A Little Weird » Blog Archive » Solution to Determinism/Free Will

A Little Weird

reality bizarres the standard

October 3rd, 2009 by Sean Solution to Determinism/Free Will

Hi there… My great friend, Stephen Wolfram, has clued in me to the solution to the apparent contradiction between determinism and free will. He told me about it here.

In philosophy, there is a debate between determinism and free will. The idea goes like this: if the world is deterministic, that means there is a math formula for everything. As a result, if you knew the initial conditions of the universe - you could simulate the entire universe using the math rules. However, if that is true, then free will doesn’t exist. If everything is just a math formula, then YOU don’t really ever make a choice… you are just making pretend choices governed by the chemical reactions in your brain, which are governed by math.

The appeal here is that we all feel like free will exists. I feel like I make choices. I don’t feel like a robot, calculating my next move - I feel like an individual with a soul, that somehow magically makes real decisions. I choose whether to write this article or not… I choose what I’m going to say, or what I will eat, or how I spend my weekends. I choose.

So, if I have free will, where does it come from? If free will exists, then that means reality can’t be deterministic, and that a soul of some sort must exist.

Luckily, Mr. Wolfram has cleared this up. It turns out determinism is true (despite our ignorance in the field of quantum physics). But there’s a catch…

Reality is something called a “universal computer“. To explain this concept, let’s talk about our intuition…

In our minds, we might think of “problems” on a sliding scale of difficulty. Some problems are really easy to solve. Some problems are a little hard. And other problems are really really hard.

For example, if I give you the length of two sides of a right triangle, you can figure out the length of the third size. You would just use the Pythagorean theorem (a2 + b2 = c2), pull out your calculator, and figure the solution. Fairly simple.

However, if I asked you for a prediction of what the weather will be like in London on 15 March 2010… you can’t just plug that question into a formula and figure it out. You could give a best guess, but you won’t have a definite answer.

Or how about - how will humans evolve in another million years? This question seems much harder than the weather question! How would you even begin to estimate an answer? You might as well just make something up off the top of your head.

Our intuition tells us that there are many different levels of difficulty in answering problems. However, our intuition is wrong. There are really only two: things you can plug and chug in a formula… and things you can’t know for sure, and just have to wait and see.

Predicting the weather is the same level of mathematical difficulty as predicting the evolution of humans. The questions are equivalent. Likewise, any sort of formula-based question is the same level as well - just about all of math, physics, and chemistry is just figuring out which formula to use, and how to use it correctly. Plug and chug.

Now here’s the kicker (if I haven’t bored you already): it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to have a problem with MORE difficulty than predicting the weather. Our intuition tells us that problems can be more and more difficult. This is not true. Once a problem reaches a certain level of complexity, it is basically maxed out. It can’t get more difficult.

That tells us something about reality though: since we witness these difficult problems in reality, then reality must be complex enough to contain them. And since there is a limit to complexity - reality can’t be any MORE complicated. Therefore, the laws that govern reality MUST create a system of maximum complexity.

How does free will fit into this?

When a system reaches maximum complexity, the only way to predict the future is to wait and see. There are no short cuts. For example, I can’t write a computer program that predicts the output of another computer program. I can’t do it. It’s mathematically impossible. The ONLY way to predict how a computer program will run is to run it! You can sit back and analyze it all you want, but you CAN NOT predict the results without actually running it.

We are deterministic. However, we have reached the maximum level of complexity. Therefore, the only way to see what we’re going to do is to wait and see.

In our original thought in the second paragraph, we thought that if the universe was deterministic, then we could simulate the entire universe. Yes - in fact, that’s what we’re doing RIGHT NOW. However, we can’t predict the future. Our universe is moving as fast as it can… we cannot skip ahead, and predict the results before they happen.

Reality is deterministic, but unpredictable. Math saves the day. Thank you, Mr. Wolfram.

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 pm and is filed under Video, Philosophy, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

### 16 Responses to “Solution to Determinism/Free Will”

1. X-Master Says:
   October 7th, 2009 at 11:20 am

   Interesting, so does that mean that even though we live in a deterministic universe, our own actions can not be predicted, so we have something like a pseduo free will?

   But I guess it is as I had always thought, that math can not explain the entire universe, it can explain most things, but not all.

2. Sothilde Says:
   October 7th, 2009 at 8:26 pm

   Hmm, nice try but I don’t think you get anywhere with good old Mr. Wolfram. The assumption here is that reality is in theory, in its nature, deterministic. How does the idea that you can’t calculate reality in practice bring back free will in this? It can only bring in an illusion of free will, but that was already there in the first place, wasn’t it?

