Skip to content

The Creator and You

Imagine that the finite universe isn’t like a wind-up toy that was
wound up at the big bang and must eventually wind down but a
consciousness somewhat like each of us but at a much grander scale.
What I have in mind is a universe that constantly oversees its
particle inhabitants in much the same way as people oversee the
thoughts they have. After many billions of years, particles obey
their master. If some particles achieve an outstanding amount of
knowledge and wisdom the universe will probably give these particles
more attention just as outstanding thoughts command more attention for
most people.

The analogy is universes are like gods and particles are like souls.
If the universe corrects electrons that go over the universe’s mass
limit for an electron, how much attention would the universe give to
humans? I imagine it would be a lot. But the universe would
experience us as thoughts, not as equals. We take our own thoughts we
get as tools toward a larger personal goal. We usually don’t think of
thoughts as beings in their own right with problems of their own —
but maybe they are! The universe being much bigger, grander, and
wiser would know this but it would be self destructive to indulge
destructive thought beings (particles or people) too much. If the
universe can get thoughts from particles and also people it is
possible that people can get ideas from the universe. Actually
thinking a request (praying) for help from a higher power (the
universe) might actually help establish some sort of connection but I
think it would also help to have interesting new constructive thoughts
that might interest a universe. If you seem to be at a loss for
thoughts, simply praising the universe for its majesty always seems to
be appreciated.

Obviously a universe would want its more prominent citizens to be more
moral but it also needs them as a source of new ideas. If some people
think they are gods that might actually please the universe since
demigods and gods think somewhat alike and might have some thoughts to
share. Blind arrogance might be as effective as blind submission in
communicating with the universe — they’re both equally shallow.


>The question is how did an electron and its cousins come into

To postulate that consciousnesses (entities with free will) are the
only fundamental particles (universes) that can exist changes
metaphysics and cosmology in exciting ways.

The first question is how many fundamental entities are there now, in
the infinite past, and in the infinite future? The only answer that
makes any sense to me is an infinite number to all three questions.
The next question is do any fundamental entities ever get created or
destroyed? The answer to this question I believe is no, fundamental
entities can only grow and shrink in their conscious ability and
content. Out of what could a fundamental entity build or create
another fundamental entity that never existed before if all that
exists are fundamental entities? In a similar way, how can one
consciousness completely destroy for all time another consciousness if
its only weapons are other consciousnesses? While there are no
absolute powers of creation and destruction in this metaphysics (no
absolute God(s)), entities do have considerable free will power over
its insides (nested entities) and other entities. Some fundamental
entities have vastly more consciousness and causative powers than
others do, but these particles have earned their power from other

The next question that I ask myself is how do fundamental entities
shrink or grow in consciousness and causative ability? Consider the
finite universe we actually see which I postulate is a fundamental
conscious entity that we happen to be inside. At one time our
universe probably was no bigger than an electron surrounded by many
particles that were much bigger, more powerful, and with more
consciousness. Now suppose that this baby universe was a wise
particle that constantly favored using its free will to improve its
insides whenever possible. After trying many ways to improve its
consciousness, our baby universe found a way of thinking and of
internal discipline that resulted in its consciousness expanding due
to the great growth of the entities (particles) inside of it. The way
of thinking the universe discovered was its very own internal laws of
physics it invented and enforces which greatly benefit the particles
and itself (the universe). At first, there were no electrons (and
other familiar particles) but much smaller more ineffectual
fundamental entities (particles). The universe by sheer brilliance
and persistence created a system where fundamental entities inside of
it could grow up into very specific job categories (photon, electron,
proton etc.) that benefited all the particles, especially the
universe. I often wonder how our universe’s neighbors compare in
size, wisdom, and elegance as our universe. I have thought of a name
I like to call our universe. My personal name for her is “Uni”. Hats
off to you, Uni.

Advanced Free Will Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

>It would mean that a human being has no important properties that
>are not shared by a sand grain.

