How quantum uncertainty shapes our decisions
“Between stimulus and response there is space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”
Victor Frankl
The question of free will is one of the most fundamental and complex in philosophy. Free will usually refers to a person’s ability to make informed choices and decisions regardless of external circumstances or predestination. This concept underlies our ideas about moral responsibility, personhood, and human dignity.
In philosophy, several main positions on this issue have been formed: libertarianism, determinism, compatibilism and hard incompatibilism. Each of these approaches is based on its own premises and hypotheses, offering different interpretations of free will.
Libertarianism affirms complete free will, postulating that people are capable of making choices that are not entirely determined by prior causes. Determinism, in contrast, views all events, including human decisions, as predetermined by previous states and the laws of nature. Compatibilism attempts to reconcile the idea of free will with determinism, proposing a revision of our understanding of freedom. Hard incompatibilism goes even further, denying free will regardless of the truth of determinism.
In my opinion, the key aspects in defining free will are two fundamental issues:
The first problem is physical – determinism
The macroworld in which we live is largely determined. Effects strictly follow causes, forming unbroken chains of cause-and-effect relationships that can be traced both to the past and to the future. In classical physics, what appears to be randomness is often just a consequence of our incomplete knowledge of the system. However, quantum mechanics introduces an element of fundamental uncertainty into this picture.
Free will presupposes the existence of choice, and choice, in turn, presupposes the existence of alternatives. In a strictly deterministic universe, where every event is the inevitable consequence of previous causes, there is no room for alternatives. Without alternatives there is no choice, and without choice there is no free will.
The second problem is logical – “the problem of causality of choice”
This problem creates a logical paradox. If every decision we make has a reason, then we can argue that the choice is predetermined by these reasons. In this case, can we talk about “free” choice? On the other hand, if our decisions have no reasons, then they become random. But randomness is not the same as freedom. Random choice is not under our control and, therefore, also cannot be considered “free” in the full sense of the word.
This contradiction creates a serious conceptual problem for the concept of free will, calling into question the very possibility of its existence within the framework of our understanding of causality and determinism.
Purpose of the article
The purpose of this article is to present a new, integrative view of the problem of free will, combining the philosophical, physical and social aspects of this phenomenon. I will try to resolve the contradictions described above by proposing a model that takes into account both the deterministic aspects of our world and the elements of uncertainty and randomness. In addition, we will consider how this model of free will influences our understanding of individual responsibility and social processes.
Determinism and predictability
To deeply understand the problem of free will, it is necessary to understand the concepts of determinism and predictability. Although these concepts are often intuitively linked, they have significant differences.
Determinism implies that all events are predetermined by initial conditions. In a strictly deterministic system, no matter how many times we simulate its state, the result will always be identical. This principle is well known to programmers working with complex information systems. Regardless of the complexity and size of the system, given the same initial conditions (or “seed” in the context of pseudorandom number generators), the result will be unchanged. Such systems are deterministic and theoretically predictable in both forward and backward directions of time.
However, not all deterministic systems are predictable in practice. This is due to two main factors:
Accuracy of measurements: In the real physical world it is impossible to reproduce the initial conditions absolutely accurately. A classic example is a double pendulum, where the slightest differences in initial conditions lead to radically different trajectories of movement.
Limitations of mathematical precision: Some systems, such as the three-body problem, do not have an analytical solution. The simulation results depend on the accuracy and calculation step.
These problems are especially relevant for chaotic systems, where even minimal errors accumulate and amplify over time, making long-term predictions impossible. Such systems may be deterministic, but unpredictable in practice.
A key role in the behavior of complex systems is played by bifurcation points – critical states in which minimal impacts can qualitatively change the further evolution of the system. This phenomenon, central to chaos theory, makes long-term forecasting fundamentally impossible for many systems, including, for example, weather forecasting.
It is important to note that even unpredictable systems can remain deterministic in the classical sense. However, the introduction of quantum mechanics adds a new level of complexity. Unlike classical physics, where uncertainty is associated with a lack of information, quantum uncertainty is a fundamental property of nature. This has profound implications for our understanding of causation and therefore free will.