   On another topic, why do you assume reality is deterministic in the first place? You probably base this on thinking from (the philosophy of) physics, but what makes you believe that for example the first law of thermodynamics applies to living matter, to consciousness? The are many observations done in physics, about the total amount of energy in a closed system always being preserved, which are easy to generalise to the whole of reality. But who says that this generalisation is valid? Who has proven that when you make a decision, when an electric current originates somewhere in the brain that makes your arm move, who says that this current is the result of a deterministic process? How can you ever prove that? You can believe it, sure, but you are looking for truth, aren’t you, and not for another faith?

3. breaker Says:
   October 8th, 2009 at 3:46 pm

   Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Why would consciousness, with or without true free will, break this law?

   Also, if the universe is deterministic, there is no “decision” to move your arm, is there? And why wouldn’t an electical impulse be deterministic? If it weren’t, nothing would have caused it, so it wouldn’t exist.

   Many scientists take the side of materialism because it is the only one that has evidence for it. I would not call determinism a “faith.”

4. Sothilde Says:
   October 8th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

   Well, I refer to the first law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or destroyed as you say) because that is usually used as an argument against a non-determinismic view of reality. If some external force is at the root of the electrical impulse that for example makes your arm move (free will or consciousness or whatever you would like to call it), instead of a completely determined cause-and-effect, there would be a nett. influx of energy and therefore the first law of thermodynamics would be broken (energy is “created”).

   The argument now goes: we have always observed the first law of thermodynamics to hold, so there can’t be some external force at the root of you moving your arm, so this must be a deterministic process, thus there is no free will.

   My counter-argument is: yes, you have always OBSERVED the first law of thermodynamics to hold, but you have never observed each and every atomic interaction in the brain. So who says each electrical impulse that is the result of a decision (for example lifting your arm, at the origin of which lies an electrical impulse originating in the brain) is completely determined? Why wouldn’t it just be the truth that such a decision DOES break the first law of thermodynamics?

   Now my whole point with the “faith” thing is that my above argument cannot be disproven. You can believe it to be flawed, because you want to believe that the first law of thermodynamics is an universal truth (the whole crucial step being: this law is observed to hold under certain circumstances, THUS it holds under ALL circumstances). But at the core of this argument is not logic, it is belief.

   An insight to offer here is on the “truth-state” of the first law of thermodynamics itsself. There is absolutely no way of knowing if this law isn’t part of some greater, more fundamental truth, which encapsulates consciousness or free will in it (leaving it open in what way you would envision this). To make this plausible, take newtonian mechanics. It was/is proven to be 100% correct, it always works etc. But then came Einstein, who showed that the newtonian dynamics are just a case simplified for non-relativistic speeds of relativistic dynamics. So newtonian mechanics is actually encapsulated in a more fundamental law, which is the theory of relativity. Newtonian dynamics is still true, but only when your speed is far below the speed of light. If you don’t know yet that things are different when you approach the speed of light, you can’t know that newtonian dynamics isn’t the whole story.
   My point with all this is, the first law of thermodynamics could just as easely be encapsulated in a more fundamental law which isn’t discovered yet (consciousness being analogous to the speed of light in the mechanics example). This just to make my argument plausible if you never went there with your toughts, and ascribed a rather absolute position to the laws of physics. I’m not saying this IS the case, I don’t know that, I’m just saying it COULD BE the case.

   About materialism having evidence for it, I’m sorry but that statement is just incorrect. Materialism is the most basic assumption, it creates the context under which thinking in physics happens. It is not proven, it is assumed/believed.

   By the way, in case that isn’t clear, I’m not trying to propagate this or that view of reality here. I’m just a free thinker looking for truth, just as Sean is. All I’m trying to do here is show that determinism/materialism and with it free will doesn’t have to be disproven or argumented for with the kind of (flawed?!) logic as in this blog-post. Because at the very root of the problem lies faith, not logic/evidence/reason. Search deep inside your own toughts and find out for yourself what the very core of these matters is if you don’t believe me. I think the above words should be enough to show it, but my experience shows they are not. It is somehow a very difficult thing to accept for a materialist that at the core of his view of reality lies faith. I suspect this is because people who think this way usually pride themselves in that they don’t ‘believe’, that they only listen to fact and reason, that they have trancended the whole religion/belief nonsense.

