DETERMINISM: DOES SCIENCE BELIEVE IN DESTINY?

DISCLAIMER

The following content essentially revolves around the idea of determinism. The author has in no way attempted to feed a particular belief to the readers. The author’s personal beliefs, opinions, and viewpoint of the world are absolutely private.

Introduction

Welcome to the interrogation! Why are you reading this article? Posed more precisely: what made you read this? What underlying chain of events led you to this point in time, reading the words I have typed on my computer days, weeks, or even years prior? You are here with me while you had thousands of other options, or did you? You may believe you independently and freely decided to go for this specific article; however, you might doubt that assumption at the end of this read. For centuries, philosophers, psychologists, physicists, and scientists from other branches have been dwelling on the idea of free will and its existence. Human civilization’s legal, social, and ethical constructs have been fundamentally based on one’s unmitigated discretion. Challenging free, unaffected decision-making in human behavior seems to be an absurd, easy-to-invalidate hypothesis; but the truth is that science frighteningly supports it in many ways. This introduces the idea of determinism, the belief that the future has already been determined by preexisting collective conditions and yes, that includes human behavior as well.

How Science Could Propose The Lack of Free Will

To illustrate how science could back up the idea of determinism, let us begin with a few everyday scenarios. Suppose you are out at a local bowling alley with a group of friends. It is your turn, and you release the ball, taking out 9 out of 10 pins. While you are having a mini-euphoric moment, imaginarily having slightly impressed that pretty girl from the other lane, you observe the pins as they get affected by the hit of the ball. Some pins fall down the lane as some fly around and a number of them fall into the gutters on the sides of the lane. Each pin was influenced in a certain way by your shot, going through its own brief adventure. One round of the game finishes, and it is your turn again; if you give the ball the same spin, same initial push, speed, initial direction of throw with the same angle, as the air resistance and surface friction is entirely identical, the ball will precisely follow the same path as before. Each pin will undergo the same influence as the last time. Repeat this 1000 times, and you will watch the same scenario unfold before your eyes over and over again due to the laws of physics.

Fig. 1: Your impressive shot! Note that the way each pin behaves does not differ the next time around since the prior conditions are the same each time. Pay attention to every single pin.

After you are done shooting a few shots, you visit a meadow to get some fresh air and have some fruit alongside your buddies. Before leaving, however, you decide to stuff a watermelon with explosives and watch it blow up, because why not?! Let us expand the notion of bowling pins to an explosion. Similarly, if the initial conditions of the outburst such as the shape of the watermelon, position and amount of explosives inside it, the surface underneath it, the density of air around it, its humidity etc. are all unvaried, you would watch the same explosion regardless of how many times you repeat it. Newtonian laws of motion guarantee it by precisely predicting the behavior and the upcoming position, velocity, and landing point of every tiny fragment of the unlucky watermelon. Calculable by math and physics, hence the final state of the fruit is already foreseeable once the initial conditions are recognized. Therefore we can quite confidently state that the future of the watermelon is mathematically destined. The pieces of watermelon may take seconds to land on their final spot, yet math and physics already know it beforehand.

Fig. 2: given the initial affecting factors are fixed, each piece of the watermelon is thrown away identical to the previous iteration.

Consider a larger explosion: The Big Bang. If the previously mentioned justification is followed in this case, the whole future of the universe has already been set in stone. This would mean that no matter how many times the Big Bang hypothetically occurred under the same conditions as it did 13.8 billion years ago, the same events would have taken place in the exact same way. The Big Bang would shoot very hot matter in all directions; every atom would obey the laws of physics and be thrown into space in a certain way. Gravity would aid in transforming the densest areas of hydrogen gas into compact clouds, which would ultimately collapse to create the first stars. The stars would go supernova, creating heavier elements in the form of dust which could not escape the laws of physics either; eventually accumulating to form the Earth. Vicious collisions of comets and asteroids would bring water to the newborn earth. Single-celled organisms would evolve on the planet. In the archean eon, cyanobacteria would start photosynthesis, releasing oxygen into the atmosphere, which would react with the incoming deadly ultraviolet radiation, forming the ozone layer. The variety of organisms increased as certain species progressed into more complex creatures, including humans; the branches of the evolutionary tree would lead to your ancestors, your parents, and finally, they would partake in the indoor Olympics at the very instance that produces you as offspring. You would go through the same childhood in the same environment and develop the same attitudes and personality that made you read this. Does that mean you do not have free will? Not quite yet, maybe; but Pierre-Simon de Laplace, a prominent mathematician, has proposed an idea regarding this viewpoint.

