The Novelty of Freewill
A body (a self-contained volume with mass) of any size can be described as a unique set of identifiable numbers– a pattern of spacial coordinates, like a particle’s vibrational field. What creates this number set, and influences the body’s future position? Is it fully determined, a billiard ball deflecting from one to another along a preexisting path, revealing a block universe,[i] line-by-line like the pages of a storybook that have already been written? Or, does the particle have “freewill,” and its “decision” as to where it “wants” to go, step-by-step, plays a role in its ultimate destination, describing the computationally irreducible[ii] unfolding of a novel universe with a certain past but uncertain future?
The idea, should all factors in play be known, that individual preference can objectively be calculated, reduces the subjective observer from actor to artifact– no longer an agent of change, but a mere glitch in the system along for the ride. As the observers of our own lives, are we creating the action, as Role Play’s stars onstage, or passively sitting by, watching the world pass as mere audience members? The determinist assumes a wholly mechanistic universe– the notion that mathematical models governed by objective laws exist for everything, including such subjective experiences as consciousness and freewill. For academics, this narrow view remains an enduring blindspot, placing us all as magic-show participants, tempted onstage, imagining that we’re the stars, when in fact, merely animated props.
When scientific rules break down and holes abound, the determinist argues that the discovery of some unknown, measurable factor will create a more precise model, thus overcoming the breakdown, filling the holes, and reinforcing the assumption of a mechanistic universe– even with new information, the blindspot persists. However, particle behavior, as with all behavior, is far from fixed, and science readily accepts the existence of noise, anomalies, outliers… but only at the margins, and only because the light of measurement has yet to fully reveal their “dark” factors.
Even within the near-infinite boundary between highly likely and highly unlikely, the spectrum of all possible behavior by all possible things cannot be fully captured through the calculation of probability alone. Absolute novelty is an event that has never occurred– an unknowable, unknown. As we tend to like what we like, one’s desires are often predictable, but not always, and might only be fixed once past and present mix. Furthermore, one’s preferences are not the product of one’s history alone, not set in stone beforehand, and therefore, always deducible. The exploration of experimentation allows for choice– the ability change one’s mind, and seek novel options.
The view of a mechanistic universe fails to accept the idea of a self-determined inner life, as such a state would be a “black box”– a non-determinable function that potentially creates “random” outputs. The woo-woo notion of an inner life is rejected because without real measurement, we don’t have real science. The irony is, this inner life is the only known truth– we all experience our own existence, firsthand. From an individual’s perspective, everything they’re experiencing could be an illusion, but the fact that they are experiencing it, is not. The Novel Universe Cult not only embraces the recognition of an inner life, but also, sees this controversial black box as the meaningful keystone of existence– the Signature-Frequency Set. Although we won’t argue the math and admit the SFS often seems no more significant than a mere glitch, this “random deviation” has purpose and intent– the agency to both express and alter preference.
The very existence of freewill[iii] sits at the center of a longstanding, academic debate. Freewill, like consciousness, is difficult for science to define– a likely cause of contention in either case– but for those outside the hallowed halls of higher learning, no debate rages, no questions asked. Choice is experienced every day: vanilla or chocolate, is this guy a friend or what, clear the break room of the co-worker’s dishes or walk away because it’s someone else’s job? Generally, freewill states that before a step is taken, the outcome remains fluid. Personal choice– free from outside control– determines what follows.
Throughout the mid-twentieth century, the tobacco industry wielded libertarian phrases such as “personal responsibility” or “freedom of choice” to displace liability[iv] for their toxic product onto consumers, despite their own mounting evidence that nicotine’s highly addictive, and smoking, deadly. Their framing of freewill stems from the simpleminded idea that a person’s actions inevitably reflect their intentions, whether they’re aware of their reasons or not. Therefore, individuals must be held accountable for every action, including smoking. Why? Because they could simply choose to not smoke.
“Sure, I had vanilla ice cream today. I wanted vanilla ice cream today, but nothing made me pick vanilla. I also love chocolate, and if I’d wanted chocolate, I woulda had chocolate,” says Abdul.
