Free Will vs No Free Will

 There are a couple issues with Sabine Hossenfelder's argument that we have no free will.

First, she points out how we can explain everything in the universe using differential equations and in these equations you need a beginning and that was the big bang theory. She then goes on to say since we are made of particles in the big bang, then we also can be deterministically "charted out." However here is the issue with that argument. It is focusing on the particles rather than the energy behind the particles. It is focusing on the space and time in which they exist rather than the energy that upholds it's existence beyond the changes in forms these particles go through.

The big bang happened 13.8 billions of years ago and it's quite pertinently obvious that the scientific community expects a gradual micro and macro-evolution of our universe and our species. Instead according to the Big Bang Theory, it took millions, if not billions of years to create eventually our bodies to inhabit ourselves. We can derive from this that the particles that make up our bodies have gone through a constant give and take of death and rebirth and have taken many forms up until this point. The so-called initial condition of their form has constantly fluctuated in one way or another.

I think it's an easy scape out to say we are deterministic and don't have free will instead of questioning constantly what we do and do not know and staying open to see where it leads us. This is a current problem in physics where people think they can solve philosophical problems with a limited idea of physics, but then humility hits them when new evidence emerges and destroys their past argument they supported. This is something that has happened over and over to all major and minor scientists of every respect, even Einstein who notoriously got a lot of the universe right was also proven wrong.

This happens over and over in physics and it's almost like we forget the process when we treat our current understanding as dogmatically true that it cannot be added to or taken away. But see, since science is constantly disproving and proving new theories all the time, so what's the difference with this philosophical belief that we are mechanistic biological robots with no free will?

Not only is there that which we are trying to prove, but there are topics we simply don't even understand such as consciousness. If we were able to find the fundamental reality of consciousness, then we could very well prove that free will does exist, we just need the evidence that life goes beyond initial conditions that can be explained away by differential equations.

Another point that Sabine says in her video as an argument is that you need to be able to have multiple choices, but then she argues those other choices are mere fantasy so they don't show anything of importance to prove free will. She then goes on to conclude that idea explains why free will doesn't make much sense. Well from a deterministic point of view, free will wouldn't work because it doesn't fit in that limited frame of understanding of free will. However, from beyond the boundaries of that idea, it does. The problem with many physicists is that they don't understand the nature of personal reality at a fundamental level so it makes it difficult for them to see beyond the boundaries they have painted.

They think thoughts are only mentations stuck in our head that become of no importance rather than how they transform into a portion of physical reality over time, and that is verifiable. There are physicists such as the observer effect popularized by Werner Heisenberg that purported a connection between our observation and the observable system, but there is still much to explore in this line of thought. If we can explore the depths of our thought like we do the depths of the universe to discover that we most likely live amongst a multiverse than one single universe, then a lot of this deterministic and closed mentality around free will, will naturally dissolve away.

Also that's the beautiful reality of parallel universes in regards to the discussion of the multiverse. My personal idea, influenced by my own exploration and the exploration of others, is that every thought has an energy in it that propels it to be expressed in physical reality. The desire is for the thought to become physical in our universe, and we can understand that desire by understanding what stimulates desire in our hearts all the way down to a mere tardigrade. So if parallel universes are truly a reality, then parallel thoughts that never reach the physical manifestation of our universe will indeed, become a physical manifestation in another.

--

Scientists should stop trying to use unverifiable sources to try to prove philosophical ideas such as that free will does not exist.

It does people even worse than religion by once again, removing helpful, optimistic ideas that we have the ability to choose, and it discourages people from taking responsibility to change their circumstances.

It's depressing, it's bent towards cause and effect rather than the bed of probabilities we know quantum physics lies on, and there is so much more to life that lies beyond causal reality that we have yet to discover.

Take away people's life, and they're dead. Take away people's meaning to live by trying to convince them to reduce themselves to predetermined action, then you spread unnecessary apathy.

--

The problem with the scientists who hold the limited viewpoint that free will does not exist is that they inherently don't understand consciousness nor it's freedom through probabilities. Scientists should not only study that which is above at a macro and microcosmic level outside of themselves, but should also be well versed and study inside of themselves macro and micro cosmically. If you don't even understand that you are not the thoughts you think, the emotions you feel, or the actions you do, of course you're not going to be able to grasp that man has free will because you have not broken free from your own conditioned reactions and behavior that stem from identification.

If I act on auto pilot the same way at every time when someone says a word that triggers me and I never learn to take the time to consciously choose another reaction, then my autopilot will be used as evidence for the belief that there is no free will. But if I take the time to understand when I'm unconsciously living from my identified patterns of thought, reactions and conditioned responses and when I'm consciously living so much so in the present moment that I am no longer a product of my past, then free will is much more of an understood reality at a fundamental level of my being.

Another issue these scientists run up with is that because they do not know themselves deeply, they will not know deeply the tiniest particles that make up our universe. As above, so below is not just a fun quirky saying. It's an inherent truth that the largest patterns of the universe can also be found in the smallest ones. The pattern of a fingerprint in a human can be seen in a tree stump if it is cut open. The Fibonacci sequence is seen all over from the biggest galaxy of trailing stars to the finest of sea shells. Regardless of what it is, everything in our universe has consciousness. That means everything in the universe is endowed with free will, the ability to choose.

Everything visible and invisible not only has the ability, but is endowed with the right to experience what it would like. They all rest on a bed of proven probabilities to choose from. What's the point in having multiple choices if you can't choose? What's the point of no free will if you have an infinite amount of probabilities to choose from? How would I know all this? Because I know myself deeply conceptually. If I took the time I could also prove it experimentally using math and physics.