On The Existence of Free Will

It seems all a great mystery, whether or not we are truly free. Authors have written narratives centered around the idea of free will since fiction became a popular pastime. It's a great theological debate on whether or not we are truly free to make our own decisions or not. It certainly seems that way at times. After all, people should be accountable for their actions. One should't be allowed to escape from consequences simply because they can claim that they are not free to do as they choose. But how can one factor the idea of free will into a causal and scientific universe? These conflicting ideas seem to create two distinct camps with opposite views. A dichotomy, if you will. But dichotomies are almost always wrong.

However, let us examine the two sides of the story first. In the first place, the idea of free will existing. It almost seems it must. You can choose whether or not to move your left index finger now, or the next second, or not all. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, how can people be held accountable for their actions without the idea of their having made their own decisions that allowed them to commit an act that was against a set of laws? If one factors out the idea of free will, many questions open up, whose iterations never seem to end, as is what happens when someone tries to answer a subjective question objectively. So the answer to this subjective question must be subjective as well, hence free will must exist to some extent. Not to mention that the causal model of the universe entirely ignores superstring theory of branching time, and quantum probability. To try to eliminate this idea opens up a whole untangle-able can of worms.

Next, free will not existing. How can free will exist in our causal and physical existence? If we allow the idea of free will separate from external influences, aka, free from causal interference like everything else, then the only thing else it can be is random. A random influence upon our "consciousness"? The idea isn't free will, yet how can something be free and non-causal, yet not random? The idea causes cognitive dissonance because it's impossible. Yes, there is probability, and time branches, but these are not caused by free will, but by the probabilistic nature of the universe. No free will involved.

So, who is right?

Well, it's presented as a dichotomy, so let's step back and allow for the idea that neither are 100% correct. First, let's do this by realizing that there is a difference between free will and just plain will. Second, that even in the causal model of the universe, you still have to deal with your epistemic horizon, that is, you can only know so much about yourself and what makes you do what. Third, quantum probability does factor in to allow for superstring theory, but only over a broad spread.

Here is the solution as I see it: free will itself is an illusion, but will, the intent, is entirely different and real. The epistemic horizon allows for the complete illusion of free will. So you are predictable, and not technically free of causal relationships. But only over a short period of time, and by that, I mean, a subjective estimate of how someone will immediately react (so long you have enough information about said person and the stimuli they will receive) (also emphasis on estimate). The quantum probability and time branching means that the future is not deterministic. Everything is still probabilistic, but there are simply things that are more likely to happen that others. So there isn't free will, but the future is still random. It's just not up to your decisions on how things pan out in your reality.

To sum up: no. There isn't such a free will. It's an illusion caused by being human. But we should continue to pretend for ethical reasons, the fact that the future is still probable, will still exists, and I am not one to advocate anarchy.

On Solutions to the Subjective Panacea

There are certain questions that puzzle people, mostly because the seem to have no real answer. For example, the paradox of the Ship of Theseus (also known as the "George Washington Axe" puzzle):

"The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, in so much that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."
        —Plutarch, Theseus

The basic idea is that you have a ship, and each day you replace one plank of wood until you have replaced all of the ship. Is it the same ship? What if you where to take all the cast-away pieces and put them back together? Which is the original ship? You could say that one, or the other (or neither, for that matter) is the original. However, there is no real answer, except for the idea of it being different for each person because each person has a different perspective, hence a difference opinion. AKA, a subjective solution. Another example where this fits is on "what makes someone human", which can also be solved subjectively.

So the question that remains is; what is the solution to subjective problems? Because by allowing ourselves to answer questions in the manner of "oh, no, we couldn't possibly answer that, it's based off too much empirical data" is not actually answering the problem, it's merely categorizing the question under the heading of "Necessitates a Subjective and Individualized Answer." So how does one actually answer these questions?

Well, because we are compelled so heavily to answer those questions with the panacea of "Necessitates a Subjective and Individualized Answer," it seems almost pointless for one to try to answer the question in any deterministic and purely logical way. The problem is our epistemic horizon; that is, our ability as pragmatic beings to fully comprehend every single minutiae of our existence. Let's face it, no one can fully grasp all the inputs their brains receive that lead them to make a decision (this actually has bearing on the question of free will, but that's a story for another time). In any case, the fact remains that we do not have a high enough or specialized enough "consciousness" to answer the question towards the problem of "Necessitates a Subjective and Individualized Answer" (which bears upon our own consciousness to begin with, hence the difficulty).

In conclusion, we cannot answer the question of subjective answers, and the idea of "Necessitates a Subjective and Individualized Answer" will just have to sate us until someone or something with a varied and elevated position will allow us an answer. But will we understand, or even recognize, the answer when presented to us? I do not know. We shall see.

On Origins of Fate

Why is it that people find it so compelling, the idea of a god (or gods)? The existence of divinity manifest? How come it permeates every culture, this idea that there is an ulterior, supernatural force guiding even the smallest facets of mundane existence? Casting aside the idea of needing an explanation for the beginning of creation or a "holy purpose for life", and focusing on how people can reaffirm faith in routine divine intervention, we can begin to answer the question.

It seems to me, that the thing that motivates this belief is the faith in the fact that everything happens for a purpose. Faith in the fact that someone is doing all this consciously deliberately for an eventually better and brighter future. This is not a necessarily negative or detrimental belief, for, as Karl Marx once wrote; "Religion is the opiate of the people." And sometimes the people need to opiated, but that is neither here nor there. The point is that the prolific idea in question is that of Fate. Everything happens for a reason. Now, depending on your theological standing, you may or may not agree with this. However, you cannot deny that the idea of "destiny" and, by extent, divine influence, is indeed prolific. To understand why it is so prolific, we must look at the common factor. Ah, and what is this factor?

Here, it is the idea of an ending. Stories where, in the end, all the strings are gathered neatly together, and the conclusion is definite. Anyone not born yesterday realizes that is not the case in the real world, but allow me to explain. The idea of an ending, of the natural progression of a story, is perpetuated by us looking at past events and seeing how "everything tied together to allow this moment". To an extent this is true, but the belief that your moment is special because of it's existence is erroneous. In any case, there is a reason that all modern "major" religious belief systems are based off scripture, aka, a giant compilation of stories. And even those religions not fortunate to make the top 5 list, still have a set of tales and anecdotes that pass from generation to generation, allowing for the idea of a story to continue to flourish.

The reason for this is that a when you tell a story (or recall any series of events, for that matter), you automatically implement the basic structure of a story; a begging, middle, and end. To do otherwise is simply rambling through a string of events, and theatrically speaking, it would be quite dry. When you relate anything, you automatically arrange your story into a beginning, middle, and end, to make it more tellable and easier to remember. And so this idea of an ending perpetuating everything from divine scripture to how you when about your daily chores allows the complete propagation of endings (and subsequently, Fate) in our lives. So while it may be simpler to accept the easy answer, to allow ourselves to believe in fate simply because it would be easy to, one must realize that the ease of accepting that viewpoint in life is an illusion created by psychology.