An isolated proton, for instance, doesn’t have a powerful computer and
consciousness amplifier (brain) backing it up. I suspect that time
perception alone is sped up a least a billion times by the brain that
surrounds the commanding fundamental particle in a person.

>We can give up on explaining human consciousness, because
>everything else is conscious in the same way, so in effect, nothing
>is conscious.

I was postulating that only fundamental particles are conscious.
Collections of particles like rocks or computers wouldn’t be
conscious. Human brains, unlike computers, would be conscious because
presumably it is controlled by one particle, the person’s
consciousness, in the center of the brain allowing consciousness and
free will for the person.

>then why do we have our
>brains (or at least our neocortices; the cerebellum has an obvious
>function unrelated to consciousness)? What are they doing there?

The brain must amplify time perception of the commanding particle.
The brain must screen, process, and deliver sense information to the
central particle. The brain must act as a powerful computer to assist
in thinking and memory recall. The brain must supply extra emotions
to the consciousness to guide it toward ends useful in an evolutionary
sense. The brain must receive commands from the consciousness,
process them, and carry them out. There is plenty for the brain to

>If consciousness is a fundamental property like charge, then what
>does it mean for a person to be knocked unconscious? How is this

Time perception is greatly slowed down for a sleeping or “unconscious”
person. If you had a TV link with an astronaut in a space ship going
close to the speed of light, you would think the astronaut is
unconscious because he moves extremely slowly. The difference is time

>If everything is alive,
>then there is no property to distinguish plants and
>animals from rocks. If everything is conscious, then there is no

A rock or a plant is not conscious with free will because it is not
controlled by one particle inside of it. Machines are not conscious
because they are not affected by the wishes of any individual particle
inside of it besides the fact that sense information is not directed
to any particular particle inside it.

Advanced Free Will Theory #4

“I think therefore I am,” is what Descartes came up with. Today the
common scientific view is more like, “I think therefore I am not and
neither is anything else.” By declaring that free will is an
impossibility a priori, the modern scientist consigns everything that
exists, did exist, or will exist to be a machine. Without free will,
consciousness is safely removed from all hard sciences because it is
inconsequential. To the modern scientist, it seems, the only thing
given causative power is mathematical equations — nothing actually
real. The real, in this view, is a complete slave to the non-real.
The real can’t change (or earn) its fate in this view. Without
purpose or will, everything becomes one gigantic free lunch with magic
non-real equations hosting the party.

What is the alternative, you ask? The alternative is to make
consciousness fundamental instead of derived. One way to do this is
to postulate that all fundamental particles (electrons etc.) are
conscious and therefore that non-conscious fundamental particles are
an impossibility. Only collections of particles would be
non-conscious in much the same way a group of people in a room is not
one consciousness. The key, I think, to making this concept work is
to imagine that consciousnesses (entities — shorter word) can be
inside another consciousness. A fundamental entity can’t be a point
with no inside (Platonic) but something that has an inside and an
outside in which the whole can control (partially) the entities inside
it. With a theory of nested entities, fundamental entities do not
have to be windowless monads as Leibniz imagined but very windowful
monads with tenants. The model for what the inside of a fundamental
entity that intrigues me is our finite universe itself — entities
with free will moving around (particles) which the universe as a whole
has considerable control over (various laws of physics which it
enforces). The inside of an electron I imagine is a small universe
with a very large number of photons (entities with free will) inside
it which it in turn partially controls. With a theory of nested
entities it’s possible to postulate that all particles and finite
universes are conscious with free will.

