Is free will compatible with indeterminism?

David W. Agler

The Pennsylvania State University

Quick review

Goals and agenda

• Last times: compatibilism and incompatibilism
• This time: Are we free if the world is indeterministic? (metaphysical libertarianism)
• Goals
  1. Define metaphysical libertarianism (ML)
  2. Evaluate arguments for ML
  3. Decide if we are MLs.

Metaphysical liberatianism defined

metaphysical libertarianism

Metaphysical libertarianism is the theory that (1) free will and determinism are incompatible, and (2) that free will is only possible if the world is indeterministic.

1. MLs are incompatibilists
2. Claim that free will thesis is true iff world is indeterministic

ML is not PL

Metaphysical liberatianism is not political libertarianism.

1. Bodily autonomy and self-determination: persons control their body and have a right to live how they want as long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others.
2. Non-aggression principle: Force or fraud against others is unjust.
3. Voluntary cooperation: Society is based on voluntary consent rather than state mandates
4. Limited Government: Enforcing contracts, protecting people from unjust acts (force, fraud, breaking contracts).

Two hurdles for ML

1. Ascent problem: Show incompatibilism is true (Consequence argument)
2. Descent problem: Show free will is compatibilism with indeterminism

Three types of ML

1. non-causal libertarianism
2. event-causal libertarianism
3. agent-causal libertarianism

Non-causal libertarianism (NCL)

Non-causal libertarianism (NCL)

An action \(A\) by \(S\) is free iff (1) \(S\) performed the action and (2) the action is not determined by prior causes and the laws of nature, viz., the action is indeterministically caused.

1. S does an action \(A\)
2. \(A\) was indeterministic
3. Therefore, \(A\) was a free action.

NCL Example 1

1. Tek lifts his hand
2. His prior brain state did not determine he would lift his hand.
3. Therefore, the hand lift was free.

NCL Example 2

1. Liz is deciding her major: Biology or Philosophy
2. Her prior brain state did not determine which major she will pick.
3. Liz decides Biology.
4. Therefore, her choice was free.

Problem 1: Freedom and chance

A chance event done by \(S\) is not necessarily a free act done by \(S\).

• Tek is sitting in class
• Hand randomly goes up
• Decision to raise hand is outside of his control (random cosmic event)

Problem 2: Freedom and consciousness

A chance event done by \(S\) that is not tied to the “right kind” of mental state is not a free act done by \(S\).

• Tek is sitting in class
• Hand randomly goes up
• Decision to raise hand is not linked to a conscious mental state of raising his hand.

Problem 3: Otherwordly twins

• Imagine Tek and Lek that exist in two different indeterministic possible worlds.
• They are identical in every way.
• They are both faced with saving my life!

Problem 3: Otherwordly twins

Here are their decisions

1. Tek saves me.
2. Lek kills me.

Strange to say that Tek deserves praise and Lek deserves blame because of the side of the cosmic coin they were delivered.

Exercise

Exercise

Create a scenario where someone does something randomly (indeterministic cosmic event) that is intuitively not free.

Extra-factor theories

Extra-factor strategies

• NCL is too inclusive (makes too many indeterministic acts free)
• Need to make it more exclusive (restrictive) by adding an extra condition

So, \(S\)’s action \(A\) is free iff:

1. Done by \(S\)
2. \(A\) is indeterministic
3. Some extra-factor

Extra-factor theories

1. non-causal libertarianism
2. event-causal libertarianism (extra-factor theory)
3. agent-causal libertarianism (extra-factor theory)

Extra-factor

An action \(A\) by \(S\) is free iff (1) \(S\) performed the action, (2) the action is non-deterministic, and (3) and this extra factor.

Event-causation Libertarianism (ECL)

Event-causation Libertarianism (ECL)

Recall that one problem was that indeterministic events are considered free even when they are not linked to the “right kind of mental event”.

event-causal libertarian (ECL)

Event-causal libertarianism (ECL) says that an action \(A\) by \(S\) is a free action iff:

1. \(A\) is performed by the subject \(S\),
2. an indeterministic event \(E\) causes \(A\),
3. \(E\) is an “apt” mental event (desires, reasons, beliefs, intentions) that are nondeterministically caused and found in \(S\) (the ``extra-factor’’)

Example

Tek is in class. Teacher asks question.

• An indeterministic event occurs in Tek’s mind: I want to raise my hand and answer this question.
• This event causes Tek to raise his hand.
• Act is free

flowchart LR
    E[Question]
    I[Indeterministic-caused mental event]
    A[Raises hand]
    E --> I -->|deterministically causes| A 
    A -.-|apt| I

Clarifications

1. Relationship between Act and Mental Event must be connected in some “apt” way
2. Free action involves a indeterministically-caused mental event that deterministically causes an act by the subject.

If the mental event indeterministically caused the action, then you’d be back to NCL.

