Screaming Specks of Dust or Are We Moving Against The Machine?
Game Theory
I can't stand village- or character-building games. They're so boring forcing you to work for things I can’t imagine spending my time on or trying to complete a stage to reach the boss stage. Even as a kid, they weren’t just my last choice; they weren’t even in my top 100. So, I never understood the hype around certain characters or video games in general.
That’s why, when I hear theories about life being one big video game, I immediately dismiss them as a failure of creativity. Not only is it a boring, simple and weak answer, let’s entertain the idea for a second: if life is a video game, that means someone picked me as their character. Just think about that. Let it sink in. That means they suck at this game. The character they’re building? Yeah… we’ve been stuck in survival mode since 2015. Meanwhile, other players are out here making $100 million just for playing a sport and others out here pretending to live for our enjoyment making the same. Yeah, no. They did not build me right to win. Furthermore, what even is winning in this game?! Just no. I can’t accept it.
Beyond that, the whole theory ignores how wildly different everyone’s experiences are. If life were a game, wouldn’t we all be progressing at the same rate? Leveling up at predictable milestones? But that’s not the case—everyone is all over the place. The board must be infinite, with infinite solutions. And honestly? That just doesn’t seem plausible. I can’t even begin to imagine such a concept.
So, if that’s not the answer to “Is free will an illusion?” then what is?
Does anything really matter?
As humans, we don’t know much about ourselves. All we really know is that we’re just small screaming specks of dust—trapped in this mental asylum called Earth or, my personal favorite, a floating rock. And questions that make us question where we are in the universe only, highlight, how few answers we have about why we’re even here.
But those questions open an entirely new can of worms: Are our souls in our hearts, our brains, or maybe both? Are they even souls at all? Or on the other hand, does destiny exist, or is every move we make preplanned? Do we have choices? We can’t even ignore these questions because they all tie back to the big one: Is free will an illusion? If we want an answer, we’ve got to jump through some major hoops. So, let’s dive in.
As we wade through these questions, we inevitably stumble upon the concept of determinism—the idea that all events, including our choices, are dictated by prior causes and natural laws. If determinism holds true, then every decision we make isn’t really a decision at all but rather the inevitable outcome of a chain reaction set in motion long before we were even born. Where did you come from and whom did you come out of? Your lineage says a lot about yourself before you even were born because the people before you (your family) and their families before them (grandparents, aunts, uncles) and even before them built/maintained the family’s (encompassing all) image.
Philosophers like Spinoza and Laplace have argued that if we had complete knowledge of the past and the governing forces of the universe, we could predict every future event with certainty. I disagree because even with godly powers to control every single person, what the actual fucking crazy shitshow world we live in today! Donald Duck in office, the TikTok ban, the LA fires, winter storms on the East coast and war crimes being committed in Gaza? I’m sorry but, that all cannot be predicted like some Chess game or done by a master genius.
If determinism suggests that every action is predetermined, libertarianism pushes back, arguing that humans possess true free will—our choices are not dictated by prior causes but stem from our independent agency. This view insists that while external factors may influence our decisions, they do not determine them. Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre take this even further, claiming that we are "condemned to be free," meaning we cannot escape the responsibility that comes with making choices. If libertarianism is correct, then every decision we make is ours alone, unshaped by fate or necessity. But this raises another problem: If our choices are truly free, what drives them? Are they random, or do they come from something deeper within us?
It seems counterintuitive to say our choices are random. In fact, I’d argue that most, if not all, of our actions are caused by something—whether internal, external, or even metaphorical. There is always a reason or motive behind why someone does what they do, and that motive could be our chance at choice. If we are entirely free, as libertarians claim, then why would anyone choose poverty, illness, or stagnation? Why would someone have a heart attack or fail to mature? Actions have consequences, but they also stem from something larger—perhaps a mix of personal agency and forces beyond our control. If free will exists, it may not be as absolute as it seems. Which is scarier however, lifts the burden for those who need it.
Where I find myself hesitating between the two ideas are on separate sides of the spectrum. I try to find an idea in the middle that can complement both sides and I stumble across existentialism. Existentialists like Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir embrace the idea that free will exists, but with a heavy cost—absolute responsibility. They argue that humans are not bound by fate or determinism but instead must create their own meaning through the choices they make. There is no cosmic plan, no predestined path—only the weight of our own decisions.
This is something I can get behind for a number of reasons. It acknowledges that humans have the ability to change, to choose their own path, and to shape their future through free will. More importantly, it reinforces the idea that with choice comes responsibility—we must accept the consequences of our actions, whether good or bad. None of the other theories fully address this accountability. If determinism is true, and our actions were never truly ours to begin with, then who is to blame when things go wrong? If fate controls everything, where does personal responsibility fit in?
But even if we accept that free will exists, the question remains: how much of it do we really have? External circumstances—social class, upbringing, genetics—undeniably shape our decisions. Can someone born into poverty truly have the same freedom of choice as someone born into wealth? Can we say a person who experiences trauma, or a serious illness has the same ability to choose as someone who hasn’t? Maybe free will isn’t a simple yes-or-no question but something more layered—something that exists on a spectrum, influenced by both our personal agency and forces beyond our control.
Pragmatists like William James approach the question from a different angle. Rather than obsessing over whether free will actually exists, James suggests that believing in it is what truly matters. The idea that we can make real choices gives us a sense of control and moral responsibility, shaping the way we live. Whether free will is an illusion or not, acting as if we have it might be the most important part of the equation. The more we believe in our own agency, the more freeing life feels.
In society, we do this all the time. When life gets overwhelming, we buy sweet treats or a new pair of shoes to lift our spirits. These small acts give us the illusion of control, even if, deep down, we know they’re just distractions. It’s a kind of reverse psychology we play on ourselves—tricking our minds into feeling something different, something lighter.
So I'll Just Make Believe
But the truth is, we can’t say with absolute certainty how things work. Life is more of a “trust the process” kind of deal. And honestly, I get it. I understand why people turn to religion in times of philosophical debate—sometimes, we need something bigger than ourselves to make sense of it all. We’re just mortal beings who love to talk, question, and theorize, even when we have no solid evidence to back it up. And when science finally does catch up, we still debate. Maybe that’s just part of what it means to be human.
Contrary to all the Florence + The Machine Easter eggs, the song of the week goes to Jenae Ailia for Chameleon. Fun fact: she’s a Sacramento native! I had no idea until I stumbled across her Spotify bio—what are the odds? This track blends deep bass with crisp beats, creating a rich, atmospheric sound that her voice effortlessly glides over. It’s the kind of song that shifts with your mood, just like its name suggests. One moment, it feels smooth and mellow; the next, it pulses with an energy that’s impossible to ignore.
It’s a song about change, about adapting, about figuring out who you are in different spaces—something that ties perfectly into the conversation of free will. Something I feel as I turning 24 yesterday. I just feel different; my aura has changed and as I get closer to 25, I know, I will be a completely different person. I am excited! So, stay tuned for the roller-coaster.
Enjoy This Journey With Me
° 𐐪𐑂 ♡ 𐐪𐑂 ₒ 𐐪𐑂 ♡ 𐐪𐑂 °
Enjoy This Journey With Me ° 𐐪𐑂 ♡ 𐐪𐑂 ₒ 𐐪𐑂 ♡ 𐐪𐑂 °
This isn’t the end—just a bookmark in the conversation. Stories don’t really close; they unfold, shift, and find new voices. If this one stirred something in you, let it breathe. Leave a thought, challenge an idea, or carry it forward in your own way. And if you ever feel like wandering through more unfinished thoughts, you know where to find me. Let’s keep the conversation alive. ~XOXO