Laplace’s Demon and Human Behavior

Laplace states that we may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. If an intellect would know all forces that govern the universe, plus the position and momentum of every single constituent particle, it would be able to predict exactly what each particle is going to experience in the future. And therefore the whole future will be as vivid as the past before its eyes. (Essai philosophique sur les probabilités, 1814)

Since our brains that initiate our actions are also made up of the same atoms as the rest of the universe, it can be argued that our decisions are also predictable by the intellect that Laplace proposed, thus predetermined. In other words, our choices stem from the brain, more specifically the atoms in our brains that demonstrate predictable behavior. This world view suggests a long chain of cause and effect, where every occurrence relies on a preceding element to necessitate it. To put it another way, you make decisions, not by free will, but based on the in-built impulses inside your bodily systems, through the intricate configuration and network of neural pathways, the distinct and specific electrochemical dynamics, and the way each synaptic network exchanges and interprets information; be it in the form of chemical reactions, electric signals, through physical, physiological or environmental means etc., they all originate from your atom-made predictable brain. Even if you suddenly attempt a very strange hand and body gesture right now for no apparent reason, it can be again linked back to the atoms in your brain and their formularized movement inside your head. It was supposed to happen anyway, and the imaginary intelect, widely known as Laplace’s Demon, knew it from the moment of the Big Bang; you cannot escape your skull after all.

Fig. 4: Justification of human behavior through determinism

If one argues that the mind is generated by the brain, which is made up of matter; and also accepts that matter (particles) follows strict inviolable laws of nature, it would mean every choice, thought, and decision is the inevitable effect of its preceding primary cause; and consequently, one can think of the whole future of the universe as destined. That is to say; the future is fixed; we are technically waiting for it to manifest itself, and the Big Bang is an enormous progressive, mathematically-predictable explosion that is simply unfolding and playing out; us humans being its drifting debris.

Fig. 5: The initial position and shape of the rock, the slope of the two paths, how they are aligned relative to each other, etc. determine which path the rock “chooses”. Similarly, but in a more complex way, there are numerous filters that input information go through in our brain: neural pathways, synaptic networks, senses, etc., until our brain is done with processing and the decision is made.

Free Will, Regardless of Laplace’s Demon

Free will against determinism has been subject to discussion for a long time. Our brains can be perfectly deterministic calculating machines similar to complex clocks, making decisions for us, turning the undeniable subjective experience of free will into an illusion that we, as squishy robots with qualia, constantly undergo. Our brains might as well be agents of free-willed action. Even for those who believe in total free will, science has placed a few inevitable obstacles in their path. There exist specific environmental causes that affect human activity, and therefore, the decisions they make at all times. Here are a few examples:

It can be an optimal point to bring up the prominent German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer’s relevant quote: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills." Most of the examined cases in the table above investigate nearly-immediate consequences of the mentioned causes, but the indirect effects of longer cause-effect chains bring us to a yet more significant obstacle on free will’s path: The Butterfly Effect.

The Butterfly Effect and Chaos Theory

As mentioned above, longer chains of cause and effect give rise to more subtle yet astonishing realizations. They can be nearly impossible to recognize at first, but they are unbelievably surprising once they are noticed. For instance, I would not have written this article if I was not interested in the idea of determinism. Why am I interested in this idea? Because it is somehow correlated to an ancient Chinese philosophy that I enjoy. Why do I partially agree with that philosophical tradition? Because I encountered it on a YouTube video by Einzelgänger. Why did I explore that content? Because I was overcoming anxiety due to personal life issues at the time. So if I never had those problems and never had to face that anxiety, you would not have been reading this article at this moment. Another example of the Butterfly Effect is related to a driver taking a wrong turn; following similar steps as above; you will find out that the wrong turn led to the start of the first world war. Minuscule changes in the preceding states can spark enormous changes in the future outcomes; this is known as the Chaos Theory in mathematics. However, underlying patterns and interconnections can be detected inside the apparent randomness, especially when groups of chaotic entities are at work; it is a broad subject to dwell on outside the scope of this article. Chaos Theory does not draw any logical conclusion regarding free will and determinism, but it is indeed something to think about deeply. As stated by Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist from Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, chaos is deterministic; it makes predictions difficult, but the future still follows the initial condition. (Hossenfelder, 2020)

Fig. 6: Two identical double-pendulum systems are released simultaneously, with all initial conditions indistinguishable except for a 0.1-degree deviation from the X-axis in the starting position of one of the pendulums of the system on the right. You observe that the behavior is entirely chaotic. After a few seconds, it is difficult to believe the initial positioning of both pendulums were almost matched.

