The Illusion of Free Will
Even if free will exists it is much more limited than our perception of it suggests
66 million years ago a colossal meteor struck the Yucatan Peninsula creating what we now call the Chicxulub Crater. This consequential event lead to the extinction of 75% of all living species.
The initial impact released energy equivalent to billions of atomic bombs which killed everything in the immediate vicinity but also caused firestorms and tsunamis that were far reaching. However, the more lasting effect was that it threw enormous amounts of debris, including dust, and soot, into the atmosphere. This debris blocked sunlight, significantly reducing temperatures globally, a phenomenon known as "impact winter." The reduction in sunlight disrupted photosynthesis, causing the collapse of food chains. Plants died off, followed by herbivorous dinosaurs that relied on them, and subsequently the carnivorous dinosaurs that preyed on the herbivores. This was the end for the dinosaurs who had reigned the planet for 165 million years (apes have been around for 25 million…so far). Poof and gone.
The dominant mammals at the time, rat like rodents, survived. Newly opened up ecological niches allowed them to thrive. These resilient creatures, capable of finding shelter and surviving in harsh conditions, began to diversify and evolve in the absence of dinosaurian predators. Primates eventually became one of the descendants of those rodents, setting the stage for the rise of hominids and, ultimately, Homo sapiens. So to a degree we have the Chicxulub impactor to thank for this blog post.
Had the Chicxulub impactor arrived a mere 10 minutes later it may have missed the planet all together. Why am I dwelling on this event (other than it being super cool)? It is a great example of how the deterministic world engine operates. The world of physics that governs the motions of meteors is something we accept as deterministic. Things hurtle through space for millions of years and eventually hit other things. Chemistry and biology are more complex disciplines that operate at a higher level of complexity but obey those same rules. So where is there room for free will?
This post will explore free will or the lack thereof. We’ll look at some of the potential foundations of free will. Then we’ll examine how narrow this notion of free will is, if it exists at all.
DETERMINISM VERSUS INDETERMINISM
A case for free will has to start with examining the foundations of the world in which it arose. So let us have a look at the cosmic engine that has given rise to life and what we know of it.
By and large the world we observe functions deterministically. This has allowed us to discover reliable rules of physics, chemistry and biology that help us navigate our daily lives. So now when we spot a meteor heading for earth in time, we will be able to find ways to deflect it using our scientific knowledge - not prayers, not cosmic energy conjuring circle jerks, not astrology based predictions, not spiritual manifestation nonsense - no we would use science to save humanity.
Given that non-living matter behaves deterministically and we are an outgrowth of said matter, what follows is that everything we do is also deterministic. Let me explain. If we had a supercomputer (let’s call it 42) that would know all the rules of the universe and would have enough capacity to simulate every particle from the Big Bang until now, then we could anticipate everything that has happened and will happen including the decisions of all people. Yet the other side, armed with dangerous half-knowledge, protests “…but quantum physics!!”.
Let’s talk about quantum physics then. There are many snake oil merchants using this term to explain all sorts of phenomena without having any clue what they are talking about (e.g. Joe Dispensa, Deepak Chopra, Rhonda Bryne, Gregg Braden, etc). We shall not spuriously speculate.
Quantum mechanics introduces indeterminacy through the probabilistic nature of wave function collapse and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This means that our computer 42 could never simulate this universe fully because at the quantum level things happen at random. Let’s be clear, when we say random here we mean that the outcomes cannot be predicted with certainty. Some physicists (e.g. Roger Penrose) and philosophers argue that this inherent unpredictability at the quantum level could provide a foundation for free will, as it implies that not all events are strictly determined by prior states. If human brain processes involve quantum events, this indeterminacy could influence decision-making processes, potentially allowing for free will in a non-deterministic sense. This connection is speculative and remains a topic of ongoing research and debate.
The biggest issue with this argument is that if quantum processes govern our brain, quantum indeterminacy, while introducing randomness, does not equate to free will. Random events are not under the control of the individual and thus do not constitute true freedom of choice. True free will would require more than just indeterminacy; it would need a mechanism for agent causation where individuals can exert control over their actions. My brain, given my preferences evolved through past experience, which are captured in memories, combined with my bodily needs for calories, would need to find a way to influences the probabilities of random quantum events so that I could chose salted caramel over chocolate ice cream.
