Hello my precious and welcome to this apologetic journey through free will. A quick heads up before we begin: the science conveyed is not contradictory to mainstream science.
Free will as a noun is defined as the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion. As an adjective it means voluntary. Free will is basically the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.
Let us do a thought experience. Imagine that you and I are to make free will. With this being our goal we ask: what would it require for such a state to work for the participants? Choices pops right into our minds. Yes, choices have to be available for the concept to work. As curious beings we dig deeper and ask: what is required to create choices then? Giving us the following answer; options. The two of us does not want to do this halfway. Totally free will is our ambition, and a new awareness reaches us; It would require absolutely all options and choices being available.
My friends welcome to the quantum field. We look at each other, and the entity of our bodies starts to fade. With razor sharp vision we see the image transforming away from what suddenly appear to be big censoring pixels. Cells appear that turn into molecules and we are shrinking. Can we hold it together? Descriptions starts to dim and our minds start to spin. Like spinning kaleidoscopes. Thankfully disorientation soon starts to subside. The two of us can now make out atoms. The image becomes clearer and clearer until a highly defined picture greets us. The two of us marvel at what looks like marbles. Without warning these atoms burst into subatomic particles. Baby marbles makes a highly defined picture. Little mini “solar systems” with electrons rotating around protons and neutrons is now our mirror image. Exactly like our surroundings. Just when the two of us thought we were safe we hear a voice like thunder: Goodbye observers.
Bam, like the big bang! All options are in superposition with each other. Stretching out in a field of potential. Our vessel is our mind, and this nation can only be reached with imagination. Nonetheless, it is exactly what goes on behind the scenes in our reality. It is called the quantum enigma due to its implications. Einstein did not accept the findings of Niels Bohr, the founding father of quantum theory, famously stating: God does not throw dice. Einstein did not believe in a personal God, I know, I know. So, if any non-believers feel a strong objection coming on just relax.
My companion, we have reached the fundamental building blocks of the universe, and it is literally star dust. Our bodies have vanished into dust bunnies. Our creativity is calling us “Its time, its time, its time, its time its time” says the little white rabbit. We follow this bundle of stress and white noise down into the hole under the roots of Darwin’s tree. Just like Alice we are giants compared to the final door that faces us. Any attempts at this point would be like camels getting through the eye of a needle. Sound sounds greet us: “Here is the key to unlocking the mystery. To find the common thread, you must use your head”.
There is an elephant in the room
The element of surprise
Free will is its name
You can call it a game
This game of thrones
Cries and moans
&the elephant of surprise;
God does not throw dice
Puzzled by this puzzle we are not sure whether to split or read about the double slit experiment. Choices and free will faces us, but the compelling calling to uncover the mysteries of free will wins. In silence we read:
The quantum enigma is firmly stated by scientific experiments. At the very foundation the quantum level we find the smallest particles that make up everything (with some exceptions that can be dealt with another time). It is the behaviour of such particles behind the backdrop that questions all of reality.
Welcome to the world of atoms and subatomic particles. Tiny “marbles” that will not allow you to measure them, and when you observe them the whole outcome of the experiment changes. Come let us do something called the double slit experiment. First, you and I take some marbles and shoot them through one slit to hit a back wall. We see the marbles hitting the back wall according to the shape of the slit, in a one stripe pattern. If the two of us add another slit and shot marbles through them, we can see two stripes emerging on the back wall.
Now, let us try this with water and see what happens. First, we try sending water through one slit. The wave hits the slit and radiates out and hit the back wall striking the back wall most intensely in the middle aligned with the slit. Just like the marbles did. Then, you and I add the second slit. We send waves of water through them and a new pattern emerges. Now the two of us can see something called an interference pattern on the back wall. Many stripes. Stripes made from where the two top waves meet, and the empty space in between where they have cancelled each other out.
