Free will is possible, but it is relative.
The argument against the possibility of free will I have usually seen is this:
Either rules determine what we choose, or they do not. If rules determine our actions, then they are not free. If rules do not determine our actions, then our actions are random, and therefore not choices.
I see no flaw with this argument. However, I think it leaves room for a different view of free will – a relativistic view of free will.
This argument implicitly places the reader in the frame of reference of one who is omniscient – it refers to all the rules that could determine a choice. From this frame of reference, indeed, there is no free will. However, if we remove the omniscience, then there is certainly room for free will.
Suppose I ask you to guess whether I will choose either ‘A’ or ‘B.’ If you are omniscient, you would be able to determine which choice I will make. If you are not omniscient, however, it will seem to you that I have a choice.
Lets put some money on it, and actually make it a bet. You guess whether I will choose ‘A’ or ‘B.’ If you are right, you get $1 from me. If I am right, I get $1 from you.
-
Suppose I get to hear your guess before I make my choice – then in this situation I am truly free. I can completely control whether you get $1 or I get $1, regardless of your choice.
-
Suppose I have to write my choice down before you make your choice – then neither of us are free – we cannot control who gets $1. In essence, because there is no inherent difference between ‘A’ and ‘B’ both of our choices are random. If we cooperate, then together, we can both be free – if we both have the same will (say for you to receive $1, then we can negotiate to both pick ‘A’), then, together, we are free.
-
Suppose you get to read what I wrote down (my choice) before you make your guess. In this case, it is you who is free – you can completely control how money will change hands, regardless of your choice.
But all of this freedom is relative to you and me.
Suppose you add a third person, Bob. Suppose you and I are playing game #3 above. Suppose that unbeknownst to me, You and Bob are playing a side game. Bob doesn’t get to look at my paper, but he gets to hear your guess before he makes his guess. In your side game, if Bob chooses the same thing I choose, then he wins $1 from you. If he chooses the opposite of me, then he loses $1 from you.
So we have:
- I write down ‘A’ or ‘B’.
- You look at my choice.
- You choose ‘A’ or ‘B’ aloud.
- Bob chooses ‘A’ or ‘B’ aloud.
- Bets are settled.
From my point of view, you are still free. You can still control which of us gets $1.
But from Bob’s point of view, your choice is constrained. If Bob chooses what you choose, then no matter what you choose, you will break even – you are only choosing whether I get $1 or Bob gets $1. On the other hand, if Bob chooses the opposite of what you choose, then no matter what you choose, Bob will break even. In essence, Bob can choose whether you have control over your own money, or his money. In Bob’s more knowledgeable frame of reference, you are not completely free.
Suppose we go one step further. Suppose Bob gets to look at my paper too before he makes his choice.
Now, from my point of view, you are still free. You still control who gets $1.
But from Bob’s point of view, you only get to choose how much money will be split between Bob and you. Bob gets to decide how the money is split. Even if you give me money, Bob can still take money from you at will. Relative to me, you are still free. But relative to Bob, you are not free.