   Just another thing to make matters clear, something which I have noticed people easely take (incorrectly) from my story: I’m not saying that the laws of physics are bullshit, that they are false, that you have to “believe” in them. The computer I’m typing on now is the evidence that the laws of physics work, and anyone who follows a few physics courses can see it from themselves. What I’m saying is that the picture of reality as a whole that is propagated by physics is something you have to believe in. The laws of physics may not be definite laws (and they can never be), and they may represent what actually happens in a completely wrong way (or they may not), but they work. And that is what science is all about (or at least what is SHOULD be all about). Not about “there is no free will”, “reality is deterministic”, “there is only matter”, “consciousness is a function of the brain”, etc. These are all statements that are completely true, but only within a certain context of tought! And that context of tought is the belief, the “faith”. If you change the context of tought, the same facts result in totally different conclusions, which are just as equally true!

5. breaker Says:
   October 9th, 2009 at 12:27 am

   Wow. You wrote a book. First of all, you spelled thought incorrectly almost every time. (Not to red-herring your argument.)

   It is impossible to prove that the first law applies universally. It is also impossible to disprove many things, such as God. But when there is no evidence to support those theories, there is not much going for them, and there is little reason to consider them until evidence is found. It’s easy to come up with un-disproveable theories, but that doesn’t mean they should be considered. However, I am glad to hear that you do accept the current understanding of physics.

   Materialism is a basic assumption. That’s not a bad thing. The simplest answer is usually the best. Any explanation of the universe that is not materialistic is much more convoluted than it needs to be. Why come up with theories to satisfy our want for free will when the universe works fine without it? Whether we have free will or not, it doesn’t matter, because it feels like we do.

   If you say that materialists go on faith, I disagree. Materialism is what is left when you have no faith. You can argue that it is not proven, and to accept it requires faith, and this sounds true, but if it is, then it is impossible to objectively know anything. Therefore, all knowledge requires faith, and faith loses its meaning. I accept materialism not because I believe in it, but because I don’t believe in any of the other explanations.

   You can argue that there can never be a correct answer, and that may be true, but that is no reason to give up and not accept anything.

6. X-Master Says:
   October 9th, 2009 at 12:54 am

   Everything in science can not be proven true, about the best that can be done is just corroborate with evidence, until a new piece of evidence comes along and shatters the old and it has to be rebuilt anew in light of this new evidence.

   And it seems that things are getting slightly hung-up on whether reality is subjective or objective, or some twisted combination of the two.

7. Sothilde Says:
   October 9th, 2009 at 7:35 am

   I’m sorry about any spelling errors, english isn’t my mother tongue and I wrote that last piece rather quickly.

   “Materialism is what is left when you have no faith”
   No:
   “I don’t know, it could be this way could be that way” is what is left when you have no faith (or make no assumptions as I like to phrase it)

   I agree on your other points. But the whole core of the matter is that materialism is an un-disproveable theory itself. You can’t call up evidence in either direction in these matters, because evidence is only just what it is: a certain fact (or it contains certain facts). Only when you attach an interpretation to it, it gets a certain meaning. But that interpretation has to happen within a certain context of thought, and on the basis of that context of thought lies a certain assumption.
   Let me give an example: Modern research in neurology has shown by brain scans that there is a very strong correlation between certain cognitive functions and activity in certain regions of the brain. This is a fact. When you want to interpret it, when you want to attach meaning, you must start assuming. When you want to assume materialism, you can conclude from this fact that the brain is the cause of these cognitive functions, that it creates them. When you want to assume for example such-and-such form of consciousness-matter dualism, you can conclude from the same fact that the activity in the brain has in such-and-such way a connection with consciousness.

   By the way, these assumptions are in 9 out of 10 cases hidden assumptions, you have search for them and make them explicit in yourself. They often show themselves in “yeah, but this just seems like the most logical or realistic option to me”. What is at the core of that “most realistic option” feeling, is that it correlates with your whole view of reality more than other options. And your view of reality is an assumption, a belief (unless it is a direct perception within a thought context that is completely free of any assumptions, but that is a whole different story, and that would make this a very very long [and off-topic] post).

   I’m also not saying materialism is a bad thing in itself, that completely depends on what you want out of life. If you want to know the truth about the nature of reality (which a small subset of the population, including me, seems to experience as their single goal in life), then materialism is a bad thing, because you are not finding out the truth about reality, you are finding out the logical consequences of assuming materialism.
   And yes, if the core of your thought to reject materialism is “I want a free will so I reject this theory”, that doesn’t make much sense. Then you are doing the same thing the materialist does, you make an assumption first and then start thinking. Only you make the opposite assumption. You should make no assumption and see things for wat they are, which is a nice and solid beginning (at least, if truth is what you’re looking for).

