# Lack of Freewill doesn't mean lack of choice **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 10, 2021, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-freewill-doesnt-mean-lack-of-choice/954128 "2021-11-10T15:31:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 145
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2021, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-freewill-doesnt-mean-lack-of-choice/954128/145 "2021-12-22T18:38:15Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > so if you were to say, it’s my intention, a second ago, to grab the cup of coffee on my table, that explains my doing so right now, I could equally well say, no, it’s your intention, a week from now, to have a slice of pizza that does so. I’m a bit confused. How can something in the future be given as an explanation for a present event? > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > So once you know the conditions at any one given point in time, the conditions at every other point are a simple logical implication of those, and thus, tautological. So, if you know the data at any one point in time, nothing is added by the data at any other point in time. This also is counterintuitive to me. Isn’t there such a thing as information loss in physics? For example in mathematics, I think if you multiply two nonprime scalars and hand the result to someone else, that person will not be able to determine from the result exactly which two scalars you used. They can only produce a list of pairs, and guarantee that you used one of the pairs from the list. ~Max --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-freewill-doesnt-mean-lack-of-choice/954128)._