Clarification Visualized 1

Like this:

flowchart LR
    E[Event]
    M1[M-event 1]
    M2[M-event 2]
    R[Raises hand]
    H[Hand down]
    E -->|50| M1 --> R
    E -->|50| M2 --> H 

Key advantage of ECL over NCL is this: free actions must be not only performed by the subject \(S\) but caused by the reasons or motivations that the person \(S\) considered when they acted.

Clarification Visualized 2

Not like this:

flowchart LR
    E[Event]
    M1[M-event 1]
    M2[M-event 2]
    R[Raises hand]
    H[Hand down]
    E --> M1 -->|50| R & H
    E --> M2 -->|50| H & R

Not like this either:

flowchart LR
    E[Event]
    M1[M-event 1]
    M2[M-event 2]
    R[Raises hand]
    H[Hand down]
    E -->|50| M1 -->|50| R & H
    E -->|50| M2 -->|50| H & R

Problem 1

The main problem with ECL is it seems to shift the problem that NCL had to the mind.

flowchart LR
    E[Offered candy]
    M1[M-event 1]
    M2[M-event 2]
    R[Punch Tek in face]
    H[Accept Candy]
    E -->|50| M1 --> H
    E -->|50| M2 --> R

How am I free if my actions are determined by random mental events that are outside of my control?

Problem 1 - Continued

• There is a killer in all of us.
• Likelihood that we will act on it is miniscule, e.g., 0.001%.

flowchart LR
    E[Tek offers candy]
    M1[M-event 1]
    M2[M-event 2]
    H[Accept Candy]
    K[Kill Tek]
    E -->|99.999| M1 --> H
    E -->|0.001| M2 --> K

• Strange to say the act of killing was free here.
• Again, how is this act free if it is a cosmic dice roll outside of my control?

Exercise

Exercise

Create a scenario where there is an indeterministic mental event that occurs in someone and they act deterministically, BUT we would intuitively think that the action is not free.

Agent Causal Libertarianism (ACL)

Agent Causal Libertarianism

1. non-causal libertarianism
2. event-causal libertarianism (extra-factor theory)
3. agent-causal libertarianism (extra-factor theory)

Main problem with ECL was that free actions seem to be due to cosmic chance (in our minds) rather than due to us.

We need control!

ACL

agent-causal libertarian (ACL)

Agent-causal libertarianism (ACL) says that an action \(A\) by \(S\) is a free action iff:

1. \(A\) is performed by the subject \(S\),
2. \(A\) is indetermistically caused
3. \(A\) is due to “agent causation”.

Two questions

1. what is agent causation?
2. what is an agent?

Event causation

Standard causation is called event-causation.

1. Cause of an event \(e2\) is another event \(e1\)
2. World at state \(e1\) causes world at state \(e2\).

Example

1. Liz desires to push Tek (brain state)
2. Liz’s body moves to push Tek
3. Liz pushes Tek
4. Tek loses balance
5. Tek falls

In event causation, we have different physical states of the world causing the next physical state.

Agent-causation

agent-causation

A type of causal relation between an agent and an act that is not reducible to a type of causal relation between events (whether these events be mental or physical)

1. Event causation: relata are events
2. Agent causation: relata are agents and events.

Key point

In agent causation

1. free choices are made by the whole agent
2. act is not due to the reasons in their mind or brain events in their brain or some part of their personality.

What is an agent?

agent

an agent is a type of thing that can make choices without that choice being caused by prior events.

An agent

1. is a type of thing that decides between A and B
2. their decision to do A rather than B is not settled by the prior state of the world (brain, reasons, information state).
3. They choose without having their choice be caused by their brain states or reasons.

Key clarification again!

It is important to stress that the free choice of an agent is not made by some event that is inside me.

• WE make choices
• Our choices are not determined by reasons, brain states, what we know, personality, etc.
• The choice / action is not due to anything external to ourselves

Problem 1: Spooky

Agents are mysterious. What even is it?

Sounds like a spooky ghost blasting into the world

Kane: “libertarians have posited transempirical power centers, nonmaterial egos, noumenal selves outside space and time, unmoved movers, uncaused causes, and other unusual forms of agency or causation–thereby inviting charges of obscurity or mystery against their view.”

Problem 2: Speculative

ACL claims that our decisions are not caused by our reasons (information states) or desires or brain states

• How would they know this?
• Claim has no argumentative support

If Tek raises his hand, how do they know he made this choice rather than some prior event drove this?

Problem 3: ACL reduces to NCL

Suppose agent-causation is not determined by the agent’s biology, their reasons, their values, their intentions, etc.

• THEN: the agent’s decision to do \(X\) rather than \(Y\) seems no different than mere chance.
• There is no basis for choosing \(X\) rather than \(Y\).
• So, it is just like NCL (random event)

Exercise

We have considered the following questions:

1. Is free will possible?
2. Is free will compatible with determinism?
3. Is free will compatible with indeterminism?

Answer question (3).