As observable in the above figure, not even deterministic systems are an exception to Chaos Theory. Another example of that is the weather; according to a study published in the journal of atmospheric sciences, scientists found that because of the chaotic nature of the atmosphere, even if experts are provided with all the data they require, they can only forecast the weather for a maximum of two weeks in advance in a very optimistic scenario (Zhang et al., 2019). A lot of believers in free will argue that quantum physics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle disprove determinism; let us shed some light on that.

Uncertainty in Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction

To beat Laplace’s demon, we need to dive into the subatomic level of particles. This is the area where quantum mechanics comes into play. On the subatomically tiny scales, deep-seeded randomness is observed in the nature of particles. Louis de Broglie, in 1924 suggested that all particles have a wave-like nature as well. Even you, as a human, have a negligible yet existent wavelength. The wave-particle duality is a core idea in quantum mechanics; for instance, to find the position of an electron, its wave characteristics are examined through what is known as the wave function denoted by the Greek letter ψ. The square of the wave function provides us with the probability distribution; that describes the probability of finding the electron at a specific location. The vital point is that the position of the electron is not absolute. It can exist in any of the positions with a non-zero value in ψ2, that is to say the electron can be anywhere in that non-zero probability area nondeterministically, or entirely randomly jumping around; we assume it is in a mixture or soup of all possible states, an indeterministic superposition. However, once the electron’s position is measured, the wave function “collapses”, and the position of the electron becomes absolute. The same story goes for electron spins, the famous double-slit experiment, quantum tunneling, etc. Pay attention to the figures below to comprehend how this “collapsing” of the wave function may manifest itself.

Fig. 7: The higher the value of ψ2, the more likely it is to find the particle at that position. Before making measurements, the electron is in a superposition of all states, as a mixture or soup of all possible positions simultaneously. Once the measurement is made, it is a particle at a single absolute place. No more wave-like nature and randomly jumping around.

Fig. 8: Photons are directed towards two narrow slits. Their wave-like behavior causes them to spread out on the photosensitive screen (not in a double-fringed fashion that a particle with no wave characteristics would appear). We can predict how they act as a group and obtain the probability density, but we cannot know which slit each individual photon went through since it is random unless we do measurements

Fig. 9: If we measure every particle, the wave function collapses, and all we see are two bright fringes as if the photons lose their wave-like behavior once we look at them! Crazy, isn’t it!?

Fig. 10: Wave-particle duality in the double-slit experiment. Observe and measure; you will get particle-like behavior. No measurements; wave pattern appears.

These quantum phenomena, the in-built intrinsic randomness in their nature, alongside Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, were things Einstein could not wrap his head around, leading to his famous quote:” God does not play dice”. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that one cannot precisely know the location and momentum of a single particle simultaneously. The more precisely you know the position, the less accurately you are allowed to find out about the momentum, and vice versa. This is not due to human error, but again an inherent quality blended into the fabric of the nature of the world itself.

Fig. 11: The slit gets narrower and narrower, but the light on the screen spreads out wider. Why? A narrowing slit lets us know the position of landing photons more and more precisely, or should I say too precisely. Certainty in position increases; therefore, uncertainty in momentum naturally arises, Making the photons deflect to the left and right for the uncertainty principle to hold. Just wonderful!

Now let us examine how that affects free will. Pure randomness in the heart of every quantum particle could mean the universe is not a gigantic deterministic clock after all (assuming they do not follow quantum laws we have not yet found out about). Laplace’s demon cannot make heads or tails of the uncertainty principle; there is pure randomness on the quantum level of particles. Does that mean a glimmer of light for free will? Hossenfelder (2020) argues: this makes no sense. The events occurring in quantum mechanics are truly random; fundamentally that means they are not influenced by anything, not even you, regardless of what you mean by you.

• Isn’t randomness in essence and by definition equivalent to lack of control and therefore against free will?