Another challenge is the relevance of quantum effects at the macroscopic level of brain function. Most neuroscientists believe that classical processes (i.e deterministic biology and chemistry) primarily govern brain activity, and the impact of quantum events, if any, is minimal. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff refer to microtubules in the brain as a potential structure that would allow for quantum effects. This hypothesis is controversial and not widely accepted in the scientific community, as it lacks empirical evidence. “But we use quantum computing so maybe our brain does as well…” the ill informed blurt out. Yes, but quantum computing accepts the indeterminism of quantum events and works around them by using (coherence through superpositions and entanglement) engineering that I don’t pretend to fully understand, which only works at one degree above absolute zero (–273.15°C). There are significant challenges related to maintaining quantum coherence in the warm, noisy environment of the brain.
So we have a problem. A deterministic universe gives us no basis for free will. Our out could have been quantum physics but given all our current understanding this only produces indeterminism at quantum scales, which if our brains could tap into would mean random will, not free will. However, our experience every day is one to the contrary. I very convincingly feel in control over at least my decisions and actions. This conundrum is often referred to as the “hard problem”, which highlights the "explanatory gap" between objective physical processes and subjective experience. Once again introducing quantum mechanics does not bridge this gap unless it can specifically explain how subjective experience of free will arises from quantum processes. We currently can’t do this.
We know the extent of our ignorance is massive so it is possible that in the future we get to figure this out. However, let’s recap what we need to explain. We need to show that indeterministic (i.e. random) processes at the quantum scale, which at the macro scale lead to a deterministic universe, somehow allow for a very complex object like the brain to use those random processes at the quantum scale to override the determinism of the macro universe to create free will that is neither random nor determined.
Some in their attempts to explain this have resorted to consider that consciousness is fundamental. They (Donald Hoffman et al) suggest that consciousness is a building block of every elemental particle and so everything at a certain level of complexity is more or less conscious (e.g. has free will). This is called Panpsychism and while intellectually interesting has just as much going for it as astrology, reading tea leaves and tarot.
You may believe there are undiscovered laws of physics that eventually explain all this and refute all this established general/special theory of gravity and quantum physics nonsense, which has given us countless technologies we use on a daily. You might be right. I try to be a reasonable person who’s conviction scales with the availability of evidence (thanks David Hume). The best argument we have so far is that it ONLY FEELS like we have free will. But if one can’t come up with an argument to defend ones feeling, then good philosophical reasoning recommends that one rejects it, or at least withholds judgment until one can get the required evidence together.
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE AGAINST FREE WILL
There are numerous experiments that show that the brain activity associated with decisions occurs before the conscious mind is aware of it. This suggests that consciousness and the associated free will are post-hoc rationalisations for a decision that was made by the subconscious.
Benjamin Libet’s 1983 experiment demonstrated that the brain initiates voluntary movements before a person becomes consciously aware of their decision to act. Using EEG, Libet found that a "readiness potential" (RP)—a neural signal indicating motor preparation—appeared about 550 milliseconds before participants reported feeling the conscious urge to move (good news for people who get shot in the head - the bullet will kill you before your brain catches up and becomes aware of it like Tony Soprano). This suggests that what we perceive as a deliberate choice is actually the result of unconscious brain processes, with conscious awareness arising only after the brain has already committed to an action. There is another angle to this. In experiments where a patient’s brain was stimulated to elicit forced laughter, the patient would find a post hoc rationalisation why this happened (“I thought of something funny…”).
In a 2008 study, neuroscientist John-Dylan Haynes and his team used fMRI scans to investigate decision-making and found that the brain predicts a person’s choices up to 7-10 seconds before they become consciously aware of making a decision. By analysing activity in the prefrontal and parietal cortex, researchers could determine whether a participant would press a button with their left or right hand long before they reported deciding. This extended the findings of Libet’s experiment, showing that decisions are not only initiated unconsciously but can also be predicted well in advance, suggesting that conscious choice may simply be an after-the-fact rationalisation rather than the true origin of volition.
Some of my favourite work regarding unmasking the free will illusion is by David Eagleman. In one of his key experiments on time perception, he used a "flash-lag" illusion setup, where a moving object and a flashed object appear simultaneously, but the moving object seems to be ahead. This demonstrated that the brain doesn’t register events in real-time but instead collects sensory information over a brief window before constructing a perception of reality.
Another time perception experiment involves rapid visual sequences and explored how the brain determines the timing of conscious decisions. Participants were shown a fast-moving sequence of images and asked to make a spontaneous decision—such as pressing a button—at a moment of their choosing. However, the timing of their perceived decision could be manipulated by subtly altering the sequence, leading participants to believe they had made their choice earlier or later than they actually had. This experiment demonstrated that the brain does not record decisions in real-time but instead reconstructs them after the fact, sometimes altering the perceived sequence of events to maintain a coherent narrative. Again the findings suggest that our sense of volition is not a direct cause of action but a post hoc interpretation.
