Free will

Traditionally, the only actions that are free will are considered worthy of credit or guilt. (Angel with virtues Temperance and Humility against Demon with sins Ira and Hate. Fresco de 1717, Church of St. Nicholas, Cukovets, province Pernik, Bulgaria.

Person jumping into the water, supposedly using his free will.

The albedrío (from the vulgar deformation of the Latin word arbitrium, in turn from arbiter, 'judge'), free will or free choice is the belief in those philosophical doctrines according to which people have the power to choose and make their own decisions. Many religious authorities have supported such a belief, while it has been criticized as a form of individualist ideology by such thinkers as Baruch Spinoza, Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche.

The principle of free will has religious, ethical, psychological, legal, and scientific implications. For example, ethics may assume that individuals are responsible for their own actions. In psychology, it implies that the mind controls some of the body's actions, which are conscious.^{[citation needed]}

The existence of free will has been a central theme throughout the history of philosophy and science. It differs from freedom in the sense that it entails the potential to act or not to act.

Philosophical perspectives on freedom

Scheme of metaphysical positions regarding free will.

There are various views on whether metaphysical freedom exists, that is, whether people have the power to choose between genuine alternatives.

Determinism is the view that all events are the inevitable results of prior causes, that everything that happens has a reason for being.

Incompatibilism is the view that a belief in a deterministic universe cannot be reconciled with true free will. Hard determinism accepts both determinism and incompatibilism, and rejects the idea that humans possess free will.

The opposite of this is philosophical libertarianism, which maintains that individuals have metaphysical freedom and therefore rejects determinism. Indeterminism is a form of libertarianism which, in his view, implies that free will actually exists, and that freedom renders actions effect without cause. Agency theory is a form of libertarianism that maintains that the choice between determinism and indeterminism is a false dichotomy. Before will, it is an effect without a cause. Agency theory holds that an act of free will is a case of agent-causation, whereby an agent (person, being) causes an event. It is a separate philosophy from the economic and political theory of libertarianism. Metaphysical libertarianism is sometimes called voluntarism to avoid this confusion.

Compatibilism is the view that free will arises outside of a deterministic universe even in the absence of metaphysical uncertainty. Compatibilists may define free will as the arising of an inner cause, such as the thoughts, beliefs, and desires that one thinks exist in oneself. The philosophy that accepts both determinism and compatibilism is called soft determinism.

Determinism versus indeterminism

Determinism holds that each situation is fully conditioned and thus determined by the states of the purposes that preceded it. freedom. This position was held by the Stoics and can be recorded in Parmenides of Elea. Philosophical determinism is sometimes illustrated by Laplace's idea of the devil, who knows all the facts about the past and present and all the natural laws governing the world. world and uses this knowledge to foresee the future down to the smallest detail. Laplace's thinking, however, does not represent the current scientific position on the subject.

Lucrecio claimed that free will arises from chance.

On the other hand, indeterminism speculates that this proposition is incorrect, since there are events that are not entirely determined by previous events. The Pythagoreans, Socrates and Plato tried to reconcile freedom with determinism and causal law. Aristotle was one of the first to argue in favor of indeterminism. Lucretius claimed that free will arises from chance, from chaotic movements of atoms called "clinamen". Modern indeterminists include Robert Nozick, and Robert Kane.

Incompatibilism maintains that determinism cannot be reconciled with free will. The incompatibilistas generally affirm that a person acts freely only when this one is the only one that originates the cause that triggers an action and that it could have ended authentically in another way. They maintain that if determinism is true, each election is determined by previous events.

Joe Campbell in his book Free Will, describes the problem of free will as the "free will dilemma":

1. If determinism is true, then no one has free will.
2. If indeterminism is true, then no one has free will.
3. Therefore, no one has free will.

René Descartes felt freedom based on the immateriality of the mind.

Sam Harris expresses in his short essay also titled Free Will that every choice we make is made as a result of causes that "are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them".

There is an intermediate view that past conditions may influence, but do not determine future actions. Individual choices are one outcome among many possible outcomes, all of which are induced but not determined by the past. Even if the agent of will spontaneously strives to choose among the available actions, the agent itself is not the originator of the cause of the action, because no one can perform actions that are impossible, such as flying just by flapping their arms. Applied to inner states, this perspective suggests that one can choose among the options one thinks about, but cannot choose an implausible option to perform. According to this view, current elections can initiate, determine, or limit future elections.

Duns Scotus held that "nothing other than the will is the total cause of the volition of the will". God, as Scotus conceives, is absolute freedom. René Descartes argued about the relationship mind and body, called Cartesian dualism, where the mind is a different substance from matter, the body, being immaterial and outside of all law physical. He believed that the mind exerted control over the body through the pineal gland. How that interaction works remains a contentious issue (see Mind-Body Problem and Mechanism). Gottfried Leibniz argued that human minds are reflections of God or little gods, like immobile engines, with causal independence and the ability to survive the world. This doctrine is found in Neoplatonism and the doctrine of Genesis. On the other hand, Nicolas Malebranche held that all action is caused by God, including our actions (see Occasionalism).

Baruch Spinoza compared man's belief in free will to a stone that thinks it chose the path it reached through the air and the place it landed on. In the Ethics he wrote: "The decisions of the mind are nothing but desires, which vary according to various punctual dispositions." "There is no absolute free will in the mind, but the mind is determined by desiring this or that, by a cause determined in turn by another cause, and this in turn by another cause, and so on until the end of time. infinity". "Men believe they are free because they are aware of their wills and desires, but they are ignorant of the causes by which they are led to desire and hope".

The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, critic of the will.

