So I must again reconsider my position. The Theory of Agency is beginning to get to me. When I ponder hard-determinism, it simply appears to me far too extreme and far too perfect. We can’t say that perfection exists now can we? Einstein was a hard-determinist and even attempted to prove hard-determinism by his "theory of everything" which desperately failed when it was published. He was at odds with the new field of quantum physics at the time, which was proposing that existence is actually chaos. Einstein couldn't bear the thought of it, and he denied chaos in support of perfection until his death. As of now, it seems that quantum physics has won the debate. Hard-determinism seems logically sound. But I feel it is to simple and perfect to completely be the case.
For these reasons, I try to compromise hard-determinism with quantum physics, but I have realized that it is impossible. I try to call it probabilistic determinism, and that term has merit, but I don't think that it fully captures the whole of it.
So what then, turn to indeterminsm (simple-indeterminism more specifically)? After all, that is with what quantum physics would agree. Simple indeterminism seems to be logically sound as well. It suggests that things happen at random on a nanoscopic subatomic level and this culminates to produce unnoticed (almost invisible) macroscopic results. However this seems to be a bit too extreme too. As a side not, it obviously can't be complex-indeterminism, because everything would be popping in and out of existence and changing shape at every moment (true chaos). That is obviously not the case.
It is true that hard-determinism and simple-indeterminism are both pitted against free will. Though they are also pitted against each other. So I try to figure how to reconcile the competition of these to compelling views. Surely, the answer must be somewhere in the middle.
So I am confronted with the theory of agency, and I must admit that it is compelling as well. I have to further admit, that I was a bit put off at first because it seemed like a way out. It seemed like it was trying to support free will without admitting it. But after careful consideration, I begin to see it has some merit.
The Order of The Beginning
We look backwards. From a point of singularity, the big bang occurs. All exists where it once did not. Energy births matter and it compounds and cosmically evolves. Hard-determinism would seem to work here. Every moment precedes another where antecedents are necessary. Though at the same time, on a microscopic subatomic level, simple-indeterminism (quantum physics) seems to apply as well. (this is where my theory of realmism would help explain, but I won't go there for fear of complication)
Because on this subatomic level, matter pops in and out of existence (yes undermining the Law of Conservation of Mass) as energy. This indeed creates a small-scale chaos (especially when the universe is relatively young and simple). Though this small-scale chaos will become less noticeable as new atomic elements are created, thus creating a complexity, by which matter is less effected by this small-scale chaos when matter pops in and out of existence. Nevertheless this small-scale chaos will continue forever, far too small to be noticed. But surely it effects the events of nature and reality.
Yet determinism is still hard at work. Because we cannot neglect the fact that some matter remains (despite some of it popping in and out of existence). The fact is, that the majority of matter remains as it is for millions, if not billions of years (after all we did form a law concluding that matter will never be destroyed, because that's how it seems). With the matter that does exist, events are determined by the grand scheme of matter. So when tracing the creation of the Earth, it can be seen as determined, because at that level, everything that happened, happened only because that was the only things that could have happened given the distribution of matter and energy at that time. Nevertheless, indeterminism still plays an underlying role in making some events happen. You could imagine it as a weak wind lightly nudging existence into the direction of shaping new events, though determinism has the majority of the pull. You can imagine indeterminism as wind, and determinism as gravity.
So it is as if indeterminism somehow operates within determinism.
The Problem of Lifeforms
But what happens when organic molecules develop and organisms begin to populate this earth? Life becomes an unfamiliar phenomena that begins to bring question to indeterminism and determinism. Because these organisms seem to move themselves and seem to require no outside forces. They seem to be self sustaining matter. They seem to be manipulators of other matter. So it will seem like a bizarre and unexplainable creation of the cosmos. It becomes difficult to keep determinism or indeterminism in mind, because it is no longer a simple lifeless rigid predictable uniform distribution of matter. When the matter becomes organic, it seems to become too complex to estimate or predict. These organisms complicate things. But can they be explained?