Further studies showed that when choices were made under time pressure, participants often justified their decisions after the fact, even in cases where their choice was subtly influenced by external stimuli. This aligns with the idea that multiple neural circuits are constantly competing to produce an action, and the “winning” circuit ultimately dictates behaviour—while the conscious mind later rationalises the decision as if it were freely made. Eagleman also found that damage or alterations in specific brain regions can drastically change decision-making, such as in cases of frontal lobe injuries where individuals lose impulse control. These findings suggest that free will is not a singular conscious force but rather a product of hidden neural dynamics, challenging the traditional belief that we make decisions in a purely deliberate and autonomous way.
Detractors may want to argue that the subconscious decisions are made freely so it doesn’t matter if the conscious self realises this later. What all these experiments show is that what we experience as our justification for our actions is just like a PR agency pumping out stories for a shadowy figure in the background. This figure makes all the decisions and then drafts a memo that it sends afterwards to the PR agency. Yet the agency is fully convinced it’s actually writing all the memos and is the author of the stories. Eagelman & Co’s experiments show that the PR agency is lagging behind reality and will post hoc rationalise decision making as free.
MORE NAILS IN THE COFFIN
Human life starts humbly with a sperm cell and an egg cell. I hope we can all agree that there is no or free will involved at this level. The deterministic rules of chemistry and biology set the parameters for the merger of the two, which sets off a chain reaction that results in an embryo. At some point we believe this clump of cells to have an experience of the world that is worth protecting (arguably this threshold is a lot lower for human life than it is for any other species we consider food, but that’s a different post). Once born we will consider this baby conscious (i.e. is feels like something to be a baby) but do we really believe it possesses free will? If yes, when did it sneak in?
My experience of observing young children is that they are beautiful and fascinating beings who’s actions are driven by a maximum exploration imperative so that they can build a solid predictive model of the world around them. As they explore their perceptual apparatus and proprioception improves but their motivations seem simplistic - explore, eat, sleep, poop. As they grow older one can clearly detect their individualistic character traits, while also being able to reliably predict most of their actions and decisions. Is free will already part of the equation here or does it require a certain level of brain development for us to tap into the quantum physics level magic?
Later in life we can see how terrible ailments like Alzheimer and other neurodegenerative diseases decimate our abilities to live lives on our own terms. Do these illnesses affect the way our brains tap into quantum processes? Are they affecting our connection to a metaphysical level that allows us to circumvent the rules of the deterministic universe? Or are they just messing with the workings of the deterministic machine and thereby unravelling the notion of free will? How about psychological conditions like severe depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, addiction, eating disorders etc? It seems that issues with the machine have an outsized impact on our so called free will. This suggests that free will is an outgrowth of the machine and thereby just “deterministic will”.
I don’t want to belittle the amazing miracle of the human body. The fact that three dozen of trillion cells work in unison with billions of reactions per second per cell to give raise to the thoughts which make up this blog post is incomprehensible. However, this can be just as awe inspiring without having to assume more than what is. But let me not come across as close-minded and play along with the notion of free will. Let’s assume that somehow we humans are special enough to overwrite the rules that govern the universe when we freely chose our favourite ice cream flavour.
HYPOTHETICAL FREE WILL MUSINGS
I had no freedom in choosing my parents, my genes, the country I was born in, the people who influenced me in my early childhood, the teachers who educated me, the students in my class. I also had no control over the traumas my grandparents inflicted upon my parents which certainly have or haven’t (depending on my genetic propensity) affected me in the right or wrong way. I didn’t choose the economic system of the country I grew up in, its laws, social norms, its culture, the companies’ products available for my consumption, and so on. If I’d argue the other side I’d say that this means less degrees of freedom but not absence of free will. Good point! We are not finished yet. Lets be clear that there are plenty of things outside our control, which will influence from the outset the menu of options we deem available to choose freely from.
What gamers call bad spawn RNG (after dying randomly respawning in a part of the game map that leads to disadvantages) severely limits the probabilistic variance of outcomes your life can have. It’s often the privileged folks, who can be free will maximalists. They would argue that everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps given all degrees of freedom are granted to every human. It’s hard to run the counterfactual and see how they would fare by starting out as a street kid in Mogadishu.
