It has been said that determinism is an unhealthy philsophy, as people resign themselves to the fact they are not ultimately responsible for their choices or actions. I wish to propose a hole in the determinism philosophy presented by string theory for agree/disagree or comment: String theory is a theory that all matter and forces are comprised of tiny vibrating strings of energy, and it is the type of vibration that they emit that determines the kind of matter or force that they constitute. The existence of such concept is looking like it will give mathematical consistency to existing descriptions of nature as are currently used to explain the observable world, and the ‘quantum’ (or tiny) world that has otherwise been observed to follow different rules of physics. The catch is that string theory, as elegant as it appears to be mathematically, requires ten dimensions of space for it to make sense. We only know of three. Width, height and depth (additional dimensions of time, the fourth known dimension, are apparently not required in string theory). What I do not understand about string theory is whether the known laws of physics, are thought to apply or not in these other dimensions. If they do not (as with a black hole which I understand might be regarded as another kind of dimension), then does this not solve the determinism conundrum? If there are additional dimensions that comprise our world, and they are not necessarily bound by known laws of cause and effect, cannot free will be possibly inserted into our actions via such routes? Who is to say that one or more of those dimensions do not include an invisible hand that permits freedom of choice? The hitherto before unknown omnipresence of these other dimensions in our world could surely be the long sought after Achilles heel in the philosophy of hard determinism that is otherwise all but irrefutable. The question I have is whether the mathematics of string theory requires that the additional dimensions be subject to laws of cause and effect? And if not (for the philosophers), doesn’t this mean there is a rational basis for overcoming determinist arguments that true free will cannot exist?