8. Sean Says:
   October 10th, 2009 at 7:23 am

   Interesting posts… I’d like to bring up a logical way to remove most assumptions in adopting a model of reality:

   Adopt the model that explains the most phenomenon. (EDIT: and if two explain the same, then choose whichever is more simple)

   If I have two models, and they explain the evidence in two different ways, then I should see if one model can explain more evidence than the other.

   Whichever model can explain the most, wins.

   Wolfram’s model is compatible with everything currently in science, AND can explain the uncertainty we see in quantum physics. AND can explain gravity and general relativity.

   Therefore, until a better model is found, it makes sense to put Wolfram’s model at #1 on the list.

   A consequence of Wolfram’s model is that free will doesn’t exist, and everything is deterministic. Now, we can’t actually TEST this. It’s simply a side-effect of Wolfram’s amazingly powerful model. However, since Wolfram’s model is currently #1, that puts determinism at #1 (until a better model can be found).

   Thanks for the intelligent and thought-provoking comments, always refreshing to read :-).

9. breaker Says:
   October 10th, 2009 at 11:29 am

   Sothilde: no problem about spelling, I just thought I should point it out because it didn’t look like it was just a typo.

   I guess you could argue that materialism requires faith, but the opposite, indecisiveness, is not very useful, whether in everyday life or a scientific setting.

   If you want to know the truth about the nature of reality, then yes, materialism is the best way to go. I’m not saying you should never change that, I’m saying go with what makes the most sense. If that changes, so should your beliefs.

   Personally I don’t care if what we have is free will or not. But I think determinism is the best explanation of reality, so that is the model I use. I don’t use it because I want the universe to be that way– in fact, I would rather have free will.

   You’re arguing for complete uncertainty, and while it’s bad to delude yourself, it’s good to have some theory of reality that you can accept (not accept blindly, or in the face of counter-evidence, that is.)

10. Sothilde Says:
    October 12th, 2009 at 10:41 am

    Sean:
    I understand your way of tought, but one of the points I was trying to make is that by that way of thought you can never get to the truth about reality. You can upgrade one theory with the next, but it is intrinsic to this method that it’s impossible to arrive at a final theory, a “truth”. Every “better” theory could be exchanged with something completely different as new evidence turns up. So if it’s truth that you’re looking for, you’ll never find it that way, you can only find things that work up to a different degree.

    Breaker:
    Who says that the result is indecisiveness or complete uncertainty? I experience it as just the opposite, because what you have done is REMOVE every uncertainty out of your view of reality! It requires a whole different way of arriving at truth, but that’s something you have to experience for yourself. Once you can really EXPERIENCE reality withouth assumptions, that it could or could not be materialistic for example, once my story goes from only a logical derivation or abstract thought to an experience, quite literally a new world opens for you.
    I can only describe my own experience in this unfortunatly. I never met anyone else who in his attempts to understand the world really made this step, from interchanging different theory’s, to accepting that this method can only result in another faith. This was a really tough decision to make for me, because it feels like you throw out of the window everything you’ve accomplished so far. But somehow, when you don’t believe or assume anything about reality anymore, you start seeing it how it really is, you so to say remove a veil of beliefs that cloud your judgement and perception.
    As far as I can see now, one way to arrive at truth is not in any way by logical inference (as I pointed out already in my previous posts) but by increased consciousness of reality itself. Let me try to explain.
    A real, PRACTICAL certainty (or “truth”) I have is for example that I’m sitting at a table right now, typing this message. This is a direct consciousness of reality, that I’m sitting at a table right now. I must emphasize, because that’s the really crucial point, that this is a PRACTICAL certainty, it can never be a philosophical certainty. You can always throw arguments against it like for example Descartes did, that you could be dreaming that you’re sitting on the table, or that you might have schizophrenia and be hallucinating this table (think of the movie A Beautiful Mind) etc. But at the end of that philosophizing, you’re still sitting at that table! You have to grasp that last tought, really understand it, it is all about that principle of certainty. I always get criticized massively on this point because people fail to understand what it is I’m aiming at. What you could for example throw against it, is that I’m thereby making assumptions of my own, namely that I’m not hallucinating and that experience can be trusted. Also, for example someone who is colorblind sees a whole different table, there might be optical illusions, so what is so certain about it?
    My response to that is, again, at the end of those thoughts, when you’ve debunked my entire story philosophically (which is not very hard to do), you’re still sitting at that table (whether it be a black & white one or a colored one)!!! It is not a philosophical point I’m trying to make, I’m aiming at the central place that this principle takes in life, in your experience. It takes assumptions, philosophizing to take away that certainty, in the daily life of a healthy person it is there, steady as a rock.