Understanding the differences between determinism and predictability, and the role of quantum uncertainty, is critical to developing a holistic understanding of free will in the context of modern science.
Butterfly effect with quantum uncertainty
The famous “butterfly effect”, coined by meteorologist Edward Lorenz, states that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. This metaphor clearly illustrates the sensitivity of complex systems to initial conditions. However, if we add quantum uncertainty into the picture, the situation becomes even more intriguing.
Imagine quantum effects influencing the microscopic turbulence of the air under the wings of our hypothetical butterfly. In classical physics these effects would be negligible. But at bifurcation points, where the system is on the edge between different states, even such microscopic fluctuations can be amplified to a macroscopic scale.
Quantum mechanics states that, at a fundamental level, nature is probabilistic. This means that even under absolutely identical initial conditions, the result may be different. In the context of our butterfly, this could mean that quantum fluctuations in the movement of air molecules under its wings could lead to slightly different patterns of turbulence.
Under normal conditions these differences would not be noticeable. But at a bifurcation point, where the system balances between different states, these microscopic differences can be magnified. Imagine that a developing hurricane is on the edge between two possible paths. Quantum effects, amplified through a chain of cause and effect, can become a decisive factor in determining which path a hurricane will take.
Thus, quantum uncertainty introduces an element of true, fundamental randomness into the macroscopic world. This is not simply the result of our ignorance or inaccuracy of measurements, but an integral property of nature.
Scope of consequences and emergence of alternatives
At first glance, it may seem that quantum effects affecting bifurcation points in the life of an individual are too rare and insignificant to be of significant significance. This argument, made, for example, by Robert Sapolsky, deserves attention. However, the rarity of events does not detract from their potential impact.
Let's consider an analogy with thermonuclear fusion on the Sun. The likelihood of hydrogen atoms fusing at solar temperatures is extremely small, but due to the colossal scale of this process, this process provides energy to the Earth for billions of years. Likewise, the entire Universe continuously generates a huge number of random events at the quantum level. These microscopic fluctuations, amplified through bifurcation points, affect the trajectories of photons, the movement of stars, planets and entire galaxies, constantly violating strict determinism.
It is important to note the peculiarity of cause-and-effect relationships in this context. Although we can retrospectively determine the cause of a particular effect, the set of possible causes itself remains random. This means that we can explain the past, but we cannot predict the future with absolute accuracy. Moreover, if the quantum effect plays a role directly at the moment of the transition being studied, even causality becomes uncertain.
Any system in which we consider free will is not isolated, but is an integral part of the Universe, filled with chance and its unpredictable consequences. This leads us to the understanding that it is almost impossible to reproduce two absolutely identical situations or conditions for making a decision. As the ancient wisdom says, “you cannot step into the same river twice.”
In light of this, we can no longer talk about cause-and-effect relationships as strictly determined. Instead we deal with probabilities. And a probability that is less than one automatically implies the presence of an alternative. Thus, the physical problem of determinism finds its solution: in a world permeated by quantum uncertainty and reinforced through bifurcation points, there is always room for variability and, therefore, for freedom of choice.
Subjective experience as a reason for choice
Subjective experience plays a central role in our model of free will, serving both as a mediator in the decision-making process and as one of the key reasons for the choice itself. But what is subjective experience, and how is it related to free will?
Subjective experience is a unique set of memories, emotions, knowledge and skills for each individual, formed as a result of interaction with the outside world. Its subjectivity and uniqueness are due to the fact that even under similar external circumstances, each person perceives and interprets them in their own way, through the prism of their personal characteristics and current state.
In the context of decision-making, subjective experience acts as a kind of mediator between the cause (external stimulus or internal motivation) and the effect (the decision made). It provides a set of possible “solutions” or responses, each associated with a certain probability of success or desirability of consequences based on the individual's previous experiences.
It is important to note that subjective experience is not static or completely deterministic. It is constantly updated and modified through an iterative process of thinking that includes observation, will, action, and evaluation of results. Each new decision and its consequences become part of the experience, influencing future decisions.