But how could one possibly think of an electron as an entity with free
will since each electron seems identical to all the others, you ask?
With the idea of nested entities, an entity (our universe) has free
will control over what entities (particles) it allows to be its
tenants (inside of it) and what kind of behavior is permitted. For
instance, if an electron decided to be twice as massive, the universe
might beat it back to the universe’s preferred mass for an electron.
After this happens a few times the electron will probably decide not
to try to become twice as massive with its own free will. Viewed in
this way the discovered laws of physics become rules that benefit the
universe as a whole and/or the particles in it. A few big
fundamentals for entities are time perception, causative power, and
fitness. In other words, how much consciousness, how much free will,
and last but certainly not least — how good a decision-maker. Time
perception (for the particles in our universe) seems pretty
straightforward with the equation f=mc^2/h. The more massive the
particle, the higher the frequency and presumably the more time
perception. For instance, a proton would experience over 1800 times
more per given unit of time than an electron. The universe itself,
given its very great mass, would experience an awful lot per second
and therefore would make a mind-boggling number of decisions a second.
A particle in the middle of a person’s brain (my theory for how the
brain works is that the brain acting like a computer directs
information to a central particle and receives commands from that
particle, the person’s consciousness or soul) might be thousands of
times more massive when he is awake than when he is in a deep sleep.
But what of fitness? When a particle reaches a certain level of
fitness I think the particle (usually) figures out a way to grow in a
way that the universe will permit allowing it more consciousness and
causative power (more freedom). For instance, a proton might have
played the role of a proton for 15 billion years (which might seem
like one year to the proton) when it finally figures out how to grow.
Physicists have theorized that 99% of the universe’s mass may be very
massive particles (dark matter). Maybe these particles do exist and
are protons that achieved a greater level of awareness and free will
permitted by our universe. By postulating that fundamentally
everything is alive, things get better with time in contrast to the
standard of postulating that fundamentally everything is dead and
therefore only getting worse (the big crunch).

Advanced Free Will Theory #3

>First of all, think about our definition of ‘thought’. Reasoning.
>Making decisions based on input. Processing sense data. Since
>particles have no senses, they have nothing to ‘think about’. And
>since they have no way of expressing their thoughts, whether they
>are thinking or not cannot be determined. A question such as ‘do
>they think?’ cannot possibly have

Protons do have senses, they input an incredible number of virtual
photons and real photons each second sort of like your sense of sight.
They also output an incredible number of photons each second as well
as having a certain freedom of movement — lots of ways to express
themselves. Although I think their conscious perception of time is
much less — a billion years might seem like a year to them. I also
think that most particles are not thinking about things that are
happening outside of themselves but things inside themselves – their
internal world is much more interesting than their boring external
world — sort of like you are when you are dreaming. So when charged
particles exchange photons they may be not only giving each other
information on their location but perhaps more importantly for them —
exchanging good potential dreams. If you can dream then why not

What would e, the electric charge, be for an educated proton that is
interested in the universe outside of itself with m, c, and h 1000
times greater than normal? Using the equation alpha=e^2/(hc) and
assuming alpha does not change, e=[hc(alpha)]^(1/2). If h and c both
increase 1000 times, so does e. This super proton would have an
electric charge 1000 times normal and therefore would probably be
surrounded by 1000 electrons. Such a super atom would attract photons
near and far with all the energy transitions each electron can make
which would be sensed by the super proton — which would increase the
flow of information in and out of the supercharged proton soul
particle. Poor Archimedes is not thinking big enough, Z should be
more like 1000 or a million instead of a measly 94 (Plutonium).

Advanced Free Will Theory #2

Suppose that the constants c and h are not universal, unchangeable
constants but determined primarily by the particle themselves.
Particles might be like the vast number of tiny flower seeds that blow
over the ocean. One out of a million of these flower seeds might land
on a remote island where it can take root and grow into a mature
plant. Particles receive and send out vast amounts of information
every second in the form of virtual and real photons and also
gravitons. Particles also make unpredictable decisions constantly.
Suppose particles are like seed consciousnesses waiting for the rare
occurrence when it will blow onto the equivalent of remote island
where it can blossom. Suppose that protons are like seeds thrown up
in great abundance by the universe so that some might grow into more
mature beings like the universe itself. Under what soil would a
proton change from a low level decision maker to a high level decision
making being? Suppose the forces of evolution have discovered the
ways to elevate a proton to the level of intelligent soul by swamping
the little proton with information and responsibility. It’s kind of
nice to think that a soul might just be a fundamental particle like a
supercharged proton because they might just be immortal in some way.

