Of No Free Will, Consciousness and the Paranormal Nature of our Puppeteer

As we strengthen our understanding that free will is an illusion – that because both causality and acausality render it impossible, free will must be an illusion – questions naturally arise from this realization. If what we think, feel, and do is not fundamentally up to us, how do we describe, and what properties do we attribute to, our puppeteer? If we humans are only pragmatically responsible for our moral acts, and are more properly identified as their most proximate causes, is it accurate to hold our puppeteer morally responsible for them? And what of the nature of consciousness? If our consciousness is not truly our own, can we properly attribute this property to our puppeteer? Let’s now set the premises for our exploration, and then examine the implications and conclusions they invite.

We begin by describing our puppeteer as whatever created the Big Bang that set in motion the causal chain of events behind every event thereafter, including every human act. Causality is the process by which our reality evolves, but this physical and logical law doesn’t fully describe what is actually doing the causing. Before progressing, we must pause to acknowledge an understanding that seems to defy our reasoning abilities. Reason tells us that the cause of the Big Bang must itself have been caused, and that cause must also have been caused, and we are naturally left bewildered by the logical conclusion that the causal chain of pre-Big Bang universal events must regress eternally into the past. In other words, logically, we can never arrive at a causal point that we would identify as the beginning, and fundamental cause, of everything. Because of this seemingly insoluble conundrum, we will simply assume as a working premise that whatever created the Big Bang can be contextually described as the fundamental cause, and, just as an author of a book can be described as possessing the concepts that are expressed in the work, whatever caused the Big Bang can be said to possess the concepts expressed in the phenomena it gave rise to.

Now we can move on to the nature of consciousness. Although there are over twenty different definitions of consciousness in psychology, the most generally accepted working definition is that consciousness is awareness. Taking a non-dualistic perspective, since reality is reducible to the quantum particles and forces that make up the universe, we must also conclude that consciousness is a physical property. This naturally invites the question; can we describe what created the Big Bang as having consciousness? Logically, it seems we must.

Now, for a more complete understanding of the nature of this universal consciousness, we turn to the two most fundamental mysteries of quantum mechanics – the double-slit experiment and quantum entanglement. In the double-slit experiment, single particles apparently know in advance the trajectories of particles to follow. Otherwise how could we explain the interference pattern gradually emerging as single particles are fired one at a time at the surface on which the pattern is found? So, it seems precognition is a fundamental property of elementary particles. From that conclusion, and reminding ourselves that consciousness is a physical property, we can presume that consciousness has precognizant properties.

The other great mystery of quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement, reveals that particles at a distance theoretically as far apart as opposite edges of our known universe share information at a rate thousands of times faster than the speed of light – in effect, instantaneously. Change the particle property known as spin to “up” of one entangled particle, and its partner’s spin will change to “down.” Change the spin of this second particle back to “up,” and its partner, the first particle, will change its spin to “down.” This is not theory; it is a scientific, empirically demonstrable, fact that is actually giving rise to a new generation of quantum computers that can teleport information at speeds exceeding the speed of light. One brief note: Einstein’s Relativity prohibits particles from accelerating from below to above the speed of light. It does not prohibit particles from consistently traveling at speeds beyond the speed of light, which is what happens in quantum entanglement. So, we must now conclude that consciousness, again reminding ourselves that it is comprised of mass-energy, as we believe is everything else in our physical universe, has the property of teleportation.

So, what does all of this tell us about the nature and attributes of the puppeteer responsible for all of our human feelings, thoughts and actions? Merriam-Webster defines paranormal as what is “very strange and not able to be explained by what scientists know about nature and the world.” All of this seems very clearly to tell us that this puppeteer does indeed have a consciousness that can both unaccountably know the future, as in the paranormal phenomenon we term clairvoyant precognition, and can unaccountably transmit information across vast distances in space, as in the paranormal phenomenon we term clairvoyant telepathy. Who’d have thought that the pre-Big Bang universe that we can describe as the puppeteer behind all we humans do is both conscious and paranormally clairvoyant in its properties?

