There have been many discussions and books about free will. unfortunately whenever we discuss anything, we need to define it, and along with the idea of consciousness, free will is hard to define.

I like to start with the simplest construction as an offshoot of entanglement. We talk about entanglement, but we rarely look into it in much depth, or maybe that’s because high energy physicists and quantum realm reseachers look at the quantum mechanics of entanglement rather than what it says about the information boundaries of universal systems of different geometric sizes/volumes.

For me, right here, I guess I’ll begin at the beginning of a personal cosmology I’m formulating (based on the fact that I as a scientist with several advanced degrees, I am a scientific generalist and self-made natural philosopher).

Before there was our universe, before there was anything, there was a POTENTIAL anything. So, before there was our universe, there was a POTENTIAL UNIVERSE (or a POTENTIAL MULTIVERSE).

Some may say that POTENTIAL is like an idea in the mind that eventually can take form. But our universe behaves as if it is part of, or embedded in, a POTENTIAL UNIVERSE, since a POTENTIAL UNIVERSE gives us some idea about how it distributes its energy before that energy (maybe is cooled down enough) to become condensed and entangled into something we can measure (like an information boundary).

So, our potential universe is made up of potential particles, or potential distributions of energy, that might at some future time entangle so they may be measured. During the process of first entanglement (a relationship between two energy distributions) work is done to leave the first entangled particle (a product of two statistically potential particles, or virtual particles) that have done the work to expand three-dimensional space (where time (frequency of changes) dilates or expands/inflates our condensed universe). At any radial time “t,”our universe is approximately the circumference of a circle and the expanded time (perpendicular to the circumference is the diameter of that circle. the circumference in 3-D is space, and time is perpendicular to all three dimensions).

When the virtual particles do their work in universal expansion, then that relationship is the first particle/mass condensation, or entanglement. Now the problem we need to solve is how all those first entangled particles interact with each other and maybe other newly entangled particles (interference entanglements).

Are entangled particles/systems at this early initiation of our universe (singularity source of spacetime), randomly distributed, or are they already self-ordering (highest probability and longest duration)? Random distributions might be hit and miss, creating large clumps and a greater number of smaller clumps. We do see that our universe is heterogeneous, meaning it’s made up of big things and little things. I will, if i haven’t already, discussed Galileo’s Square/Cube Law that shows that out there in the cosmos, big things are more resistive to expansion than are smaller things.

Let us assume now that eventually systems that are well-developed and well-structured and heavily entangled will follow the recognized contemporary course of self-ordering, or self-organization. But, before we do that, and let’s talk a little about free will. Let’s discuss how the virtual particles and the first entangled virtuals might appear:

We can measure a spread out first entangled, but their cumulative mass. so they might be the spread out distribution in the halos of galaxies, or even in the purer vacuums of space (the purity of a vacuum depends on the size of its particles (this hails back to Square/Cube)). So these first masses, first entanglements of virtual particles probably represent the approximately one third of all the mass in our universe. [since space is still expanding, and our condensed universe is embedded in the potential universe of virtual particles, that dark matter is still being formed by the work of spatial expansion, and other forms of material systems are also being formed.

the virtual particles, though not measured directly, except in the process of condensing and entangling, probably form nearly the other two thirds (dark energy) with about 5% represented by matter that gives off light and energy.

Now let’s talk about how entanglement occurs, even before we discuss free will in our universe. we know that simple systems that are structured and have coalesced, don’t appear as if they have free will. when we speak of free will, we usually refer to more complex, or even conscious decisions made by complex systems that we believe are in control of their volition. so, if simple systems have no free will, lets look at what no free will looks like:

humans can run experiments with unique experimental setups. each setup returning information on from a unique perspective, unique pathways and solutions to solvability (the possibility of entanglement). In the double-slit setup, humans have eliminated all but two pathways for the universe to take in entanglement. the entanglement in this case, without further human interference is a distribution of energy/mass (note that the magnitude of energy at high rate of kinetic motion is equal to the mass of the distribution at stand-still or absolute zero) is somehow distributed through the potential pathways of each slit, for the distributions to relate to one another in the entanglement of the interference pattern on the screen. so even for the simplest of systems there is relationship.

if the simplest of universal systems require relationships to entangle uniquely, then the only way there would be perfect free will would be if systems are not a product of relationships (from the very beginning) and if each relationship does not change through its relationship with its environment.

the double-slit experiment shows the simplest of entanglements. simple systems are products of simple relationships, so there could be an argument that outcomes can be, and can always be predicted beforehand.

It is true that complex systems like the human brain might be hardwired to certain predictable outcomes. that might make us believe we can do away with free will. so let’s see what happens in complex human systems. as a human grows from childhood certain pathways condensed/entangled in the brain of neural tissue filter out any other outcomes. but the structure themselves in more complex systems present more pathways. So we are presented through the complexity of our brains more potential pathways (like potential puzzle pieces that fit into what is already there). However, our education and structure points us to a focus with only these puzzle pieces to serve as the controlled pathways to entanglement. That’s the good news (that’s why learned thinkers say there is no free will, because learning forces/focuses the puzzle pieces to specific outcomes, and only specific outcomes (again perspective raises its ugly head).

Now let’s see how our universe deals with this new sort of entanglement. when scientific thinkers are educated with a different focus or perspective on the universe, they may not have the freedom of receiving universal pathways that weren’t trained into them. perhaps that’s why creative people can be hundreds of times more creative than those answering test question for iQ scores.

for human societies, it is most important to get solutions with fewer errors than can be given by creative folk, who can generate or allow more pathways to entanglement solutions than can the intelligent folk. some of those solutions might be IF WORLDS (guessed at worlds) that don’t exist. so education is important for accuracy of solutions, worlds that exist. but creativity, and a tendency to not become or believe anything concrete might lead to natural potential universal solutions. Looks like human society might have an advantage with both groups of thinkers working together.

so what does the huge filtering of universal pathways to universal solutions do to the existance of free will. we think of free will as a system (human system) being able to independently (I assume independent of other systems or other environments) to chose their own pathways. this is more true for complex systems like the human brain, but the perspective of the creative in society allows more options, if they are respected to brainstorm additional natural pathways that work toward new entangled solutions.

since creative folk can see more natural universal pathways than trained folk (that may filter out such pathways with their rigid perspectives), and systems are all formed from relationships and systems change and relationships change, it’s hard to say definitively that there is free will, yet this definition leaves lots of wiggle room for indeterminism.