Determinism vs Free Will

  DETERMINISM vs FREE WILL:-

Determinism:-

By Determinism, we mean that well-defined rules govern the events in the Universe. The causes of the event can be scientifically explained. The future effects of similar reasons and under similar conditions can be predicted based on a mathematical relationship between the cause and the effect. For example, using the below formula explaining the relationship between time, velocity, and distance, one can predict the future position of an object.

     Distance = velocity * time.

The scientific laws can also include living organisms because every living organism comprises atoms and molecules, which are also the primary constituents of nonliving material. So, even a person's future action is predetermined and can be predicted because a person's decision-making is controlled by his genetic and neural structure, whose constituents are fundamental matter that obeys physical laws. So it is not you who make your decisions; instead, the entire Universe and the laws governing it decide on your behalf. This is the crux of the idea called Determinism.

Free will:-

Among all living organisms, human beings are the only ones endowed with superior decision-making. Because human beings are rational, learn from experience, and have the imagination to apply these learnings to predict future hypothetical scenarios and plan the best course of action for these scenarios. Unlike Determinism, Free Will advocates strongly claim we are not mere zombies or robots as our actions are not conditioned. Other organisms' actions are based on instinct and conditioning. They need to adapt to tackle changes in situations. Human beings have the creativity to evolve their thought process and modify their actions to counter changes in environmental circumstances.

Types of Determinism:-

There are many interpretations of Determinism. Let us have a quick look at the important ones.

Incompatibilism suggests that Free Will and Determinism are incompatible and mutually exclusive. If Determinism is true and Free Will is an illusion, we have Hard Determinism. If Free Will is true and Determinism is false, we have Libertarianism. 

Compatibilism accepts the coexistence of Determinism and Free Will. Free Will is not the ability to make decisions but rather the freedom of not making a decision or a choice.

Causal Determinism states that preceding events cause all actions. Laws of nature govern the process of causation leading to effect. The causation process is continuous without any interruption.

Pre-determinism also accepts the causal nature of the Universe and its being governed by laws of nature. But Pre-Determinism claims that all future events are predetermined at the very beginning and can be predicted based on laws of nature. Causal Determinism states that the future is evolving one step at a time, though universal laws govern the outcome at each moment.

Fatalism is a Determinism that emphasizes the powerlessness of humans toward their fate. We have no power to change or prevent the pre-established flow of events. But unlike pre-determinism, where laws of nature govern future events, Fatalism recognizes the involvement of a superior and omniscient entity that plans and sets in motion the fate of everybody.

Physical Determinism is similar to Causal Determinism, which states that physical laws govern all events in the Universe. If one had enough knowledge of the laws of nature and the current state of the Universe, it would be possible to predict future states.

Biological Determinism attributes our behavior to mental processes and genetic factors. Our behavior is primarily determined by brain structure and genetic makeup.

Psychological Determinism argues our past experiences, memories, and learned behaviors shape our present decisions and actions.

Social Determinism posits that our social environment and cultural norms influence our behavior and decisions.

History of Determinism vs Free Will Debate:-

The idea of Determinism can be traced back to the Stoics. The Stoics thought that Determinism was supported by logic. The logic they saw was the true/false nature of statements about the future. The future events will happen or will not. Diodorus Cronus, one of the Stoics, argued, "Whenever something happens, it was going to happen before it happened."

Socrates believed that when people become aware of sound, they become incapable of choosing wrong. Plato agrees with this and believes that knowing good makes it impossible to choose evil. Aristotle did not adopt the views of Socrates and Plato on ethical Determinism. In his view, people's minds are influenced by reason and desire.

In Indian philosophy, ' Karma' or the actions one takes now and has taken in the past determines the future. In other words, good deeds will bring good, and evil deeds will bring misery in the future. The Vaisheshika sect of Indian philosophy embraces Determinism, claiming that fixed laws govern nature.