Free Will, Weight Gain and Cruelty

Since launching my April 2010 Manhattan Meetup group in order to move the exploration of free will from academia where it languished in obscurity to the public spotlight, and to create a buzz among people about free will being nothing more than an illusion, my associates and I have worked hard to craft strategies to best deliver our message. As we’ve discovered over these last five years, although most of us clearly understand and appreciate the logic behind why free will is impossible, many are not yet able to overcome the motivated reasoning that, as science writer Chris Mooney explains in his book The Republican Brain, compels them to dismiss even the most unequivocal evidence refuting free will in favor of their personal, emotion-based belief. In other words, many people remain emotionally incapable of accepting this admittedly challenging truth that we human beings do not have a free will until they are given a powerful reason to reject their personal biases, and the logic and evidence surrounding the matter.

It seems the compelling motive to help people overcome their resistance to accepting the true nature of human will is finally at hand; and this development was not accomplished by accident or pure luck. Several months ago, my colleagues and I created a podcast called Free Will, Science and Religion. Although we publish our episodes at a rate of at least three each week through YouTube and iTunes, they haven’t yet received the kind of attention we had initially expected. But soon after we started the project, it dawned on us that these podcasts represented far more than another vehicle through which to popularize the refutation of free will. We realized that our discussions were becoming very effective means for brainstorming perplexing questions such as

a) Why are some doctoral level academics, even those who have written books on the topic, incapable of appreciating the inescapable conclusion that both causality and acausality (sometimes referred to as randomness and probabilistic behavior) equally make free will impossible, and that, in fact, no action mechanism has ever been proposed to explain how a human will operating free of factors outside of its control is even conceptually possible?

b) What does the public need to hear that will enable them to overcome their emotional need to believe they have a free will?

It was during our podcast recorded on Saturday evening, July 25, that a very powerful answer to this second question came to us. The podcast was hosted by Chandler Klebs, who is the executive producer of our series, and cohosted by David Joseph and me. At Chandler’s suggestion, we began to explore the unfairness and cruelty behind so many overweight and obese people being blamed by others, and even blaming themselves, for their weight gain, and for their failure to lose that weight. We understood that although genetic factors, like glandular conditions, are at times the cause of this sustained weight gain, environmental factors were clearly far more to blame for this weight gain. After all, here in the United States, during the 1940s and 50s, many more people were slender than are now.

To Chandler’s credit, (well, not fundamentally, of course, since he does lack a free will) what motivated him to propose this topic was his compassion and concern for the welfare and happiness of others. This empathy is not uncharacteristic of Chandler; he has devoted most of his adult life to championing the rights those of us who are vulnerable to abuse by others, and often also by society at large.

So, as we were exploring how unfair and irrational it is that overweight and obese people are almost ubiquitously blamed for what the consensus in medicine now considers a medical condition, an epiphany came to us. We realized that overweightness is not just an excellent way of demonstrating why we humans do not have a free will, which was a major part of our original intent for the episode. During the course of the half-hour discussion, we came to realize that overweightness and obesity were, in fact, the message we had been searching for during the last few years that would finally enable society to understand that no, we do not have a free will, and that our getting this answer right is not inconsequential; getting this right matters profoundly to many of us. We now had our message. And, at the very end of the podcast, David, with his characteristic keen wit, provided us the title of this game-changing episode; The No Free Will Diet!

We desperately needed to find a compelling personal reason for people to care about the question of whether we humans have a free will, and, more importantly, to side with those of us, including Darwin, Freud, and Einstein, who understand free will to be nothing more than an unscientific, irrational, delusion. Chandler was quick to point out that two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, and we soon thereafter realized that these majority of Americans are perfect allies in our goal to have the public understand the true nature of human will.

Overweight and obese Americans suffer terribly from the stigma and cruelty associated with these conditions. They are tired of being blamed for a condition over which they clearly do not have control. Many of them believe they have a free will, and deeply blame themselves for being too weak-willed, or too gluttonous, or simply too irresponsible, to maintain a healthy weight. I think you’re beginning to see how our world’s overweight and obese population has far more reason than do most of us for overcoming this pervasive myth of free will, and for demanding that others also do so.

And so, now that, thanks to Chandler, we finally have a very powerful message by which to motivate people to overcome the self-serving reasons that prevent them from seeing the clear logic behind free will being an illusion, and gives them a strong self-serving reason to finally see and appreciate that logic, expect us to stay focused on this message like a laser.