Well it seems they can be. These creatures do seem self sustaining. By the fact that they move themselves and manipulate other matter around them, we begin to forget that they are simply made of atoms, each atom individually inorganic. So we could assume that all of these atoms are just as much under the control of the cosmos as any other bundle of atoms.
Through analysis, we can see that these organisms respond to stimuli, or rather should I say, the atoms that compose this organism, in combination with one another, respond to stimuli composed of outside atoms. The atoms in the brain of the organism, race across the brain to contact other atoms to initiate a response to the stimuli. The organism is simply a puppet of its reactive atoms. So yes, in a sense, the organism is self sustaining. Though in actuality, the atoms of the organism bond together to create molecules that react in specific ways to different specific stimuli, in such a great complexity that it allows the organism to move itself and move other matter to self sustain. Now this should be clear to most so I will not continue much further on this. From the bottom of the animal kingdom, from insects all the way up to something such as a horse, this phenomenon of the organism being alive and responding is very well explained. However, the phenomena (the phenomena of brain activity) becomes much more complex as we move up the animal kingdom. The reason being that the combination of atoms, creating molecules, has grown more complex itself, so the results grow more extraordinary.
The Biggest Problem: Humans
Humans appear (or any other equivalent creature). Here, determinism and indeterminism face their biggest challenge: what appears to be "free will." The level of atomic and molecular complexity has reached such great heights that simple laws that have for so long applied to these atoms begin to get lost in the extravagance of this human organism. But to conclude that these atoms are no longer controlled by the laws of nature would be a great error. Indeed this human organism has reached a new unprecedented level of consciousness far surpassing any other organism. It seems to think for itself and not only move itself, but it seems to ponder how it will move itself, and when. This is the wall we reach. Will this great consciousness let us see beyond our own consciousness? Unlikely so. Yet we ponder further.
Might it be that, through natural evolution, this new atomic molecular complexity has simply taken one more step, beyond which we can see or understand?
I understand it as this: The molecular devices that compose our sustainability work in combination with each other to create what we consider choice. It is a combination of determinism AND indeterminism that existence maintains. To make my point clear, imagine a person faced with the choice of what to do. Let’s suppose he is bored and is simply sitting on his couch. So therefore by this situation, he can have an infinite option of paths to take, i.e. choices. (I will not consider free will as existing b/c the person would be unable to “will” beyond practical limits, thus he has no true “free will”. So here I am addressing free choice instead.) He may “choose” whatever he likes. He can decide to go throw a football, or watch a movie, or go eat, he could do anything. Would it truly be him choosing? Or the reactions of his molecules (atoms)? It would be fallacious to suppose that he will choose to go throw the football. Because no action will happen until molecules interact in his brain. So we cannot say that "he" will choose. We have to say that the molecules will result in throwing the football, because that which occurs first decides, and the reactive molecules occur first. So it is necessary here to not separate the “him” from his brain and say that “he” chose. “HE” is nothing more than the reactive molecules in his brain. “HE” is simply the result of the molecular chemical reactions. So with this point covered, I can make the primary point, but I must first make another preliminary concept clear.
We have to understand that the electro-chemical molecular reactions in his brain have different roles and respond in different ways to different stimuli. The best way to imagine it is as something I will call “faculty factories.”
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faculty)
n. pl. fac·ul·ties
1. An inherent power or ability.
2. Any of the powers or capacities possessed by the human mind. See Synonyms at ability.
3. The ability to perform or act.
n. pl. fac·to·ries
1.
a. A building or group of buildings in which goods are manufactured; a plant.
b. A vessel in which newly caught seafood is prepared for shipment and sale: a floating fish factory.