Arthur Schopenhauer, agreeing with Spinoza, wrote: "Everyone believes a priori that they are perfectly free, even in their individual actions, and they think that at any moment they can start another chapter. of their life... But after the fact, through experience, they realize —to their astonishment— that they are not free, but subject to necessity; their behavior does not change despite all the resolutions and reflections they may have. From the beginning of their lives and at the end of them, they must bear the same character...". However, Schopenhauer affirmed in The world as will and representation that those in the world (phenomena) they do not have freedom, but the will (as a noumenon) is not subordinated to the laws of necessity (causality) and is therefore free. In his works The two fundamental problems of ethics he also criticizes the notion of free will:

You can do what you always do, but at some point in your life you can only do a definite activity, and you can do absolutely nothing other than this activity.

Schopenhauer, in "Freedom Of the Will", Cap. II

I can do what I want: If I can, if I wish, give everything I have to the poor and therefore make myself poor - if I wish. But I can't wish this, because the opposite motives have too much power over me to do it. On the other hand, if I had a different character, to the extent that I was a saint, I could wish it. But then he couldn't stop wishing for what he would have to do... not like a ball on a pool table can't move before he gets an impact, nor can a man get up from his chair before being pushed or driven for a reason. But standing is as necessary and unavoidable as rolling a ball after the blow. And expect someone to do something to what absolutely no interest impels him... It's the same thing to expect a piece of wood to move towards me without being pulled by a rope...

- Ib, Ch. III

Schopenhauer says that a human can do very well whatever he wants, but he cannot want what he wants, he accompanies me in all the circumstances of my life and reconciles me with the actions of humans, even when they are very stressful.

— Albert Einstein, Address to the German League for Human Rights, November 1928. credo

Friedrich Schiller proposed a conjuncture to this dilemma in his Aesthetic Education of Man in a Series of Letters, which was further explored by Rudolf Steiner in his Philosophy of Freedom. Both suggest that the individual is initially 'not free; this is because the individual acts based on religious, ethical and moral principles, or that are still rational.

The Baron d'Holbach, a "hard determinist."

'Hard determinists,' such as d'Holbach, are those incompatibilists who accept determinism and reject free will. He said: “…Nature is nothing more than an immense chain of causes and effects [...] All the movements that are carried out in it follow constant and necessary laws [...] The will of man is secretly moved or determined by external causes that produce a change in him; we believe that it moves by itself because we do not see the cause that determines it [...]". The "libertarians", such as Thomas Reid, Peter van Inwagen, are those incompatibilists who accept the free will and deny determinism, taking into account that some form of indeterminism is true. The best-known incompatibilist in the history of philosophy was Immanuel Kant.

Thomas Hobbes, a compatibilist.

Other philosophers hold that determinism is compatible with free will. The "compatibilist" it has been attributed to both Aristotle and Epictetus. Chrysippus, influenced by Aristotle, is considered the first compatiblist. These people, such as Thomas Hobbes, generally claim that a person acts freely if he is not hindered in doing what he has in mind. the will to do so of one's own choice. Articulating this elementary clause, Hume writes that "this hypothetical liberty applies universally to anyone who is not a prisoner in chains." The "compatibilists" they frequently target cases where someone's liberty is denied — rape, murder, assault, and the list goes on. The key to these cases is not that the past is determining the future, but rather that the aggressor is dominating the wishes and preferences of the victim's actions. The aggressor is forcing the victim, and, according to the compatibilists, this is what dominates over free will. Furthermore, they argue that determinism is not what matters, but rather the fact that the actions of individuals are the result of their own desires and preferences, not dominated by any external or internal force. To be a compatibilist, one need not endorse any particular conception of free will, but accept that determinism is related to it. The best-known compatibilist in the history of philosophy was David Hume. Today that position is defended, for example, by Daniel Dennett.

Another point of view is that the concept of “free will” is, as Hobbes would say, “absurd talk”, because freedom is a power defined in terms of will, which is a thing—and so will It's not the kind of thing that could be free or not free. John Locke, in his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding", indicated that calling himself "free" is to commit to a category error:

When is a man's will free or not? The question itself is improper and it is insignificant to ask whether a man will be free, as well as to ask whether his dream will be quick, or whether his square virtue: freedom is not very applicable to will, as well as the speed of movement to a dream, or to be square to virtue. Each can laugh at the absurdity of that question or any of the above: for it is obvious that the changes in the movement do not belong to the dream, nor does the virtue depend on its figure; and when someone considers it, he believes that his will will perceive that freedom, which is a power, belongs only to the agents and cannot attribute or modify the will, which is also only a power.

Chapter XXI, Paragraph 14

This question also arises as to whether any intentional act can be free or any unintentional act can be related to will, leaving freedom as an oxymoron. Some compatibilists argue that this ambiguity of the concept of "free will" is partly to blame for the perceived contradiction between determinism and freedom. Thus, from a compatibilist point of view, the use of “free will” in an “incompatibilist” sense" can be interpreted as loaded language.

Moral responsibility

Society generally holds people accountable for their actions and will say they deserve rewards or punishments for what they do. However, many believe that moral responsibility requires free will; in other words, the ability to make different alternatives. In addition, another issue of importance is whether individuals are always morally responsible, and if so, in what sense.

For Kant, duty implies power.

Aristotle clearly believed that our deliberations involved choices between alternative possibilities, and this implies both the possibility of doing the opposite. His definition of the voluntary will as caused from within an agent (libertarianism) is still valid today. Aristotle challenged those who said that our actions are determined by our character, as it would deny moral responsibility. He admitted that some aspects of our character may be inborn and therefore limit our responsibility, but we are at least partially free.Following Aristotle, Epicurus thought that human agents have the autonomous capacity to transcend necessity and chance. His tertium quid is the autonomy of the agent, which "depends on us." However, Tim O'Keefe has argued that Epicurus was not a libertarian, but a compatibilist.

