Either the Big Bang was caused by a conscious entity or it was not. If one would think it was caused by a conscious entity, then one would ask: "What was this entity caused by then?"

The infinite regress problem. The usual "solution" to this problem is, of course, to just define this entity as the first cause, as the unmoved mover. But this is bullshit, because to assume that the universe had its cause in itself is just as justified, even *more* justified, because if you assume the universe to be caused by something that is not the universe, you are multiplying entities beyond necessity and are thus in violation of [Occam's Razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor).

Well, about a week ago it hit me: It's exactly the other way round!

What is an unmoved mover?

Such a mover would be something that is the source for cause. A causer which generates movement out of nothing, out of "silence". Something that is not just a mechanical part of a cause&effect chain but which can, without any underlying rule system, be a cause by itself.

So...

...if we, the humans, had true free will, however tightly it were interwoven into the cause&effect ocean of the universe and however intensely it were bombarded with decision situations coming from the surrounding world...

*...then we, the humans, were unmoved movers.*

(Otherwise, we'd be bio-robots.)

*And if that were so, then unmoved movers would exist. And if that were so, then to assume that the Big-Bang-beginning of the cause&effect ocean was caused by something else than a conscious unmoved mover would be a violation of Occam's Razor.*

About free will:

Are we machines? Imagine a situation in which we could decide between, say, two outcomes, and however much we think or investigate: We can't see a reason to decide for outcome A or outcome B. For example: The vendor of product A is not closer to our home than the one of product B, the price is the same, the color is different but doesn't matter to us etc., you get the picture: No outside (reality) or inside (head) reason can be found to prefer outcome A over outcome B or vice versa.

What to do? You can either:

* not decide at all (which you technically did for a few minutes)

* decide for outcome A

* decice for outcome B

If we come to one of the three decisions, it was either a physical/chemical influence of the universe - or we actually decided out of FREE WILL. If so, then...

*...we were unmoved. And we created motion.*

So, *if* we have free will, then we can create that which is called "randomness". Random not just because the reason for the outcome is unknown but because the reason for the outcome is by definition unknowable.

Could true free will exist in the world? I think yes.

[Uncertainty principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)

> It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself and hence it expresses a property of the universe.

Reality is not simply un-measurable there. It is - proven mathematically - blurry. This is also the reason that we cannot "look back" to the beginning of the world closer than a Planck time's distance from the actual beginning. This is not a disability which we might overcome with more sciency equipment. It is just impossible.

But *something* is there. And even though it cannot be touched by us, it coexists perfectly with the natural world. And something is "down there" on the Quantum scale of reality, too. It might very well be us.

As if the cause&effect pixel chaos of reality were swimming on a cushion of arbitrariness.

Maybe we are not robots but, just like a dice, able to create true randomness. The Uncertainty Princible which we know for 80 years now to be true effectively states that the precise outcome of a dice throw is absolutely incalculatable.

Admittedly, we do whatever we do based on the infrastructure of reality, and the source for reality itself is yet unknown.

But - if we generate true randomness then we effectively *generate reality* (based on the reality which already exists).

Why shouldn't there be one who set it all in motion in the first place?

To assume that the first motion was caused by something else than the elements that we, if we assume to have free will, know to exist - unmoved movers - is a violation of Occam's Razor.

Linda Answer: Occam's Razor - If there are a number of explanations for observed phenomena, the simplest explanation is preferred. Called also scientific parsimony. When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.

In scientific theories A superficially simple phenomenon may have a complex mechanism behind it. A simple explanation would be simplistic if it failed to capture all the essential and relevant parts. Instead, one should choose the simplest explanation that explains the most data. God did it explains nothing.

Basically no one should believe something for which one has no evidence; or, alternatively, that of two ideas which explain the same evidence, the simpler idea is to be preferred, (but not ideas for which you have no evidence.) There actually is not evidence that the existence of everything came from "FREE WILL" any more than there is evidence of everything coming from "Consciousness."

On this Wednesday 07- 01- 09, Large Hadron Collider Particle accelerator Physicists turn on the multibillion-pound machine that will recreate the birth of the universe the greatest experiment in history.

The main aim of the LHC is finding the Higgs Boson, an elementary particle that is predicted by the Standard Model but that has never been observed. The Standard Model is a theory that unites three of the four known fundamental forces among elementary particles - Strong Nuclear, Electromagnetic and Weak interaction.

The LHC is another step in finding the "Theory of everything" that fully explains all existing physical phenomena, linking all four major forces together, including gravity.

Einstein famously said, "the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". The universe isn't anarchic - it's full of patterns and structures.

We know that the essence of all substances - their colour, texture, hardness and so forth - is set by the atoms of which they are made, and by how those atoms are linked together.

We know that in every cell of every living creature, atoms are configured into proteins and tangled strings of DNA. We know, even, that these atoms were all synthesized from pristine hydrogen by processes deep inside stars that died before our solar system came into being. We are literally the ashes of ancient stars - the "nuclear waste" from the fuel that made them shine.We know, also, what forces acted on those stars, and act on our bodies. The forces uncovered by Faraday and Newton to the so-called "nuclear" force that actually holds the nuclei of atoms together - and without this force there would be no carbon, no oxygen and no life.

Science is something that everyone has the right to know about and it is intellectual imprisonment not to understand the chain of events that caused atoms, stars and planets to emerge and life on this planet to evolved.

Within the LHC's circular tunnel, 27km in circumference, beams of protons will be accelerated to up to 99.999999 per cent of the speed of light, this is a enormous achievement for science. When they smash together, they will generate concentrations of energy resembling those that occurred during the first trillionth of a second after the Big Bang (without the explosive consequences). Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: The sub-atomic world is inherently "fuzzy" the only way to sharpen up fine detail is by using very fast-moving and energetic particles as probes. And this is what the LHC will do.

The LHC may reveal surprises about the nature of space itself. Some theories, in fact, suggest that space is actually 10-dimensional, or that there may be other entire universes "alongside" ours, like sheets of paper separated by less than a millimeter, but separated forever because they are in different dimensions.

Science will always find new questions to answer - but anyone who thinks that we are not answering these questions is wrong. The "god of the gaps" has never answered anything, and neither has the "we will never know" that I think some people hang their hats on to convince themselves that there is a god. Many of the questions that we are now engaged in answer could not have even been posed 20 years ago. Just as we have mastered things like evolution the forces and particle of the micro-world will one day fall into some pattern that seems simple, too. That is what the LHC is about - and even if our generation does not find the answers, what we discover will enable the future generations, who will go on and find more answers for understanding things that "we will never know."

This was an amazing answer. Interesting there is not rebuttal.

I'm pretty sure that the ignorant stalker won't chime in on this one either.