We will be revisiting overweightness and obesity as the compelling personal reason by which humanity can finally squarely face free will, and admit that the notion is nothing but an illusion, again and again during upcoming episodes of this podcast. And expect cohost ‘Trick Slattery to soon amplify this powerful message on his blog, Breaking the Free Will Illusion, and cohost Nick Vale, whose every-Wednesday-at-11pm Manhattan live call-in TV show Free Will? reaches a potential audience of half a million viewers, to feature the message on his show. I will also be devoting entire episodes to this theme on my weekly White Plains, New York TV show Exploring the Illusion of Free Will, as well as posting a series of follow-up articles on this blog.

American philosopher John Searle, who happens to be ranked 13th among post-1900 philosophers cited most frequently in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is quoted in Susan Blackmore’s 2005 book Conversations on Consciousness as having said that for free will to be finally acknowledged by our world as an illusion would represent “a bigger revolution in our thinking than Einstein, or Copernicus, or Galileo, or Newton, or Darwin – it would alter our whole conception of our relation to the universe.” Yes, that’s how big this is!

There is a time for ideas to come, and sometimes a time for them to go. Our human belief in free will is nearing the end of its reign. As I pointed out in my recent book Free Will: Its Refutation, Societal Cost and Role in Climate Change Denial, our belief in free will causes much more harm than good across domains that span far beyond cruelty and unfairness to the overweight and obese among us. Expect more and more free will believers to abandon that sinking ship during these coming years, as yet another catalyst to humans abusing other humans falls to the truth, and a compelling message, thanks in large part to the compassion and sharp intellect of Chandler Klebs.

Human Lack of Free Will Demonstrates Universal Consciousness and Intelligence

Free-Will-Consciousness-IntSome claim the universe is neither conscious nor intelligent. However, by making use of the understanding that free will is an illusion, we can demonstrate that the universe must, in fact, be intelligent, and hence, also conscious. Following is the argument, expressed as propositional premises and conclusions.


Lack of Free Will and Fundamental Moral Responsibility

P1. Lacking free will means our moral acts are not fundamentally morally attributable to us.

P2. This is so because our nature and nurture caused, and fully explain, our moral acts.

P3. But we cannot hold nature and nurture fundamentally morally responsible either because they both have causes that precede them, and these causes can be described generally as the universe causally evolving, and governed by its physical laws.

C: So, unless we were to suggest that there is no such thing as fundamentally attributable morality, we would have to most fundamentally attribute all moral acts to the universe at the Big Bang event, or to whatever caused the Big Bang.

Now let’s apply this reasoned argument to intelligence.


Lack of Free Will and Universal Intelligence

P1. Lacking free will means our intelligent acts are not fundamentally attributable to us.

P2. This is so because our nature and nurture caused, and fully explain, our intelligent acts.

P3. But we cannot fundamentally attribute these intelligent acts to nature and nurture because they both have causes that precede them, and these causes can be described generally as the universe causally evolving, and governed by its physical laws.

C: So, unless we were to suggest that there is no such thing as a fundamentally attributable intelligent act, we would have to most fundamentally attribute all intelligent acts to the universe at the Big Bang event, or to whatever caused the Big Bang.

Yes, these causal chains may lead us to an infinite regress wherein we may never get to the point where either a moral or intelligent act is most fundamentally caused, but we must nonetheless acknowledge that this eternally regressing universe would be the fundamental cause of the morality and intelligence we, as humans, express.

George Ortega on Free Will at Michael Donovan’s Walking Home Podcast


Last Wednesday I had the privilege and pleasure of being a guest on Michael’s podcast, Walking Home!

Quotes from his site:

MICHAEL DONOVAN is a prolific multi-disciplined creative visionary…His work has appeared in Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, Elle, Marie Claire, Playboy, L’Officiel, Ginza, Vision, and Wonderland. Clients include Interscope, Sony, The Pierre Hotel and Gap.

Author and visionary, George Ortega has a clear message for us:  Free Will is an Illusion.

Every choice you’ve made was not yours and you’re acting out a performance designed before you were born. Every decision you make has been pre-determined. In today’s episode of Walking Home, George helps me understand this way of thinking.

Tonight we examine this concept and try to understand how we create art, how we function as a society, how religion and atheism fit in to this paradigm, how important gratitude is in this scheme and more. George has ideas on how business could save the environment, how we can all take part, and how it is already the plan laid out in front of us.

A New Free Will Exploration/Debate Forum!

