the existence of free will #

in order to define and then converse on ideas relating to free will, one must first convince themselves on its existence. truthfully, one can simply make a definition, as well as talk about the emergent system much like any other metaphysical structure, but there is merit in being able to argue for its existence.

on this matter, there are many different arguments, however i will focus on the three that i find the strongest; this does not mean that one can prove existence, but these seem to strongly suggest and support that free will is indeed part of reality.

the first argument has to do with the simplicity of the system, and involves creating a system in which free will is absent, which makes said system much more complex and obtuse. this, because one must explain why and how the constructs (since we don’t talk about living things if free will is absent, but mere constructs) came to be, as one might observe them. as a very good friend mentioned, without free will persons are but functions, receiving an input and producing an output. however, “I” (a concept that does not exist without free will) can both observe, and change the “output” before it is ever expressed, which is easier explained with free will than without.

the second argument is concerned with aesthetics, and the relation between the nature of beauty, and that of truth. in due time these will be expanded upon, but for now one may use the idea of “beauty is truth” as is.

the second argument thus is as follows; it is much more beautiful for there to be free will, than for there to not be.

obviously such a statement is extremely subjective, but such a statement is true for the totality of knowledge. unfortunately the nature of communication makes it impossible to describe beauty and sentiment, so i choose not to expand on this argument.

finally, we can simply make an admission, without any extra argumentation. besides, it is obvious that there is no need for a person to justify or rationalize every aspect of their faith, nor are they obligated to answer to anybody except for themselves. it is therefore possible, and maybe even proper, for someone to define the existence of free will axiomatically, ignoring any other argument for or against it.

defining free will #

if we accept the idea of free will existing, we should be able to define it, in order to be able to self reference and call upon to make use of this idea. this also helps in clarifying the meaning, which in everyday speech is muddled, much like most of language, due to the nature of communication (which is a discussion for a later time.).

alongside free will, there are two more modes of behaviour in nature, determinism and pure randomness. discussing these first is necessary to properly define free will, since these are directly observable in the outside world; free will is only directly observable in the inner state of the self, with the admission that others behave similarly.

the first term we will explore is determinism, the idea that things in nature behave in a predefined, preordained way. this mode of action is generally linked with non sentient or better yet non living things, such as rocks, metals, everyday objects that we make use of etc. by claiming that they move deterministically, we claim that there is, theoretically if not literally, a way by which we can obtain every single bit of information about the past and the future of the object under study, subject to an adequate amount of information about the current state. here one can imply the existence of a perfect measurement device, that can give accurate measurements up to any level of significance one might care about. this does not guarantee absolute and complete knowledge of a system, but rather guarantees that the object in question behaves predictably, under a known or unknown set of laws, physical in nature. this means that a deterministic object cannot operate on its own, as it is fully under the influence and flow of the external world.

true randomness is the exact opposite. true randomness implies that under any circumstances, there does not exist a mechanism or set of predefined laws that we can use to guarantee that the outcome will be aligned with any prediction one might make. in this way, true randomness can only be partially predicted with the use of mechanisms that predict expected, or average behaviours, without the possibility to definitively correctly guess a single outcome. as a truly random behaviour cannot be dictated by external factors, since it would be just an extremely complex deterministic system, true randomness is not dictated by any factors.

both of the above mechanisms deprive rather than provide a mechanism that allows for an individual to be influenced by their own inner state. since deterministic behaviour has a set output for a given input, and random behaviour is nonsensical by definition, there needs to be a mechanism by which the person can, by observing and acting on themselves, change and manipulate a behaviour or outcome.

this mechanism is free will.