Free Will?

Tyler:
"This is definetly too much of a pipe dream to explain."

You need Port. Mhmm. Mhmmm. All will be revealed.

"I think you've just confused me beyond all possible belief Xev. Either I'm really stupid or you're really stupid, and this is up to you to decide. Are you suggesting that we are more than our brain? I highly, highly doubt it."

No. Okay, take this as a very simple example. I am depressed. I eat a bar of Ghiraberdelli chocalate. My serotonin levels shoot up. I am not as depressed.

I am controlling my brain. My brain is controlling my brain, to be exact.

"So what you are saying is that we can control parts of our brain with another part of our brain. And what I'm saying has nothing to do with this fact at all. It's not even part of my logic!"

Oh, okay then.

I suppose it was just too simple for me to understand.

You're saying that, because the universe is so utterly random, we have no control over anything?

Do you have any idea how fucking brilliant that is?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"You need Port. Mhmm. Mhmmm. All will be revealed"

Bah! A pox on alcohol! Alcohol just makes me agreeable.


"I am controlling my brain. My brain is controlling my brain, to be exact."

Exactly, there is no independant 'I' in this. It is just part of your brain controlling another part of your brain. What I said was that you are just a creation of your chemical reactions. What you just said is 'no, because I can control some of my chemical reactions with other brain chemical reactions'. You basically just agreed with me!


"You're saying that, because the universe is so utterly random, we have no control over anything?"

Just the opposite. From the get go there was no other option besides what happened. The way the Universe was formed there was no other option than what happened.

Because A (formation of the Universe happened), B would happen. And B would cause C and E to happen. Of course, D could have happened, but it didn't. Because the way B occured the only possibility was C and E. And the way B occured happened because of how A occured. There was no possibility of B to occur differently because B could only occur in the way it did if A occured the way it did and A did occur the way it did.

Follow this through and you can go from the movement of individual atoms to the decisions we make day-to-day. Everything is going to happen this way because this is the only way it can happen with the beginning we had.



Remember the god/free will conversation? I believe (though I may be wrong) that it was Adam who stated that the idea of an omnipotent god erases free will because god would know that with the specific way god started the creation of the Universe (set it in motion) everything would happen as it has. I'm taking god out of the equation.

G creates A -----> G knows entire future of A because A can only occur in one way

A ------> A can only occur in one way

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tyler:

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. You are saying that we are slaves to randomness, to chaos?

Well yes.

You are interpreting this linearly, correct?

If A then B.

But what if we interpret it as a sort of fractal?

If A then B, C, D, E and F are possible.

Why can't both B and C occur?

Take the formation of the early universe. Antimatter and matter are created, but there is a slight excess of matter.

Now, things would not be very different at all if there had been a slight excess of antimatter. If there had been equal amounts, we would not be here.

But none of this had to happen. So your theory may be sound, but your statement:

Is flawed. You have not shown that things have to be the way they are. You've only shown that if the initial conditions were different, things would be different.

A can easily result in B, C, D, E, or even X. However, if A ------> X, things would be different.

That you have shown very well.

What you have not shown is that A had to result in A because A -------> A was the only possibility.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"You are interpreting this linearly, correct?"

No. I'm doing that to try and explain it. Unfortunatly, I lack the intelligence to actually communicate this idea.


"Take the formation of the early universe. Antimatter and matter are created, but there is a slight excess of matter.

Now, things would not be very different at all if there had been a slight excess of antimatter. If there had been equal amounts, we would not be here.

But none of this had to happen. So your theory may be sound, but your statement"

That's exactly the point Xev. If there had been slightly less matter than there was or slightly less antimatter than everything would be different. But there wasn't. Everything is dependant on the creation (formation) of the Universe. The way the Universe was set in motion, there was no way anything else was going to happen but what is happening.

Okay, fuck, maybe I can explain it like this. I was born because my parents met, you were born because your parents met (and had sex, obviously). My parents were born because their parents met and so on and so on until we go back to why humans evolved and so on and so until we go back to the perfect conditions of Earth to produce life and so on and so on we discover the reason Earth was so perfect and the state of the Universe and everything going back to the beginning of the Universe. The way the Universe started, the initial Bang if you will sent every matter, antimatter in a certain existence and that can only cause one next step which can only cause what happened next, which happened next.


Let me change my math analogy a bit.


A is the big bang.

B, C, D and E are the initial products. Because of how A occurs, B and D go to the left and C and E go to the right.

Now, I said that only F (what did happen) could happen because of this. You said, why not G or H or I or J?