Incompatibilists tend to think that determinism is not related to moral responsibility. For Kant duty implies power. That is, in order to claim that an action must be performed, it must be within my power to perform it, otherwise there would be no point in demanding it. After all, it seems impossible that one could hold someone accountable for an action that could be predicted in advance.. Hard determinists may say “Too bad for moral responsibility” and dismiss the concept—Clarence Darrow used this argument to defend murderers Leopold and Loeb—while, controversially, libertines might say “Too bad for determinism”. This case seems to be the heart of the dispute between hard determinists and compatibilists; hard determinists are forced to accept that individuals often have “free will” in the compatibilist sense, but they may deny that it is this sense of freedom that really matters—which can lead to moral responsibility. Just because an agent's choices are inconsistent, according to hard determinists, does not change the fact that determinism takes responsibility off the agent.

Compatibilists often argue that, on the other hand, determinism is a prerequisite for moral responsibility—society cannot hold someone responsible unless their actions are determined by something. This argument was used by Hume and by the anarchist William Godwin. After all, if indeterminism is true, then those events are not determined; they are random. One of the questions asked is whether it is possible to blame or punish a person for carrying out an action that spontaneously jumped into his nervous system. They argue that one needs to show how action stems from desires and preferences—the character of the person—before one considers the person as socially responsible. The liberals will be able to answer that the indeterminate actions have no relation to chance and that they result from a substantive will in which their decisions will be indeterminate. This argument is widely considered unsatisfactory, since it only makes the problem more difficult and involves metaphysics, as well as the concept Ex nihilo nihil fit.

Saint Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, raises the following question about moral responsibility:

Is it that the potter does not own to make of the same mass a vessel for noble uses and others for despicable uses?

(Romans, 9:21).

From this perspective, individuals can still lose their honor through their acts, even if such were completely determined by God.

A similar view says that the responsibility for the individual's moral culpability lies with individual character. That means that a person with the character of a murderer has no choice but to kill, but he can still be punished because it is a right to punish people with a bad character.

Some interpretations of moral responsibility also assume that a person is, from birth to death, extrinsically dependent on their physical and mental changes. Thus, Stanley Williams, 52, was executed for a crime he committed when he was 28.

Compatibilist theories and the could-have-done principle

Hume defended compassion as necessary for morals.

The philosopher Isaías Berlin claimed that to have the option of freedom the agent should be able to act otherwise. This principle, which van Inwagen calls the "principle of alternative possibilities," is said to be a requirement for freedom. From this point, actions carried out under the influence of irresistible coercion are not free and the agent is not morally responsible for them.

However, some compatibilists, such as Harry G. Frankfurt or Daniel Dennett, argue that there are cases in which, even if the agent could not act otherwise, his choice is still free, because irresistible coercion coincides with the agent's personal intentions and desires, as well as the saying "Now put the gun to my temple and make me shoot." In Elbow Room, Dennett presents an argument for the compatibilist theory of free will. He further elaborated it in the 2003 book Freedom Evolves. The basic reasoning is that if individuals did not consider God, or an infinitely powerful demon, or the ability to travel in time, then there would be chaos and there would be pseudo-chance or quantum chance; the future is defined in a disease, composed of all finite beings. The only well-defined concepts are “expectations”. Furthermore, the ability to do the "opposite" only makes sense when dealing with expectations and not with a totally unknown future. Since individuals have the ability to act in a way that is different from what others expect, free will can exist. Incompatibilists claim that the problem with this idea is that heredity and the amount of irresistible coercion created by the environment cause all our actions to be controlled by forces outside of ourselves, determined by chance.

The philosopher John Locke denied that the term “free will” makes any sense. However, he also claimed that determinism was irrelevant. He believed that the ability to act voluntarily was that individuals have the ability to postpone a decision long enough to deliberate on the consequences of making or not making that choice. More sophisticated analyzes of compatibilist freedom have been offered, as well as other criticisms.

David Hume defended compatibilism as necessary for morality, since we need both freedom and necessity.

1. Without necessity, there would be no regularity in human behavior and without that, there would be no place for moral laws.
2. In addition, there must be some regular connection between the actions and the motives of one.

William James, a philosopher and psychologist, labeled the position now known as compatibilism mild determinism, and argued that formulations of mild determinism were "an avoidance dilemma in which the real issue of importance has been completely blurred." But James' views were somewhat ambivalent. While he believed in free will in "ethical fields," he thought there was no evidence for its existence in psychological or scientific fields. Furthermore, he did not believe in incompatibilism as formulated above, that the indeterminism of human actions was a requirement for moral responsibility. In his classic work Pragmatism , published in 1907, he wrote that “Instinct and its utilities may be relied upon to carry the social issues of punishment and guilt” out of metaphysical theories. He believed that indeterminism is important as a "relief doctrine"—it allows one to believe that, although the world is in many ways a bad place, it can be made better through the actions of individuals. Determinism, he argued, indetermines that meliorism.

The Science of Will

Throughout history, people have made attempts to answer questions of free will through scientific principles. The early scientific mindset often portrayed the Universe as deterministic, and many thinkers believed that it was simply a matter of collecting enough information to be able to predict future events with perfect accuracy.

This encourages individuals to view free will as an illusion. Modern science is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories. For example, radioactive decay occurs with predictable probability, but it is not possible, even in theory, to say exactly when a particular nucleus will decay. Quantum mechanics predicts observations only in terms of probability. This casts doubt on the determinism of the Universe. Some deterministic scientists like Albert Einstein believe in the hidden variable theory; that below the probabilities of quantum mechanics there are more variables (see the EPR paradox).

This theory has brought much doubt about itself, because of Bell's inequalities, which suggest that “God can really play dice” after all, perhaps casting doubt on Laplace's demon predictions. The most important contemporary philosopher who has capitalized on the success of quantum mechanics and chaos theory to defend incompatible freedom is Robert Kane, in The Importance of Free Will and other writings. Kane's arguments, however, apply perfectly to any "unthinkable" entity that behaves according to quantum mechanics.

