The crowd falls silent. All eyes rest on the one man who can effect the day's events; all but one pair, anyway. The condemned man has an air of casual indifference about him. A way of holding himself that says "I don't really have any interest in this, one way or the other".

As the judge sits, his robes of office cling to him and hold the sweltering heat of the noon day sun. A look of tortured contemplation is the only sign of the inner debate that is raging within the proud magistrate. This man before him, this condemned man, is guilty of the crime. He confessed his crime to the judge, and the assembled witnesses. The only question left is what is to become of him... To kill him, and make him pay for the crime, or to excuse him, and allow him to live. The judge, whose weighty duty it is to consider such things, gazes out to the crowd and contemplates only one thing:

"I can't believe how drunk I am right now... If I had only stopped at three mugs of beer last, I could actually do something useful now, like say 'You, the condemned, have been found guilty of these heinous crimes against society... yada, yada, yada' but instead, I can only sit here and look like I'm trying to figure out what to do with this scum. As it is, I would like to see him turned into a colander, but I can't just say that. It wouldn't be proper at all... I could do a short speech, followed by my harsh censure of today's society. Unfortunately, after that speech everyone would assume that I was either drunk or running for office. Oh, be done with it. Let him die."

And with that, the magistrate motioned to the captain of the firing squad. In a scant moment, it was done. The magistrate looked on, and saw a life extinguished. Externally it appeared to be no different than any other execution he had witnessed; at the same time, it struck him as unique. The man simply stood, indifferent to his own death. It was as if he was only a apprentice actor set to play the unpleasant role given to him by a new and unskilled play-write.

All this reminded the magistrate of the condemned man's defense. He admitted to the attack, but he maintained that he was not responsible for it because the universe was deterministic, and therefor he didn't possess free will. He was quite adamant about that point. He produced several physicists, who couldn't agree about the precise nature of the universe, but did agree about one thing: The defendant was not responsible for his actions, because he does not possess free will.

One of the physicist, Dr. Rienwell, put it quite well when he said "Your honor, I think that we can safely say that one of the following is true:

The universe is deterministic.
The universe is indeterministic.

"The universe as we can directly observe appears to be almost completely deterministic. We can take a uniform set of principles and explain all phenomena that one encounters in day to day life. In this way the universe could be thought of as deterministic.

"If we venture into the micro domain, where the movement of subatomic particles is observed, we see that there are certain occurrences that we cannot predict on a event by event basis. In fact, most conventional theories simply state that these occurrences are physically random events. This randomness is inherent in all events at the smallest scale. Any sort of large scale event must be made up of many small scale events. In a sense, these small scale events control the large scale event. As the small scale events are random, the large scale events must also be random.

"Well, as you may have noticed, we have painted ourselves into a corner here. Right after we finished saying that the observable universe could be described as being completely deterministic, we went on to say that the observable universe should be completely random. Now, last time I checked random events are not reigning supreme in day to day life. Cars run, and the car owners can reasonably expect those cars to run consistently. If the car doesn't run, the owner can reasonably expect that the failure of the car is due to some internal malfunction, not some random peculiarity in the laws of physics.

"We, as physicists, have striven to understand and explain this obvious contradiction so that we don't look stupid in front of non-physicists. We have come up with something that is really quite interesting: These day to day events that appear to be deterministic are not; They are simply really, really likely to happen. If you take a event in the macro world, that event can be broken into lots of micro events. These micro events are random, but that true randomness makes the macro effect almost certain.

"For example's sake, let's look at a room filled with molecules of air. Each molecule of air has a 50% chance of being in the right side of the room, and a 50% chance of being in the left side of the room for some arbitrary moment in time. For one molecule, the chance of all the air being in the right half of the room at some instant is 50%. For two molecules, the chance of every molecule being in the right side of the room is 25%, etc. As the number of molecules increases, the chance of every molecule of air being on the right side of the room decreases as well. For just one thousand molecules, the chance of all of them being on the right side of the room is 1 in 10^301. For a room about this size, there are about 2.6 x 10^27 molecules in the room. The chance of all of them being on the right side of the room is effectively zero, a fact that will serve to comfort those of us who are currently in the right side of the room.

