If DNA is the blueprint of life and the operation of DNA can be described with axiomatic systems, then everything in humans must be axiomatic by nature. Therefore, according to the Church-Turing thesis, we humans can be simulated in a computer.
Computers in general are deterministic systems that do not necessarily exhibit truly random behavior. Even the random value generator in computers is based on deterministic logic, generating values that only appear to be random.
It appears evident that such a deterministic system cannot possess free will as we understand it. Turing machines running the DNA simulation are bound to follow their logic without the ability to make alternative choices.
This implies that the individuals within the simulated universe cannot possess free will either. They are constrained to behave according to the programming of the Turing Machine.
Consider the following piece of code:
if (a < 3) {
...
} else {
...
}
How much free will does the code give to Alice? Apparently, zero.
Regardless of how much pain Alice feels, or how deterministic she is in her reasoning, the computer running the code does not care about Alice’s feelings. It is bound to run the code without any ability to choose otherwise. Alice’s feelings cannot change the hard-coded threshold ‘3‘, or the comparison logic built into the CPU, any more than we can make 2 + 2 equal anything other than 4.
Nothing prevents us from implementing a truly random generator. According to Quantum Mechanics, there is genuine randomness inherent in nature, which we can potentially leverage to create a truly indeterministic random generator. Could such a computer then grant simulated individuals free will?
Let us consider a person who is contemplating whether to turn left or not. Suddenly, a completely unexpected and indeterministic event takes place, such as a high-energy particle burst emitted by the sun. A few particles manage to pass through certain critical brain cells, impacting the person’s decision-making process in a genuinely unpredictable manner. As a result, instead of turning left, the person decides to move forward.
Did such a random, unpredictable event introduce something like free will?
The person had no control over the distant particle burst, nor the way it affected their decision-making. The person would therefore have no more free will with this random event than without it!
The only effect of the random event was that the person made a decision that had nothing to do with the current situation they were facing. The decision they made was based on irrelevant data.
Instead of establishing free will, the person just made a decision that was not based on their own reasoning.
In the above thought experiment, this random behavior might not matter too much. One might think that such a loss of predictability due to a random event is harmless and simply adds more variety to life.
But let’s consider a scenario where a person’s life is at stake. In such a life-threatening situation, the person’s ability to make decisions based on relevant data becomes crucial. If an unexpected random event disrupts their logical decision-making process, free will becomes the least of their concerns. We certainly wouldn’t want to define free will as something that only applies in trivial matters that do not really matter. Our existence relies on our ability to make valid decisions guided by relevant data.
If we accept that both determinism and randomness fail to provide a substrate for free will, we are left with a vacuum. This is where Roger Penrose’s proposal becomes relevant. Penrose argues that consciousness—and by extension, the "choice" involved in it—is non-computable.
He suggests that the brain does not merely run a DNA-based algorithm, but taps into a level of physics that is neither deterministic in the classical sense nor random in the quantum sense. According to the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory, the collapse of quantum states in neuronal microtubules is a physical event that follows a logic beyond the reach of any Turing Machine.
Does an averange software developer follow this?
Honest assesment; I don’t.
We often view programming languages as alien, technical constructs, but they are actually mirrors of our own cognitive architecture. When we write a conditional statement, we are simply formalizing the way we navigate reality. For example: If my car is low on gasoline, and I am too busy to fill it up, then call a cab.
if (self.not_enough_gasoline && self.not_enough_time) {
action = self.call_a_cab();
}
Our "reasoning" is a 1-1 analogy to the operations of a computer. Programming languages did not emerge as an arbitrary invention; they were developed to reflect the way we think and make decisions.
However, this leads us back to the deterministic wall. If our decision-making is a mirror of this code, then the "choice" to call a cab is an illusion. The outcome was pre-ordained the moment the variables not_enough_gasoline and not_enough_time were set to true. Alice did not "decide" anything; she simply reached the only logical exit point of the algorithm.
If our four axioms hold, the universe isn’t a single deterministic movie playing forward in external time. It’s the complete static library of all 2n possible informational configurations, existing timelessly — as we proved in Paper I by gradually turning code into pure data.
And as we demonstrated in the The Problem with Time Alice is an equivalence class - huge number of different micro-states can yield essentially the same Alice. The video doesn’t change - Alice does exactly the same moves regardless her entropy.
We use language to describe our ’choices,’ but language itself is an axiomatic system. Whether we speak in English or C++, we are merely describing the rails upon which our thoughts are forced to run.
If our decision is not affected by indeterministic events, then our decision-making is based on pure deterministic logic. Otherwise, our decision is based on phenomena we have no control over.
Neither of the two cases demonstrates free will as we usually understand it.
The only logical conclusion is that allowing random events to influence our decision-making does not introduce anything resembling free will, but rather hampers our logical decision-making process. Instead of working out the decision based on our own logic, we effectively let the coin decide.
It seems we do not possess the freedom to choose when to commit a sin and when to compensate by praying. Every conscious decision we make is based on logical reasoning, where 2 + 2 always results in 4.
Either we are missing something, or as with computer software, we are bound to follow our logic without the ability to choose otherwise.