Like physicists, biologists have questioned free will. One of the most hated debates in biology is that of “the innate and the acquired”. This debate questions the importance of genetics and biology in human behavior when compared to culture and environment. Genetic studies have identified many genetic factors that affect an individual's personality, as in obvious cases like Down Syndrome, to more subtle effects like a statistical predisposition toward schizophrenia.

Even so, it is not certain that environmental determination affects free will less than genetic determination. The latest analyzes of the human genome show that it only has twenty thousand genes. These genes, and the reconsidered intron genetic material, and the new MiRNA, allow for a level of complexity analogous to the complexity of human behavior. Desmond Morris and other anthropologists have studied the relationship between behavior and natural selection in humans and other primates.

The synthesis of these two fields of research is that human genetics may be complex enough to explain behavioral trends and that evolutionarily beneficial environmental factors, such as parental behavior and cultural standards, modify these genetic factors. None of these phenomena, genetic complexity or disadvantages in cultural behavior, require free will to explain human behavior. However, the presence of genes that play a role in some behaviors, such as mental disorders, does not make behavior automatic, and studies suggest that there are people who suffer from a genetic predisposition to be more explosive, but behavior violent does not necessarily become a trait in the behavior of the individual.

It appears that more than one gene, and possible environmental fuel, is necessary to express the trait; this suggests that nature and nurture play an important role in our behavior. Some differ and claim that some form of free will may still exist, since the environmental factor in free will allows a person to manipulate that environment in such a way that this manipulation involves a compromise between his own body and mind, because an action isolated does not exist, a motivation similar or comparable to both acts exists, and genetic factors allow these two or more actions to be taken in any situation or moment, but only sometimes that commitment can mean an event that is not random, at At least in some instances, the argument tends to imply.

The nurturing part here may conflict with short-term information, so it doesn't necessarily predict or explain the outcome of the course of action to be taken. Still, others argue that these factors alone can explain behavioral outcomes without the need for "free will." Investigations on the subject are still ongoing.

Human brain. Through some studies conducted by Benjamin Libet, it is suggested that decisions made by a person are first made in an unconscious universe, and then translated into a "conscious decision" and the subject's belief that this occurred under his will is due only to the retrospective vision of the event.

Study of the living brain has also become possible, and researchers can now observe the decision-making machinery at work. An experiment in this field was conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s, in which he asked subjects to choose any moment to shake their wrist as he associated it with brain activity.

Libet found that the unconscious brain activity that led to the conscious decision to move his wrist began half a second before the subject consciously decided to move it. This mass of electrical charge has been called the ready potential (or readiness potential). Libet's findings suggest that decisions made by a subject are first made in an unconscious universe and then translated into a "conscious decision," and the subject's belief that this occurred under his will is solely due to the hindsight of the subject. event. On the other hand, Libet still finds room in his model for free will, in the notion of veto power: according to this model, the unconscious impulses that will cause a fickle act can be suppressed by the conscious efforts of the subject. It should be noted that this does not mean that Libet believes that unconsciously prompted actions need conscious ratification, but rather that consciousness retains the power to deny actualization of unconscious impulses.

A related experiment, carried out later by Dr. Álvaro Pascual-Leone, was based on asking the subjects which hand they wanted to move. He found that by stimulating different hemispheres of the brain using magnetic fields, it was possible to strongly influence hand choice. Normally people who opt for the right hand would choose to move that hand 60% of the time, but when the right hemisphere was stimulated, they would choose the left hand 80% of the time; the right hemisphere of the brain is responsible for the left side of the body, and vice versa. Despite the external influence on decision making, the subjects continued to report that they believed they had made the decision freely. Libet himself, however, does not interpret his experiment as experiencing the inefficiency of conscious free will—he points out that despite the trend that by pressing a button, and accumulating for 500 milliseconds, the conscious will retain the right to veto that action in the last few milliseconds. He can be compared to a golfer, who can swing the putter several times before hitting it. Based on this, the action simply gets a thumbs up at the last millisecond. Also planning the activities of tomorrow, or for an hour from now, the millisecond switch is negligible.

It may or may not be possible to reach a final scientific realization involving the possibility of free will by delving into the origins of our conscious thoughts. In the scientific point of view, all conscious experience is contingent upon neurons—a strong blow to the head can serve as a demonstration of this point, as well as documented cases of neurological injury. The brain consists of billions of neurons, with billions of connections between them. On a biochemical level, the main task of a neuron is to propagate electro-chemical impulses to other neurons, forming an "integrated circuit" that constantly receives information from the senses (sight, smell, touch, and taste) and returns information to control muscles and organs.. Only 10% of the neurons in the nervous system deal with sensory input and muscle control; the surplus neurons are used to integrate, refine and process input or output signals.

The experience of free will is thus conceptualized as arising from some combination of these neurons, but how do we arrive at this accumulation of neurons, which are fine threads of fat with the potential to receive electrical impulses, can power our conscious, emotions and feelings? How can it be that this concept of "me" and our free will can control neurons and our behavior, and the brain is merely a warm soup of fat, cholesterol and neurotransmitters? This unsolved mystery dominates the modern debate about the existence of our consciousness and the possibility of free will.

Neuroscience

Neurology and Psychiatry

There are certain disorders related to the brain that can be called free will disorders: in obsessive-compulsive disorder a patient may feel an overwhelming need to do something against their own will. Examples include washing her hands several times a day, acknowledging the wish as her own wish, even though it seems to be against her own will. In Tourette's syndrome and others like it, subjects will move involuntarily, developing tics and articulations. In the alien hand syndrome, which is also called the Dr. Strangelove, named after the popular movie, the patient's limbs will perform significant acts without the subject's intention.

