I recently  made a post talking about free will. After that, I read another post from Holoz0r discussing how free will doesn't exist.
Now, I believe I have free will, and I left it at that. But when I saw Holoz0r’s post — and a renowned professor talking about how free will doesn’t exist because all our choices are determined by life experiences and genetics — it made me think.
Sure, you can look at it that way. But then again, there’s no way to prove whether free will exists or not. I mean, I can’t go back in time and choose differently to test it.
If you believe in the multiverse theory, you might think that there are infinite possibilities where you made different choices — like letting intrusive thoughts win, singing on your commute, choosing peace, or even choosing chaos.
But it all gets messy when we introduce infinity — or even just big numbers — into our thinking. At some point, we can’t see the outcome. Not because it’s impossible, but because there are too many possibilities.
Think of it like this:

2 + 3 is the same as 3 + 2. Simple, right?

Now add another number: 1 + 2 + 3 can be arranged as 3 + 2 + 1, 2 + 3 + 1, 1 + 3 + 2, 2 + 1 + 3, and 3 + 1 + 2.

Even with just one more number, the possibilities grow fast.

Now imagine trying that with numbers from 1 to 100 — the number of combinations becomes incredibly large, this is only with adding the numbers that’s not even close to infinity.

We have a certain number of chromosomes, a certain number of neurons — and everything that affects how we think and act. So unless we could somehow count and calculate every interaction between all those atoms and inputs, we can’t truly say that free will doesn't exist either.

That, too, becomes a belief.
No offense, but I think that professor believes there's no free will. And there's nothing wrong with that — it’s their view. But I don't think people should teach ideas as absolute truths unless they’re 100% provable.
This is just my opinion, which might be just as wrong — or just as right — as the professor’s. Because if there's no free will, then there’s also no true right or wrong. Nothing at all, really.

I like to keep things simple, I try to explain things in words even a toddler could understand, Here’s an example — the laws of thermodynamics:

<div class="pull-right"> 

Scientific version:

Zeroth Law: If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. (This defines temperature.)

First Law: Energy can’t be created or destroyed — only changed from one form to another. Usually from most kinds to heat  (This is the conservation of energy.)

Second Law: In any natural process, the total entropy of an isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. This law implies that some energy in a process is always converted to unusable heat. 

Third Law: As a system gets closer to absolute zero (0 K), its entropy gets closer to zero. For a perfect crystal, the entropy is zero at absolute zero.

</div>  <div class="pull-left">  

Toddler version:

Zeroth Law: If A is the same temperature as B, and B is the same as C, then A and C are the same.
That’s how thermometers work!

First Law: You can’t make or destroy energy.
You can only move it or change it. Like gas in a car turning into movement, or food turning into body heat.

Second Law: Heat always moves from hot to cold on its own.
Things get messier over time. Ice melts. Rooms get messy. Machines can't run forever without energy.

Third Law: The colder something gets, the less its atoms move.
At absolute zero, atoms would stop — but you can never really get there. It’s like chasing something you can’t catch.
</div>  


Maybe this isn’t the perfect example, but I often feel like there’s an invisible (or sometimes very visible) wall that people build to exclude those they see as “less intelligent.” I don’t think it should be that way.

I believe people should share information and help others understand it. Most topics — even the so-called “complicated” ones — can be grasped by the average person. It just depends on how it's explained.

Take something like nuclear energy or rocket science — these are often used as examples of "impossible-to-understand" subjects. But the core ideas behind them can be simplified and explained in a way that even kids or young people can understand.

That’s how I think these things should be taught:
Start with the basics in plain language. Then, when someone gets curious and asks more questions, that’s the moment learning truly begins.

For example, I could explain that nuclear power plants make energy by boiling water. The steam that comes from that boiling water spins a turbine, and that turbine, connected to a dynamo, generates electricity.

That explanation is accurate at its core. And if someone finds that interesting and wants to know more about how nuclear fission works or dynamos are  — then they’ve already taken the first step into actually learning.