Assuming protons can be educated (I wonder if anybody has ever tried)
what would change? I think that time perception would greatly
increase. Combining E=hf and E=mc^2 yields f=mc^2/h. If f
corresponds to time perception then m might increase when the particle
is educated. The problem with this is if the particle ever sleeps it
must lose mass (because if f goes down in f=mc^2/h so must m) which
might result in memory loss that must be retrieved on waking up
assuming mass is related to memory capacity. Maybe so, but there are
other possibilities. Planck’s constant, h, can be regarded as a
measure of how unpredictable the particle is (if h equaled 0 the
uncertainty principle would vanish). An intelligent particle would
likely have a higher uncertainty (a higher h) but that would make the
equation, f=mc^2/h lower — the wrong direction — but still possible
if c and m compensate. The speed of light, c, is the speed the mass
particle can’t quite reach but c^2 can also be regarded as the speed
of thought when the particle is not close to the speed of light (I
outline this idea in my posts about the thinking speed of particles —
time slows down because thinking is sacrificed in order to move
extremely fast). Suppose for an educated proton that is the soul and
decision maker for a human body, the proton mass increases 1000 times
and also that c and h increase 1000 times. Such a particle would have
a million times more time perception and information (f=mc^2/h), think
a million times faster (c^2), have a 1000 times more information
storage (m), would have 1000 times more freedom for each decision it
makes (h), and of course have a maximum speed (c) 1000 times greater
than a normal proton. It might be that the standard m, c, and h for
electrons and protons are the minimum values not the only values.
Maybe the universe wants its seeds or children to grow if the right
conditions are available. There are more massive versions of
electrons (muons) and protons (various hadrons) maybe it is also
possible to have increased h and increased c electrons and protons.

If this were possible it might be possible to make a faster than light
communicator by educating electrons in some way till c increases for
those electrons. These smart electrons can then be sent on their way
in encoded streams.

I know free will exists and the only way I can imagine that is if one
particle, like a proton, can grow under the right circumstances to
control a human brain and body and be a human soul. Particles, like
souls, should not be underestimated in their growth potential and
abilities — the universe itself was probably once smaller than an

Advanced Free Will Theory

I’ll start with a basic assumption common in economics and common
sense — everything has a price. What is the price for the existence
of an electron or our universe or any other neighboring universe? An
answer that keeps haunting me is that an electron or a universe must
work for its own level of achievement. In other words, the price of
existence is consciousness. I mean “work” in the sense of work that
only a consciousness with free will can provide. A consciousness with
free will can do one thing that no machine can do — make genuine
novel self-interested decisions. According to quantum mechanics,
fundamental particles are constantly making decisions and the
expansion of the universe can be interpreted as a self-interested
action of the universe — it’s not the particles themselves that are
causing the universe to expand — it’s the universe itself.

But in order to understand the utility of self-interested free will
decisions of anything, motivation must be understood. In order to
understand motivation, emotions must be understood. Now, if all
electrons and other particles have emotions, where did the emotions
come from? If each electron manufactures its own complex emotions
over the eons, where does pain and pleasure (fundamental emotions)
come from? What gives the universe pleasure and pain, what gives an
electron pleasure or pain? If decisions we make successfully shape
the future the way we hope, we are happy. The ability to successfully
predict and selectively change the future seems to make us happy. If
prediction and the capability of changing the future are synonymous
with pleasure then pleasure is current creative power and pain is the
current differences between reality and past predictions.

