Free Will vs. Chaos Theory

Regardless of religious affiliations, many Americans feel that they have some form of free will.  Even those who don't believe in a deity will often claim that they have some ability to make choices that are based in their conscience.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a very interesting and in-depth analysis of what free will is generally considered to be by philosophers and great thinkers.  The surprising part of the concept is that, although it has been pondered for millennia, humans still do not know exactly how to define free will or understand where it comes from.  This leads me to question whether or not it even exists, but rather is an illusion created by the combination of a complex set of environmental variables and extensive genetic code.

An old school of thought called "determinism," can be interpreted to effectively deny the notion of free will.  This theory states that the world and everything that happens on it can be predicted through a series of mathematic calculations.  This idea is touched on extensively in the play Arcadia, by Tom Stoppard, in which the characters of the past and present ultimately reveal the uncertainty of the future.  At first, this play seems to contradict determinism, and in a way it does by embracing Chaos Theory.  Chaos Theory claims that, while the concept of determinism is feasible, there are so many complex variables affecting the outcome of events that they cannot be predicted by the mathematic or scientific procedures we use today.  A metaphor commonly associated with chaos theory is the butterfly effect, which states that it is theoretically possible for the flap of a butterfly's wings in one location to begin a chain reaction that creates a tornado somewhere else.  The principles identified in Chaos Theory sum up the reason why humans cannot accurately predict the weather:  there are simply too many variables.  But how do all of these philosophical theories relate to the question of free will?

The notion that free will does not exist, and that human personality is based completely off of genetic layout, is very much a deterministic one.  Accepting that belief, it would be possible to completely predict a human's reactions to being introduced into a specific environment if one had knowledge and understanding of that person's entire genetic structure.  Even if that person did something that appeared to be a choice, such as going left instead of right, I could argue that something about the subject's genes made the left path appear more attractive (in fact, research suggests that even which side of an object you prefer may have correlation with your genetic layout).  A common argument made by advocates of free will deals with love, and Arcadia suggests that the spontaneity of human relationships causes determinism to fail.  However, it is possible that while relationships compound the number of variables (Chaos Theory), a computer with advanced processing power could theoretically still predict the actions of an individual.

If it is determined that free will is only an illusion created by complex systems, what would the social implications of this discovery be?  Could one be held accountable for his own actions?  If a murderer kills only because of his genes and environmental conditions, can he be blamed?  In pondering questions such as these, I realize how dependent our civilization is on the idea of free will.  What happens if the theory of free will eventually loses this conflict?