The ancient Greek Philosophers were divided over Determinism. Democritus approved of Determinism, but Epicurus did not believe in it. In the Enlightenment era, the newly developed laws of physics reinforced the cause-and-effect principle. Newton's laws of physics-inspired Descartes, who claimed that just like non-living things, living beings also obeyed the laws of physics.

In the current era, after the advent of Chaos Theory and Quantum Physics, scientific discussion started taking randomness and probability into consideration. Hence, scientists are divided on the Free Will vs Determinism debate today.

Physics and Determinism:-

The idea of Determinism is rooted in the philosophical principle of Causality. The Causality principle states that,

"If the same cause happens under similar conditions, the same effects are produced."

Those who read this definition could quickly be reminded of its similarity to Newton's three laws of physics. Newton also established a mechanism by which the cause and effect can be related and quantified. He did this using equations; for example, 

Velocity at (time t) = Velocity at initial time + acceleration * Time

Using the above equation, one can predict past and future velocity. The ability to establish a quantifiable and mathematical relationship between an initial state and the final state of a body when an external agent acts on it can be considered Newton's most significant contribution to modern Science.

Taking this even further, it is possible that we could be so scientifically advanced in the future that a giant set of mathematical equations could explain every cause and predict every future event in the Universe. Laplace boldly stated that if a superior being had the knowledge of all matter and all laws governing them, then it would be capable of predicting the entire future.

By the early 20th century, the advent of Quantum Mechanics made a massive dent in the validity of deterministic laws. According to Quantum Physics, matter exists both in wave and particle states. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that because of the dualistic nature of matter, It is impossible to predict a particle's position and velocity with accuracy at the same time. If we calculate the particle's position with accuracy, then velocity is uncertain and vice versa.

Quantum Physics also claims that photons and electrons have a superposition of multiple probable states or positions. Only when detected by an observer does the superposition undergo a state vector reduction to a single state. As to which state the particle could be reduced to from multiple possible states, it is random based on probabilistic laws. 

The words "Randomness" and "Probability" were detested by scientists who had tremendous faith in the deterministic nature of the Universe. Einstein famously claimed, "God does not play a dice with the Universe." 

Though the exact reasons for this peculiar behavior are unknown, quantum laws are consistent with experimental results. There were many debates between Bohr and an unconvinced Einstein on the "Random" characteristic of Quantum Physics. Einstein tried to devise many alternative deterministic theories for Quantum Physics but had no takers from the scientific community.

Though many scientists argue that Quantum Physics is still deterministic because it requires a set of initial conditions and an external agent, it fails the stricter clauses of Newtonian Determinism, where every future state should be predictable and quantifiable.

Another challenge to Newton's deterministic laws of physics came from the three-body problem. While Newton could predict the future state of a single body or two bodies, given the initial conditions, they failed when it involved three or n bodies. Scientists tried to apply Newton's laws to investigate the Sun-Earth-Moon problem, but it failed. Poincare found out that the n-body interaction depended heavily on the initial status. Poincare stated that slight differences in the initial positions can lead to enormous differences in the final phenomenon. Giving a precise initial state in a laboratory setup or computer calculations is impossible. For example, in computerized weather predictions, rounding off a six-decimal point initial state to a three-decimal point could lead to wild variations in the final state. Poincare's ideas were incorporated into a new chapter in Science called the Chaos Theory.

Other scientists argue that the failure of deterministic laws to predict n-body future states is due to the inability of our experimental and computer systems to calculate the initial state precisely. This cannot be claimed as the failure of the laws themselves. 

Another interesting idea that challenged the deterministic laws was probability. If you toss a coin, you will never be able to predict whether the outcome will be head or tail. But by repeating the experiment several times, there is a 50-50 chance of the coin giving head and tail as the outcome. So, the probability of head and tail outcomes is 0.5 each. The inability to calculate the exact outcome of a coin toss but depending on probability seemed to some scientists as a failure of deterministic laws. But other scientists argue that the outcome of a coin depends upon several factors - like the wind speed and direction, the angle at which the coin is initially held, the velocity at which the coin is tossed, etc. We can predict the final outcome if we know all these initial factors.