Determination and emergent behavior

In the emergent or generative philosophy of cognitive science and evolutionary psychology, free will is the generation of infinitely possible behaviors from the interaction of a finite set of rules and parameters. Despite the unpredictable character of the emergent behavior of deterministic processes that guides the perception of free will, this as an ontological entity does not exist.

As an illustration, strategy board games such as chess and go are rigorously determined in their rules and parameters expressed in terms of the opposition of the pieces in relation to the others on the board. Even so, chess and go, with their strict and simple rules, generate a wide variety of unpredictable behavior. By analogy, the emergent or generative ones suggest that the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and determined parameters that generate infinite and predictable behaviors. In the view of dynamics and psychology and evolution, automata cells and the generative sciences, social behavior can be controlled as an emergent process, and the perception of free will outside of chance is essentially a proof of ignorance.

Free will in other species

In January 2011, the article Towards a scientific concept of free will as a biological trait: spontaneous actions and decision making in the invertebrates, in which it is stated that even fruit flies exhibit free will behavior in some way. Its author, Björn Brembs, states that the behavior of flies, despite not being completely free, is not completely constrained. The work provides evidence obtained from the brains of flies, brains considerably smaller than ours that, however, seem to be endowed with flexibility in decision-making. The scientist dares to point out that the ability to choose between different behavior options, even in the absence of differences in the environment, would be a capacity common to most brains, if not all, which is why most animals simple would not be fully predictable automata.

Quantum Physics

Early scientific thought often portrayed the universe as deterministic, for example in the thought of Democritus or the Charvakas, and some thinkers claimed that the simple process of gathering enough information would allow them to predict future events with perfect accuracy. Modern science, on the other hand, is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories. Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, which casts doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all, although the evolution of the universal state vector it is completely deterministic. Current physical theories cannot resolve the question of whether determinism is true in the world, since they are very far from a Theory of All Potential and are open to many different interpretations.

Assuming that an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, it may still be objected that such indeterminism is limited for all practical purposes to microscopic phenomena. This is not always the case: many macroscopic phenomena are based on quantum effects. For example, some hardware random number generator devices work by amplifying quantum effects into practically usable signals. A more significant question is whether the indeterminism of quantum mechanics allows for the traditional idea of free will (based on a perception of free will). However, if a person's action is only the result of complete quantum randomness, the mental processes experienced have no influence on probabilistic outcomes (such as volition). According to many interpretations, nondeterminism allows free will to exist., while others claim otherwise (because the action was not controllable by the physical being claiming free will).

Eastern philosophy

In Hindu philosophy

As summarized by Swami Vivekananda: “The mind is an integral part of nature that is bound together by the law of causality. Since the mind is bound by law, it cannot be free. The law of cause applied to the mind is called Karma. The Advaitin philosopher Chandrashekhara Bharati Swaminah says in a dialogue recorded in the book Dialogues with the Guru by R. Krishnaswami Aiyar, Chetana Limited, Bombay, 1957:

"Destiny is past Karma, free will is present Karma. Both are really one, which is Karma, even though they may differ in the matter of time. There can be no conflict when they are really one. »

Chandrashekhara Bharati Swaminah in Dialogues with the Guru

To a question where one should resign oneself to fate, the Swaminah replies that in fact one should indulge in free will and work it out:

"Destiny, as I told you, is the result of the past exercise of your free will. By exercising your free will in the past, you brought the resulting destiny. By exercising your free will in the present, I want you to eliminate your past if it hurts, or add it if you find it pleasant. In any case either to acquire more happiness or reduce misery, you have to exercise your free will in the present. »

Chandrashekhara Bharati Swaminah in Dialogues with the Guru

In Hindu philosophy, there is no conflict between fate and free will, as both are forms of the individual's karma.

In Buddhist philosophy

Thanissaro Bhikkhu taught: “Buddha's teachings on Karma are interesting because it is a combination of causation and free will. If things were totally caused there would be no way to develop an ability—your actions would be totally predetermined. If there were no causality, all abilities would be useless because things would be constantly changing without rhyme or reason between them. But it is precisely because of the existence of an element of causality and another of free will, that you can develop abilities in your life. You ask yourself: What is involved in the development of a skill? —this means being sensitive to three things basically: 1) It is a being sensitive to the causes coming from the past, 2) It is a being sensitive to what you are doing in the present moment, and 3) It is a being sensitive to the results of what you are doing in the present moment—how these three things come together.”

In theology

The theological doctrine of divine wisdom is said to be frequently in conflict with free will. After all, if God knows exactly what will happen, exactly all the actions that each one will do, the status of free options is in question. God already knows in advance the truth about one's choices, which limits our freedom. This problem is related to the Aristotelian problem of the sea battle: there will or will not be a sea battle tomorrow. If there was one, then it was true that there would be one yesterday. Then it would be necessary for the battle to occur. If there were not one, then by similar reasoning, it is necessary that it not occur. This implies that the future, whatever it is, is entirely governed by past truths—true propositions about the future. However, some philosophers hold that necessity and possibility are defined with respect to a point in time and a given matrix of empirical circumstances, then something that is merely possible from the perspective of an observer may be necessary from the perspective of an observer. omniscient. Some philosophers believe that free will is equivalent to having a soul, and therefore, according to those who claim that animals lack souls, they do not possess free will. Jewish philosophy stresses that free will is a product of the intrinsic human soul, using the word neshama, which comes from the Jewish root nshm נשמ which means “breath”.

In Christianity

Representation of Jesus on the cross, by Christoph Bockstorfer, on his side are two thieves, one on each side, about to die. Only one asked Jesus for forgiveness, while the other, even on the verge of death and without anything to lose, decides to mock it. In the view of the Methodists and others who believe in "free will", this was the choice between life and eternal death.

