The illusion of free will

What do you mean by the "non-value of zero"? Zero is a value.
One could say it is relative to any other number in being the result of that number less itself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the line of thought is
>something CAN be relative to no-thing.
>yet No-thing is unable to be relative to anything for to do so it acquires relative value and becomes a thing because of it.

existence is relative to non-existence ~true
non-existence is not relative to existence ~ is also true IMO

I believe sound argument could be made if one bothered, to find that the relative relationship between existent and non-existent is non-symmetrical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You seem to be arguing from consequence rather than from any premise. I.e. You want "No-thing" to be free from value so you concoct some claim in an attempt to validate your conclusion.
If you want Something to be relative to No-thing, then it is a logical necessity that the same "No-thing" is relative to Something.

For the first, I could accept that premise. But the second does not seem to follow from it.

Depends how you define the terms: if you consider existence and non-existence to be digital (I.e. Either 1 or 0) then they are symmetrical in that you can only have one or the other but not both at the same time.
However, if you consider that the variation of existence is infinitely more than the single state of non-existence, then there is an argument for non-symmetry, but I am not sure such would have much meaning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hmmm yet 0 on it's own is not but the digit 1 automatically implies zero...

ie
1=1
because
1-1 = 0
&
0 = 0
because
0-0 = 0
*where 0= "no-thing"
yet 0-0 is an unnecessary statement because there is no-thing to subtract from...and no-thing to subtract with.
so therefore one could conclude that no-thing is not relative to some-thing

just thoughts....

 

Yet 0 on its own is meaningless unless in relation to another number/quantity. I.e. when we refer to "no elephants" it is a value (zero) that is relative to the existence of something, and a quantity thereof.
This is the difference between the mathematical notion of zero (that has a value), and the philosophical concept of nothingness.
They are not the same, yet I am not sure you quite appreciate or understand the difference, and seem to want to combine/mix/equate them.

 

As part of my excuse I would suggest that I am not the only one who has confused these terms.
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

and

Standing with giants in this confusion of semantic interpretations is actually an honor!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[kidding]

Needless to say the confusion between mathematical and philosophical notions is obviously one to seriously consider when discussing the topic. One I have failed give proper acknowledgement to.. and I apologize accordingly.

Using mathematical symbols to help demonstrate a point is fraught with problems.

 

Even formal logic lacks proper symbols when describing non-existence and in the past I have resorted to \( -\exists\)

which implies a state of relativity for Non-existence and is not quite correct IMO.

 

thought you were taking that conversation to another thread?

 

what do you wish to discuss?

 

If, as I am suggesting, freewill has it's source from the perspective of "no-thing" and that no-thing can be defined as having no relativity to "some -thing" then the ability to make choices free of cause and effect is possible. [with out defying the laws of physics to do so.]

hence my inquiry:

Proving this however is another issue...

This is why the talk about a zero point center of gravity, the definition of zero, etc..
It is little surprise that the understanding of freewill is as confused as the understanding of zero [ zero value - no-thing ] especially when thinking in absolute terms.

IMO the issue of freewill is chronically underestimated as to how fundamental it is to universal physical structure [including organic] and currently defies proper interpretation by mainstream science.

 

how would it be possible for time to run in reverse?

oh..already got that going in a different thread.

 

How does something have a source from a perspective? A perspective is just a viewpoint and not the source of anything.
Secondly, you have once again gone from claim to conclusion. You have concluded freewill is possible yet you have never shown how you go from what you deem the source to be to the conclusion that freewill is possible.
Surely, given that you say it as often as you do, you must have some inkling as to the gap that you seemingly refuse to fill in here?

Even though your understanding of gravity is shocking ("we defy the laws of gravity whenever we stand up"), how you use the vector line of a sum of vectors as somehow evidence of the ability of "nothing" to have causal influence etc.
Your basic understanding seems so twisted through equivocation of concepts that it is little wonder you struggle to convey what you think you mean.

Zero is understood. "Nothingness" is as understood as any other metaphysical notion.

Yet another claim without any foundation seemingly other than your own inability to understand.

 

so?

 

Non-existence doesn't exist for it to be relative to something.

 

agrees!