Calling all free will believers, skeptics, and impossibilists!

You are hereby formally invited to join my TV show’s new co-host, Chandler Klebs, and me, George Ortega, on a forum we have just created exclusively to discuss free will belief, and it’s implications. It’s called George and Chandler on Free Will.

We want to become the “Not Even a Flicker of Free Will” alternative to the Flickers of Freedom site that is largely populated by academics who believe that they have a free will, and seem not very interested in engaging in any kind of meaningful online debate about the matter that might possibly disavow them of that pervasive and pernicious illusion.

Our new forum has a unique feature of allowing only two-sentence responses to the thread introduction and subsequent posts. Here’s how it works, as explained on the forum’s “sticky” post:

Feel free to join Chandler and me in our discussions, but understand that posts must be no longer than two sentences While you’re free to join any and all of our discussions, only one post at a time is allowed per thread, until the post is responded to by another participant,(that’s what no multiposting means).

1) You can post more than one message at a time, one immediately after the other, if you’re addressing separate statements by separate previous posters.

2) Quoting a previous poster is allowed, and is not counted as a separate sentence.

3) Use of semi-colon double sentences is allowed, within reason.

4) You can post using more than two sentences if you’re starting a new thread, but even then, lean toward the concise.

The author of any post longer than two sentences will first be notified by the Admin, or the post will be removed, at the Admin’s discretion. (I’ll try to contact you first).

Why this rule?
Anyone who has followed, or taken part in, free will discussions knows that often participants (especially free will-defenders) will resort to extended, overlong, assertions and explanations, presumably under the mistaken notion that additional words will somehow strengthen their argument. Much more often than not, this type of obfuscation only confuses, or diverts, the discussion.

We’ve just recently begun to explore the subject of free will, and it’s implications. Here is a list of the discussion threads we’ve chosen, (well,.. the universe compelled us to choose) to start with;

Why Do Ostensibly Intelligent Scholars Believe in Free Will?

How Free Will Belief Causes Denial

Free Will Belief and Abortion

How Free Will Belief Causes Fear

How Free Will Belief Causes Arrogance

The Free Will Belief Form of Fatalism

Free Will Belief and Life Having Meaning

Free Will and the Difference Between Choice and Free Choice

Definitions and Refutations of Free Will

Free Will and Animals

Why is it More Harmful than Not to Believe in Free Will?

How Do Compatibilists Re-Define Free Will in Defending it?

How Does Free Will Belief Cause Climate Change Denial?

Why Doesn’t Libertarian Free Will Make Sense?

The universe, or God for those theists among us, plans to have us introduce as many new threads as it takes to cover all of the many factors and questions that relate to the matter of human will, and to the debate over whether or not we humans have a free will (spoiler alert: we don’t!). Again, feel free (pun totally intended) to create a new thread, or join one of our ongoing discussions. Here’s the forum’s registration page. Chandler and I look forward to exploring everything about the question of free will with you!

Belief in Free Will, Fear of God’s Wrath, and Climate Change

One of the biggest reasons most people are incapable of accepting the simple logic that because everything has a cause, free is an illusion is that if we humans are not fundamentally responsible for what we do, that means that God must be. For atheists, who disbelieve in the historical God, and who see the universe as a collection of mass-energy moving aimlessly through space, and lacking consciousness and purpose, this reason is conveniently sidestepped; how can one rationally blame this “thing” of a universe for anything? For those of us who believe in God, or a higher power, or a conscious and purposeful universe, (personally I’m a Pantheist in the sense that I hold God and the universe to be synonymous) such a sidestepping is less possible.

There is, in fact, much more to it than that. Most of us are conditioned from a very early age to believe that if we anger God, we are setting ourselves up for punishment not just in this life, but possibly for an eternity to come after we die. While many of us, as adults, have outgrown, or reconciled, or simply refused to believe in, an omni-benevolent, or all-good, God that could condemn anyone to an eternity of suffering, we find it somewhat harder to let go of the fear that God will nonetheless punish us in this lifetime for the wrongs we do.

Our problem here is that we have been conditioned, whether directly or implicitly, to believe that holding God to be less than all-good is a profound evil. So, in order to evade God’s expected wrath, we subvert, or even quell, our reason in a manner like those victims of the Spanish Inquisition must often have, for the purpose of avoiding merciless torture, completely over-ridden their reason and beliefs, and proclaimed their agreement with whatever their well-meaning, yet truly deranged, tormentors demanded they believe.

