Free will — it’s a contentious topic. Do humans have it? Are our lives controlled by fate or gods? Scientists and philosophers have been trying to either prove or disprove the existence of free will, seemingly, forever.

For the most part, they’re in agreement that humans do have some degree of free will. Whether a person chooses the turkey club or a salad for lunch is entirely their choice, not fated by one force or another. 

However, neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky made headlines last year proclaiming that after years of research, he’s concluded that there is no free will. Sapolsky outlines his ideas in his book “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will.”

Sapolsky believes humans are slaves to hormones, neural connections and sensations like hunger. Speaking with New Scientist on Oct. 18, 2023, Sapolsky said:

“… my basic approach is you look at a behavior and someone has just done something that’s wonderful or awful or ambiguously in-between or in the eyes of the beholder, but some behavior has happened, and you ask, ‘Why did that occur?’ and you’re asking a whole hierarchy of questions. You’re, of course, asking, ‘Which neurons did what, ten milliseconds before?’ but you’re also asking, ‘What sensory stimuli in the previous minutes triggered that?’ but you’re also asking, ‘What did this morning’s hormone levels have to do with how sensitive your brain would be to those stimuli?’”

Sapolsky continues that this retracing of cause and effect needs to keep extending backwards, taking into account a person’s past trauma, the culture they’ve grown up in and more. He even argues that fetal environment has long lasting epigenetic consequences for a person:

“What you see at that point is, not just saying, ‘Wow, when you look at all these different disciplines, collectively, they’re showing we’re just biological machines,’ but they’re not all these different disciplines. They’re all one continuous one. If you’re talking about genes, by definition, genes and behavior, by definition, you’re talking about evolution and you’re talking about neurobiology and genetic variance and neuronal function. If you’re talking about, you know, early trauma in life, you’re talking about epigenetics and you’re talking about adult propensity. So, they’re all one continuous seam of influences, and when you look at it that way, there’s not a damn crack anywhere in there to shoehorn in a notion of free will.”

He acknowledges that what he’s getting at doesn’t inherently negate free will, as it’s an age-old observation — every person is the sum of many parts. However, Sapolsky believes that the parts rule over the sum in this case. As such, it can’t be said there’s free will.

Therefore, whether a person chooses the turkey club or a salad for lunch isn’t decided by fate, but by factors like their blood sugar level at the time, with little conscious decision making actually taking place.  

The moral implications of Sapolsky’s argument are interesting, and you should read the full interview with him at New Scientistor purchase his book for those perspectives.

The rest of this short essay will examine the broader implications of a world sans free will in the esoteric way we like to do: If humans lack free will, what does that mean for the anomalous?

Throughout history, people have indirectly or directly encountered anomalous phenomena that have swayed their minds and influenced the direction of their lives. Prominent examples include Emanuel Swedenborg and Joan of Arc. However, if free will doesn’t exist, what influence do these otherworldly guides have?

It’s natural to assume those visited by entities from extraplanetary or higher realms have greater insight or knowledge than the humans to whom they impart their wisdom. Though, if humans are bereft of free will, what use are these otherworldly diviners?

There are two reasonable options. One, these otherworldly forces are also subject to destiny and/ or lack free will. Two, they are ignorant of our lack of free will.

One model of the universe suits both problems — externalism, also known as block time or block universe. The easiest way to understand the concept is to image the universe like a record and the present like the needle of a turntable. All the music on a record exists concurrently, but where the needle rests as the record turns is only what we hear. 

In block time, the universe is like a record with all of time from start to finish existing concurrently, and we are the needle experiencing it.

Block time would explain the anomalous influences Swedenborg and Joan of Arc met. They were going through the motions — each merely needles bound to the record of the universe, same as the humans they “influenced.”

And it doesn’t matter if one is aware of block time, as all time is already on the record. In fact, someone becoming aware of block time is by design of the record.

However, here’s the supernatural monkey wrench — if block time is likely, how godly are the gods? What role do the angels play if all of creation is already written? All supposed supernatural influences would be bound by the same greater universal design. As above, so below; it is what it is.

But set aside block time and return to Sapolsky’s idea that only humans lack free will, not necessarily the universe. Enter the second dilemma — the other is ignorant of our lack of free will.

And that leads to the same line of questioning as block time. Premonitions from the beyond, angelic voices and all the rest aren’t so all-knowing or powerful if they lack the basic knowledge that humans have no free will. 

And if they do know humans lack free will, then why try to influence them? Why waste the time and energy to attempt to move an immovable object? Are the beings of the beyond masochist or just dumb in this regard?

If the idea that your gods lack understanding of how their worshipers’ minds are designed bothers you, take comfort. These dilemmas have an easy answer — free will.