 

@Sarkus,

well ...when you are unable to stand or move in defiance of gravity and are breathing your last few breaths [A last stand in defiance of gravity] perhaps we can entertain this discussion again.

No-thing CAN NOT be a causal influence.

Why do you think I think that?

===============
The basic principles:
Take all the negative energy and all the positive energy in the universe and sum them.
x+(-)x=0 [re: 2nd Law of thermodynamics]

So it can be quite correctly stated that with out another factor the universe would not exist.

Again.

x + (-)x = 0 = no universe.

So based on this simple truth
The question of:
What phenomena allows the universe any existence, whether that be temporal or "real"?
The answer:
Time duration greater than zero.

Let's write it again but include the time factor:

x + (-)x + (time duration = 0) = no universe. [Nihilo 0r pre BB or t=0]
x + (-)x + (time duration = >0) = universe exists. [Ex-Nihilo or post BB or time duration= >0]


The second law of thermodynamics deals with Entropy.

Entropy requires what factor beyond x+(-)x=0 to allow for the universe to exist?
I believe that factor is time duration greater than zero. [evolution requires time]

Relevance to freewill:
So accordingly when decisions are thought about and enacted they can only be thought about and enacted at any given t=0 [Nihilo], that is to say they can only be thought about and enacted at the exact central zero point between future and past.
At that exact moment of thinking about or enacting the universe is non-existent. As proven above time duration greater than zero is required for the universe to exist.

As the universe does not exist at any given t=0 [Nihilo] that moment of thinking about or enactment is not subject to the laws of physics, because at that exact moment there is no universe to have physics.



We humans are far more enmeshed in the universes fundamental structure that we generally realize.

@Sarkus,
Does the above help you understand the answer to your question?:

Summary:
Our perspective is from a vantage point of Nihilo therefore we have freewill and not an illusion of freewill.

 

:wallbang:

Because that is precisely what you have argued for. You have stated that nothingness exists, that it can have a causal influence, and you cited your notion of the Centre of Gravity as an example.
You have often asked the question regarding what influences us when we see a blank piece of paper, and you have asked that as support for your notion that "nothing" not only exists but has causal influence.

Yet here you are spinning 180 degrees.
I am not sure if it is more worrying to consider you blatantly dishonest in your approach, or to consider you incapable of following your own arguments for more than a page at a time.

Couple of issues with this:
First, it has yet to be shown that the universe is a zero-energy universe. Evidence certainly points toward that direction, but it is just a hypothesis at the moment.
Second, the 2nd law merely states that entropy ever decreases within an isolated system.
Perhaps you are thinking of the law of conservation of energy, the 1st law? In which case it does not require a zero-energy sum but merely a conservation of energy within a given isolated system,

Thus your argument is proven invalid.

Why? Where have you dragged this conclusion from other than mere confidence?
Why does zero energy sum necessitate no universe?
If I have a credit balance in one account and a similar debit balance in another account, I can still spend money... although the net balance will remain nil.
So please support the conclusion of "no universe" from what you have stated.

Simple, possibly. Truth? You have yet to demonstrate it with anything other than confidence.

And your support for this notion other than mere confidence, given that it is so far based on flawed premises.

Again, statements with nothing to support them other than supposition etc.

One: there is no "proof" given above. Merely supposition without support, and based on flawed premise.
Two: you still haven't explained how using t=0 is appropriate when you are referring to activity such as decision making, or anything else that only has meaning during a period of time. There is no decision at t=0. It is merely a reference point in time. T=0 does not exist so it is meaningless to talk of making a decision at t=0. And you have also yet to show that at t=0 there is no existence of the universe, as your "proof" above is anything but.
The way I see it, your entire line of argument is fallacious in this regard, as you are trying to take something that does not exist and argue that things can exist but other things can not.
It's ultimately nothing but meaningless drivel wrapped up in a veneer of pseudo-scientific verbiage.

Yes, the universe doesn't exist at a non-existent time, but let's allow some things to exist... And let's say that they are not beholden to the laws of physics.

So you believe.