Probability also finds its place in the thermodynamic equations because of the random movement of molecules when a body is heated.

To summarize the above discussion, deterministic laws hold their fort against many counterarguments except in the case of Quantum physics. This can be due to the interaction of microscopic particles with macroscopic bodies, which have separate sets of laws. Finding a unified theory of physics that would encompass both the behavior of microscopic particles and the macroscopic bodies is the holy grail of many physicists to date.

DETERMINISTIC ARGUMENT FOR LEARNED BEHAVIOR

Human actions are generally considered to be triggered by three factors

1. Environment
2. Instinct or Genetic Behavior
3. Learned Behavior

Actions triggered due to environmental and genetic factors are considered deterministic, whereas learned behavior is considered Free Will Behavior.

Many think society and culture influence human behavior. The environmental conditions determine one's character or ability. A typical example given is academic intelligence is directly correlated to parental nurture by providing early home education right from when a kid is an infant. However, geneticists argue that a person's genetic makeup determines their ability in the long run. But the truth is society and environmental conditions only trigger the person with a favorable genetic makeup to bloom. The same environmental conditions operating on a person without the right genetic makeup will not produce the same positive effect.

Another argument made is that human beings have the freedom to rise above the tyranny of genetic Determinism. Because human beings are rational and have the ability to learn. But does learned behavior imply free will, or is it just another variation of Determinism?

In general, our day-to-day actions are deterministic. Deterministic actions are also subconscious. For example, while driving a car, as long as the external conditions are usual, the driving process is sub-conscious and deterministic. Even our biological actions, like breathing and digestion, are subconscious as long as they are normal. We are conscious of it only when our internal processes become abnormal. Deterministic actions are pre-learned either through evolution or by past learning. A repetitive event does not require any new learning.

When confronted with a new situation, the individual must decide. The individual has to choose for which he has to apply reason. The individual must apply rational thinking, learn about the new situation, and choose several alternatives. When choosing among multiple options, free will plays a role. For example, if there is a sudden traffic warning, the driver becomes conscious, and free will has to be applied to react - take a different route, drive slowly, etc. Our actions become conscious under these conditions.

In short, deterministic actions are static, pre-learned (by evolution or past practice), and sub-conscious. Free will actions are rational, require learning, and are conscious actions.

What influences a person's free will or choice-making?

Different people react to the same situation differently. Also, the same person makes other decisions under the same situation based on his learning from previous experiences. We, as human beings, learn, adapt, and evolve. Our decision-making changes and evolves as we learn from prior experience. A person learns from his own experiences and the experiences of his friends and relatives in similar situations.

However, it can be said that one's learning ability is influenced by their biological and genetic conditions. Different people make different interpretations and derive other lessons from their experiences. Also, a person could not learn anything from prior experiences and always make the same stupid decisions. Hence, learning is influenced by one's genetic and biological conditions. So, it can be argued that Free will action is biologically deterministic.

FREE WILL ARGUMENT FOR LEARNED BEHAVIOR

An interesting question asked by biologists is why, in some species, evolution has come to a stop. For example, many insect species haven't undergone significant physical changes for quite a long time, yet they continue to survive.

Also, it would be interesting to ask if, for the human species, there are any possibilities for further evolutionary physical changes. 

We should also ponder whether all new behavioral characteristic changes an organism acquires are hereditary, or some can be learned.

All these questions can be answered if the different evolution theories are studied in detail.

Darwin and Lamarck proposed two theories regarding evolution.

According to Darwin's theory, evolutionary changes are triggered by chance mutations in specific organisms. If the mutations are profitable and increase the species' survival chances, they are genetically transmitted to their offspring. This hereditary transmission of mutations is also random. What an organism receives from its ancestors and what it transmits to its offspring are all pure chance and random. The activities of an organism to acquire new behavioral changes during its lifetime are not transmitted hereditarily and have no say from an evolutionary perspective.