Time to fire a stream of electrons through and see what happens. First, we try with one slit. The result is a single band on the back wall, just like the marbles. Let us try two slits. We are expecting to see two lines appearing on the back wall, but then something different happens. The electrons create an interference pattern just like waves. Hmm … Maybe those electrons are bouncing off each other, and creating an interference pattern? It is time to send one electron at the time through, there is no way interference can occur. Feeling like real scientists you and I try this. After an hour we are baffled at the result. An interference pattern emerged. How could that be?
The single electron, leaves as a particle, just like a marble. Becomes a wave of potential. Goes through both slits. Then, interferes with itself to hit the back wall. Time to measure and observe. We have to find out what is going on? Let us peek. Oh no, quantum enigma is all we get! Two stripes starts to emerge on the back wall, the electron is behaving just like a marble again. It is behaving differently when being observed.
Scientist have tried to solve this mystery by doing a high tech version of the experiment. Their decision on whether to observe was taken after the single electron had gone through the slit/slits, but before it hit the wall. The result is still the same! Meaning that the electrons goes back in time and change their prior state.
The conclusion of this strange puzzle is that all of the options are in superposition with each other. The «marble» goes through one slit or the other. It goes through both and through neither. It leaves as one particle, but goes through both slits and interferes with itself as a wave. Time and space at this level has no function. Only when observed the electron goes through one or the other of the slit and creates a two stripe pattern.
Our bodies and everything that can be seen in the universe are made of such particles. So what is happening?
This result is so strange, so contradicting to the world all of us experience. Therefore, a difficult one to take on board. It points towards that matter only exists when observed. Humans are the observers of the universe and everything in it, and the very act of observing/measuring appear to «create» matter. By the way:
Atoms the «home» of the particles is mostly empty space. The first element hydrogen, is about 99.9999999999996% empty space.
Determined to not leave empty-handed, we persevere. What would it take for a Creator to make free will? Leave all options open and hand us all choices; perhaps in superposition with each other? Scientists theorize based on the quantum enigma that that there are infinite universes, one for every option. One where we were born, one where were not, one for every option and choice basically. You and I ponder and reflect deeply on free will and ask ourselves; would this not be it? From here one out the picture becomes increasingly subjective and unclear. You and I gaze into this abstract, until we have reached the point where the observers are the creators, the gods;
“But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.””
Genesis 3:4-5
“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.”
Genesis 3:6
Wise to make choices, “see things the way they are” and to know what is right and what is wrong?
The Parable of the Hidden Treasure
“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
The Parable of the Pearl of Great Value
“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.
Matthew 13:44-46
Our reality is a cover up. No, no, no opponents might say, but I say hey look out into the universe. Look to the end of the universe and you surely find the beginning.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.””
Revelation 22:13
We move through the thin blue layer enfolding our habitat, the earth and travel across the universe. Stars, galaxies and nurturing nebula’s in all their magnificent light and colours greet us. The light separates the darkness and we are travelling back in time.
Our telescopes can see no farther than the cosmic microwave background left over from the big bang, but this is not the final destination. Brilliant maths is the vessel taking us back to Planck times (unimaginably short/small units of time) after the big bang. Suddenly our vessel cannot get any further. Mathematics turn in to gibberish. Knowledge with its laws break down. An infinitely small point called the singularity leaves us bewildered. A point at which a function takes an infinite value. We have reached dry land, but are cemented in our ocean. From a viewpoint of separation you and I study this enigma. Learning that scientists have named it a white hole.
A point with no space, no time, infinitely small, infinitely dense and a «place» of extreme order. How captivating it is, this white hole our origin. The singularity that everything came out of, even space and time itself. We search and find that we cannot enter. Light and matter can escape, but nothing can enter. You and I knock and find out that it is the opposite of a black hole that «swallows» everything. We know of many black holes, but only of one white. Our language falls short in describing the white hole:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:1
“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”
Matthew 12:30
Scatter everywhere and therefore nowhere.
“For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the LORD, and there is no other.”
Isaiah 45:18
My beloved, I am reciting the Bible, but trust in the Word. A Word that is alive, complete and whole. Broken and misunderstood in a universe that is scientifically designed to make us dispute. I will leave you with love and kindness no matter where you stand. For it is more important to be kind than to be right.
“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.”