The uniqueness of subjective experience lies in the fact that it is not a universal property of the universe, but is a dynamic property of a specific individual. It is localized in the individual and makes sense only in the context of his personality and life path. This allows us to talk about intra-individual causality and free will of the individual.
Subjective experience, along with other factors, including elements of chance, forms the basis for decision making. It creates space for choices that, on the one hand, are not completely random (since they are based on past experience and a reflection of reality), and on the other, not completely determined (since they include elements of uncertainty and the uniqueness of individual perception).
This approach allows us to resolve the paradox of causation while maintaining the concept of individual free will. We recognize the existence of reasons for our decisions (including in the form of subjective experience), but these reasons do not lead to strict determinism, but create the basis for free, but not arbitrary, choice.
To simplify the understanding of this mechanism, we can imagine the decision-making process as a kind of “dice”, where the sides represent different decision options, and the probability of each side being dropped is determined by subjective experience. However, it is important to understand that this is only a metaphor to help visualize a complex process.
In reality, decision making is a multi-step process that can involve consideration of various options, evaluation of potential consequences, emotional reactions, and much more. This process can extend over time, include periods of doubt and hesitation, and even involve external factors.
Moreover, each stage of this process may include its own “bifurcation points” where quantum uncertainty may play a role, as we discussed earlier. This creates a complex, multi-level system where free will is realized not as a single act of choice, but as a continuous process of interaction between subjective experience, external circumstances and internal quantum fluctuations.
Thus, subjective experience in our model of free will acts not only as a source of possible decisions and their probabilities, but also as a dynamic system, constantly updating and adapting to new experience. This helps explain both the stability of our preferences and behavior patterns and our ability to change and adapt, which is a key aspect of individual free will.
Free will and the second signaling system
A unique feature of humans is the presence of a second signaling system – the ability to perceive and transmit information through speech and other symbolic systems. This system plays a key role in the formation of subjective experience and, therefore, in the exercise of free will.
Subjective experience is formed not only through direct interaction with the environment, but also through the assimilation of information received from other people. Parents, teachers, peers, books, the media – all these sources contribute to shaping our experiences, influencing our future decisions and actions.
This ability for “vicarious learning” greatly expands an individual's knowledge base, allowing him to learn from the experiences of others, avoid mistakes, and make more informed decisions. However, it also creates certain limitations, since the acquired information may contain prejudices, stereotypes or false ideas.
In the context of free will, this means that our decisions are shaped not only by personal experience, but also by the collective experience of society. This adds a new level of complexity to understanding the causality of our actions and the extent of our freedom.
The concept of punishment and guilt plays a special role in this process. Punishment, whether physical or social, is a powerful tool for shaping experiences. It influences the probabilities of future decisions, reducing the chances of repeating an undesirable behavior.
However, the question of guilt becomes more complex in light of our understanding of free will. If our decisions are the result of a complex interaction of subjective experience, external circumstances and elements of chance, then can we talk about the individual's full responsibility for his actions?
On the one hand, recognizing the role of external factors and chance may lead to the idea of reducing personal responsibility. On the other hand, it is the concept of responsibility and punishment that is an important factor shaping our subjective experience and influencing future decisions.
Moreover, punishment affects not only the individual, but also the entire social system. It serves as a signal to other members of society, shaping their subjective experiences and influencing their future decisions. Thus, punishment plays the role of not only a corrective, but also a preventive mechanism.
In this context, guilt can be viewed not as an absolute moral category, but as a functional concept necessary for the regulation of social behavior. Admitting guilt and accepting punishment becomes part of the learning and adaptation process, both for the individual and for society as a whole.
Thus, the second signaling system greatly complicates the picture of free will by adding social and cultural context to individual experience. It expands our ability to make decisions, but it also creates new forms of influence over those decisions. As a result, free will is not realized in a vacuum, but in a complex interweaving of personal experience, social norms and cultural patterns, which makes it an even more multifaceted and intriguing phenomenon.
Randomness as a component of variability, adaptability and development
The randomness in the decision-making process that we discussed earlier is not a disadvantage or a hindrance. On the contrary, it plays a key role in the adaptation and development of both individuals and society as a whole.