According to Lamarck, any behavioral changes an organism acquires before procreation are sure to be hereditarily transmitted. For example, if an organism(bird) uses its wings to fly (behavioral change), its offspring will certainly acquire wings and fly. This is in direct contrast to Darwin's theory, where all hereditary transmissions are random. Darwinists argue new properties are acquired due to chance mutations and not due to an organism's efforts during its lifetime.

But Lamarck may be partially right. The steps in Lamarck's theory are,

The organism uses an organ.

Hence, the organ improves.

The improvement is transmitted to its offspring.

The steps in Darwin's theory are

An organism acquires physical changes due to random mutation

These physical changes increase the survivability of the organism.

The physical and behavioral changes are randomly transmitted to the offspring. Since these changes increase survivability, more organisms with these changes thrive, being the fittest, and it is acquired as a species-level change.

The correct steps are,

• The organism acquires new physical changes due to mutations.
• The organism uses these physical changes.
• The survival value of the species increases. The organism continues to use these new physical changes and is continually improved.
• These behavioral and physical improvements are transmitted to their offspring.
• Steps 3 & 4 repeat from generation to generation.

Let us discuss the above steps in detail.

For example, a million years back, birds would have acquired rudimentary wings for the first time due to random mutations. They use these wings and start to fly. Because they learn to fly, they build nests at the top of the trees. Hence, it increases the survivability of the birds. There is a shift in the behavior pattern of the bird population towards flying. Hence, the behavior change is also transmitted along with the physical changes. This behavior change is not encoded in DNA as such. The physical change may be encoded in DNA, but the behavior change is passed along because it is tied to the organism's will to use it to increase survivability. 

So, the more the organism uses its new organ, the more the behavior merges into the physique. Behavior and physical change become the same. There is no distinction between them. Behavior comes automatically by its mere possession. By continuously using the new physical features, physical characteristics improve.

If a new physical change is not used continuously, it may even drop from the evolutionary chain. For example, when the car was invented, the initial models were very primitive. But as cars are used more widely, we learn more about efficient ways of designing and using cars. So there comes an increasing need to improvise the cars. Hence, the newer car models are more advanced. This happened only because we used cars widely and learned from their usage. If cars are stopped using by us, the emergence of new, improved car models would also stop. The same would apply to evolution as well. When a new physical change is acquired, it has to be used and learned from its usage continuously through several generations to improvise and enhance the organ.

Thus, for human beings to undergo further biological development, we have to be proactive. As in the car analogy, We as humans must try to continuously use our existing physical and mental faculties to be showered with further gifts from nature. Hence, man's willingness to strive and learn is critical for acquiring further evolutionary advantages.

If we stopped using our endowed faculties, we as a human race would be both in a physical and mental decline.

Now, let us look at a different scenario. In a species, some organisms may acquire physical changes hereditarily and hence also the behavior. But another organism, even without the physical advantage, can acquire the behavior associated with the physical change by learning. Even if an organism does not acquire the physical change due to heredity, the behavior associated with the physical change can be acquired by learning. Because the general dynamics of the species have shifted towards acquiring the new behavior as it increases its survivability. And the newly acquired behavior indeed is hereditarily transmitted.

This is also evident in the caste system in India. Historically, unlike other privileged classes, the untouchables never had the opportunity to pursue academic pursuits for several centuries. But in the modern scientific age, more premium is given to academic learning. There is an increased imperative need among the human race to master academics. The dynamics have shifted human behavior towards academic learning to increase the human species' survivability and guarantee comfortable living.

Around the early 20th century, due to an awakening caused by social reformers, untouchables were allowed to pursue academic studies. Hence, the earlier untouchable generations acquired academic skills due to learning and not heredity. However, these behavior changes were gradually transmitted to the following generations. In recent years, the academic skills among untouchables have improved significantly. It can be argued that they may not be at the same level as upper castes. Still, untouchables of the current generation have far superior academic skills compared to their ancestors. Hence, academic skill (a behavioral change) has been acquired by untouchables due to learning and not due to hereditary advantage.