1 Corinthians 14:33
Next time, you and I will deal with the cognitive adaptations to our reality. Together we will also deal with cognitive limitations that do the trick when it comes to free will. It is a complex situation filled with duality. Freedom and free will is not a straightforward case.
Redressed 
First, where did you get the idea for this? Second, from whom do you select these choices? Could you now alter your dream that inspired your writing? Is this free will?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you not writing because you are compelled to write?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am writing this because I feel inspired to write and it makes me feel alive. Why are you writing your blog-posts? What are your intentions with these comments?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Jim. We should always write tempered with love. If you think that it was a dream that inspired this writing you are wrong, and your memory is incorrect. I have not altered anything, rather exploring layers with divergent thinking. Is your comment free will?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not sure if my comment is free will or not. Maybe the writing it down part is my choice. Most of my writings happen to arrive as I wake up in the morning or I work out in my sleep. I intentionally put my brain to work when I go to bed. Whether it’s straight neurons or data stream I cannot know. But it’s always out of love, of course. I simply write my ideas. If they are well received and applicable, I keep them with me. If they fail (especially among like minded people, I scrap them or rethink them. My core has changed considerably since starting my blog. Atheism was simply an awakening, a clean slate. It may not be the last stop in the tracks, but I doubt I will ever return to the tried and failed stall of monotheism, but who knows, maybe aliens from outer space will appear and teach us about Jesus or Yahweh, then I’d be listening. I would be surprised though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then, you have chosen your path, and I have mine. Perhaps somewhat alienated from each other.
LikeLike
I do not rule out aliens, but do not see why we should automatically trust that they would come in peace. I mean if all insects die within 50 years all life on the planet will go extinct. If all humans go extinct within 50 years all life will flourish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyway, I believe in the way of love. In no longer isolated self, where all our ego has been put on the shelf; forever ❤
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Stated — “It would require absolutely all options and choices being available.”
My Response — Free will would not require any or all options of any kind. What you are describing is desire and ability. To know everything, you yourself would desire, you would need all possible options, and to obtain the selected desires would require the corresponding ability for each, but your will does not require either.
You can have the will to do something without the means to get it done. You are conflating two different meanings.
This is so true that people make “Living Wills” to carry out their wishes past there stay. It doesn’t mean it will be done, it just means they would like it done that way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will respond later, busy days. Thank you for understanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Lander:-) Thank you for reading and leaving comments. None of us has ever been in the world outside our skulls and that is a fact. So, what is the difference between reality and sensory input? Whatever we perceive will be subject to the subjective. Would not the alternative be impossible? You are extracting something that cannot be extracted. We all self-regulate all day long and try to prevent negative behaviour on average four hours per day according to research. You are unintentionally removing the connection between the observer and reality. Your desire to write this comment came through did it not? That would suggest that there is a point of interaction between will and reality. Ability to turn intentions and desires into actions demand a medium to where it can operate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Asked — “So, what is the difference between reality and sensory input?”
My Answer — Reality is what sensors touch.
Sensory input is the filtered description provide by sensors on a need to know basis. The filters do not relay the entire message.
This is to say that there is more reality that we are not aware of but from time to time become aware of through science and direct experience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Stated — “Would not the alternative be impossible?”
My Response — We are not aware of what is not possible. There may be no such thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Stated — ” You are unintentionally removing the connection between the observer and reality. Your desire to write this comment came through did it not? That would suggest that there is a point of interaction between will and reality.”
My Response — You have an interesting way of looking my response.
I’m not actually removing the connection, I’m simply stating how it works. We do in fact experience reality through a middle man or proxy… not directly.
As for desire, there may be some nuance missed.
If I wrote a program to respond to articles, it wouldn’t have any desire, it would simply be lines of code adding numbers via “IF” statements that appear as well placed words on paper.
You are giving me agency based on an assumption that I am a person with feelings. Although this may be a valid assumption, it underlines the first problem of consciousnesses (am I real).
Then there is the self, your response seems to indicate that I am driven but from my perspective this may not be true since my actual focus is slightly to the side of what we are talking about. My desire is somewhat deceptive, as I am seeking a different type of interaction to gain information not listed in the article.
