Being a scientist, a self-honest scientist, means accepting that the world is, on some level, deterministic. That is, a scientist must accept that, given an initial starting state, the result of following that state through time will always be the same. If this were not the case, then predictability and reproducibility go out the window, and we might as well all go home. Recently, a pair of mathematicians extrapolated from this basic premise to conclude that free will could only exist if individual sub-sub-atomic particles have free will.

That’s a lot to swallow! It would only seem sensible then, to conclude that free will doesn’t really exist. Now, this is very different then proving that free will doesn’t exist, but that seems like an impossible question to answer.

So, what if we look at things just a little differently. I certainly feel like my free will is real. If it’s not really real, then that means that the notion of free will, the trickery of my perception of free will as real, should have evolved. So, then why not ask this question: What is the evolutionary benefit to me perceiving my free will as real, if it really isn’t?