The "consequence argument", together with the "luck objection", which are summed up by the "standard argument against free will", state that if our volition were dependent on physical causally indeterministic processes, our actions would lack control and, thereby, result in random behavior that would be a mere matter of luck and chance. In particular, quantum indeterminacy is supposed to be of no use in support of libertarian agent-causation theories because any volitional act interfering with the probability distributions defining quantum laws would lead to its violation. Building upon recent conjectural work questioning this assumption (Clarke 2010, Kastner 2016, Masi 2023), it is shown, with a concrete example involving quantum indeterminacy, how a hypothetical agent with access to the temporal ordering of events can pre-determine the result of a process taking place in time without modifying the probability laws defining it. This conclusion is then taken as a basis for a libertarian panpsychist interpretative model.
The "consequence argument", together with the "luck objection", which are summed up by the "standard argument against free will", state that if our volition were dependent on physical causally indeterministic processes, our actions would lack control and, thereby, result in random behavior that would be a mere matter of luck and chance. In particular, quantum indeterminacy is supposed to be of no use in support of libertarian agent-causation theories because any volitional act interfering with the probability distributions defining quantum laws would lead to its violation. Building upon recent conjectural work questioning this assumption (Clarke 2010, Kastner 2016, Masi 2023), it is shown, with a concrete example involving quantum indeterminacy, how a hypothetical agent with access to the temporal ordering of events can pre-determine the result of a process taking place in time without modifying the probability laws defining it. This conclusion is then taken as a basis for a libertarian panpsychist interpretative model.
In the libertarian ``agent causation'' view of free will, free choices are attributable only to the choosing agent, as opposed to a specific cause or causes outside the agent. An often-repeated claim in the philosophical literature on free will is that agent causation necessarily implies lawlessness, and is therefore ``antiscientific." That claim is critiqued and it is argued, on the contrary, that the volitional powers of a free agent need not be viewed as anomic, specifically with regard to the quantum statistical law (the Born Rule). Assumptions about the role and nature of causation, taken as bearing on volitional agency, are examined and found inadequate to the task. Finally, it is suggested that quantum theory may constitute precisely the sort of theory required for a nomic grounding of libertarian free will.
It is often argued that bottom-up causation under a physicalist, reductionist worldview precludes free will in the libertarian sense. On the one hand, the paradigm of classical mechanics makes determinism inescapable, while on the other, the leading models that allow a role for quantum effects are noncommittal regarding how conscious agents are supposed to translate indeterminacy into self-formed choice. Recent developments, however, not only imply that self-formed decisions are possible, but actually suggest how they might come about. The cornerstone appears to be causality superposition rather than quantum-state entanglement, as is usually assumed, and the natural arena for applying these developments is (perhaps ironically) a framework that was built without any consideration for quantum effects.
Since all experiments are subjected to the laws of quantum mechanics, the invalidity of the law of causality is definitively proved by quantum mechanics. (Heisenberg, 1927, p. 197, trans. in Stern, 1969, p. 132) THE PROBLEM OF INDETERMINISM If quantum mechanics is correct, on whatever interpretation, there are experimental setups such that no amount of observational knowledge of the initial system could possibly predict the outcome. An electron goes through a magnetic field in the Stern-Gerlach experiment in a superposed spin state | up > + | down >. It will take an upward or downward path through the magnetic field, and if quantum mechanics is correct, no observation of its physical configuration prior to the performance of this kind of experiment can possibly reveal which it will be. The standard indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics has it that not only can no observation of the prior physical properties of the system, including of the electron, allow us to predict the outcome of the experiment, but that the system lacks any physical properties, observable or not, such that were they known ahead of time, we would know what the outcome is. In other words, on this interpretation, two quantum mechanical systems that start with exactly the same intrinsic properties can behave in different ways. This is indeterminism. It is seen as challenging the PSR for exactly the reason libertarian free will is, but more deeply because the defender of libertarian free will can allow for indeterministic explanations involving the reasons for one action rather than another.
According to the widely accepted opinion, classical (statistical) physics does not support objective indeterminism, since the statistical laws of classical physics allow a deterministic hidden background, while --- as Arthur Fine writes polemizing with Grünbaum --- "{\sl the antilibertarian position finds little room to breathe in a statistical world if we take laws of the quantum theory as exemplars of the statistical laws in such a world. So, it appears that, contrary to what Grünbaum claims, the libertarians' 'could have done otherwise' does indeed find support from indeterminism if we take the indeterministic laws to be of the sort found in the quantum theory.}" In this paper I will show that, quite the contrary, quantum mechanics does not save free will. For instance, the EPR experiments are compatible with a deterministic world. They admit a deterministic local hidden parameter description if the deterministic model is 'allowed' to describe not only the measurement outcomes, but also the outcomes of the 'decisions' whether this or that measurement will be performed. So, the derivation of the freedom of the will from quantum mechanics is a tautology: from the assumption that the world is indeterministic it is derived that the world cannot be deterministic.
The contribution of quantum mechanics to the debate on whether free will exists is usually limited to considerations of how the indeterminism implied by certain interpretations of quantum mechanics might allow room for free will where the classical determinism of Newtonian mechanics seemingly would not. However, this Paper advances the idea that such arguments are flawed, as they cannot account for how an agent would exercise control over an indeterministic choice, which could just as easily be resolved by chance or randomness. This Paper will put forward an alternative account of how quantum mechanics could account for free will, based on the deterministic and non-materialistic interpretation of David Bohm. In this interpretation, the human mind, seen objectively as “active information” and perceived subjectively as “meaning”, can have an “informational” causal influence on the behaviour of the human body. This is shown to complement a compatibilist account of free will, where free will is taken to mean simply that an agent can act according to his/her will without impediment and is thus compatible with determinism, and to augment it, by giving mind a fundamental place in reality and thus explaining the mental causation necessary for any account of free will. This analysis is then taken to legal philosophy, to show that a Bohmian account of compatibilist free will can similarly augment the ‘Act Requirement’ of criminal jurisprudence and the ‘formal agency’ element of Brudner’s liberal theory of penal justice, such that it can better ground our philosophical justification of holding individuals responsible for criminal acts.
Quantum Physics is usually defined as a theory that affirms a primary role of randomness and probability. Eleven well-known quantum experiments are examined and the result is the coexistence of both random and causal type behaviour. We need both to describe experiments. Quantum Mechanics states the general overcoming of causality and this statement constitutes an unlimited generalization, not supported by experience. Determinism and indeterminism are philosophical systems, that universalize causality or chance. The crucial point is the difference between epistemic and intrinsic randomness. In the first aspect, randomness does not have a fundamental meaning, in the second, randomness of the individual event is explained, but the detection of high stable regularities remains to be explained. The article addresses the question of entanglement and various aspects of probability theory, including the law of large numbers, arriving at the thesis that many relevant questions are unresolved. A causal description is in quantum mechanics impossible in principle, given its assumptions. In order not to contradict experience, both points of view are necessary, causal and random. This is the state of the research, to return to and start again from.