I am seeking an understanding of my own mind filtered through interactions with other people on complex topics.
My drive may not kick in until later but my method is applied now. My desire may be elsewhere but your ideas may lead me to them.
Other than this we are thinking in similar ways.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Lander. I am grateful for all your comments, and your eagerness to discuss with me. So, thank you. Please keep in mind though that English is my second language and therefore it takes longer for me to read, understand and write (I have never even been in an English speaking country). Hence, a little bit of patience is required on both parts. This would allow me to respond to one comment at a time over time. Furthermore, there is time restrictions at play and I have to prioritize. This quote is a great guideline that I try to follow: “Let your arguments be like a miniskirt; short enough to capture attention, but long enough to cover the subject.” Thanks for all the great comments though. I will do my best to interpret them correctly and respond accordingly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Take your time, I’m in several conversations so I have no time expectation. I am only interested in what people have to say not how fast they respond.
As for your English, I would say it’s very articulate but possibly not relevant since the ability to understand others is rooted in patience rather than language.
Just a thought
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was beautifully said, thank you for understanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a statement — “God does not throw dice”
My Response — I’ve heard this many times as a statement of logic or faith, but truth be told, no one knows what God does. In fact, God has the ability to throw dice and if he did we would not have the cognitive ability to comprehend the reason or purpose of doing so.
Why would he not throw dice?
Why would throwing dice be bad?
Could he throw dice from time to time?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You say: “Why would he not throw dice?” I say why would a loving God throw dice? Distributing happiness, pain and discomfort and so on at random. You add: “Why would throwing dice be bad?” I say why then do humans seek law and order? Prefer predictable over unpredictable. Try to live a life with purpose, and not seek out random events. The majority of us are trying to de-clutter, not remain disorganized. Our species are not on a search for confusion, Predicting may be fun, but we only like good change. Finally, you state: “Could he throw dice from time to time? ” Space and time is our dimension, and God is associated with infinity.
Infinity would have to be a state where all events would be connected and not split by time. Therefore, it would be fundamentally true that throwing a dice would be pointless, for everything would happen instantaneously and the outcome would never be hidden.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Stated — “I say why would a loving God throw dice? Distributing happiness, pain and discomfort and so on at random.”
My Response — There is no way to understand what or why God would do something since there is no way to structure ideas and thoughts in the same way as a being with unlimited resources could.
But to counter your question: Why would God make pain, in a world where you would encounter it randomly, thus stopping your happiness from time to time?
This is not something I actually think about but your question begs this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Asked — “I say why then does humans seek law and order?”
My Response — To control other humans.
You Stated — “The majority of us are trying to de-clutter, not remain disorganized. Our species are not on a search for confusion…”
My Response — This sounds good from a human perspective but if plants and animals could talk they would disagree.
Perspective seeks to become truth through language but it’s filtered though limited understanding and thus adds to chaos.
Just a thought
You Stated — “Therefore, it would be fundamentally true that throwing a dice would be pointless, for everything would happen instantaneously and the outcome would never be hidden.”
My Response — Possibly for God but not for humans. It would still only be moments in time.
But I understand what you are saying.
Your ideas are interesting. How do you define yourself and your way of thinking?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Stated — “This result is so strange, so contradicting to the world all of us experience. Therefore, a difficult one to take on board. It points towards that matter only exists when observed.”
My Response — Actually this is not true. I’ve noticed an error made by those reporting on the double-slit experiment. The science is sound and correct but the conclusion is wrong.
