indeterministic

Determinism

The world is deterministic iff determinism is true.

Definition – Determinism

Determinism is the contingent and empirical claim that for every event \(e\) at a time \(t_2\) for which there is an earlier state of the world, the total state of the world \(w\) at that earlier time \(t_1\) along with the all the laws \(L\) entail every future event at a later time \(t_2\).

Laplace’s Demon: If a being knew all the laws of nature \(L\) and every particle in the world \(W\) at \(t_1\), they could predict every future event after \(t_1\).

Indeterminism

The world is indeterministic iff indeterminism is true.

Definition – Indeterminism

Indeterminism is the contingent and empirical claim that determinism is not true. There exists an event \(e\) for which there is an earlier state of the world such that the total state of the world \(w\) at that earlier time \(t_1\) along with the all the laws \(L\) do entail every future event at a later time \(t_2\)..

  1. There is at least one future event after \(t_1\) that is not a result of the laws plus the world.
  2. Does not say every event is indeterministic.

Clarifications

Let’s add some clarifications.

C1 - Contingent claim

Both determinism and indeterminism are contingent claims.

Definition – Contingent

A proposition \(P\) is contingent if and only if it is possible that \(P\) is true and it is possible that \(P\) is false.

  • Whether they are true or false depends upon the nature of our world.
  • If it is true of our world, we say “it is contingently true” (could have been otherwise)

C2 - Empirical claim

Both determinism and indeterminism are empirical claims.

  • Whether they are true is determined by observing the physical world
  • Leave it to the scientists to figure this out.

C3 - Non-deteministic events

What does it mean for an event to be non-deterministically (indeterministically) caused?

  1. Outside the scope of the laws of nature (physical laws), e.g., activity of the soul
  2. Fundamentally random: objective chance

Quantum Physics

Some people say quantum physics (QP) proves the world is indeterministic.

Watch the following two videos and answer the questions below

  1. In QP, electrons are understood as particles, but how are they understood when they are measured?
  2. Can we identify precisely where an electron is located?
  3. If Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is true, and you know the momentum of a wave, can you know the position of the electron?
  4. What are the three main interpretations of QP?

Exercise

Exercise

Do you believe the world is deterministic or indeterministic?

Free will and the world

  1. We have the free will thesis
  2. The world is deterministic or indeterministic

Let’s formulate some theories about free will:

  1. Impossibilism
  2. Incompatibilism
  3. Compatibilism

Spoiler: None of these theories will really tell you if you are free.

Impossibilism

Impossibilism

Free will is metaphysically impossible for human-like creatures.

flowchart LR
    A[Am I free?]
    D[Determinism]
    I[Indeterminism]
    N["Not Free"]
    A e1@== maybe ==> D
    A e2@== maybe ==> I
    D == nah ==> N
    I == nah ==> N
    e1@{ animate: true }
    e2@{ animate: true }

Incompatiblism

Incompatibilism

The theory that determinism and the free will thesis are inconsistent.

flowchart LR
    A[Am I free?]
    D[Determinism]
    I[Indeterminism]
    N["Not Free"]
    M["?"]
    A e1@==> D
    A -.-> I
    D == nah ==> N
    I -.-> M

    e1@{ animate: true }

There are no deterministic possible worlds where humanlike creatures are free (have the ability to do anything other than what they do).

Incompatiblism and indeterminism 1

Free will thesis is true in indeterministic worlds

flowchart LR
    A[Am I free?]
    D[Determinism]
    I[Indeterminism]
    N["Not Free"]
    M["Freeeedom!"]
    A e1@==> D
    A -.-> I
    D == NO ==> N
    I -.-> M

    e1@{ animate: true }

  1. Many incompatibilists think we are free only if the world is indeterministic.
  2. Also claim that if we were not free, then the position is just impossibilism.

Incompatiblism and indeterminism 2

Some incompatibilists are agnostic about whether we are free in indeterministic worlds.

flowchart LR
    A[Am I free?]
    D[Determinism]
    I[Indeterminism]
    N["Not Free"]
    M["?"]
    A e1@==> D
    A -.-> I
    D == NO ==> N
    I -.-> M

    e1@{ animate: true }

Incompatiblism clarification

Incompatibilism does not say

  1. we are not free.
  2. the world is deterministic

They only say:

IF the world is deterministic, THEN we are not free.

Compatibilism

Impossibilism, Incompatibilism, Compatibilism

Exercise

Are you an impossibilist, incompatibilist, or a compatibilist?