Our free will if it does exist on a daily basis comes in contact with that of others. Every agent in this world creates causal cones, which others may end up in. Trump has a very large causal cone for instance. The other side may say but you are again just talking about reduced freedoms (like in Trump’s case barbarically not giving women a right over their body). Yes, but a change in societal norms and culture actually impacts people’s way of thinking and therefore also affects one’s free will. If trans people are being vilified and you want to be part of the in group then you’ll go along with without thinking deeply or empathetically about the topic (and realising there are crazy people who take everything too far but by and large most LGBTQ people are not that).
Causal cones are all around us. Other people’s decisions reverberate through the ages to still have consequences on our lives today. To be free you would have to be wholesale devoted to the project of creating your own system of beliefs and processes to live your life. This is impossible as we are domesticated into “the system” from the moment we are born. Very few people break away to live “truly free” lives and that’s because most of us are OK with not being free.
A good experiment to test the limits of your free will is to try to do the opposite of what you feel is right/proper/preferred for 2 weeks. I’ve tried this for a day and failed. A lower cost experiment is something most people who meditate know well. Try to focus on your breath for 2 minutes. What are those dozens of thoughts doing popping in your head while you are freely choosing to focus on your breath? Why those thoughts in particular? Who chose them? Doesn’t seem very free to me.
For completeness sake it is worth mentioning that you are of course a slave to your physical needs. We know that people make worse decisions when they are sleep deprived. Lack of sleep often leads to problems with risk assessment, impulse control, and emotional regulation. This has been proven over and over and over again. Free will seems very fragile indeed (especially if you really really have to pee)!
You get my point. If you want to argue for free will you have to acknowledge it is in a very narrow band of variance. We can of course count ourselves as special while “freely” choosing salted caramel, our future mate, the new job etc. but we are limited in our true freedom on so many dimensions. The other side would argue “but we’ve chosen to become this person in the narrow band of variance by all the past decisions we’ve made”. I call bullshit - most of those decisions were made for you before you were born.
USEFUL ILLUSION
Why does this illusion of free will exist to begin with? Let’s hypothesise. The universe seemingly has an inbuilt bias to create local complexity. After 13.7 billions of years it has given raise to the most complex structure (that we know of) in this universe - the human brain. A brain paired with our bodies is capable to manipulate the universe and explore the design space of the physics engine to create more complexity. For the humans to do this well, they need be able to model the world around them competently. This requires a model of themselves in this world as agents.
So here I am an agent with a brain and body. I need to navigate this world competently to survive and procreate to create more complexity. A signal traveling from my toes to my brain takes 20-50 milliseconds (longer for taller people). This means my awareness of reality is always in the past as my brain needs to stitch various different inputs together to have a cohesive perception of the world engine and my place within it (by that logic taller people live further in the past). As my brain does the stitching, believing that I make choices freely enables me to take responsibility for my actions, plan and simulate futures, and engage in creative problem-solving. It allows my neural network to model myself as an intentional agent in a world that is otherwise governed by cold, deterministic laws.
This self-model is vital not only for my survival but also for exploring possibilities without burning calories to try them (“cheaper” means of experimentation through simulation). Even if my choices are ultimately determined by factors beyond my control, the narrative of free will gives me the leverage to learn from my mistakes, set goals, and work toward self-improvement. My and your self-improvement and learning from our mistakes passed on through generations of knowledge sharing with the collective allows us to build a civilisation. In essence, the illusion serves as a psychological glue that holds together the fabric of our social and cognitive lives to create a collective body of knowledge, thereby creating a more interesting and complex universe. I know there is a lot of conjecture here, but it sounds good no?
CONCLUSION
You don’t need to be a “no free will exists maximalist” to hopefully conclude from this essay that the narrow band in which we have free will, if it exists, should make us much more humble and forgiving. What do the limits or non-existent free will mean for the nature of personal responsibility and moral judgment? If every/most thought and decision is the inevitable result of prior causes—some of which are completely beyond our control—then our pride in having "chosen" a particular path should be tempered by humility. Free will allows us to separate ourselves from all other beings around us. We believe to be special and different, which allows us to be unforgiving in our domination of this world.
Knowing that our choices are not as free as they seem can encourage us to be more compassionate toward ourselves and others. It reminds us that many of the behaviours we criticise or celebrate in others are not the product of some metaphysical freedom, but rather the outcome of a long chain of causes, from genetics and early environment to societal influences and random events. This understanding can lead us to forgive more readily, to be kinder when mistakes are made, and to foster a sense of empathy that acknowledges the true complexity of human behaviour. Embracing the illusion of free will as a useful, though not ultimate, tool can thus pave the way for a more forgiving and understanding society. Well or rather trying to embrace it because you don’t have a choice in the matter anyway!