The Physical Reality of Free Will — A Conversation
By: Harrison Crecraft
Tags: Neuroscience, Free Will, Consciousness, Science, Physics

In The Physical Reality of Free Will [1], I described an interpretation of physical reality in which randomness is fundamental. I argued that simply eliminating physical determinism establishes Free Will. A reader posted a detailed and thought-provoking response. The following is a hypothetical conversation between this reader (RDR) and me (HC), based on the reader’s comments and responses to his comments. I start the conversation with a brief summary of my essay.

HC: The Dissipative Conceptual Model is an interpretation of physical reality, based on clearly defined assumptions, sound logic, and empirical physical facts [2,3]. The DCM establishes fundamental randomness of objective physical reality. By rejecting determinism, the DCM restores our free will to make choices, not dictated by the past or etched in stone.

RDR: There may or may not be randomness or indeterminism at the quantum level. As I understand it, there are at least two theories that deal with quantum theory and still maintain a version of determinism. One is the many worlds theory, which says the causality is complete but branches off into an ever-growing number of many worlds. As much as this theory is aesthetically distasteful, it has many reputable adherents. The other, less common theory is superdeterminism. It’s not clear to me that your view refutes either of these.

HC: The Many Worlds interpretations, the Copenhagen Interpretation, and superdeterminism are all hypotheses to reconcile the empirical indeterminism of quantum measurements with an objective determinism of physical reality. They all start with the assumption that physical reality is deterministic. They then make different assumptions of what happens at measurement.

The Many Worlds Interpretation eliminates indeterminism by asserting that every possible outcome of measurement or interaction occurs in a separate branch of an exponentially branching universe. The Copenhagen interpretation asserts that an isolated system exists as a superposition of its potential measurement outcomes, without explicitly addressing what happens at an external measurement. Taken to its logical conclusion, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that a cat could exist in a superposed state of live-dead, as long as it remains isolated, unperturbed and unobserved. Superdeterminism denies indeterminsm by asserting that an observer’s choices of measurement settings and the measurement results are completely determined by the initial state of the universe.

These hypotheses are all consistent with observations, but their implications are all aesthetically displeasing. More importantly, their implications are untestable, and their interpretations of a deterministic physical reality are all based on circular logic.

The DCM, in contrast, makes no assumption on the determinism or randomness of physical reality. Starting with empirically documented facts and a common-sense definition of perfect measurement, the DCM logically deduces physical reality as fundamentally random and irreversible.

RDR: Even if your interpretation of physics is correct and randomness is fundamental at some level, that has no connection to human free will. Your essay has not even defined free will or explained the sense in which our “wills” or choices are “free.” You seem to be arguing for contra-causal free will, meaning that somehow physical entities that evolve nervous systems then become able to counter or “rise above” physical causality (and quantum level randomness) with self-caused choices.

HC: I focused on physics and took a very simplistic concept of free will. I equated free will to being free from determinism — my choice is not determined; therefore, I have free will to choose. Identical conditions could have allowed a different choice, and as you correctly point out, this defines contra-causal free will. Contra-causal free will is the strongest and most contentious conception of free will.

RDR: Contra-causal free will fails (and determinism applies) on at least three levels:

#1. The laws of physics and chemistry still apply to neurons, governing how and when they fire to pass on electrical charges and neurotransmitters across synapses to other neurons. There is no “mind” at some higher level that adjusts these. There may be firing events somehow triggered by randomness, but that’s not free will, just dice rolling.

HC: I agree 100% that physics and chemistry apply to neurons. But free will cannot exist in a deterministic world, and I reject any interpretation of physics that denies randomness. The DCM provides for fundamental randomness, and this is essential to having free will.

I also agree with your second point. An event triggered by a random fluctuation does not express free will. It is just dice rolling. A die has no consciousness, and it does not choose which face ends up.

RDR: #2. Most of the books and articles I’ve read by neuroscientists support determinism. The chain of determinism leading to a conscious choice may be exceedingly complex, but to say that some choice was “free” from causality at any level is just giving up on finding answers and substituting magical thinking.

HC: Chasing a state’s chain of cause and effect to its ultimate cause eventually leads to a noisy background of acausal randomness. But a choice or thought is not a static state, like the final position of a rolled die. The brain is ultimately a physical-chemical dissipative system. Thoughts and decisions are more appropriately described as organized patterns of neuron firings. Each organized pattern of neuron firings describes a distinct dissipative process within the brain, representing a distinct thought.

The DCM establishes fundamental reality of irreversibility and dissipative processes. Non-linearity of a dissipative system generally leads to multiple possibilities for dissipative processes, all consistent with the system’s physical and chemical constraints.

The DCM also proposes a new principle, the Kelvin Selection Principle, which governs the stability of dissipative processes [3,4]. It is analogous to the Second Law of thermodynamics. Whereas the Second Law describes the relative stability of states in terms of their entropy, the KSP describes the relative stability of dissipative processes in terms of their “usefulness.”

For a simple dissipative system, usefulness is a well-defined measurable property describing the rate of internal work on the system. Extending the application of the KSP from simple systems to the brain would clearly be a daunting and speculative task. However, as you stated, the laws of physics still apply to neurons, and this should apply for the KSP, as well.

Applying the KSP to potential thoughts or choices would assign relative stabilities, based on a generalized definition of usefulness. Our selection of one choice over another is based on its perceived usefulness; it is neither arbitrary nor based on magical thinking.

RDR: #3. At a philosophical level, it makes more sense to say that choices are made for “reasons,” meaning one bases his or her choice on past experience or education. Ideally, choices should be deliberative and anything but arbitrary. We may believe we are freely making a deliberative choice, but it is based on a reason, and it is not a case of uncaused free will.

HC: Deliberation is our process of determining the usefulness of possible choices to base our selection. We ultimately base our choice on a reason, but deliberating choices is typically done against a noisy background of competing interests and memories. This background influences the relative valuation we assign to these interests and the assessment of our choices’ consequences. The process of selection is not determined; it is ours to make against a noisy background of acausal randomness. We can call this deliberative contra-causal free will.

Let me close by saying that I found your comments insightful and penetrating. I appreciate the time you spent on your comments, and the opportunity to reflect and respond to them.

[1] The Physical Reality of Free Will https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/the-physical-reality-of-free-will-846bc4e5ab46

[2] Is Quantum Randomness Fundamental? https://medium.com/swlh/is-quantum-randomness-fundamental-633cb51f4d96

[3] A Contextual Foundation for Mechanics, Thermodynamics, and Evolution https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202007.0469/v4

[4] The Arrow of Functional Complexity https://medium.com/discourse/the-arrow-of-functional-complexity-b789a39f0892