"This was purely to show that micro scale events, even if they are random, can tend to yield the results that can make sense in the macro world. As we sit in a room, we don't expect all the air to venture over to the other side of the room. It just doesn't happen. This isn't because the laws of physics prohibit that event from happening. It is because the laws of probability make it exceedingly unlikely that it will ever happen.

"Everything can be described interactions of the smallest known particles with their completely random behavior. The eventual results are those that we have come to expect as residents of the macro world.

"All of this does have a point. Let's assume that the defendant isn't exempt from the laws of physics. That means that not only is the defendant, himself not exempt, but neither are his components. That means the internal workings of the defendant are determined by the inherent randomness of his micro effects, which results in the observed behavior in the macro world.

"So now we move into questions other than physics: Under what conditions can the defendant be prosecuted? He must have acted under his own volition. Had he not, the entire proceeding would be useless. So; what is required for him to have acted under his own volition? Free will, of course. He has to have been able to act differently than he did. If he could not act differently than he did, then it could not have been a free act, and the defendant is not responsible for the act.

"But we've established that the defendant's actions were determined not by free will; rather we have shown that they were determined by the many micro events that were taking place inside the defendant. So where does that leave us? The only conclusion possible from this information is that the defendant could not have been responsible for his actions, because he could not have done differently."

This lead to all sorts of controversy in the courtroom, of course, so the magistrate got to bang the gavel several times and yell. He loved it when that happened.

In response to the physicist's testimony, the prosecution put a philosopher on the stand. His argument seemed just as abstract.

"Previously, Dr. Rienwell told you of the universe's unique form of determinism. Oh yes, there was other talk of 'the randomness of the micro-event' but let's get right to the point. We aren't interested in the behavior of the electrons in the defendant's left big toe during the alleged incident, we are interested only in the behavior of the defendant. As Dr. Rienwell was kind enough to explain, the individual random events tend to average out, yielding a very consistent behavior for the larger object. It is this behavior that we witness, and this behavior that we are here today to discuss.

"I am even willing to accept what Dr. Rienwell has to say about the universe. My only objections arise about his assumptions about my field of study. You see, Dr. Rienwell made an interesting explicit definition: He defines 'free will' as 'the ability to act otherwise'. It seems a nice enough definition, but let's change it for the sake of argument. Let's change it to 'The ability to act otherwise if he had wanted to'. It seems close enough, doesn't it? Well, as you will see, this small distinction makes all the difference.

"You see, if you simply add that last qualifier, it becomes much more of a common sense definition. If the defendant was not under duress, then he acted under his free will. He is responsible for his actions if no one forced him to do otherwise.

"With this definition, all the crap about the determinism or indeterminism of the universe falls away. Sure, the universe could be deterministic, or 'statistically determinant', but it is irrelevant. Either way, if he wasn't forced to do it, he is responsible for it. Very simple."

That witness seemed to help quite a bit because the jury eventually found the defendant guilty. This pleased the magistrate to no end, and he was able to give the speech he had been working on for some time now.

"Well, we have heard many interesting and confusing things during this rather long and protracted trial. I can't say that I have ever gotten lectured about the nature of the universe so many times, and I don't think that I've ever heard so many definitions for 'free will', a term that I had previously left unexplored.

"Now we come to the part where I hold some power: the sentencing. I can sentence leniently if I feel the argument the defense made was convincing, or I can sentence harshly if I feel the argument was invalid. You will be glad to hear that I feel that I feel that the argument presented by the defense. Unfortunately, the state of the universe coupled with the laws of physics prevent me from making the choice that I would like. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to sentence you to death. I'm sure that you'll understand that it wasn't really my choice to make, as the universe made it inevitable. May god have mercy on your soul."

And that was that.

After the execution the judge found that he was listless. He couldn't place the reason, but he felt perpetually uncomfortable. He found himself going to bars night after night, and trying to drown the voice that told him that he had killed a man for nothing. For no purpose. That nothing mattered, and further the entire profession that he had invested his life in was useless.

One night, after a particularly hard night of drinking, he left the bar to stumble around the community green. After finding himself unable to walk particularly well, he made his way to one of the benches that lined the walkway.

He thought back over the defense that the philosopher had offered. It seemed to give away too much... Where is 'free will' if you simply define away the question in the first place? The disheveled magistrate let out a cry of remorse for his life wasted by the determine of it all.