Well, F happens when B and D go to the left and C and E go to the right. G happens when B and C go to the left. H happens when E goes to the left only. See where I'm going with this?

The only possible path off of how the Universe started is what happened. Every other path is possible had the start of the Universe occured in a different way, had the Big Bang occured in a slightly different manner. But it didn't. And that's why I'm using the start of the Universe as our main point.

Like I said, sure H or I or J are possible. But only F can happen because of how A occured. You can carry on this stream infinitely.

And that's my point. Everything was dependant on somethig before it. And it all leads back to the start of the Universe. So, with the way the Universe started, this was the only possible path.



Forget it. Like I said, a pipe dream. I have neither the knowledge in philosophy or science to comprehend what I'm trying to. This is too stupid an idea to be put in words and I'm definetly not up to the task of trying to explain it. Besides, I think it's just a dumb idea in the first place. Ah well, worth a shot.

 

Xev,

Going back to the chocolate.
Who put the bar of chocolate there? Who worked out how to make chocolate and why? How comes Cocoa happen to follow that evolutionary path to grow and not take another one? How comes plantlife grew at all?

This pretty much points to determinism, if one of these stems of questions was to have a different answer to what is expected (okay we might not know the answer, but I'm use to using placeholders), the verdict is that our universe would possibly start to stem into true chaos.

I term that Chaos become order as soon as it's observed.

I had mentioned before the "Observation in relation to the universe", namely I can walk with you from your point of observation, and think that free will exists through any crazy stunt a person pulls, but if I was to be able to see the timeline of events (Another observable point) you would seem "automotous" in your decisive actions.

But this is looking along a string line, rather than string in a ball.

I've also mentioned before the use of parallels in a multiworlds environment in another post, the understanding is that if on one world you have a thought, it can displace your thought on another parallel causing a form of chaos. But this would be the only true chaos, as people around the world still debate over the existance of parallels.

So my arguement is:
Displaced parallels cause chaotic quantum positioning changes.
Parallels exist within a multiworlds universe.

Therefore if Chaos exists, so does multiworlds (or of Multiwords exists, so does Chaos)

This should be pretty elementary really, as if you only have one option, one path, there is no chaos. If your subjected to multiple paths with multiple outcomes, now you walk in Chaos.

The problem is with the understanding of multiworlds, A person tends to see that "Every outcome is possible" therefore at least at one point you travel it, making every move you make predetermined. (Thus no free will)

 

Tyler you seem to be looking back at the result of events e;g your parents begetting you etc. Free will can only be used in the present, if you already know the result then as Stryder said its like seeing a timeline where you know cause and effect. Not simply viewing it from beginning which to us is what Free Will is IMO.

Stryder - wouldn't you need infinite worlds in order to nullify free will, it would account for every possible outcome of every event and action by every possible object on a world. If this is the case what about universes? Assuming there is no 'Road blocked ahead' sign at the end of the universe surely there would have to be infinite space to accomodate an infinite number of infinite universes with each possible outcome of everything having an infinite number of outcomes. (Apologies if this doesn't make sense, I'm tired and its late)

Out of curiosity does anyone believe big bang theory?

 

Kater, that's not it at all. Actually, it's entirely the opposite of what you said. And I'm not talking about the classic arguement of free will versus destiny or what not. Long story short I'm not going to be able to explain this to you. It took Xev and I quite a while of discussion online to finally have an understanding on the theory and maybe one post a day on the subject by each of us there will be no understanding met.

 

In other words, Kater, he doesnt think you're worth his time trying

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Kater,

Space is infinite, purely because it has no energy or mass, it is what it is.

As for the infinite universe, they "Overlay" each other, so what they lack in Area they make up for in quanta. (at least from the multiworlds perspective).

Anyway that all moves away from the true philosophy of how we are manipulated by the universe around us like branches blawing in the wind.

 

Fair enough Tyler, sobs

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Stryder I read a paper recently by a professor from Princeton called Paul Steinhardt who was doing joint work with a guy from Cambridge, England , Neil Turok, and they suggested that planets, suns, asteroids etc don't have sufficient mass to make up the total mass of the universe and they have suggested that space, in the form of 'dark matter' accounts for ten times more gravitating mass in the Universe than ordinary matter alone. Furthermore ordinary matter and dark matter make up only 30% of the critical density. Einstein said there are only two infinites - the universe and stupidity and he wasn't sure about the universe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh and I'll have to try blawing in the wind sometime

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Kater,
well my understanding of the multiworlds layers, accounts for darkmatter through quanta shifts. Namely if I take a object that has been placed in a multiworlds environment, I could remove the layer of perception that reflects light, and leave just dark matter.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, you can look from the relative sense. If I was in a parallel and looking at quanta it would be the same as looking at the quanta in a multiworlds universe.
It's only when you look from a multiworlds universe at the sum of the parallels.

