Exploring Free Will and Philosophical Progress in Context
Written on
Chapter 1: The Question of Progress in Philosophy
Does philosophy evolve over time? Many scientists, often lacking deep philosophical understanding, would argue otherwise. This sentiment is echoed by notable figures such as Stephen Hawking, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and Richard Dawkins, among others. Interestingly, even some philosophers exhibit uncertainty about the progress within their own discipline.
To explore this topic further, I authored a book titled The Nature of Philosophy: how philosophy makes progress and why it matters (available for free download). If reading an entire book isn't feasible, I recommend these three videos I created alongside my colleague Dan Kaufman. Alternatively, you might find my essay on the ongoing debate about free will to be insightful.
Section 1.1: Free Will and Determinism
This semester, I'm teaching a course on Science Fiction and Philosophy, using Susan Schneider's book of the same name. Chapter 10, authored by Michael Huemer, discusses "Free will and determinism in the world of Minority Report," which relates to Philip K. Dick's narrative and its film adaptation directed by Steven Spielberg.
Huemer presents a specific perspective on free will while effectively summarizing three core positions: hard determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism (distinct from the political ideology).
Hard determinists assert that the universe operates under deterministic principles, thus dismissing the idea of free will as it implies human choices are independent of causal relationships—essentially rendering true free will a miraculous event.
Compatibilists also acknowledge a deterministic universe but propose various interpretations of "free" will that do not imply independence from causal chains. For instance, they might argue that an individual is "free" to raise their arm if no external constraints are present.
In contrast, libertarians advocate for contra-causal free will, rejecting determinism. Many libertarians, particularly Christian theologians, rely on this concept to defend the idea of a benevolent and omniscient deity against the implications of determinism.
Subsection 1.1.1: Conceptual Framework
A simple matrix can categorize these philosophical views based on their stance on determinism (true/false) and free will (true/false). Notably, there's an additional viewpoint—randomism—which rejects both determinism and free will. This stance stands in contrast to compatibilism, which posits that determinism is essential for genuine freedom; otherwise, actions would be mere randomness.
While I believe I coined the term "randomism" for this discussion, it is crucial in completing the conceptual framework surrounding determinism and free will.
Philosophy progresses by systematically analyzing these logical frameworks, discarding illogical or less useful solutions, and refining viable ones in response to critiques from differing viewpoints within the same discourse.
Chapter 2: The Distinction Between Philosophy, Science, and Mathematics
How does the philosophical advancement differ from progress in science and mathematics? Philosophy occupies a unique position between these two fields. Mathematics is primarily concerned with logical spaces, akin to logic itself. While math often aids scientific inquiry, most mathematical scholarship focuses on theoretical constructs rather than empirical validation. A mathematical theorem is deemed valid based solely on its internal coherence and logical derivation from selected axioms.
To illustrate, consider Jorge Luis Borges' fictional Library of Babel, which contains every conceivable book composed of 25 characters. The vast majority of these books are nonsensical, while only a few convey coherent ideas unrelated to reality. Ultimately, only one book accurately describes the entirety of existence.
In this analogy, incoherent mathematics parallels the nonsensical books, while coherent mathematics corresponds to the small subset that captures reality. However, only a singular set of mathematical constructs accurately reflects our world, as there exists only one reality.
Contrastingly, in science, various philosophical interpretations exist concerning scientific progress. As a scientist, I perceive truth in science differently than in mathematics. The mathematical emphasis on internal coherence aligns with the coherence theory of truth, while scientists adopt a correspondence theory of truth, relying on empirical observations to validate hypotheses.
Philosophy, however, navigates a blend of coherence and correspondence, crafting coherent accounts of reality while adhering to empirical evidence. The free will versus determinism debate exemplifies this approach, where philosophical accounts often remain underdetermined by empirical evidence, leading to ongoing discussions even within scientific domains.
In conclusion, while science and mathematics offer distinct pathways for progress, philosophy continually refines its inquiries by exploring logical spaces and addressing empirical limitations, ensuring its evolution remains relevant in understanding complex concepts such as free will.