I'm excited to announce that my article, "A New Theory of Free Will", came out today in The Philosophical Forum (a Pdf copy of its penultimate draft is available here). Here's the paper's abstract:

This paper shows that several live philosophical and scientific hypotheses – including the holographic principle and multiverse theory in quantum physics, and eternalism and mind-body dualism in philosophy – jointly imply an audacious new theory of free will. This new theory, "Libertarian Compatibilism", holds that the physical world is an eternally existing array of two-dimensional information – a vast number of possible pasts, presents, and futures – and the mind a nonphysical entity or set of properties that "read" that physical information off to subjective conscious awareness (in much the same way that a song written on an ordinary compact-disc is only played when read by an outside medium, i.e. a CD-player). According to this theory, every possible physical “timeline” in the multiverse may be fully physically deterministic or physically-causally closed but each person’s consciousness still entirely free to choose, ex nihilo, outside of the physical order, which physically-closed timeline is experienced by conscious observers. Although Libertarian Compatibilism is admittedly fantastic, I show that it not only follows from several live scientific and philosophical hypotheses, I also show that it (A) is a far more explanatorily powerful model of quantum mechanics than more traditional interpretations (e.g. the Copenhagen, Everett, and Bohmian interpretations), (B) makes determinate, testable empirical predictions in quantum theory, and finally, (C) predicts and explains the very existence of a number of philosophical debates and positions in the philosophy of mind, time, personal identity, and free will. First, I show that whereas traditional interpretations of quantum mechanics are all philosophically problematic and roughly as ontologically “extravagant” as Libertarian Compatibilism – in that they all posit “unseen” processes – Libertarian Compatibilism is nearly identical in structure to the only working simulation that human beings have ever constructed capable of reproducing (and so explaining) every general feature of quantum mechanics we perceive: namely, massive-multiplayer-online-roleplaying videogames (or MMORPGs). Although I am not the first to suggest that our world is akin to a computer simulation, I show that existing MMORPGs (online simulations we have already created) actually reproduce every general feature of quantum mechanics within their simulated-world reference-frames. Second, I show that existing MMORPGs also replicate (and so explain) many philosophical problems we face in the philosophy of mind, time, personal identity, and free will – all while conforming to the Libertarian Compatibilist model of reality. I conclude, as such, that as fantastic and metaphysically extravagant as Libertarian Compatibilism may initially seem, it may well be true. It explains a number of features of our reality that no other physical or metaphysical theory does.

Posted in

9 responses to “A New Theory of Free Will”

  1. Well done! There should be an award for someone who discovers a new theory of free action at any point after, say, 1800. If I was awarding it, it would come in the form of a drink at the next APA I see you at.

  2. Ha! (and thanks!) I’ll take you up on that offer, and award your award with a drink in return. 😉

  3. Congratulations!

  4. Thanks, Moti!

  5. Dan Dennis

    Yes, congratulations. It is particularly an achievement to have a 68 page paper accepted – given journals always prefer shorter papers – and a paper that takes an original, imaginative, non-standard approach to an issue.
    I don’t really have time to read it: but I have started nonetheless… May I ask a couple of clarificatory questions?
    1) What do you mean by “in much the same way that different songs written on the surface of an ordinary compact-disc are just a variety of different ordered series’ of digital information encoded upon the disc).” I thought there is one groove on a CD, coiled up (just like on an LP) – rather than there being parallel tracks; but I thought there was supposed to be here an analogy to lots of universes existing in tandem. Or am I misunderstanding something?
    2) Is it correct that whereas ordinarily we would say ‘I choose to raise my hand’ then that means on your account that I am choosing to experience the universe in which my hand raises – rather than the universe in which my hand does not rise?
    3) Is it correct that whereas ordinarily we would say ‘Mary chooses to says hello’ then your account would say that she is choosing that I (and she) experience that universe in which she says hello, rather than that universe in which she does not say hello.
    Thanks for your help.
    Dan

  6. Congratulations!

  7. Hi Dan: Thank you for your very kind comments, and for taking the time to read the paper. Here are some brief answers to your questions.
    (1) Although a CD is a “coil” of information, each individual song is simply a different part of that coil. That’s the relevant sense in which there are many “parallel songs” on a CD. The relevant sense of “parallel” is not spatial (though, incidentally, as the CD coil goes around, many songs really are “next” to each other, spatially). Instead, the sense of parallel is merely informational: it is simply there are many different (accessible) series’ of information available to be played (such that one can skip from one series to another, thereby “changing songs” — or, in the multiverse case, skip to a different physical universe within it). Does that clarify things?
    (2) That’s roughly correct. Your choice is to experience some universe in which your hand is raised (there are many such universes); the particular one that you actually end up experiencing also depends reciprocally on the choices of others (viz. if Mary “chooses to say hello”, our choices jointly determine the particular multiverse part we end up in: namely, one in which I raise my hand and she says hello).
    (3) That’s also roughly correct, but see above. She is not (unilaterally) choosing that I end up in a particular universe. Rather, her choice narrows down the universes available to my experience (i.e. to ones in which she says hello), and my choice further narrows things, such that our choices jointly result in us experiencing a particular universe. (Of course, others’ choices also figure in, as well).
    If you’d like further clarification, feel free to ask!

  8. Marcus Arvan

    Thanks, Chike!

  9. Dan Dennis

    Hi Marcus
    Thanks for your reply. Good, that’s how I understood it (I just didn’t put it so clearly).
    Like a lot of good ideas, the basic idea is relatively straightforward once you get your head around it. I recommend others to take a look at the paper, you don’t need to read too much to get the hang of it, and it is well written so is quite an easy read.
    I’ll think about it a bit more and then get back to you with another couple of questions.

Leave a Reply to Chike JeffersCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading