Introduction

“Man can do what he wills, but cannot will what he wants.” - Arthur Schopenhauer (rough translation)

For centuries, ancient philosophers have debated on our ability to willingly make decisions based on intuition and personal choice. Notable ancient western philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus and Zeno have constructed the basic theories of free will, while their modern counterparts attempt to prove their theories through neuropsychological experimentation and thought experiments. Through current overwhelming metaphysical and scientific evidence, it is clear that us humans do not possess free will as our decisions; however, new discoveries in quantum mechanics may change our understanding of what reality is and how it affects us. Similarly, all of the characters in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet,” are affected by the same philosophical laws that occur in the natural world, thus signifying that the couple do not possess moral responsibility for their own actions.

Background

“Romeo and Juliet,” written by acclaimed playwright William Shakespeare, is commonly known as one of the most influential playscripts written in the Elizabethan era due to its universal storyline about timeless concepts such as love and hatred. 

The play details the ill fate of a pair of lovers who are each part of opposing families that despise one another. Although heavily dramatized, most of the irrational actions that lead to the couple’s eventual demise are largely due to prejudice, conjectures and impulsive thoughts.

Romeo, who is the son of Lord Montague and is the male protagonist, is perhaps the most infuriating character as he shows minimal character development and consistently makes poor decisions despite assistance from others. After meeting Juliet, daughter of Lord Capulet, he spontaneously decides to abandon the lugubrious personality he had and morphs into a devoted husband drunk with affection. They decide to get married discreetly, but through a series of unfortunate events, their relationship begins to crumble. Tybalt’s knowledge that Romeo is in love with Juliet along with heightened tensions after a recent confrontation between the two sides eventually resulted in both Tybalt’s and Mercutio’s death along with Romeo’s exile from Verona. 

Friar Lawrence, a humble priest who supported Romeo’s marriage, devises a plan to help Juliet flee from her own family (as she is under threat of arranged marriage to Paris) by pseudocide. Ironically, miscommunication resulted in Romeo mistaking that Juliet was actually dead. Overcome with grief, Romeo decides to commit suicide. Juliet, who then conveniently wakes up, witnesses Romeo’s lifeless corpse next to her and she too kills herself. 

Throughout this argument, freedom will be classified as the ability to do otherwise. If an object possesses free will, he is morally responsible for doing so. 

It has been debated for centuries who was directly responsible for the tragic events. Some accuse the lover’s for their rash actions and lack of planning, while others blame the families themselves for having their rivalry. The purpose of this essay is to not only prove that the characters in Romeo and Juliet are subject to determinism, but to explain why quantum physics may dictate the choices the characters make.

Arguments AGAINST the reality of free will

Perhaps the strongest argument against the reality of libertarian free will is that the physical world itself is unequivocally deterministic. Many modern philosophers concur that Newtonian physics, if proven to structure the universe, directly dictate events that occur in the future. Us humans are too subject to this reality, and thus, are simply participles who are simply following their paths. 

To fully understand this perspective, one must realize what “consciousness,” is from a strongly scientific standpoint. Our thoughts, emotions, visions, and imaginations are electrical impulses created by billions of living organisms that make up our brain. We are simply a collection of cells working together to survive. These cells do not have thoughts and furthermore are made out of atoms. If these are completely deterministic, what makes us able to possess free will if we are made of beings that do not possess such capabilities? 

Concrete proof that the world is deterministic is rather easy to prove. If a baseball player hits a ball with a bat, the reason the ball is flying in the air at a certain acceleration is because the bat came in contact with the ball. Kinetic energy is transferred from the initial swing and the physical particles are moved as they obey the basic principles of physics.  The ball was forced to move, and had no other option to do so. This is determinism. However, libertarians may argue that it was the batter’s conscious  decision to hit the ball, thus introducing the concept of free will into the topic. 

“Laplace’s demon,” is a concept created by Pierre-Simon Laplace that states that through fixed laws of the universe, someone (referred to the “demon,”) is able to predict the exact location of certain atoms at certain times; therefore, that person is able to foresee the events of the universe. If so, it is certain that the universe will follow its own path and we are all subject to it. 