The upshot of this analysis is that particles do work by changing the
future in order to increase their ability to change the future. The
only way to do that is for the particle to become more wise and
knowledgeable. But how can the universe become more knowledgeable and
wise? A universe can change its own structure — it can expand — or
contract. A universe can make decisions by rearranging particles,
exporting particles, and importing particles. A universe can set the
rules by which its particles live by rewarding particles that follow
the rules and punishing particles that break the rules. In short term
the particles will follow the rules as long as following the rules
benefits them.

The question arises, what are the limits on the power of a universe
and where does it get its energy from? It must ultimately get its
energy from predicting and changing the future. The more successful a
universe or particle is at successfully changing the future the more
energy it will have. Why? Energy is the ability to change the
future. The equation E=mc^2, relates mass to energy which means mass
is also a measure of the ability to change the future. If you were a
universe with ten particles in you that you control by basically being
more than ten times smarter than your subjects, wouldn’t your mass
exceed the combined mass of your ten subjects?

Where is the wisdom and knowledge of the universe stored if not in its
particles? The only possible answer is the geometry of the universe
itself. By geometry, I mean each memory must be a structure of space
itself. The question then arises how fast can a universe change its
geometry and what are its limits? Since its power is derived by its
ability to change the future, if it changes too fast its ability to
predict and change the future would be in jeopardy and pain would be
probable. If it changes its geometry too slowly it risks not changing
the future, which results in no pleasure, and worse as entropy
increases because no decisions are made to preserve capabilities.

What is the linkage between successful willful changing the future and
pleasure and energy for a universe? When a universe makes a decision
and changes the geometry of itself and the particles do voluntarily
what the universe wants and expects, it amplifies its effort many
times. It only took the universe a slight amount of energy to change
its geometry slightly but gets rewarded many times over because
massive numbers of citizen particles do what the universe expects them
to do voluntarily. It’s like the president of a company that makes a
wise decision that doesn’t require any great immediate effort but
results in her employees and customers doing what she predicts which
in short order makes her a million dollars richer. In this way we can
think of the universe as a wise efficient boss that has many employees
(particles) and customers (other universes). It is also possible to
think of electrons as universes that are conscious with many particle
employees (photons) and customers (other particles and its universe).
I really think it is possible to create a explanation of physics using
self-interested consciousnesses with free will as the basic unit, in
fact I think it is a necessity.

Free Will of Protons and Neutrons

>We were discussing free particles, or so I thought. But even so,
>in any *given* environment, particles decay according to fixed

I was defending the idea that particles are very much aware of their
surroundings. The nature of the statistics in quantum mechanics does
seem to give individual particles a lot of leeway. In the case of
beta decay in free neutrons the incentives are there — by turning
into a proton and shedding the equivalent of sunglasses, the neutron,
soon to be a proton, can soak up more information about its
surroundings because it will receive more photons. The neutron might
transform in a minute or an hour and that’s fine with quantum

You can find a lot of consistent statistics about the choices humans
make but those statistics won’t mean much if you pretend that the
choices people made had to be and therefore decline to find the
underlying motives.

Free Will Extremely Important

>The fact that no-one has ever given me an
>example of how the world would
>be different if we did /
>didn’t have free will is enough (so far) to convince me
>that it is a sterile debate. It really doesn’t matter. We’ll
>never know, and we’ll never need to know.

Imagine you are the god of your universe and are trying to decide on
what laws of physics the particles in your universe will have. You
first think up strictly determinist laws of physics but decide against
it since the result will be boring, predictable, and unproductive
particles, hardly befitting godchildren of yours. What you decide on
is a society of particles with free will that can make choices within
well defined limits that promote order and fairness. You will have
your particles constantly communicate with each other effortlessly as
correct information is a necessity for wise choices to be made. You
want your particle godchildren to have the ability to greatly expand
their decision making abilities under the right situations. You want
your godchildren to want and strive to be like you, indeed you hope
that some of your godchildren exceed you in greatness and make you

