The chaotic nature of free will
Do you sometimes take a moment and run your thoughts through the philosophy of free will? Ask questions such as, “is free will truly free?”, “are our thoughts 100% predetermined by the laws of nature?”, “does quantum randomness play part in our brain activities?”, “is free will God given?”, “if God knows everything that has ever happened and will ever happen, doesn’t that mean we actually act according to God’s plan and design hence we don’t have free will?”. This article adds to these questions by asking, “isn’t free will just a byproduct of chaos theory?”
Free will is often seen as the capacity to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or divine intervention. Predeterminism posits that all events, including human decisions, are determined by prior causes and therefore inevitable. Predeterminism claims that all events are set in motion by earlier events, leaving no room for deviations. This idea, when extended to a religious context, suggests that an omniscient God has predetermined everything that happens, rendering our lives a simple unfolding of a pre-written script. According to this belief, the notion of human freedom is questionable because every action, thought, and decision would already be known by God. Yet, many religious views also hold that humans possess free will. If God is truly omniscient, can human beings truly make independent choices, or are they simply following a path that has been foreseen and predetermined?
Religiously, we are told that free will is a gift from God. In many Christian traditions, God has endowed humanity with the ability to choose between right and wrong, holding individuals accountable for their actions. This view underscores the importance of moral responsibility, as it argues that human beings can decide their paths, choosing to act virtuously or sinfully. However, the concept of divine omniscience presents a challenge to this notion of free will. If God knows everything, then He knows the future, which includes every decision an individual will ever make. This raises a troubling question: if all choices are already known to God, can they truly be called free? Are people merely following a script that God has foreseen and set into motion? This conundrum leads to a theological dilemma where human freedom seems incompatible with divine foreknowledge.
Some argue that God’s knowledge does not necessitate interference with human choices, thereby leaving some room for free will. According to this view, while God knows what choices individuals will make, He does not cause those choices. People retain their freedom to decide, even though God, being omniscient, knows what decisions will be made. This perspective attempts to reconcile the belief in an all-knowing God with the idea of human freedom, but it opens up further questions about the nature of divine omniscience and how it coexists with human autonomy. Does foreknowledge necessarily imply causation, or is it possible for God to know all without dictating the course of events?
In contrast, a scientific approach offers a different take on predeterminism and free will. Classical physics has long supported a deterministic view of the universe. In this framework, the universe operates according to rigid physical laws, with every particle, planet, and human decision traceable to prior causes. If this is true, then free will becomes an illusion; every action, thought, and decision is simply the result of a chain of events that extends back indefinitely. In a deterministic universe, nothing is left to chance, and no individual truly possesses the power to make independent choices. Everything, from the smallest atom to the most complex thought, is the inevitable outcome of a set of causes.
Yet even within this deterministic system, there is an element of unpredictability, brought into play by chaos theory. Chaos theory challenges the predictability of deterministic systems by suggesting that small, seemingly insignificant changes in initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes. This is famously illustrated by the “butterfly effect,” in which a butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world could theoretically cause a tornado in another part. Chaos theory highlights the sensitivity of systems to initial conditions, where even the tiniest of changes can disrupt predictability on a large scale. It is this sensitivity to initial conditions that introduces a degree of unpredictability into what might otherwise appear to be a rigidly determined system.
One way to understand chaos theory’s implications for free will is to consider the mathematical concept of irrational numbers, such as ?. The number ?, representing the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, is an irrational number with an infinite number of decimal places. In the context of chaos theory, if an event or a variable, such as the speed of a vehicle, is represented by a number like ?, then that event or variable cannot be measured with absolute precision. Any slight variation in its value could lead to drastically different outcomes. This unpredictability undermines the idea that future events can be fully determined by prior causes. Even if the laws of physics are deterministic, the inability to measure certain variables with complete accuracy introduces an element of chaos that makes prediction impossible.
This brings us to the notion that free will emerges not in opposition to determinism but within the cracks and gaps of deterministic systems. Because we cannot measure all variables with absolute precision, chaos steps in, and what appears as free will begins to emerge. Not because we are truly free to make independent choices, but because no entity—not even Laplace’s demon, the theoretical being that could predict the future if it had perfect knowledge of every atom’s position and velocity—can measure these infinitesimal changes with complete accuracy. The lack of precision in measurement creates unpredictability, and it is within this unpredictability that the illusion of free will arises.