Determinism,[v] on the other hand, sees “choice” as an illusion of the mind– a post hoc justification for one’s actions. In other words, René Descartes’ famous saying in reverse, “I am, and therefore I think.” Abdul might protest, firmly attesting to his choice of ice cream flavors, but determinist Chris would argue,
“You had vanilla because of fond childhood memories– your mother, birthday parties, Sunday strolls. And it’s more than your finicky hippocampus, it’s highly reinforced neural pathways and fundamental chemistry– insulin and dopamine rage within, sparking an engrained habitual trigger-reaction-reward circuit. You see Abdul, vanilla-flavored ice cream is not only sweeter than chocolate– the focus of that dopamine rush, that yearning for pleasure– but higher sucrose levels resolve your insulin issue. The second those black-speckled, white scoops appeared, your body had already made its decision– your pancreas, AgRP neurons, epithelial neural pods, nucleus accumbens… everything inside craved vanilla. Thus, you only believe you made a choice. There was no choice, because chocolate was never an option.
“Please… Abdul, you’re not the driver of this bus, not even a passenger. You’re the lowly turn-signal who only thinks it’s in charge, simply because things coincidentally happen wherever you light up. You’ve never made the bus turn! In fact, nothing about you is actually useful to its operation. No, you may be a drain on the battery, but you’re no more consequential than a simple mechanism of communication, a warning to stay out of the way! It’s the faceless masses you care about, who care about you! Ha, the bus, the driver– all the passengers inside– they hardly know you even exist.”
Is freewill ubiquitous, unfettered, as the libertarians suggest, or a harsh illusion as the stubborn determinists believe? As Henri Poincaré’s 1898 paper (On the problem of the three bodies and partial differential equations) demonstrates, no deterministic system maintains itself in a complex environment far beyond those first-order contacts– the “butterfly effect”[vi] of chaos theory means that conditions evolve, and predictions are impossible past a certain level of complexity in an environment of infinite precision– computational irreducibility.
The Novel Universe Model occupies a nuanced position between either extreme– neither as an illusion of consciousness nor as an innate, unconstrained force. Instead, NUM suggests that both individual choices and external factors play complex roles in determining our desires. “Preference,” as a concept, drives NUM’s philosophical and theoretical structure, with freewill serving as an engine of preference formation and modification. Freewill’s like bounding from one plank of preference’s staircase to the next. Strictly speaking, it’s a step-function, a discontinuous change in one’s desires.
Fundamentally, freewill is more than the expression of choice, but a continuum, ranging from a simple tweak to an outright change of preference. As freewill requires an intentional suspension of current preference in order to modify or replace it with a new one, suffering (the absence of preference) ensues, at least to a degree. In other words, the learning process often smarts, as establishing novel neural pathways can be its own kind of special discomfort– effort, frustration, anger… even a manageable bout of depression might have a meaningful lesson in store. And when we’ve done the work to scale the heights of newfound knowledge in action? Well, there are few pleasures greater than experiencing the “flow”[vii] of mastery. Of course, the feeling eventually fades into the background, becoming just another mindless skill added to our toolbox.
Freewill’s not always as concrete as learning a new skill or changing ice cream flavors, but can be as subtle as putting that cigarette off another minute, or rolling from the couch to do one push-up. It might also be more profound, such as a pivot in one’s general mindset. For example, one day, Jasper reconsiders a lifelong pattern of obsessively evaluating whether those around him are either allies or enemies– a basic notion of Power’s framework. Instead, he decides to release control, make the great effort, and simply accept people for who they are, on their own terms– Love’s framework. With effort, Jasper leans in. Going forward, this change of preferred frameworks colors every social interaction in a new light, revealing a previously unseen array of novel paths– some less safe, some more satisfying.