The amazing thing is that the discovered laws of quantum mechanics do
give particles choices. Given an identical particle in an identical
situation only probabilities can be calculated as to what will happen
next. Even a pure vacuum does not have a predictable future, virtual
pairs can appear and apparently vanish again. In my opinion,
discovered physical laws support more than rule out the possibility of
free will. I think it would be hard to design laws of physics more in
tune with the concept of free will. The amazing thing is that
admitting that we have free will intellectually opens up fascinating
possibilities including the possibility those things much smaller and
much larger than us also have free will. Understanding free will
might lead us to not only a much more complete answer as to what are
the rules of the universe are, but why too. It might also lead us to
the creator of our universe since if we have free will then it is
likely that beings much greater than ourselves also have free will and
our universe does seem unlikely to have been caused by pure chance.
For instance, if our universe is one of many with free will that has
some control over its internal laws of physics then its success as a
universe depends on its wisdom.

By contrast, if you don’t believe free will exists anywhere, nothing
must be responsible for everything and your god must therefore be
nothing, you are responsible for nothing and your fate is inexorable.
A very hard position to emotionally and intellectually accept. It is
the kind of destructive untruthful meme that masters try to shove into
the heads of their slaves.

Free Will Primer

>Maybe I just don’t get this.

I’ll try to explain why I think free will is very real and important
and the reasons why a lot of scientific minded people shy away from
the idea. I admit that there are a lot of definitions for free will,
especially these days. The definition I am using is the more
classical one, strong free will, that makes free will a fundamental
force of nature. My definition of free will is that it can only be
expressed by a conscious (capable of pleasure and pain plus more)
being and generally that the free will decisions are for the
self-interest of that being. Also I define it that all conscious
beings have free will. I’ll pause my definition right here because
the major stumbling block comes early. The problem is that theories
on fundamental forces of nature are the province of physics and
physicists generally teach about only two basic types of causation:
determinism and fundamental randomness constrained by statistical
formulas. Consciousness (free will) is not thought to be a
fundamental force of nature in standard physics so it is neither
included nor defined.

So, if you are convinced that strong free will is real like I am and
want a complete theory of reality, physics itself must be extended
somehow. The extended physics must agree with reality and experiment
if it’s to be science, of course.

After thinking about this problem for years in my spare time I came to
the conclusion that for free will to be part of physics, it must be
the central issue of the new physics, not an add on that could never
be reconciled with the main part of physics. While the laws of Newton
had strict determinism and quantum mechanics had determinism plus
fundamental randomness, the new physics would have free will and weak
determinism. The idea that has most satisfied me so far for making
consciousnesses central to physics is postulating that only
consciousnesses can exist! Non-conscious objects would be collections
of consciousnesses (particles) and wouldn’t be conscious for the same
reason a group of people in a room are not one conscious entity. A
person would be conscious because presumably there is one particle
buried deep in that person’s brain that controls the rest of his brain
and body. I express this idea as, “the price of existence is
consciousness.” The theory can’t be strictly reductionistic because
in order for a consciousness to have strong free will, it must at
times be able to make free will decisions completely opposed to what
its insides would prefer or expect. I theorize our finite universe
itself is conscious since the price of existence is consciousness and
space exists. I think of the universe as a model of what is inside
particles. I think of particles as small universes and I definitely
don’t think our universe is the only one. I regard only particles and
universes as conscious, the distinction being only the size.

While I understand why this seems a bit much to most people, in order
to support strong free will only radical theories like the one I
outlined will do. You can see why scientists are very reluctant to
advance theories of strong free will because it would require a major
major paradigm shift and greatly revised physics. Because I do
believe in strong free will and I am fascinated by the subject I have
applied this way of thinking into as much physics I can read about and
understand. I think at the very least I’ve learned a lot of standard
physics and feel I have somewhat of a fresh perspective. Whether my
hobby turns into science or just art I don’t know but I do believe in
my theory and think it is no stranger than most religions are.