• Classical Newtonian predictability (Laplace’s demon) and fuzzy probabilistic haze on the microscopic scale (quantum randomness) are what physics has to offer. Does either of them firmly support free will?

What about medical scanning? What does neurology have to say about determinism?

The Neurological Perspective of Determinism

A neurological study by Chun Siong Soon (2008) had subjects watch a computer screen as different letters appeared on it. They were provided with two buttons in their reach, one under their left index finger and one under the right. The subjects were asked to relax and fixate on the letters on the screen and immediately press one of the buttons when they felt an urge to, freely choosing which index finger to use. They also had to indicate remembering the displayed letter when their conscious motor decision was made by choosing the corresponding letter from a four-optioned “response mapping” screen. Their brain activity was being monitored and measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) meanwhile. “We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.” (soon et al., 2008). Moreover, the mentioned areas in the subjects’ brain included a significant amount of information that could foresee the outcome of motor decisions long before the subject consciously made that decision. The study introduces unconscious determinants of human intentions that precede conscious decision-making by a considerable amount of time. Soon (2008) reports:” Notably, the lead times are too long to be explained by any timing inaccuracies in reporting the onset of awareness.”

Socio-Philosophical Consequences of Determinism

Belief in determinism challenges the very concepts of pride, honor, guilt, ethics, morality etc., the fundamental basis of human civilization is built upon the idea of free will. If people were told they are destined to do whatever they do, they would assume what they do ultimately does not matter; inevitably causing uncontrollable chaotic societies. If we are all predetermined to do whatever we do, should there be any law at all?! The answer is yes. Free will can be considered unnecessary for moral behavior. Hossenfelder (2020) states, if you act in ways that harm other people, their software-running brains would come up with ways to prevent that. All brains are machines striving to optimize their well-being. You are held responsible not because you have free will but because you embody the problem, and solutions like deporting you from the country solve it for the rest of the people. Needless to say, “The particles made me do it.” is not a valid statement for the court judge.

Interestingly, Emily Caspar (2017) conducted a study aiming to explore how the belief in determinism or free will impacts morality. Participants were asked to induce an electric shock to another participant in exchange for a small financial reward or avoid it altogether. Caspar (2017) states: “Our results show that participants who were primed with a text defending neural determinism - the idea that humans are a mere bunch of neurons guided by their biology - administered fewer shocks and were less vindictive toward the other participant. Importantly, this finding only held for female participants. These results show the complex interaction between gender, (dis)beliefs in free will and moral behavior.” Although the study supposedly (or indirectly) demonstrates that determinists tend to follow a more ethical approach in society, it cannot be affirmed with confidence. What this study does illustrate, however, is that a deterministic view does not necessarily induce a lack of morals in its believers. Though neural determinists find free will a mere illusion, a deterministic view could even be linked to better social behavior. On the other hand some studies have shown otherwise; deterministic people were more deceitful contrary to Emily Caspar’s study. The matter of morality is perhaps too complicated to be cementable on a basis of belief or disbelief in determinism.

Australian astrophysicist Matt O’Dowd (2020) states that free will is an emergent phenomenon. It is a reductionist fallacy to call it an illusion, the same way you cannot declare an apple is an illusion because its atoms are not apples. All in all, the hot debate is ongoing. Even if all scientific indications point in the direction of absolute non-existence of free will and entirely invalidate it (which is not the case), it can be hard for us to let go of the idea; at the very least it is a sweet illusion that grants us a sense of control.

Conclusion

Determinism can be a scary idea to many people, but there is also a lot of scientific evidence to back it up. Maybe we are not in control. Perhaps we are devices under our deterministic brains’ control. Whatever the case is, we, as human species have gained ownership over a sense that feels like free will. The existence of free will is such a fundamental debate that connects many different branches of science to crack the mystery. Determinism would mean particles in the universe follow rigid laws, physics being articulated in their language, to which your brain is not an exception; in no way the atoms in the universe (and your brain) are obliged to ask for your permission or direction to do something. In other words, you, as a human, have no way to intersect or exert force on these particles, you are a collection of particles in the first place. Presuming a deterministic world, you would do everything you did in your life the same way even if you were born a million times. You would be born to the same parents. Your environment would lead to the exact same personality you have today. You would have encountered this article I have written. The sky would be blue. That person would break your heart again, and yes, they would start dating that douchebag afterward. Whatever you wish to believe in, scientific observations are not to be overlooked. Finally, let me ask you again: Why are you reading this?