Brains both detect and seek out patterns, sometimes purely for pleasure, but most importantly, to enhance efficiency– streamlining expended energy for a given task is known as the free energy principle.[viii] Freewill’s the opposite, increasing expended energy– the emotional motion raging against the gradient of prior preference. Dropping a petty argument or picking up after a co-worker is neither easy nor comfortable, but imagine the effort required to resist the impulse to label every person as friend or foe, or the number of sample spoons required to find a new favorite flavor every time one had a scoop. Freewill isn’t doing something because one feels like doing it– what’s often much easier– but because one wills it into existence– what’s often much harder.
As brains discover methods to meet a newly formed preference, behavior becomes more reliable, and the further expense of freewill is thus limited through predictive modeling[ix] (learning through patterns of successful guessing). For example, the neural-network of Greg, assembling a bed for the first time, is very active compared to Linh, who has made many. With each attempt by the novice, Greg makes all kinds of guesses, leading to many mistakes and few successes. By paying close attention to each result, internal prediction models update, as they struggle to match reality with expectations. With persistence and patience, Greg’s senses confirm the presence of his new preference– an assembled bed. Henceforth, future effort is reduced by the experience.
Grooving to one’s chosen framework requires no special effort– Love begets Love, Power begets Power– but for Jasper, someone whose frame is Power, to act with intentional vulnerability wouldn’t be possible without an intense investment of energy. Furthermore, Noa, whose frame is Love, had to force himself across those lines in the sand– ethical, emotion, social, etc.– to conquer reluctance and secure freedom, as he, running late, scurried away from Hana towards his own special meeting– a first date with Chris. Raw effort is the experience of freewill, the discomfort required to swim against a tidal wave of psychology and biology. That effort is in direct proportion to the complexity of the system. For instance, a human stands at one extreme of this spectrum, with the anterior mid-cingulate cortex (aMCC),[x] while a quantum particle at the other, with nothing more than the basic functionality of its internal informational system– the Signature-Frequency Set.
The energy requirements of quantum information exchange are low, or in the case of a time crystal,[xi] zero. This low energy requirement inherently suggests the propensity to express the novelty of freewill is at its highest where structures are the simplest. Therefore, as complexity assembles from one level to the next, so does freewill’s energy requirements increase, making what is more common for a quantum particle, less common for a human. Thus, humans have significant parts of the brain (including the ACCxii and aMCC) dedicated to enforcing freewill’s fundamental operation on a reluctant body. On the bright side, these regions are also associated with the “will to live,”[xii] an aMCC state with profound effects.[xiv] For determinists who point to the biology as proof of freewill’s absence, the counterpoint is a chicken-and-egg argument: does the preference (SFS) manifest as the brain state, or does the brain state manifest the preference (no SFS)? As these are coinciding states, the answer cannot be disentangled, and is therefore a choice of perspective, not a mechanism of fact.
Our desires and priorities frame the world around us, filtering our point of view and range of responses to our environment. Although we may not always “choose” this precise action or that, the guardrails of Power and Love maintain the menu of options before us, and subsequently, our general behavior. We don’t always choose each step of a precise path, but instead, at times, choose one path over the other, fluctuating between the frameworks of Love and Power. Freewill is not a switch that is either on or off, but a thermostat of awareness and intention, guiding our lifelong dance between the comfort of predictability and the intensity of novelty.
Although we often romanticize the concept of freewill, and feel certain that every second of every day we’re expressing it, in reality, it’s the exception, not the rule. With some combination of raw perception, an open mind, and playful or purposeful experimentation, “freewill” is the energy (willpower) required to tinker with one’s preferences. Freewill, as this effort, is therefore self-limiting, and only occasionally pops up in full-force. Especially for more complex systems, such as a human mind, day-to-day, mostly neurobiology, epigenetics, hormonal balance, memory, etc. are the predictable, falling dominoes leading to a specific behavior– as the determinists would suggest, predictive modeling and the free energy principle rule the day. Even though most bodies mostly do what’s expected when expected, the black box of an SFS, and its ability to express freewill, sometimes surfaces, not always to drastically alter the actions of those inevitable dominoes with a totally unexpected change in mindset, but at times, letting go a triviality, remedying a benign defect, or simply the timing of one’s next smoke.