But truth is truth. As I wrote in my recent book, Free Will: Its Refutation, Societal Cost and Role in Climate Change Denial;

Refuting free will is straightforward: (a) Everything is caused; (b) Human thoughts are caused; (c) The antecedent causes to human thoughts regress to before the person’s birth; (d) Therefore human thoughts are not fundamentally attributable to a human free will. Some free will defenses assume that demonstrating that human behavior is not fundamentally deterministic might provide an opening for free will, however, choices arising from indeterministic, or uncaused, processes cannot rationally be attributed to anything, including humans. The prospect has emerged that other mechanisms that are described as neither deterministic nor indeterministic, and can be labeled causa sui, (self-caused) or ex nihilo, (out of nothing) may be where a free will resides. However, as Strawson (1994) explains, it has not been shown how a self-caused mechanism allows for free will, and the same can be said for free will arising ex nihilo.

In other words, there exists no action mechanism that rationally or scientifically explains or defends the notion of free will, and the powerful simplicity of this conclusion could not be clearer. Yet many who read the above will refuse to believe it, probably because at a very young age, they were taught that in order to avoid Divine punishment, and earn a place in Heaven, one had better not blame God for anything. One had better adopt and integrate the fiction of a free will that flies in the face of even Biblical pronouncements regarding God’s omniscience, or complete knowledge, and of God’s omnipotence, or complete power. Certainly, if God knows what we will do before we do it, and if God is all-powerful, there is no way that anything we do can, in any fundamental way, be up to us; it must be up to God.

But what if God is now requiring that we understand, and accept, the truth of his complete sovereignty and power over us, and ascribe to Him authorship of all that happens here on Earth? What if He is requiring that, just as we outgrew the Creationism myth in favor of Evolution, we now collectively outgrow this myth of human autonomy we refer to as free will? More to the point, what if He is, upon threat of punishment of the most severe and lasting kind, is actually demanding we evolve beyond the belief in free will?

As unfair as it most rationally and certainly is for God to punish us humans for holding on to a belief that God himself placed, and keeps, in us, this is the surreal reality we now face with regard to our belief in free will, and its relation to climate change denial. You see, as I explain in my book, our belief in free will is causing a substantial percentage of a public climate change denial that, if it continues much longer, will much more likely than not result in an end to the human civilization we have worked so hard, and suffered so much, to create. And as recent climate change research is revealing more robustly, such a collapse is much more likely to occur within a few decades rather than a few centuries.

So, humanity is in quite a quandary regarding our nonsensical, in a very real way extorted, belief in free will. We either abandon it relatively quickly, or pay a price far higher than any of us can likely imagine. We either see God as the author of both good and evil – according to Isaiah 45:7, God Himself proclaims this, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” – or God may visit upon us an evil unlike any other our planet has yet witnessed.

By now, you’re probably wondering about the validity of this free will belief – climate change denial connection. Rather than keep you wondering, here’s the section of my book that addresses the rationale, and presents the research, supporting the theory;

Free will belief also contributes to climate change denial. A correlate to free will belief is that humans are fundamentally, as distinct from pragmatically, responsible for their actions. Pew Research Center (2014) reported that Americans ranked global warming near the bottom of Presidential and Congressional priorities for the years 2009 through 2014, and that only 44 percent of Americans currently believe there is solid evidence the phenomenon exists and is anthropogenic. Seeking a partial explanation for this indifference and denial, Crompton and Kasser (2010) cited evidence that individuals overcome guilt about global warming by denying their actions, refusing to care, and shifting the blame to others. In her study of Norwegian villagers relatively well informed about climate change, Norgaard (2009) found that individuals reported feeling guilty about over-consuming resources and “being a bad person.” (p. 32). Guilt is a self-attribution that requires a belief in free will. Because it is more difficult to rationally feel guilty about behavior over which one believes one has no control, guilt-induced climate change denial is fueled by free will belief.

Individuals whose self-identity is threatened by climate change information reduce the threat by redefining or dismissing the information. Gecas and Burke (1995) suggested that the need to preserve a positive self-concept leads individuals to avoid or selectively accept threatening information, and to work hard to not change their identity. Norgaard (2009) found that individuals re-define situations that threaten self-identity, and Baumeister (1998) reported that individuals dismiss such information. Because positive self-identity is largely predicated on a favorable evaluation of one’s personal morality, and the personal morality construct is dependent on the idea of free will, identity-based redefinition and dismissal of climate change information is also attributable to free will belief.