"What's the matter friend?" came a voice to right. The magistrate tried to focus his eyes on the blurry shape that sat next to him. It was a bum. The irony of it all washed over him.

"Nothing much. I just don't see the point in life... Why go on living, if everything that we do lacks will... lacks freedom..."

"Ahhh... The problem of free will... Yes, that is a hard one..."

"You know of it?" asked the confused magistrate.

"Yes... It is one that I wrestled with myself many years ago."

The magistrate laughed at the image of the situation... A poor homeless man was trying to comfort a man of the law. A man of meaningless death. But at the same time, the magistrate desperately needed someone to talk to. Desperately need someone to share the sheer uselessness of it all. The magistrate put his arm around the man, and told him of the trial, the decision, the sentencing, and finally the execution.

"ahh.... so you mocked the idea at first, but now your not too sure, ehh? Yes... I can see that.

"You see, the argument that the physicist was making is called 'incompatible', that is that free will and determinism are incompatible. He seems to spell out that argument reasonably well. The philosopher's argument is called 'compatible', for obvious reasons. Now you probably noticed something odd about the two arguments"

The magistrate was somewhat taken-aback by the seemingly well informed indigent. "Yes... they seemed the very same, except for the definition of 'free will'. But one came to one conclusion, and the other came to the opposite conclusion... And both make sense... What will I do?"

"Well, that's an interesting question. You see, the two arguments both seem convincing because they are both completely valid"

"What!?" screamed the magistrate in a voice strained with indecision. "How can I decide which is right then?"

"The arguments presented are, to some degree, tautologies. The conclusions are built into the definitions that are given at the beginning of the argument. Because of that, the conclusions are only valid when the definitions are accepted. Unfortunately, the definition that 'feels right' in this instance leads to a conclusion that feels very, very wrong. Correct?"

"Yeah...", nodded the magistrate. "I never could see any point to the philosopher's definition... Where does my 'will' enter into it... it just defines me as free if I could have done otherwise had I wanted to. The entire issue becomes one of my 'want'. What good is that? We have simply moved the question one further level removed. And the physicist didn't help matters at all. He actually adopts a definition that looks like what I want, and then goes on to use that to prove that free will doesn't exist. What can I possibly do? No matter which definition I accept, the outcome isn't what I need."

"Sure enough. It kinda leaves you with a empty feeling inside. But you've missed the central point to the issue."

"Ehhh? What?" blustered the magistrate. "You just said that both the philosopher and the physicist had valid arguments, and I'm sure that I've related them perfectly!"

"Sure enough, but what is it that you want?"

"I want to be free. I want the curse of pre-determination gone!"

"An interesting approach, but difficult to support for different reasons. Have you thought about how you felt before all this happened to you?"

"Well, I was happy enough.", stammered the magistrate.

"Ahh... So you thought you were free."

"Well... yes. But I hadn't really thought about it much."

"Of course, but you had the illusion of free will, regardless of whether it was true or not"

"Err... yes." The magistrate thought about it. "I suppose that is true."

"Ahh... Now here's the point that you missed. All that you need in order to continue your life is the illusion of free will, regardless of whether you actually possess it or not"

"I suppose. But what about the arguments?"

"Your still missing the central point. Regardless of the conclusion about your 'free will', you still have the illusion of free will. No matter what you conclude, you will still have the illusion of free will. There is absolutely nothing that you can do to change that. It is not rational to act in a way that contradicts your perception of reality. Regardless of the argument, that fact still remains."

"I can't say that I completely understand" murmured the magistrate.

"Well... Assume that I approach you one day and attempt to convince you that reality is an illusion. I can make my definitions in such a way to make this a valid and compelling argument. What then? Do you simply vanish in a puff of existentialism? No! You continue to exist. So does this make the argument nonsensical? Not really; it is still valid and compelling, it is just useless. The same thing applies to the issue of free will. The fact is that you have the perception that you possess free will, and you will continue to possess that perception. Any argument made to attempt to convince you otherwise has no relation to reality."

And the sun rose in the magistrate's blasted world. "Ahhh... I see... Thank you so much. You have just restored meaning to my life. I can continue now."

"Indeed. Live well with you perceptions."