Quantum mechanics somewhat disagrees with this standpoint. Unlike classical mechanics, the quantum variation states that the universe itself is determined by random probabilities. The uncertainty principle proves that we are unable to calculate the outcomes of a subatomic event despite having overwhelming information about it. The main issue with quantum mechanics and free will is that it may prove some sort of uncertainty exists within the universe; if so, free will might be possible. 

Schrodinger's cat is an excellent example of the effects of quantum mechanics on the core principles of free will. A cat is placed into a box. If a random subatomic particle event has a 66.6% probability of occurring, toxic gas will be released into the box, thus killing the cat. Due to the principles of quantum physics and Copenhagen interpretation, the cat exists in a state of “superposition,” and the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. What differs is that the cat, technically, is 66.6% dead until an observer witnesses the situation, also known as wave function collapse. 

Wave function collapse is based on wave-particle duality; matter exists both in the form of oscillating fields and also particles. Take light; James Clerk Maxwell scientifically proved light acts as a wave because of its similar properties with an electromagnetic wave in 1865. In contrast, Einstein proposed light to be made of small, massless particles dubbed “photons,” that are able to displace electrons due the energy it possesses. Scientists recognize light as both particles and waves; not only does this prove the existence of wave-particle duality, but also explains that it is applicable to any other particles in the universe. The double slit experiment supports this theory, as when electrons were projected into a surface with two slits, several wave-like principles could be observed. Electrons in the experiment exhibited forms of wave diffraction along with constructive and destructive interference. It is almost said that when an individual atom passes through a slit, it interferes with itself. When only present with an observer (an entity that can measure quantum events) will the matter act as if it were a particle. Essentially, what we perceive as “solid,” may not exist - we might not even exist when not under an observer. 

The many-worlds interpretation, firstly advocated by Hugh Everett, suggests that several “universes,” are created out of each moment.  There is a separate universe where the cat survives and one where the cat dies. What one must realize is that we are all part of Schrodinger’s thought experiment. If the many-world interpretation proves to be correct, there are multiple possibilities we could theoretically travel through and dissuade the fact of one, concrete destiny. David Deustch, professor of physics at Oxford University, believes that the many-world interpretation is compatible with the categorical analysis of the definition of free will, which states:

 An agent S has the ability to choose or do otherwise than ϕ at time t if and only if it was possible, holding fixed everything up to t, that S choose or do otherwise than ϕ at t.

An agent in philosophy is a being or entity that has the capability to act. What the categorical analysis states is that if we take the current situation of agent S and their history, there might be another world where agent S made separate decisions and the outcomes associated with it. This concurs with many-worlds interpretation. However, if the Bohr interpretation proves to be correct, the world is ultimately deterministic despite the fallacies quantum mechanics introduce as only one outcome will exist.

Derk Pereboom, professor of ethics and philosophy at Cornell University, introduces a new concept of determinism. Instead of physics stating a specific destiny, it simply determines the probabilities of an outcome. Say, if Agent S were presented with a plate of brownies and a plate of cupcakes, there would be a 75% chance of him choosing the brownie and the rest choosing the cupcakes. The result is that Agent S chooses the brownies. In classical determinism, Agent S chose the brownies because of reductionist principles. Pereboom states that agent S chose the brownies because it was statistically probable. We still do not have the ability to choose what will happen; similarly, when you roll a dice, you do not choose the outcome but witness its results. Einstein famously disagreed with this statement as he believed that the world must be strongly deterministic and that “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.” To solve the problem of quantum mechanics, he proposed something highly controversial: there is a hidden level of physics, smaller than quantum mechanics. To this day, arguments between determinists along with supporters of Einstein and indeterminists continue to be put out. 

Although it is true that quantum mechanics is still under heavy development, from our standpoint, it does not prove that us humans possess free will. Under the several interpretations we have discussed, all of them do state that there is a form of “uncertainty,’ and “randomness,” in our world, but we are still heavily subject to it. The omnipresence of quantum mechanics makes up our reality. We do not dictate the rules nor have any veto in its decisions; we are simply pawns on a chess board, awaiting orders from science itself. 

Benjamin Libet famously attempted to prove the factual existence of determinism by measuring the exact timing of brain waves when presented with a decision. Subjects were prompted to make voluntary hand movements when they wanted to and state when they made the conscious decision to. An EEG machine was used to record the electrical impulses in the motor complex of the brain.