    Now the whole point of that story is that I have experienced that when you become more conscious of yourself, you become more conscious of reality itself. This was a real eye-opener for me, a massively important point. What I mean with becoming more conscious of yourself is for example trying to grasp what thinking really is, what it really means/is to feel something, or what exactly you do when you imagine something. And I don’t mean theorizing about these things, that takes assumptions, then you’re back at CREATING a reality instead of perceiving it! It is trying to grasp the “thing in itself” (which Kant assumed to be impossible by the way, if you’re familiar with the Critique of Pure Reason), that is true understanding. In doing that, your own consciousness and the processes that go on in it become as direct a perception, as much of a certainty, as the table I’m sitting at right now.

    Ofcourse me writing this probably doesn’t have much value to you as such. You can only believe it or not, it can never be more than faith to you!! I can never tell you the truth about reality, unless you can see it for yourself! Thereby I don’t claim at all to know the truth about reality, that is a very lengthy and difficult process, you’re constantly grasping in the dark, slowly building a greater awareness and consciousness or reality, slowly ariving at truth that is a direct perception, not a theory!
    An association I get now is that I would not at all be suprised if the endpoint of this search (or a certain point along the way at least), is that what people call “enlightenment”, whatever that may be, but that is just an interesting side-note.

    I should again emphasize this whole story aims at people who want to know TRUTH. It is a really difficult and bumpy road, which requires a lot of self-work. If what you want out of life is to invent the quantumcomputer and win a nobelprize or to simply be happy with your friends & family, by all means go live in the world created/believed by the scientific community or whatever world you want to live in (become a christian?). I don’t see anything wrong with believing this or that, everyone should do whatever feels he has to, or what he thinks is best for him. But if you want to know the truth, I cannot but conclude that you’ll always be deluding yourself that way.

    You could argue that what you arrive at this way can only ever be your own truth, and you would be quite right. But I am lucky enough to know a few other people of who I found out they are at more or less the same road I’m on now. One is an actor and artist, who has instinctively always lived his life the way I describe here, which I was quite happy to find out about! It was also an enormously pleasant suprise to me to find that we have more or less the same ideas about life and of reality, that our “own truth” is more or less the same!! I add this only as an illustration that even though you may arrive at your own truth, this doesn’t mean it can’t be an objective truth. I’m not saying that this is the case, I don’t know that, but it’s a nice pointer. Also interesting to note is that I’ve arrived where I am now by tought, by analyzing thinking itself to the point where I had to conclude that I can never find truth by only thinking (theorizing). He arrived there by sheer intuition, maybe there are other ways too… Anyway, these are just interesting things to think about, not at all relevant to my story.

11. X-Master Says:
    October 14th, 2009 at 1:44 am

    Sothilde: I was going to mention Descartes. But only because he thought that his senses where deceiving him, where as you have hit on something much deeper, that our own minds/thinking are the deceivers when we load them up with assumptions, beliefs, and other preconceived notions of reality.

    But either way, truth can be considered a multi-faceted diamond, each facate a path that is neither superior nor inferior to any other path, but all eventually lead to the same place in the end.

12. jack Says:
    October 21st, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    I disagree.
    Who wants to agree anyways?

    To say that life is deterministic is way too certain a tone. Just because there are other scientific tests with simple formulas may produce complicated results, does not mean that we follow that rule. The application is too much of a leap, if I understood it. Maybe life is deterministic, but not entirely. To say there’s fate, but there must be some doubts that may change it. What if, perhaps some other force may change the natural order of what is deterministic?

    Just guessing, and never want to accept a random future that’s already laid out.

13. Nezz Says:
    October 27th, 2009 at 2:11 am

    What if Reality is not as complex as we think it is. Because so many things seems to perplex us in this world, I have been recently adopting a point of view that, to me, makes sense. It feels that as we progress in time, so does our mathematical models and physics laws. But why? Is it because we discover new and more things the more time we spend researching and experimenting? Or is it simply because as we continue to explore more (with earlier discoveries as our foundation) we begin to alter reality with our own perceptions and expectations of what me may find out in the ether and how we believe something may function. I guess what I am trying to say is that Collective Consciousness can be altering reality. When a new idea comes out, and the more people begin to accept this new idea, then the more our thoughts of acceptance alter reality to fit that new idea. Then something new comes along and our collective consciousness molds that new idea into our reality, while still keeping old ones a part of our reality as well.

