I recently watched a YouTube interview with Robert Sapolsky on Alex O’Connnor’s YouTube channel. Dr. Sapolsky is a brilliant man who is obviously well-versed in many subjects, chiefly biology and neuroscience. He doesn’t believe in “free will,” meaning that everything in life is predetermined, by your hormones, your hunger or state of satiation, the stage of the moon, the direction of the wind… I’m obviously being over dramatic but I’m not sure that Robert would disagree with my analogies. His case is that there are so many intricate factors that go into the act of decision making that we are literally programmed into a response to those factors even though we believe that we are making choices. His thesis is that the choice has been made for us. We are merely responding to influences.

If I have muddled Dr. Sapolsky’s theory I apologize but that is the gist of my understanding. 

Making Two Choices at Once

My view on the subject is that I both agree and disagree with him, trying to not make a choice, or actually making two choices at once. I agree that much of our environment limits the choices we make but I don’t believe that it is so limiting that a choice is impossible. On the other hand it has also occurred to me that from a religious viewpoint it is possible that both free will and determinism have equal sway in the unfolding of our lives.

Let me throw out the disclaimer first. I am not an expert in philosophy, physics, neurobiology, or metaphysics. I am simply a human that is curious about these subjects and attempting to sort the information I am exposed to into a semblance of a workable model for life. I think Robert would be happy with that assessment. I do have an undergraduate degree in Biology and Comprehensive Science that gives me enough confidence to be dangerous.

As I listened to the video several thoughts occurred to me regarding free will or the lack thereof. If all events are predetermined then how can I personally influence the behavior of things like, say, my dog. When he pees on the floor, I respond with a correction that he does not like and he pees on the floor less and less the more times the behavior and the correction are performed. If I made no response then my dog, and I know from experience, would continue to pee on the floor and never learn to “take it outside.” Is this an example of determinism? Where does the decision or lack of a decision take place? 

Simultaneous Opposites?

If the decision was made by all of the myriad complexities that make up a universe and the program is simply running then why do I still believe that I have free will. Shouldn’t there be some instinct or intuition that tells me that I am out of control or perhaps more accurately that I am being controlled. Determinism makes no sense to me because everything within me tells me I make my own choices. Unless… unless both free will and determinism are simultaneously taking place. In which case there is a case for God being omniscient, knowing the past, present, and future at once.

Omniscience has always puzzled me as well. How can the future be known? That is impossible, but then, according to logic and physics the existence of a being that is omnipotent and omniscient is impossible as well. And once more my inner voice tells me that there is a Creator for the universe in contradiction to reason. My inner voice leads me into places that don’t make sense, logically, but that shouldn’t be a surprise because even physics is finding more and more proof that the universe makes absolutely no sense (Referring to the way quantum physics tells us how to make things that work but not how they work. Weird.). 

The only rationale I can find for my dilemma is to assume that determinism and free will occur simultaneously. Assuming that an entity can exist outside of time then the possibility of determinism is probable. To know all there must be an awareness of the whole of time; past, present, and future, in a single unit. In that case determinism is absolutely correct. 

However, in the case of the past, present, and future existing on a line which moves constantly in one direction only; towards the future, then free will is the obvious choice, because one can only occupy a specific coordinate on that timeline rather than occupying all coordinates on the timeline in which case there is no timeline there would only be an omniscient singularity. God.

Let’s really go out there into ridiculousness now. 

How do we Step Outside of Time?

If time is constrained to the physical universe; matter, then the only way to be outside of time is to be outside of matter. Matter is the limiting factor that keeps things in place. Matter is what locks things into their position within time so that they can actually be perceived as separate from ourselves. If there was no matter then all energy would be an omniscient singularity. Maybe an omniscient singularity exists regardless of matter and the act of creation was simply the invention by God of the illusion of time bringing into existence the fractals of what already exists outside of the dimension of time.

I don’t know. This is far from a coherent theory. It’s only the seed of a thought that I’ll have to ruminate upon. But it is fascinating to consider.

But what do I know? I’m just a dummygod.