In Christian theology, God is described as not only omniscient, but also omnipotent; a fact that many people, Christians and non-Christians alike, take to imply that not only has God always known what decisions he will make for each one tomorrow, but that he has already determined those decisions. That is, they believe, that by virtue of his knowledge, he knows that he will influence individual decisions, and by virtue of his omnipotence, he controls those factors. This becomes especially important for doctrines related to salvation and predestination. Other branches, such as Methodists, believe that while God is omnipotent and knows the decisions that individuals are going to make, He still empowers individuals to choose or reject everything, regardless of external or internal conditions related to the decision. For example, when Jesus was nailed to the cross, the two assassins, one on each side, were about to die. Only one asked Jesus for forgiveness, while the other, even on the verge of death and with nothing to lose, decides to make fun of him. In the view of Methodists and others who believe in agency, this was the choice between eternal life and death.

The “free will” proponents defend the fact that knowledge of an event to come is entirely different from causing the event. Those who propose "determinism" they would agree, but would question whether knowledge of the future would be possible without the presence of a determining cause (see Boettner, below). Even so, the definition of predestination varies among Christians.

On Calvinism

Based on the work of John Calvin, The Institution of the Christian Religion, Calvinists spread the idea that God, in His sovereignty, decided who was going to be saved from before Creation as written in the Synod of Dort, convened by the Dutch Reformed Church in 1619.

Calvinists, like Lutherans, deny free will, concluding that the human will, instead of being the master of its own actions, is rigidly predetermined in all its options throughout its life. As a consequence, man is predetermined from before his birth to eternal reward or punishment in such a way that he can never have had real free power over his own destiny. Luther openly held that free will is a myth, a name that does not conceal any reality, since it is not in the power of man to conceive good or evil, since events occur by necessity.

They quote Ephesians 1-4: "In Christ God chose us before the creation of the world, to stand before him blameless and blameless." One of his strongest advocates of this view was the Puritan-American preacher and theologian Jonathan Edwards.

Edwards believed that indeterminacy was incompatible with the individual's dependence on God and His sovereignty. He thought that if individuals' responses were causally free, then their salvation partly depends on them and God's sovereignty is not "absolute and universal." Edwards' book, Freedom of Will, defends theological determination. In this book, Edwards tries to show that liberality is inconsistent. For example, he says that through "self-determination" the libertarian manifests that his own actions are preceded by an act of free will or that his own acts lack sufficient causes. The first affirmation guides us to an infinite return, while the second implies that one's own actions occur by accident and cannot make someone "better or worse, just as a tree is better than other trees because it is periodically illuminated by a swan or a Firefly; or a rock more vicious than other rocks, because snakes have coiled themselves under it more often."

However, this view should not be taken to deny free will completely. It claims that man is free to act in accordance with his moral impulses and desires, but that he is not free to act against or change them. Proponents such as John L. Girardeau have indicated in their beliefs that moral neutrality is impossible; that even if it were possible, and that one were adherents to contrary ideas, one could not make any decision; if one, on the other hand, leans slightly towards one option, that will be chosen over the others.

Non-Calvinistic Christians attempt a reconciliation with the dual concepts of Predestination and free will by pointing to God's status as Christ. By taking the form of a man, a necessary element in this process is that Jesus lived in the form of a mortal. When Jesus was born, he was not created by the all-knowing power of God the Creator, but with the mind of a child—even so, he was still fully God. The precedent this creates is that God is capable of abandoning wisdom, or ignoring it, as long as he remains God. Although this is not inconceivable, and although omniscience, and that God knows what the future awaits individuals, he is in the power to deny this knowledge in order to preserve individual free will.

However, a more compatible reconciliation with non-Calvinistic theology establishes that God is, in fact, ignorant of future events, but, being eternal, he is outside of time and past, present and future as a single creation.. Consequently it is not believed that God knew that Jeffrey Dahmer was going to be guilty of murder years before the event, but that God was aware of it for all eternity, seeing all time as a unique present. This was the point of view offered by Boethius in book V of his "Consolation of Philosophy."

Loraine Boettner differed about the doctrine of divine foreknowledge and that this did not escape the alleged problems of foreordination. She wrote that “What God knows best in advance, in the very nature of the case, is as arranged and certain as what is foreordained; and if one is inconsistent with the free agency of man, the other is also. Foreordination predicts certain events, while foreknowledge presupposes that they are certain. Some Christian theologians, feeling the bite of this comment, chose to limit the doctrine of foreknowledge not by doing it all together, but by forming a new school of thought, similar to Socinianism and process theology, called Open Theism.

On Arminianism

Jacobus Arminius.

Opposition to Calvinist theology and soteriology in the Netherlands was strengthened by the work of Jacobus Arminius, a professor at Leiden University. After his death, his followers headed by Simon Episcopius wrote the manifesto Remonstrance , which held five points:

1. The Fall of Man: Humanity has fallen into sin, but, God has determined to save through Jesus Christ those sinners who by the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in Him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelievable who resists grace.
2. The atonement: Christ died for All of it. the human species (1Timotheus 2:3-4But no one but the one who believes has remission of sin John 3:15-18, Mark 16:16).
3. Salvation: Man cannot of himself or of his own will do anything truly good until he is born again by God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit.
4. The Grace of God: All good work or movement in the regenerated must be awarded to the grace of God, but his Grace is not irresistible.
5. The End of Believers: Those who are incorporated into Christ through true faith have been given power through the help and grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in faith. But it is possible for the believer to fall from grace (Matthew 24:9-13, Mark 13:13, Luke 21:19).

Before Arminius, Menno Simons had written and polemicized against the doctrine of predestination and argued that God has left life and death to our choice deuteronomy 29:15 -20) and does not want anyone to perish, but rather that everyone repent, come to the knowledge of the truth, and be saved (2Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 33:10-20). Thus, the Dutch Mennonites found affinities with the Arminians both in their rejection of religious persecution and in their opposition to the Calvinist conception of predestination. The Baptists John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, exiled in Amsterdam between 1606 and 1612, were influenced by Arminianism and their followers are today known as General Baptists, due to their conviction that Jesus died to save all men. that they believe in him.