2. A business establishment for commercial agents or factors in a foreign country.
3. The source of prolific production
These “faculty factories” produce as their product reactions in which the human organism will partake. These “faculty factories” are paid by stimuli. These “faculty factories” I would say always work together to produce a varying combination of reactions when paid with stimuli. Their roles vary. One “faculty factory’s” job might be to process words, another to use logic, another to process visual information (these are probably oversimplifications, I am sure that the roles of these “faculty factories” would be much more specific)
So as the human organism sits there doing nothing, there seems to be a lack of stimuli. But the lack of stimuli is in itself the stimulus needed to activate the “faculty factories.” So for instance, when one “faculty factory” fulfills its role and processes information, another “faculty factory” reacts to it to produce a positive or negative relationship. If the relationship is negative, a specific event is not likely to happen. Other “faculty factories” fulfill their individually specific roles to produce a reaction.
This is almost beyond my capacity or vocabulary to explain. It may be a mistake to simplify the idea to “faculty factories” but I feel it just about hits the spot. It’s at least in the ball park of my thinking.
To put the whole thing another way, we just have to realize that there are molecular processes that react in our brain to produce action. Now if these reactions ARE taking place, then it wouldn’ t be right to say that we choose, because we cannot choose how these molecules react. They simply react and we act.
(Here again realmism would assist this explanation and understanding but fuck it). If we trace all of these points, we can see that we have ascended the ladder of facts. We went from physical facts when I discussed the big bang. We discussed the chemical facts when I discussed the formation of matter into more complex matter, such as a planet. We discussed biological facts when discussing the molecular interactions in the human brain. With this being said, I can move to another point. I must now extend onward to psychological facts to help explain “choice.”
Psychological facts seem to capture something that biological facts cannot. Psychological facts seem to summarize all of the technical mumbo jumbo that biological facts require, and explain these biological facts in a more clear way. Psychological facts are the results of the technical mumbo jumbo within biological facts.
So when the human organism’s brain sits their pondering through his “faculty factories” he reaches a conclusion to go throw the football. Why did he choose this? He might not even know. It is common for people to often times not even know why they choose to do something, they just felt compelled to do so. And this is exactly on track. It’s not surprising for people to often not know why they choose things, because it is the “faculty factories” doing the choosing, the function of which the human organism is unaware. BUT! What about those times when the person does know why they “chose?” It is usually when the person can make sense of their decision, usually when it involves critical thinking situations. At this point, the human organism only knows why its brain chose because it has a “faculty factory” that has as its role the job of recognizing this.
To better explain, I turn to Freudian ideas. As I said, psychological facts summarize the results of biological facts, and gives the summary a name. The most relevant here is the id, ego, and superego. The id, ego, and superego are basically summaries of all of our "faculty factories." The id is the most basic set of faculty factories. All creatures have id. Only humans (as far as we know) have ego and superego. Most choices we make are motivated by the "faculty factories" of the id, and that is usually why we can't always explain the choices we make, because none of the involved "faculty factories" are capable of producing a conscious streamline of justification. However, when our choices are motivated by the ego and superego, we usually can explain our decisions because among the molecular reactions, there participates "faculty factories" that CAN provide justification. But once we break it down and realize that these are simply chemical molecular reactions in our brain it becomes easy to see how we are at the mercy of our own brains.
For example, a cop can pick between a slice of bread, a bagel, or a donut. Perhaps he has unlimited choices of food, it doesn't really matter what or how many. Which will he choose? He will choose what appeals most to his "faculty factories." The food is stimuli that activates his "faculty factories." The choice comes from which "faculty factory" that was most stimulated by the stimuli and which was most specifically effected by other "faculty factories." And then it reacts. This concept applies to all actions of our brain, even when it comes to intellectual matters of problem solving. It just depends on which "faculty factory" that the stimuli taps into. You can guess what the cop chooses. 