The cornerstone of this argument is that free will exists not as a defiance of deterministic laws but within the limitations of our ability to measure and predict. Events can unfold predictably only to a certain extent. Beyond that point, chaos renders prediction irrelevant, giving rise to what feels like free will but is, in fact, a by-product of the universe’s unpredictable nature. The randomness at play here is not the quantum type but a consequence of our inability to achieve perfect measurement. This throws events off course just enough to give life the appearance of free choice.
Historically, philosophers have approached the question of free will from various angles. The ancient Greeks, for instance, were deeply concerned with the concept of fate. The Stoics believed that the universe was governed by logos, a rational and deterministic force. In their view, human beings were subject to this divine reason, and while they could not change the course of events, they had the freedom to control their reactions. For the Stoics, free will was not about altering the course of one’s life but about accepting the path that the universe had set. Their belief in determinism left little room for human autonomy in shaping future events.
In contrast, existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre rejected the idea of predetermination. Sartre argued that humans were “condemned to be free,” meaning that they bore the full responsibility for their actions in a universe devoid of inherent meaning. For Sartre, free will was an essential part of the human condition. Without an external force to determine the course of events, human beings were left to navigate the world on their own, with the weight of every decision resting squarely on their shoulders. Sartre’s emphasis on individual freedom and responsibility stood in stark opposition to deterministic worldviews.
However, if we integrate chaos theory into the discussion, it becomes evident that even Sartre’s existential freedom is not as straightforward as it might seem. Sartre’s notion of freedom exists within a chaotic system where small, immeasurable factors can lead to vastly different outcomes. Free will, in this sense, is not the ultimate freedom to choose but rather a series of unpredictable turns driven by events that we cannot fully grasp. While we may believe that we are making independent choices, those choices themselves may be influenced by chaotic, unpredictable forces.
More contemporary thinkers like Daniel Dennett have sought to reconcile free will with determinism through the concept of compatibilism. Dennett argues that free will and determinism can coexist. In his view, free will does not require the absence of causality. Instead, it means being the author of one’s actions, even if those actions are influenced by prior causes. For Dennett, free will is not about ultimate freedom from causation but about the ability to navigate and respond to the constraints placed upon us by the universe.
Ultimately, the question remains: if we lack the precision to measure every variable in the universe, does that give us true freedom, or is it merely an illusion? Chaos theory suggests that even in a deterministic system, unpredictability reigns because we cannot know every detail. This unpredictability offers a space for free will, but it is not the absolute autonomy that many envision. Instead, it is a form of freedom that emerges from the chaos inherent in an ordered system, a product of the unpredictability that defines our universe.
The argument that the lack of precision in measurement, which is a core aspect of chaos theory, suggests that, for all practical purposes, free will appears real because of the unpredictability in complex systems due to measurement limitations. However, at a fundamental level, this unpredictability doesn’t necessarily imply true randomness or freedom of action but rather reflects our inability to fully capture and predict the behavior of deterministic systems.
In chaos theory, small differences in initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes, often described as the butterfly effect. Even though the system is deterministic (its future states are entirely dependent on its current state), the sensitivity to initial conditions makes it unpredictable in practice because we can never measure the current state with perfect precision. This practical unpredictability could be mistaken for free will.
At a deeper theoretical level, the argument aligns with a deterministic worldview, where every event, including human decisions, is the result of prior causes, even if those causes are complex and beyond our current capacity to measure. This would imply that free will is not real in an absolute sense but is a useful approximation for understanding human behavior in daily life, where uncertainty and complexity mask deterministic processes.
In essence, this perspective reconciles the appearance of free will with a deterministic universe by arguing that the chaos in complex systems makes it impossible for us to predict outcomes with absolute certainty, thereby creating the perception of choice and agency. Yet, the deterministic nature of these systems still holds at the theoretical level, reinforcing the idea that all events, including human decisions, are the result of prior conditions.