When we have superposition we see duplicate impact patters meaning the single particle is in multiple locations. When observed the impact is in one location. This isn’t matter existing when we observe it… this is less matter existing when we observer it (ergo fewer impact locations = less matter to impact)
It would seem that human observation reduces physical matter or the possibility of it. We aren’t making things happen we are limiting them from happening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Lander:-) Now, I am not a scientist and have never carried out this experiment, but as far as I can see there is something off with your conclusion. The scientists conduct the experiment by shooting one particle through at a time, are you suggesting they are not? They state they shoot one particle through at the time over the course of an hour and this creates an interference pattern. How then do one particle turn into many and create a duplicate? Cloning is not possible, a well-known result called the no-cloning theorem forbids this. Duplication is not possible:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/452184/does-quantum-forbid-duplication-or-copy-of-states
“The principle of superposition is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics. It says that when two evolving states solve the Schrödinger equation, any linear combination of the two is also a solution. For that reason, waves from the two slits in the double-slit experiment simply add together to create the familiar interference pattern. As it happens, the superposition principle also prohibits the arbitrary copying of quantum states.”
Click to access TheNoCloningTheoremWoottersPhysicsTodayFeb2009p76.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Stated — “The scientists conduct the experiment by shooting one particle through at a time”
My Response — I agree and without human observation the particle has superposition.
What I am saying is that with human observation it loses that ability. The ability to be more.
We aren’t making something happen… we are making things happen less.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Quoted — ““In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” — John 1
My Response — Let’s unpack this:
In = inside
The word was inside
The word was inside God
The word is inside that which is the beginning
God is the beginning
Proof:
Revelation 1:8
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
You Stated — “A point with no space, no time, infinitely small, infinitely dense and a «place» of extreme order.”
My Response — But this is also the same description of the current universe from a quantum level.
If you take a piece of bread and go down to the quantum level you will see:
No Space
No Time
Infinitely small
and extreme order
It also has infinite density since photons are released from electrons simply nearing the nucleus of an atom. This translates to endless perceived matter. I say perceived since everything is made of energy and matter is an illusion.
If I understand a white hole (and I’m not saying that I do) it seems to be the same as photons.
Just a thought
Loved your post please make more
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your encouraging words, and for the challenge. Maybe I will make your comments into a blog-post so that I can respond properly and in order. I think I will do that if you do not mind. It will be later though, hopefully later this week, but here are no guarantees. If I do not make it within this deadline, it will have to be in January. Have a wonderful day ❤
LikeLike
“Loved your post please make more”. Thank you, I will try. I love your comments, and I am working my way through them now. So, thank you for reading and leaving comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi once again:-) I am nearly finished with my response to all your comments, but I was wondering if you could help me out and explain the following: Proxy and middle man. What is your description of this? In addition, I was hoping you could enlighten me a little bit regarding this: “my actual focus is slightly to the side of what we are talking about”. “My desire is somewhat deceptive, as I am seeking a different type of interaction to gain information not listed in the article”. “My drive may not kick in until later, but my method is applied now. My desire may be elsewhere, but your ideas may lead me to them”. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Proxy and middle man. What is your description of this?
Middleman Example: A translator is a middle man
You Speak French
I Speak English
The middle man speaks both French and English
The middle man translates what you say to me so I can understand it.
But the translation may not be what you said and it may not be everything you said.
You Stated — In addition, I was hoping you could enlighten me a little bit regarding this…”
Because I said — “my actual focus is slightly to the side of what we are talking about”
My Response — I use conversation to get a deeper understanding of the structure of truth and perception. I’m not as interested in the topic as I am in how the person came to believe what they are talking about.
Another way to say it would be:
I want to know how you think rather than what you are talking about. After I know how you perceive something I might then become even more curious as to how you react to new information about it. I don’t have any interest in being right or winning arguments, I just want to know what makes a persons logic tick and how they process challenging contradictions or revelations.
It helps me to understand myself better. I am on a mission to better understand my reasoning and logic capabilities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for this excellent explanation. I do not perceive you as someone who is trying to win an argument. Hopefully I am not either. You are a very interesting and nice person to interact with. It was an experience with the Word that led me to the way I think and reason.
Love conquers everything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
God and science go hand in hand. He permits everything for the good…like this post which stirs the mind away from the useless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi again ❤ Thank you for your comment, I am so grateful. Science and research are trying to write God out of the equation (the tree of Knowledge), but he is revealed through it when God just shows us where to look. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let us never forget, God created Science.
LikeLiked by 1 person