Although human will is a very popular topic in philosophy (it exceeds mathematical manifestation), Conway and Kochen maintain that atoms may exhibit unpredictability if humans hold the tiniest of free will (56). After all, quantum mechanics, which was traditionally interpreted, holds some unpredictability. However, this sort of indeterminism has been opposed by some physicists who want to eliminate indeterminism.
Some scholars argue that the unobservable behavior in sub-atomic elements is determined by some hidden variables (Albert 12). Conway and Kochen maintain that indeterminism in not only found in quantum theory, but also in the world itself (56). Ideally, if an element that exhibits freewill is the one that has unpredictable behavior, then it could be argued that free will exists. In this regards, sub-atomic particles can be categorized in this definition and hence argue that they posses free will.
It could be difficult to establish whether people or sub-atomic particles have free will, if the elements which exhibit free will are defined as those with the capability of changing their condition through means that are not random or those that are unpredictable. This argument renders the above statements completely incompatible as there is no evidence to support their credence.
It is also necessary to mention the assertion that human decisions, be it religious, moral or otherwise, is as a result of chemical reaction which takes place in the human brain. Ultimately, if it is not possible to model a human brain which functions well, then it can be argued that humans are devoid of free will and that unpredictability is a fruit of chaos, and does not happen as a result of an agent of super-natural decision making which directs decisions to the meat.
It could perhaps be argued that the forces that impair decision making such as alcohol are indication of the fact that our brain, rather than mystic moral principles’ engines, drives our decision making process. Occurrence of incidences can be attributed to three things; that is, random, free will, and determinism.
Free will and randomness cannot be discriminated easily, which means that even if an atom can be described as unpredictable, it does not mean that it possesses free will. Nonetheless, use of the word ‘unpredictable’ can be complex because, for instance, weather can be described as unpredictable yet it can as well be associated with deterministic behavior. Determinism too, can be hard to prove. Nonetheless, definition of determinism can be supported through various counter-arguments (Albert 52).
Arguably, the laws of quantum mechanics make unsubstantiated anticipations regarding atoms. These principles point out that both the velocity and the position cannot be accurately predicted. Even though this sphere is a concentration of physical principles, future happenings are hard to predict with accuracy, and indeed, we can never be sure that something will take place.
If we argue from this point of view, then it will be correct to say that free will exists, though it still remains very difficult to provide credible evidence that proves this assertion beyond doubt.
In this respect, it will be difficult to explain whether the statement in question is either compatible or incompatible. It is difficult to prove this statement, especially because one needs to establish the mechanism that makes free will practical – whether it is divine, physical or otherwise. Apparently, determination of the particular mechanism is complex and hard to demystify.
Works Cited
Albert, David. Bohm’s Alternative to Quantum Mechanics. New York: Scientific America, 1994. Print.
Conway, John, and Simon Kochen. The Strong Free Will Theorem. New York: AMS, 2009. Print.