Anyway this is travelling into the realms of physics.

As for Blawing... I love spelling mistakes, they enlighten my day lol.

 

LOL , sorry I have a strange sense of humour so I'm told.

Physics , *shudder* , lets give that a wide berth

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However there is one thing that really annoys me about the current theories and that is they can't explain what was outside the big bang, a question I would dearly love to know the answer to, and offer some kinda 'its a cyclical thing' when explaining the big bang. Oh well guess we'll never know in our life times huh

 

The following is a re-work of something I sent out to some people.

The Beginning of the Universe

Intense electromagnetic radiation, a flash of light then a bang. That's an assimilation of what people tend to imagine about the creation of the universe that we know. From my interpretation of events, I have postulated how the true creation of the universe occurred.

Quite simply it will probably be viewed as something of a biblical
proportion, such as the parting of the Sea. In my interpretation the universe is the Sea, and water is the quanta, the frequencies, the emanating energies.

Let me use a metaphorical interpretation of the event I perceive using a deep-sea diving bell. The bottom of the bell is left open, a diver can cross between being dry and getting wet.
In away this bell is a method to part the sea.

Something similar can occur with our universe, although it's a vacuum that's used to part our sea, and that vacuum if void of quanta (including zero-point) is an absolute. My terming of absolute here means that this "Null space" is where everything exists within it.

Due to nothing existing in it, time is irrelevant. This means that the "Null Space" doesn't just exist at the point that it's formed, but exists in a chronologically infinite form.

Originally I hastely mentioned that the sum of super-collider experiments that are used to mimic the beginning of the universe were in fact the cause of it's creation.

I lacked to add the detail of how the universe has it's own natural colliders, Stars like our sun. Where their mass causes the central gravity to create a warping of timespace that could create exactly the same energy in "Null-Space" through a method similar to the vacuum.

My thought here is similar to a Nobel Prize winner who developed the method to shift quanta through an insultated superconductor.
The universes have the inertia of insulation, but can be jumped due to this timespace warp.

 

Interesting. I never really accepted this model of the big bang because it tends to lack a detailed analysis or even postulation for what actually exists to create the universe within the implosion, I assume your isolating any 'outside' factors, as it were.

You have me a little confused with the ending of the fourth paragraph/start of the fifth.

Are you suggesting that 'Null Space' is like an infinite island outside(or inside depending on how you use your metaphor) of chronological time once formed?

If quanta can be shifted through the superconductor are you suggesting it is possible for an exchange of matter/anti-matter to take place between universes?

Apologies but my physics isn't up to scratch lately - comes from following the opposite sex around campus rather than going to lectures

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually my "Null-Space" point was that it's timeless, no time passes until some form of energy enters it.
The explaination of the diving bell is to explain that there should be a method to part all the energy that creates time, to leave nothing but that timeless void.

I suppose that it would seem to be creating a vacuum bubble or island, but my perception is that it's the same as a bubble/island created in a different location, as they are both of the same origin, and exist because of the lack of quanta. (no matter how weird it is to say something exists for the lack of energy)

My understanding of matter/anti-matter is just a method coined to define two different universe like how a positive and negative does on a particular graph (the name flights from me)

I think the whole matter/anti-matter understanding is a bit fantasiful, as everything is made of wavefunctions and it's known that a wave function can be inverted without causing the catalysation that people wrongfully expect.
(A wave + an inverted wave would give an amplitude shift, so if radioactive material was to meet its inversion it would give more power, but only due to the misalignment of the shift. Also Schrodingers Cat experiment kind of derived that the wave function would eventually stablise.)

I was suggesting though that since Quanta is how time is messured in "Null-Space". I was suggesting that the universal quanta is "Entangled" and could be classed as inert as insulation, and that the use of parting that quanta was bypassing that insulation to the space beyond.

(wish I could make that easier.)

As for chasing the opposite sex... Go ahead, Just when you've caught up with the right one, stop chasing others lol.

 

Tyler wrote:

"Zeno was flogging a slave for stealing. 'But master, I was fated to steal,' said the slave, 'And to be flogged,' Zeno replied."
Diogenes Laertius

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Michael

 

Sort of makes the entire concept of "fate" irrelevent, or redundant, doesn't it?

 

Exactly... the slave, if he had any brain at all, would have built a raft and sailed for Tahiti, given that he had freedom enough to steal in the first place.

The chains are only there because you believe them to be.