This is a summary of the way I see the universe.

Free Will:

The real question that all fundamental belief structures must address. In my version of The Way Things Work, free will is both very real, as well as being totally nonexistent. On first statement, that of course seems to be a paradox, but let me elaborate. I'm a big believer in divergent, or parallel universe theory (in this case, the model is rather unimportant.) The way I see it, each single instance of reality in a multiverse is a probability. There is a number that defines exactly what will happen, from beginning to end, in that reality. Given the complexity of a universe, and the supposedly infinite number of parallel universes, these probabilities are able do be described in a finite way, but are infinite in number.

Free will is effectively an illusion, since the universe that you are experiencing is described by a set probability, but in this case, your decision, and therefore your will, is both described by, and describes the probability, shaping the reality that you perceive. In this model, the actual probability that describes a universe is impossible to compute until the reality has ended, at which time, the point becomes mute.

And therein lies the problem, this makes so much sense in my head, but when I read over this after typing it, it seems to be gibberish. I hope somebody will get the gist of what I'm trying to say, and I hope to hear questions and comments from anybody who is interested.

Makes sense to me. That's the way I see it as well.

In math, that complicates things. Does it really do anything in your argument?

That does not make sense. Who says the universe computes anything? Compute in real-world time? Probabilities of different evolution or as the whole universe including whole evolutions in time. Anyway, i do not think talking about the universe having to 'compute things' makes sense.

You mean that any calculated probability requires a pre-existing probability. There is the "principle of indifference" that says that probability should be uniform in that case, but that is not a consistent principle for probabilities over infinite sets.
One could argue that this causes consciousness, because only consciousnesses can choose initial probabilities, and those can influence what the outgoing probabilities are. Hmm, are there properties about consciousness that follow from this? Well, just like the uniform universe argument, it seems to follow that all consciousness are part of a single consciousness, as. Their separation is an illusion/approximation. Assuming it is an approximation, can there be thought of a way 'how much' each approximately separate consciousness has influence over the 'initial probability'?
There is things to think about here, i guess. I do not think is what you were thinking about, but it seems to require knowledge of probability on real functions not having a uniform distribution.

IMO your view does require the world to be non-deterministic, it has to have probabilities that are not inventions of man.

Sorry, my point you asked this about was unclear. What I really meant was that the probabilities themselves are finite and ultimately computable, but that there are an infinite number of them.

I never meant to imply that the universe was actually computing things, merely that if observed from start to finish, that the probability of everything that did happen in a reality is, ultimately, a computable set.

As to your third point, I explained poorly again. in my view, since the final mathematic projection of any one given reality cannot be calculated until it has run its course, there is no concrete way to predict all of the events in your life. However, in the end, all of these actions come together to become part of the final, immutable mathematic description of the reality that you were a part of.

I know this may not help much, but I'm glad to have feedback.

Also, sorry it took so long to reply, work came up and kicked my ass.

Interesting view!

I wonder ... speaking about probabilities is tricky in the context of free will. I think a probability really measures our *knowledge* of an outcome, not the true likelihood of an event.

If a flip a coin, the probability of a "heads" is a .5 for example. If I keep my eyes closed, it remains at .5 when the coin lands. When I open my eyes, the probability of each outcome collapses to a 1 or 0. Reality doesn't change ... it's my knowledge that's changing. Quite possibly the event is deterministic from the starting toss.

Any time we talk about probabilities, we write ourselves into the equation.

From a course i am following, the following interpretations of probability:
Objectivist:

• Frequentist, only repeatable experiments have probabilities.(thus very limited)

• Propensity. Everything has an objective chance of it happening intrinsic to that thing. Like a pen has a high propensity of falling, if i let it go. (even if i never do let it go, or only once)

Subjectivist

• Everyone can assign their different probabilities to different events. Usually a additional requirement of rationality is required; this meaning: No one can devise a game in which that person would always lose. (this meaning, that someone can use probability theory to devise a game in which the opponent would always eventually lose)

• Logical interpretation; takes the rational side farther, claiming that based on the same data, there is only one logical result as probabilities. I think this one is too strong, it is known that in infinite cases, the initial probability is arbritrary. (even with the principle of indifference! see below)

The principle of indifference: Given no other information, different cases have the same probability.
Problem thereof: If the set from which is randomly chosen is infinite, there is no transformation-invariant uniform probability. (and many transformations will be reasonable) Should give an example here, but i forgot it

PS took the explanation of probability too far, ah wrote it now so i will post it.