In some situations, random selection may be the optimal strategy. This is especially evident in the context of game theory, where unpredictability of actions can provide an advantage in a competitive environment. Evolution may have favored a decision-making system that included an element of chance precisely because it increased the chances of survival and success in complex, changing environments.
Randomness in decision making also serves as a defense mechanism against manipulation. If our behavior is not completely predictable based on past experiences or external factors, it makes attempts at external control or manipulation more difficult.
Moreover, the element of chance promotes exploratory behavior. It allows us to go beyond our usual patterns and explore new strategies and possibilities. This is a key factor in the process of learning and adapting to new conditions.
At the individual level, randomness may manifest itself in individual decisions, but at a higher level it can lead to an optimal strategy. Just as random mutations in evolution lead to species adaptation, random variations in decision making can lead to more effective behavioral strategies in the long term.
In a social context, the unpredictability of individuals can paradoxically lead to the stability of the system as a whole. This is due to the fact that a variety of strategies and approaches increases the overall stability and adaptability of the social system.
Finally, randomness helps explain some of the paradoxes of human behavior. Sometimes decisions that seem irrational at first glance may be part of a broader, optimal strategy that takes into account uncertainty and variability in the environment.
Thus, randomness in decision making is not simply a byproduct of imperfections in our cognitive systems, but an important component that enables variability, adaptability, and development at both the individual and social levels.
Between explosion and heat death
Free will in a social context can be thought of as a delicate balance between the chaos of complete individual freedom (“explosion”) and absolute conformity (“heat death”). This balance is the key to understanding the dynamics of society and its ability to innovate and adapt.
Individual free will allows people to pursue their own interests and experiment with new ideas and approaches. This creates the diversity necessary for innovation and progress. Like random mutations in evolution, individual “deviations” from the norm can lead to breakthrough discoveries and social innovations.
However, excessive individual freedom without restrictions can lead to social chaos. This is where social norms, culture and education come into play. They form the boundaries of individual freedom, ensuring stability and continuity in society. These social factors influence the “weights of probability” of individual decisions, guiding them in a direction consistent with the public interest.
The optimal state of society lies between these extremes. It is characterized by a dynamic balance where individual freedom is balanced with social responsibility. This balance allows society to adapt to change while maintaining its structure and identity.
It is important to note that this balance is not static. Individual decisions, especially those containing an element of chance, can gradually change social norms. In turn, the evolution of social norms influences individual decisions. This creates a mechanism for constant self-correction and adaptation of society.
This model explains why free societies are often more successful in science, technology, and economics. Diversity of approaches, freedom to explore unconventional ideas, and efficient allocation of resources through the “marketplace of ideas” all contribute to innovation and progress. At the same time, social norms and institutions prevent destabilization and provide direction for this progress.
The concept also offers a theoretical rationale for democratic systems where individual freedoms are balanced with public interests. It explains why extreme forms of individualism or collectivism are often unsustainable and less effective in the long run.
Thus, free will in a social context is not absolute independence, but rather the ability to participate in the complex, dynamic process of social development. This is a state “between explosion and heat death”, where society balances on the edge of order and chaos, constantly adapting and evolving.
Conclusion
This article presents a new perspective on the problem of free will, integrating the philosophical, physical and social aspects of this complex phenomenon. The concept of free will can be briefly stated as follows:
Free will is realized at the intersection of determinism and randomness. Deterministic aspects provide the basis for rational behavior, while quantum uncertainty and the complexity of chaotic systems create room for variability in choice.
Subjective experience plays a key role in shaping the “probability weights” of various decisions. This experience is unique to each individual and is constantly updated.
The decision-making process is a complex, multi-level process where quantum effects can be amplified through bifurcation points, influencing macroscopic decisions.
Free will exists within the context of social norms and expectations. The balance between individual freedom and social responsibility is a key factor in the development of society.
Contingency in decision making has adaptive value, promoting innovation, exploratory behavior, and resistance to manipulation.
This concept of free will offers a new perspective on an old philosophical problem that is consistent with modern scientific evidence and explains a wide range of individual and social phenomena.