Crompton and Kasser (2010) recommended the practice of mindfulness, described as “a non-judgmental awareness of one’s experiences,” (p. 26) for one to manage environmental threats to identity, and referenced Brown and Kasser (2005), who found that the practice is empirically associated with positive environmental behavior. Mindfulness practice cultivates through meditation and intent the same attitude of non-judgment that disbelief in free will cultivates through rational assessment. As one deepens one’s understanding of the implications of free will being an illusion, it becomes increasingly difficult to rationally blame others and oneself for held attitudes and expressed behaviors. Freeing oneself of assumed fundamental moral responsibility with its often paralyzing sense of accountability may make it easier to more positively respond to climate change through an empowering attitude of genuine concern.

Kellstedt, Zahran, and Vedlitz (2008) found that helplessness also induced climate change denial. This mechanism is insidious in that the better informed individuals are about climate change, the more helpless they tend to feel, and the greater their need to deny the threat. Individuals value the feeling of efficacy free will belief can foster. Free will belief likely conditions individuals to maintain a sense of fundamental efficacy and, notwithstanding its illusory nature, avoid or deny circumstances that threaten the attitude. Overcoming free will belief may allow individuals to better accept their fundamental, as distinct from pragmatic, helplessness, and thereby reduce their need to deny climate change. While overcoming free will belief would not be easy, humanity may find this fundamental restructuring of human psychology useful. As the world experiences increased climate change impacts, guilt, blame and helplessness may increase, and induce greater denial in a downward spiral. While there are other causes of climate change denial, free will belief-based denial may render humanity psychologically less capable of confronting them.

As it seems quite wrong for me to present this information, and then ask you to buy my brief, extensively referenced, 56-page scholarly work explaining exactly why free will is an illusion, here are two links from which you can download the pdf of the entire book. If you’re a member of Meetup, you can download it for free from here, and if you’re not, you can download it for free from here.

I suppose this places free will defenders in a huge moral dilemma. They can continue to defend the notion, and be held, at least in part, accountable for our world succumbing to climate change (yes, while not actually blaming them, as per the free will belief, our world would nonetheless hold them accountable in order to discourage others from allowing their fears and self-serving beliefs to over-ride their reason, and respect for our best science.) One last, very important, point. There does exist a logical, although perhaps not completely satisfying, way of absolving even God of the evil in this world. If time extends beyond the Big Bang, and regresses eternally into the past, then we never actually reach a decision point that we could identify as being morally responsible for what is to follow. What we will have arrived at through this reasoning is a completely blameless world, which might prove a very helpful perspective.

Book Cover FINAL

The Free Will Debate Pecking Order

It’s interesting how academics on both sides of the issue take the liberty of borrowing my ideas. Well, as the guy who in a matter of a few short years brought the free will debate from academia, where it languished in obscurity for centuries, to the public spotlight, I can understand their implicit appreciation of the established pecking order, and feel honored.

Example One:

On December 2, 2010, I published my revolutionary public work Exploring the Illusion of Free Will. Here’s a link to the second edition, published June 20, 2013.

Now here’s an academic book Gregg Caruso of Corning College published on July 5th, 2013 titled Exploring the Illusion of Free Will and Moral Responsibility. Hmmmm. Wonder where he got the idea for his title?

Example Two:

On April 15, 2014 I published my revolutionary scholarly work Free Will: Its Refutation, Societal Cost and Role in Climate Change DenialNow here’s a photo of the book’s cover:

Book Cover FINAL

Nice, right! Well, what do you know? Flickers of Freedom, although they would hardly admit it, the blog for academic believers in free will — Ouch! —  just came up with a new banner for their website. Notice the resemblance?

Academia; still clearly behind the curve on this very important debate. But thank you guys for at least inexplicitly acknowledging the established pecking order here. I assure you in all modestly, sans free will as I remain, my achievements in this area more technically, and essentially, belong to the universe.

Here’s my official website  Exploring the Illusion of Free Will

Here’s a YouTube link to over 150 episodes of my pioneering TV series.

George Ortega








Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.