Understanding the universe.

With all due respect, nothing is an actual thing in this respect, everything can be reduced to nothingness, or more correctly, to borrow a phrase from the Buddhists, emptiness.

 

If we're going to make such a reduction however there would be absolutely no point in having this discussion, or in fact, any. We'd walk around in silence contentedly.

 

As we are having a discussion, and as we're entering into the philosophical notion of will. We can ask first one question, do we have will.

 

Well yes, most human beings have will, this is what we use to motivate ourselves. Whether that is to wake up in the morning, create art, or ask questions of the universe, these things take what we call will.

 

The next question is, is that will controlled by an outside entity or ourselves.

 

Well the answer to that is ourselves, but it is conditioned by the circumstances around us (including those long chains of cause and effect), but eventually it comes down to our choice. If it didn't no one would be guilty of crime, no one would be the 'creator' of beautiful art.

 

So we have two ways of looking at it, the 'ultimate' way is to say everything is reducible. All very nice but not very practical. I have two children, if, and I hope it never does ' it came to one of them being abducted and the abductor was caught I would sincerely hope the courts wouldn't let them off to reoffend on the premise that it wasn't their choice, it was in fact along line of cause and effect.

 

The other way of looking at it is this, we are alive, we have consciousness (albeit reducible to emptiness) and we have the ability to enact our will. Therefore we can discuss in a practical sense whether that will is free or not.

 

You see what you've done? You've outsmarted yourself. It's a philosophical contradiction. If you genuinely believe in reducing everything to the most practical level you wouldn't have an interest in discussing these things (you would be figuring out ways to better streamline your life in a practical sense), you wouldn't 'choose' between food you liked and food you didn't (you'd just eat what was most nutritional regardless of taste) you wouldn't make fashion choices because you'd buy clothes based on its usefulness regarding the season etc, etc.

 

By the very fact you are party to any of the above (or any 'thing' at all really) shows that it's not just reduction with a slight fluctuation of quantum effects.

 

Here's a practical test.

 

Tomorrow, don't set an alarm for work. When you wake up get dressed in the most practical clothing you own for the weather. If you need to eat, eat only what will sustain you, regardless of taste. Don't leave the house unless you need to, don't partake of any entertainment.

 

I bet before the day is through you break and make a decision based on practicality over causality.

 

This, right here, is why free will exists. Because WE create it. Because living your life based only on reducing everything to nothing would quickly reduce 'us', another fallacy, into a pile of bones.

I'm afraid everything is reducible to physical processes and physical processes follow laws not "choices".

I don't propose we take this into account in discussions of morality etc because it's not useful. But it is the ultimate reality of existence.

I'm afraid everything is reducible to physical processes and physical processes follow laws not "choices".

I don't propose we take this into account in discussions of morality etc because it's not useful. But it is the ultimate reality of existence.

Of course it's useful. It's useful because like my test it demonstrates that choice isn't just a reduction to processes it's an actual thing.

The ultimate reality is irrelevant in this case. Essentially we are creating new reality with every choice, which is what my test demonstrates. To follow causality without emotional attachment (remember emotions themselves are illusionary ultimately) would put you in the position of my test.

Most people (especially if they worked) would make the choice not to follow the test because they would more than likely lose their job. That experiment, right there shows free will is more than a reducible reality, because the choices made from that free will go on to form future chains of causality.

Your entire argument rests on the unsupported (and unsupportable) axiom that "will is controlled by our 'choice'".

We cannot prove whether or not the universe is entirely deterministic, but if it is, what we think of as choice or free will could be entirely predicted with sufficiently accurate measurements.

For day to day life though that's sort of an irrelevant philosophical point.

---------- Post added 28-09-2016 at 18:10 ----------

Cyclone,

 

I get the overall gist of the simulation scenario.

 

The problem with Musk's scenario is that it strips humanity of Free Will and cast

the human race into a slough of irresponsibility for its own action-you know,

the simulator made me do it.

Sunscribing to it-in my view- has serious implication for a person's mental health.

 

So onto the next topic.

I don't think it does that at all.

A simulated consciousness has just as much "free will" as one running in meat in the base level of the universe.

Your entire argument rests on the unsupported (and unsupportable) axiom that "will is controlled by our 'choice'".

We cannot prove whether or not the universe is entirely deterministic, but if it is, what we think of as choice or free will could be entirely predicted with sufficiently accurate measurements.

For day to day life though that's sort of an irrelevant philosophical point.

 

---------- Post added 28-09-2016 at 18:10 ----------

 

 

I don't think it does that at all.

 

A simulated consciousness has just as much "free will" as one running in meat in the base level of the universe.

I'm not saying will is controlled by choice at all. I'm saying choice is supported by free will.

The very fact that we cannot prove it either way makes it a perfect philosophical question. I've tried to address this by giving an experiment which shows that choice goes at least some way to create further streams of causality. Without further data the simplest outcome seems to be that free will (or conditioned free will) facilitates choice.

But what I hope I have shown is that to try to keep 'choice neutral ' in relation to causality would soon present us with demonstrative 'real world' problems.

GhostRiders,

I don't want to break the train of discussion.But could you please just answer a question for me. Is not the"emptiness" a consequence of a meditative state ?