Thus, the labor and efforts a human does in his lifetime are not a waste. It has value, and it is sure to improve the following generations. Not every human being is the same. Some go with the general flow of life without special efforts to improve their life. But other human beings are proactive; they learn new skills. Even if these skills may not improve their lives due to bad luck, the effort they have put in and the new skills they have learned will improve the following generations.

Hence, a man's effort and the will he imposes upon himself to learn new skills would benefit future generations. 

Consciousness and Free Will.

It was previously stated that deterministic actions are static, pre-learned (by evolution or past practice), and sub-conscious. Free will actions are rational, require new learning, and are conscious. The primary indicator for whether an action is a Free Will or Deterministic action is whether it is a conscious action. Consciousness or Deterministic action is only present when there is no repetition of prior situations, and learning has to be applied to confront a new situation. In short, free-will actions are generally conscious actions.

But Science can reveal which neurons fire, which part of the brain is responsible for an action, and how actions are enabled by neural transmission of signals. It still does not feel that decision-making is as simple as neuron firing but rather a conscious self inside me making those decisions. This is a classic example of free will, i.e., we are responsible for our actions, not our genetic makeup or brain neural activity.  

Consciousness gives an extra dimension to this debate of free will versus Determinism. Some believe that as a highly evolved species, we are endowed with consciousness or a conscious self that plays a vital role in decision-making. Hence, we are responsible for our actions simply due to these advanced decision-making abilities. They think that it is consciousness that makes decision-making and free will possible. Otherwise, it would be a simple deterministic universe.

So, is it free will or consciousness that enables decision-making? Wegner suggests that there are three prerequisites for free will-enabling actions. Thought must be before the action. Thought must be consistent with the action. Other causes must not accompany the action. He conducted an experiment using the Ouija board. Two players had to move their mouse over a board. They heard words in the microphone and had to move the mouse over the board until they heard the word stop. The stop was manipulated by the gamekeeper when the stop was announced. The players were deluded; it was they who stopped when, in fact, it was by someone else. 

Artificial Intelligence and Free Will:-

There are problems with the argument that an action can be classified as a free-will action only if it is a learned behavior. Recent trends in Machine learning and Artificial Intelligence prove that algorithm-enabled machines can be trained on some initial and end-state data and can predict a future state for a different initial condition for which it is unprepared. This looks similar to the learned behavior of a human being. So, can it be claimed that Machines have Free Will?

But human beings have the desire and drive to act. The machines, till now, are just passive executors of human command. They don't have the willingness to act. So then, can the argument be made that learning alone is not the only criterion for free will? The desire to perform an act should also be considered. 

If, in the future, machines are built that can not only learn but also have their desires and act according to these desires, then serious questions will be raised to evaluate the criteria of what can be considered as Free Will actions.

Free Will and Ethics:-

The debate between free will and Determinism is not merely academic; it has substantial implications for our concepts of moral responsibility, law, and ethics. Under a deterministic view, if our actions are predetermined, and we can't act otherwise, the concept of moral responsibility becomes problematic. A criminal could avoid legal punishment by claiming his actions are due to his genetic and biological conditioning, so he cannot be held accountable.

On the other hand, belief in free will can influence our behavior. Research shows that those who believe in free will are more likely to act ethically, show increased helpfulness, and demonstrate decreased aggression. This debate impacts not only our worldview but how we interact with others and society at large.

Determinism can also help enforce more empathetic treatment of criminals. The deterministic nature of human behavior, including criminal actions, can be used as a strong argument for banning the death sentence. There is still scope for detaining criminals just to deter them or others from future crimes. This could lead to a fair justice system.

If there is no place for free will, is there a need for us to act? Ending your life doing nothing is not enjoyable. Others who do not believe in free will made a compromise and lived as though free will existed.