The result, if proven to be true, will scientifically prove the existence of determinism and our human lack of free will. Libet, to his surprise, found out that bereitschaftspotential occurred milliseconds before the subject consciously made the decision. What is immediately inferred is that conscious decisions do not have an impact on our decisions - our subconscious makes it for us. This is a belief held by many, such as Jerry Coyne. Coyne believed that the “feeling” that we have free will is the result of our subconscious “reporting,” that they have made a decision. Libet, however, believed that the conscious mind was able to veto certain decisions the subconscious makes. 

Due to its highly controversial nature, the integrity of the Libet Experiment has been debated since its initial publication. How could the subject be able to recognize the conscious decision and what is the degree of accuracy? Although it might sound illogical that we are not able to measure when our conscious decision occurs, it is easy to prove. If you were to bend your finger, you will realize that it is extremely difficult to recognize the specific moment you chose to do so. Counter experiments were conducted and proved that the “readiness potential,” (previously mentioned as the bereitschaftspotential) appeared to be present before the subject was given their task. To this day, the validity of the Libet experiment continues to trouble philosophers.

Your decisions are based on two simple concepts: what you want and if you are forced to do a certain task. Sam Harris, an American neuroscientist and philosopher, defines free will as the ability to recognize everything that is influencing your decisions: it being your present mood, history, environment, or humans. In addition to this, you will also be required to possess complete control over them. 

In terms of certain wants, it is a conjecture to believe that you have control over them. You may believe that you have the ability to change certain wants, but that is simply the illusion of wants that are more powerful than other wants. 

You are presented with two decisions; staying at home and watching television, or making an effort and going to the gym. Eventually, you decide to go to the gym. You go to the gym because you want to go to the gym more than you want to stay home. Libertarians may argue that you want to go to the gym more as it would encourage a healthier lifestyle and the fact that you choose this instead of being able to relax at home would justify humans having the ability to go against their wants, but that itself is a specific want. “Wanting,” itself is a fact about you, you cannot change it unless you “want,” to change it, thus counteracting itself. It is impossible to not want something - the only way to change is to “want,” that thing to change. Since wanting is already proven to have deterministic characteristics, it is proof that free will does not exist as being forced to do something enables you from doing otherwise.

Arguments FOR the existence of free will

Perhaps the strongest supporting factor for libertarians is that humans feel “free,” naturally. We feel that we are in direct control of our actions. Occasionally, before deciding to do something, we may consider doing otherwise by weighing the consequences and benefits. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, some humans choose to believe the reality of free will due to moral and religious reasons. 

The majority of the Abrahamic religions state that God gave us free will in order for us to choose between the right and the wrong, thus making them theological compatibilists. Little to no evidence has been given on the existence of free will except for the fact that it has been authorized by God. 

“In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD determines our steps,” (Proverbs 16:9) suggests that He has planned all of our history and future; God Himself is an omnipresent being. Similarity to what Schopenhauer said, we may choose our own paths towards a certain destiny, but the destiny itself is already set. Through Joshua 24:15 (which states that humans are free to worship any god), we are able to decide who we worship. Furthermore, Genesis 1:26 infers that we possess free will due to the fact that we are made to mimic God. Atheists and some agnostics reject the idea of god - thus disproving of this method. 

A large part of our society is built on the thought of moral responsibility. When one commits an action, they are subject to either praise, blame or comments depending on the outcome of the action. Moral responsibility relies on free will - if we do not possess it, there is no one to praise or blame. Government branches require the existence of the legal system to prove the side that is more “morally,” correct. Without the existence of free will, psychopathic serial killers are not to blame for their actions. Logically, this would not be viable in a stable government as humanity requires laws for maximum efficiency. Chaos is silenced as strict plans are implemented. Some may argue that determinism may be factually correct, but that free will is needed for a stable society.

Overall, from our present knowledge of the universe that surrounds it and philosophical discoveries, determinism has a slight edge over libertarian free will. We are all part of the physical world and are subject to its rules. Consciousness itself is an illusion that is created by evolution and natural selection. Quantum physics states that one “destiny,” is not possible: however, a multitude of outcomes stem from every decision one makes and are based on probabilities that man will never be able to manipulate. The existence of free will to this day is highly controversial as it would comprise several other philosophical arguments.