It is also important to understand "mind." As an example, when debating the “mind body problem” the monist will say that the mind and body are one in the same. The illusion of a separation of mind and body is created by a mechanism in the brain that enables the brain to look back at itself. As a result, we can conclude that conscious awareness of one’s self is sort of a sixth sense. This sense is like a “faculty factory” that enables the development of an illusion. An animal cannot look back at itself and know that it is aware. Humans can, and it is here the illusion of “mind” is created. We have no mind, we only have a brain that, through its natural processes, has created an illusion of mind. If you are not following me at this point then just forget this part, this is far too complex to explain now. But the point here is to draw a parallel between this “mind illusion” and the illusion of free choice. Similarly the molecular processes in our brain work together to produce actions. Some of these molecular processes (faculty factories) create our logic, others create how hunger, others create our language, others create sexual drive, etc. and it is usually not only one “faculty factory” doing each job, I would say it is several in combination. All of this creates the illusion of “free choice.”
As long as you keep it in mind that we are nothing but atoms stuck together, then all of this easily makes sense. The atoms in our brains bump into other atoms. They react. They produce actions, and I do agree, these actions can be extraordinary. But we musn’t let the awe of these extraordinary action cloud our understanding of our strict nature and origin.
Now through this we can see, that the nature of the atoms in our brain are completely determined ever since they transformed into matter from energy. These atoms could not do what they do now if it weren’t for the natural properties developed from millisecond one of the big bang. Everything has been determined up to this point. Indeterminism has played a mysterious underlying role the whole time and still does, probably even in our brains as well. BUT I am still aware of the enormous problem that faces determinism and indeterminsm.
Despite the fact that everything is as it is by determinism and indeterminism, there still seems to be something amiss. I ask you to imagine the world without humans (or an equivalent). In this imaginary humanless world, it seems easy to say that determinism is absolutely true. There would be no buildings, no technology, no abnormal disturbances in nature. Animals would roam about, strictly controlled by the atoms that race in their brain. The natural environment would erode itself away and build anew elseware. So why does it seem so offsetting when we place humans into the picture? Is it because we seem to change things? It is easy to see how it may seem like we do this by choice and we offset nature and change the world because we may be the only organism with the ability to choose. That is why there is such a difference between a human world and an imaginary humanless world. But don’t be mistaken, this is what Agency is all about.
I have lately gravitated towards agency because it does account for the human anomaly, (because after all the origin of human action is the only road block for determinism and indeterminism). Although my idea of agency is a bit different then the standard, the term “agency” I would say still suits the concept. Because humans have “agency” we do change things, perhaps against what would have otherwise been produced by determinism or by indeterminism. It is as if determinism and indeterminism have produced a creature that can work against the pattern of its origin. Through our “faculty factories” we can alter the patterns in nature and change the “plan” of a determined universe. We are a true anomaly. But we are nothing unnatural, we are just uncommon, and that can be natural. We are simply puppets of our atoms, but we are conscious enough to think we are not. Because if a puppet all of a sudden became conscious, would it think that it was being controlled? Of course not, it would never look up to see the puppet master because the puppet master would never pull the string for the puppet to do so. Therefore there would be the puppet dancing about under the illusion that it is in control, because that is the only reality it knows.
Anyways, through all of this, don’t fall for the illusion of “free will” or “free choice.” It is simply atoms in combination. I suppose one thing is key here. All of this will make much more sense if you have studied monism and dualism. Monists say the “mind” is an illusion (this is why I we can’t call the bored guy above “he” b/c there is no mind for there to be a person). Without the “mind” the concept of “thinking” vanishes. Monism would say that there simply sits a brain processing "information" by combination of electro-chemical molecules. If you agree with monism then you would have to agree that we don’t actually “think.” The idea of thinking is only a concept created by the concept itself. And if we don’t actually “think” then how could we actually “choose?
If all of this is true, we should nevertheless still live our lives, even if it is under an illusion. This illusion is a part of nature and pretty much unavoidable. Nothing can say that we can't or shouldn't live under this illusion. This, Eboyd, is how I remain an existentialist.