GhostRiders,

 

I don't want to break the train of discussion.But could you please just answer a question for me. Is not the"emptiness" a consequence of a meditative state ?

Not according to Buddhist thought.

Emptiness is the nature of things. All things are reliant on other things, nothing can come into being of its own accord and remain unchanging. To search for the 'self' is futile because it is, in essence 'empty' of a self nature. In Mahayana Buddhist thought it's called dependent co arising.

They believe that meditation brings awareness of this nature, not that meditation creates this state.

I'm not saying will is controlled by choice at all. I'm saying choice is supported by free will.

 

The very fact that we cannot prove it either way makes it a perfect philosophical question. I've tried to address this by giving an experiment which shows that choice goes at least some way to create further streams of causality. Without further data the simplest outcome seems to be that free will (or conditioned free will) facilitates choice.

 

But what I hope I have shown is that to try to keep 'choice neutral ' in relation to causality would soon present us with demonstrative 'real world' problems.

Either way your entire assertion rests on an unprovable axiom, whichever way you want to spin choice and will into it.

There is no experiment that can prove free will or choice. If you could prove that the universe were non deterministic then you'd be awarded a nobel prize in Physics.

---------- Post added 28-09-2016 at 19:35 ----------

The next question is, is that will controlled by an outside entity or ourselves.

 

Well the answer to that is ourselves,... but eventually it comes down to our choice.

And you did in fact say here that will is controlled by choice, not the other way around. Not that it matters, you can flip and spin the words whichever way you like, you can't prove that the universe is not entirely deterministic.

Either way your entire assertion rests on an unprovable axiom, whichever way you want to spin choice and will into it.

There is no experiment that can prove free will or choice. If you could prove that the universe were non deterministic then you'd be awarded a nobel prize in Physics.

 

---------- Post added 28-09-2016 at 19:35 ----------

 

 

And you did in fact say here that will is controlled by choice, not the other way around. Not that it matters, you can flip and spin the words whichever way you like,[bold] you can't prove that the universe is not entirely deterministic.[/bold]

I agree. What I am doing is asking a question and looking at the most likely outcome based on what we KNOW.

As we CAN create thought experiments like the one I've suggested (which could easily be extended to practice) we can say that in practice choice affects causality. So at least philosophically we can hint that free will is present, because we can change the course of causality by willful effort.

And btw I didn't say will was controlled by choice, I said ourselves, meaning the sum of what we identify as 'me'. That identity is not always tied in with choice, as people with eating disorders will tell you. Furthermore I was using it as a basis question against an outside controller of free will, both choices assume free will is real, so you took the quote out of context.

Well no, you are claiming that something you call choice can affect the future.

But it fits the alternate hypothesis of deterministic universe just as well.

Basically, you'd prefer to conclude that we have choice or free will, but in reality we have no evidence either way.

There was no outside controller hypothesis, unless you mean the physical rules of reality being the 'outside' controller.

I don't think I took the quote out of context at all, but it really doesn't matter. The conclusion you are reaching is not supported by the 'evidence' or thought experiment, it's one possible explanation, which happens to be the one you'd like to be true.

Well no, you are claiming that something you call choice can affect the future.

But it fits the alternate hypothesis of deterministic universe just as well.

 

Basically, you'd prefer to conclude that we have choice or free will, but in reality we have no evidence either way.

 

There was no outside controller hypothesis, unless you mean the physical rules of reality being the 'outside' controller.

 

I don't think I took the quote out of context at all, but it really doesn't matter. The conclusion you are reaching is not supported by the 'evidence' or thought experiment, it's one possible explanation, which happens to be the one you'd like to be true.

It's not the one I'd 'like' to be true at all. I'm really not overly bothered either way ultimately.

I didn't say anything about there being an outside controller 'hypothesis', have you even read my posts?

I was talking about if we accept free will, then we have two options philosophically as to where that free will has come from. It's either been controlled by an outside force or entity or it's controlled by us.

So yes, I'm sorry but as you don't even seem aware of my point you are taking it out of context.

So I'll try and dumb it down.

Choice fits both ideas, but by a (what I considered simply, obviously not) thought experiment we can infer that choice is related in some way to free will (not, as you erroneously believe I said that free will is controlled by choice).

I have agreed over that there is no way of 'proving' it either way. The experiment is simply to show that when faced with pure causality we will avert the outcome if it is unfavourable (If there is a choice)

It is crude, but quite effective in demonstrating the force of our will over a purely causal chain of events.

If you really don't think that at least infers free will then there is really nothing else to say.

I didn't say anything about there being an outside controller 'hypothesis', have you even read my posts?

Do you have a very short memory or something?

So what is this then?

Furthermore I was using it as a basis question against an outside controller of free will, both choices assume free will is real, so you took the quote out of context.

danot;

yes I think we will fathom many, maybe not all, of the mysteries in the universe. And we will be able to travel through a small part of it I believe.

Look at Elon Musk and SpaceX, they are planning to get numbers of people(settlers) to Mars over the next 12-15 years. They are very believable and very enthusiastic !

NASA are also planning to get there, probably the Chinese too.

Mars is relatively close. But once there, and having experienced the learning curve, we will move out further to see what other planets we can explore and learn from.

We might be micro-organisms, but we are very important ones in this neck of the Milky Way !