Methodists, like their founder John Wesley, espoused the Arminian criteria, believing that while God is omnipotent and knows the decisions individuals will make, He still gives individuals the power to choose or reject everything, no matter what. the external or internal conditions related to the decision. For example, when Jesus was nailed to the cross, the two assassins, one on each side, were about to die. Only one asked Jesus for forgiveness, while the other, even on the verge of death and with nothing to lose, decides to make fun of him. In the view of Methodists and others who believe in free will, this was the choice between eternal life and death.

Arminian theology was also adopted in the 19th century by the restorationist movement of the Disciples of Christ and Churches of Christ. Currently the Arminian theses have come to have acceptance among Christians of different denominations in various countries.

In Catholicism

Thomas Aquinas.

Theologians of the Catholic Church embrace the idea of free will, but generally do not see free will as existing apart from or contradicting divine Grace. Saint Augustine of Hippo and Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively on free will, with Augustine concentrating on the importance of free will in his response to the Manichaeans, and also on the limitations of a concept of unlimited free will as a denial of grace, in his refutations of Pelagius. Christian Catholicism's emphasis on free will and grace is generally contrasted with Protestant Christianity's predestination especially after the Counter-Reformation, but understanding differing concepts of free will is just as important as understanding the various concepts of the nature of God., focusing on the idea that God can be all-powerful and all-knowing, even though people continue to exercise free will, since God does not exist in time.

Thomas Aquinas viewed humans as pre-programmed (by virtue of being human) to pursue certain goals, but capable of choosing between routes to achieve these goals (our Aristotelian telos). His view has been associated with both compatibilism and libertarianism.Facing the election, he argued that humans are governed by the intellect , the will and the passions. The will is "the prime mover of all the powers of the soul [...] and it is also the efficient cause of motion in the body". Free will enters as follows: Free will is an "appetitive power", i.e., not a cognitive power of the intellect (the term "appetite" in Aquinas definition "includes all forms of inward inclination"). He states that the trial "concludes and the council ends." Now, the advice is finished, first, by the judgment of reason; secondly, by the acceptance of appetite [i.e., free will]".

The Council of Trent declared that the free will of man, moved and animated by God, can by his consent cooperate with God, who encourages and invites his action; and that for this reason he can dispose and prepare himself to obtain the grace of justification. The will can resist the grace of God if it so chooses. It is not like an inanimate thing that remains purely passive. Still weakened and diminished by the fall of Adam, free will is not destroyed in the race (Session VI, ch. I and V).

In Eastern Orthodoxy

The concept of free will will also be very important in the Orthodox churches, particularly in the Eastern Orthodox, and especially in those affiliated with the Coptic. Very similar to the concept of Judaism, free will is treated as axiomatic. Everyone has a free will that will continue to follow their conscience and arrogance, both being part of the individual. The more one follows consciousness, the better results one gets, and the more one follows arrogance, the worse the results. Following one's arrogance is sometimes compared to the dangers of falling into a hole when walking in the dark, without the light of awareness to illuminate the path. Very similar doctrines have also found written expression in the Dead Sea Scrolls “manual of Discipline”, and in some religious texts under the possession of the Beta Israel Jews of Ethiopia.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[citation needed]

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that God has given all humans the gift of agency, with the ultimate goal being to return to his presence. David O. McKay, a former prophet and President of the Church, communicated: “It is the purpose of the Lord that man should be converted in his image and likeness. In order for man to achieve it, it was necessary for the Creator to first make him free”.

Regarding the conflict between agency and predestination, Latter-day Saints are of the opinion that God foreordained man at particular seasons of life, in order to further His plan to guide mankind back into His presence. These foreordinances were not unalterable decrees, but calls from God for man to perform specific missions in his mortality. Men are responsible for their own destiny, despite their faith in and obedience to God's commandments.

“Agency” then should not be interpreted as actions without consequences; it means that it is a gift from God and the consequences must necessarily come as a result of the decisions made. Yet willing and accounting are complementary and cannot be separated.

A major difference, and a key point of view in understanding Latter-day Saint agency, between ordinary Christians and Latter-day Saints involves the belief in a life before immortality. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that before the earth was created all mankind lived in a pre-existent life as spirit children of God, citing Hebrews 12:9. Here God, his Father, nurtured, taught and saw the means for his development, but never stole them of his free will, citing doctrine and covenants 29:35. In this persistent state they could learn, choose, grow, regress, just like on earth. This preparation would enable them to become the men and women of the earth, and to be further educated and tested in the school of immortality in order to return to the presence of God and become like Him.

Yet the pre-existing life is believed to have been an infinitely long period of probation, progression, and schooling. Some of God's spirit children exercised their agency so much that they conformed to God's law and became “noble and great.” These were foreordained before their mortal births to perform great visions for the Lord in this life, as described in Abraham in verses 3:22-28. But even these, who were foreordained for greatness, could fall and transgress God's laws. Therefore, mortality is simply a state where progression and probation are continued just as it began in pre-existence. Without their will, mortality would be useless.^{[citation needed]}

In the new church

The New Swedenborgian Church, founded on the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, teaches that each person has complete freedom to choose heaven or hell. Swedenborg asserts that if God is Love itself, people must have free will. If God is Love, then He does not wish harm to anyone: so it is impossible for Him to predestine anyone to hell. On the other hand, if God is Love, then He must love things outside of himself; if people do not have the freedom to choose evil as they will be simple extensions of God, and he will not be able to love it as something outside of himself. Furthermore, Swedenborg makes it clear that if a person does not have the free will to choose goodness and faith, then all the Biblical commandments to love God and neighbor are worthless, since no one can choose to do them—and it is impossible. may a God who is Love and wisdom teach unfinished commandments.^{[citation needed]}

In Judaism

The belief in free will (Hebrew: bejirá chofshith בחירה חפשית, bejirá בחירה) is axiomatic in Jewish thought, and is closely connected to the concept of reward and punishment, based on the Torah. Verse 30:19 of Deuteronomy says “I (God) have given you life and death, blessing and cursing: choose life”. Free will is thus discussed at length in Jewish philosophy, primarily as God's goal in creation, and later resulting in a paradox.