    I dont know if that makes sense to you all, but thats what I have been looking into recently. No idea is right or wrong. It all has merit, because simply thinking “what if” puts it into reality as a measurable possibility. But the more people that go with one idea over an other establish it into reality by accepting it until something new until something more exotic is thought up and created to replace the old idea’s.

    tl;dr version: As we grow more aware of our surroundings, we alter the physics behind them with our Consciousness by creating idea’s on how we may think things behave.

    Sean, I dont know if you have ever played around with Mass Consciousness Experiments, but I have an interesting idea. It seems your efforts and procedures in winning the lottery were not entirely wrong. Maybe your will was just not strong enough to make it happen. What if you just needed a little help. A little more will power from us. I dont know how many readers you have to this site, but what if every night we look at a picture of you and Imagine/pray/will you winning. Maybe our collective thoughts are what you need

    I think a lot of answers in this world can quite simply be that we are in control of reality, right down to the physics we observe.

    -Nezz

14. Nezz Says:
    October 27th, 2009 at 2:17 am

    P.S. Damn it Sean, you need to add an Edit Button >_>… damn typos…. *sighs*

15. foobot3000 Says:
    November 1st, 2009 at 9:51 am

    What if reality contains the capacity for both free will and determinism? In psychology we see that people are born with genetic predispositions toward certain mental diseases, however it is not an absolute fact that a person will develop said disease given the enviornment in which the person is born. I think it’s the same type of thing in quantum mechanics, where simply oberving the experiment changes it. There are deterministic factors in the universe and there are varibles which can alter those factors.

16. deusxmachina Says:
    November 11th, 2009 at 12:16 am

    First, reality is NOT deterministic, it is stochastic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic

    BIG difference, considering they’re antonyms

    Secondly, because there are so many random variables in reality, the probability of a single quantum event occurring can’t even be calculated. For example, if you have a quantum event analogous to a coin flip, you can know it’ll be at least 49.99% heads and 49.99% tails, but you can never know truly what it’s final probability is going to be.

    The rest is lost in statistical summation (which can’t be calculated perfectly, anyways). That means that thermodynamics can’t “know” if that extra 0.002% is purely randomly decided, or determined by some yet unknown conscious factor.

    Having ‘true free will’ once in every 5000 events (made up numbers here) doesn’t seem like much, but a single human brain has billions of stochastic events going on simultaneously at any moment.

    Free will is still a very real possibility. The math says so.

### Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

- ## Pages

  - Welcome!
  - Blog
  - Forums
  - Games
    - Emergence Game
    - Geiger Game
    - Lottery Game
  - Contact

- ## Experiments

  - Lottery Project, Part 1
  - Lottery Project, Part 2

- ## Categories

  - Belief Systems (28)
  - Books (7)
  - Consciousness (4)
  - Conspiracy (5)
  - Dream Phenomenon (24)
  - ESP (17)
  - How-To (11)
  - Lottery (32)
  - Note to Self (21)
  - Personal Development (17)
  - Philosophy (31)
  - Random Stuff (11)
  - Science (26)
  - Subconscious (14)
  - Uncategorized (1)
  - Video (16)
  - Website (13)

- ## Archives

  - November 2011
  - November 2010
  - June 2010
  - February 2010
  - December 2009
  - November 2009
  - October 2009
  - August 2009
  - July 2009
  - May 2009
  - April 2009
  - March 2009
  - February 2009
  - January 2009
  - November 2008
  - October 2008
  - September 2008
  - August 2008
  - July 2008
  - June 2008
  - May 2008
  - April 2008
  - March 2008
  - February 2008
  - January 2008
  - December 2007
  - November 2007
  - October 2007
  - September 2007
  - August 2007
  - July 2007
  - June 2007
  - May 2007
  - April 2007

- ## Links

  - A State of Mind
  - Dreaming to Infinity
  - Monroe Institute on YouTube
  - Shifted Perspectives
  - UC Berkeley on YouTube

- ## Meta

  - Login
  - Valid XHTML

All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2007-2009 Sean Connelly and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.
Best viewed with Firefox, with minimum resolution of 1024 x 768. Microsoft can suck my balls.
A Little Weird is proudly powered by WordPress - Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).