Not at all.
It shows me further insight into how flawed your thinking is, and your entire claim for freewill being genuine revolves around trying to manufacture the possibility of existence in a place where the laws of physics don't apply. Yet you only allow some things to exists there, just not the universe.
As soon as you start mentioning "places where physics does not apply" you are into the realms of fantasy.
But heck, you even think the laws of physics don't apply to living creatures, so I shouldn't wonder at the inanity of your unsupported claims and illogic.

Meaningless drivel.
You might as well say: "Our cars are from a vantage point of 12 therefore we have bananas and not an illusion of bananas." But it's clear that your only means of going from your (flawed) premises to your conclusions is via "physics does not apply".
Out of curiosity, are we supposed to consider you rational in your thinking here?

 

@ Sarkus, I really suggest you have another read of the post as I shall also... because your response is totally off the planet and unnecessarily confused with your insulting commentary...
Maybe post again with out the unnecessary insults.
In fact if your next post contains insults I shall only highlight them and ignore the rest.

 

Sarkus
Because that is precisely what you have argued for. You have stated that nothingness exists, that it can have a causal influence, and you cited your notion of the Centre of Gravity as an example.
You have often asked the question regarding what influences us when we see a blank piece of paper, and you have asked that as support for your notion that "nothing" not only exists but has causal influence.


Couple of issues with this:
First, it has yet to be shown that the universe is a zero-energy universe. Evidence certainly points toward that direction, but it is just a hypothesis at the moment.
---

NMSquirrel

I seen this,and im not a scientist..
he assumes the quantity of negative energies equals the quantity of positive energies. even I know that this is not a proven fact.
plus in order for it to = nonuniverse all the energies would have to be canceling each other out on a universal scale, IOW in order for matter and antimatter to cancel each other out they must meet first, if they are on opposite ends of the univers they would not meet, thereby they would not cancel each other out.
--------

Second, the 2nd law merely states that entropy ever decreases within an isolated system.
Perhaps you are thinking of the law of conservation of energy, the 1st law? In which case it does not require a zero-energy sum but merely a conservation of energy within a given isolated system,


Why?
Why does zero energy sum necessitate no universe?
If I have a credit balance in one account and a similar debit balance in another account, I can still spend money... although the net balance will remain nil.

One: there is no "proof" given above.
Two: you still haven't explained how using t=0 is appropriate when you are referring to activity such as decision making, or anything else that only has meaning during a period of time. There is no decision at t=0. It is merely a reference point in time. T=0 does not exist so it is meaningless to talk of making a decision at t=0. And you have also yet to show that at t=0 there is no existence of the universe, as your "proof" above is anything but.
The way I see it, you are trying to take something that does not exist and argue that things can exist but other things can not.

Yes, the universe doesn't exist at a non-existent time, but let's allow some things to exist... And let's say that they are not beholden to the laws of physics.

It shows me further insight into your entire claim for freewill being genuine revolves around trying to manufacture the possibility of existence in a place where the laws of physics don't apply. Yet you only allow some things to exists there, just not the universe.
As soon as you start mentioning "places where physics does not apply" you are into the realms of fantasy.

But heck, you even think the laws of physics don't apply to living creatures, so I shouldn't wonder at the inanity of your unsupported claims and illogic.
-----


if we did defy gravity then our feet would leave the ground when we stand up,


insults deleted..
it still stands.

he seems to be able to dismiss ideas and logic with ease, seems he can't do the same with insults..

I'm not talking to you QQ. I would agree with sarkus's observation of :wallbang:

 

[insults deleted] & [more insults deleted] ...have you not heard of thermodynamic equilibrium?

====

is quite a rational assessment [in it's over simplified terms] IMO
So at the exact zero point moment between future and past there is no time duration which logically leads to the conclusion that at any given t=0 we have only nihilo.
Given also that all action, thoughts, cognition, remembering s occur at this same nihilo moment the laws of physics do not apply, simply because there is nihilo to apply them to. {however that does not mean the laws of physics do not influence our decisions etc.]

Gotta realize the laws of physics do not influence the imagination unless we wish them to.
Examples:
Peter Pan - J.M. Barrie (1860-1937) or
Alice's adventures in wonderland - Charles Lutwidge Dodgson/ Lewis Carroll (1982-1898)
or any other work of non-reality based fiction.