The Jews currently hold discussions about free will and God's participation in the moral choices people take, and the degree of freedom to decide that each person possesses.

Traditional teachings on creation, particularly influenced by Jewish mysticism, are that “this world is like a corridor to the World to Come” (Pirkei Avoth 4:16). “Man was created for the sole purpose of rejoicing God, and deriving pleasure from the splendor of his presence…the place where this joy will be given is in the World to Come, which was created expressly for this; but the way to the object of our desires is this world…”. (Moshe Chaim Luzato, Mesillat Yesharim, Ch.1).

Free will is required in God's justice, "otherwise Man would not obtain or refuse acts of goodness over which he would have no control." It is further understood that in order for Man to have a free True agency must not only have this internally, but also an environment that allows a decision between obedience and disobedience. God thus created the world so that good and evil can operate freely; this is the meaning of the rabbinic maxim, "everything is in the hands of heaven except the fear of heaven" (Talmud, Berachot 33b).

In Rabbinic literature, there is much discussion between God's omniscience and free will. The representative vision is that “everything is foreseen; still, free will is given.” (Rabbi Akiva, Pirke Avot, 3:15). Based on the understanding, the problem is described as a paradox, beyond our understanding.

“The Holy One, Blessed be He, knows everything that will happen before it has happened. Will God know if a particular person will be good or bad, or will he not?, does not have temperaments and is outside of such environments, unlike people, whose beings and temperaments are two separate things. God and his temperaments are one, and God's existence is beyond man's comprehension… We do not have the capabilities to comprehend how the Holy One, Blessed be He, knows all events and his creation. [However] it is known without a doubt that people do what they want without The Holy One, Blessed be He, forcing them to do something… It is said by this that a man is judged according to his actions”. (Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Teshuva 5:5).

The paradox is explained, but not resolved, by noting that God exists outside of time and therefore his knowledge of the future is exactly the same as his knowledge of the past and the present. Just as his knowledge of the past does not interfere with the free will of man, neither in the future. An analogy is that of time travel: The time traveler, having returned from the future, knows in advance what someone will do, but while he knows this, this knowledge does not cause the subject's action; the subject had free will even when the time traveler had foreknowledge. This distinction between foreknowledge and predestination is disputed by Maimonides' critique Abraham Ibn Daud; see Hasagat HaRABaD ad loc.

Although the foreknowledge represents the majority view in rabbinic thought, there are many great thinkers who resolve the paradox by explicitly excluding divine foreknowledge. Both Saadia Gaon and Judah ha-Levi maintain that "man's decisions precede knowledge of God." Gersonides maintains that God knows, in advance, the decisions open to each individual, but he does not know what decision the individual will make in his own freedom.

Isaiah Horowitz takes the view that God cannot know what moral choices people will make, but does not impair their perfection nonetheless.

The existence of free will and the paradox described above is closely linked to the concept of Tzimtzum. Tzimtzum supports the idea that God "contracted" the infinite essence of himself, to allow the existence of a "conceptual space", in which an independent, finite world could exist. This "constraint" made free will possible, and subsequently the potential to inherit the potential and the World to Come. Further, according to the first approach, the paradox of free will's omniscience is understood to provide a parallel temporal plane to the paradox inherent within Tzimtzum.

In the guarantee of free will, God has somehow “diminished” his foreknowledge to allow independent action by man; He possesses foreknowledge of it and yet free will exists. In the case of Tzimtzum , God has contracted his essence to allow the independent existence of man; yet he is attractive and transcendent.

In Jewish thought, free will is still discussed in connection with Negative Theology, Divine Simplicity and Divine Providence as well as Jewish tenets of faith in general.

In Islam

Islam teaches: God is omniscient and omnipotent; he has known it all for eternity. But still, there is a tradition of free will for man to acknowledge responsibility for his actions, which has been drawn from the Qur'an.

This is how it is written in the Qur'an: "No one shall carry another's weight."

Agency is the basis on which one can be punished or rewarded in the afterlife.

Surveys about free will

Among Philosophers

A recent 2009 survey found compatibilism to be a fairly popular position among those majoring in philosophy (59%). The belief in libertarianism rose to 14%, while the lack of belief in free will reached 12%. More than half of the people surveyed were American.

Among Evolutionary Biologists

79% of evolutionary biologists said they believe in free will according to a 2007 survey, only 14% chose no free will and 7% did not answer the question.

In popular culture

One of the most famous stories of free will is Frank R. Stockton's 1882 short story The Lady or the Tiger?, in which the protagonist undergoes a difficult decision. In Larry Niven's science fiction short story All the Paths of the Myriad he takes the free will theory of multiple universes to a "reductio ad absurdum".

In both the The Matrix trilogy and the movie The Devil's Advocate there are many references to free will and the importance of making our own choices. In Bruce Almighty the main character, Bruce Nolan (Jim Carrey), was given the powers of God for a certain period with the warning that he "could not interfere with free will". In the movie Donnie Darko, the main character can see what God plans people to do, an implication of Christian free will thinking.

In the Legacy of Kain series video games, one of the main characters, Raziel, is the only one with free will. All the other characters are dominated by the Wheel of Fate and to them his timelines were written from start to finish while Raziel was given the opportunity to change his timeline as he chose using various time machines.