Monday, May 25, 2009 at 12:44am
I think our universe started with the
Big Bang. I think whatever kicked things off is a natural, unguided,
but yet "lawful" process. Given that we are composed of
stardust which acts according to the laws of physics, and given that
we wouldn't be alive with the billions of bacteria using us for their
survival, I think we currently are and later will be just the result
of natural processes carrying themselves out just as they do
regardless of our thoughts and opinions about them. As far as free
will is concerned, we think it important to attribute people with it
for purposes of accountability. "The devil made me do it"
doesn't even fly with people who believe in the devil and the super
demon beasts ability to compel and mimic the big C. The foundation of
all our actions though still remains, and what is the present then
the culmination of the past? Theoretically I could've chosen to write
this blog or not. Either way, both options always existed, or had the
potential to exist, and no matter what I choose, particularly if its
to spite what I originally felt, the choice then becomes the
inevitable conclusion.
I also think it unwise to even use the term free will with no precise meaning of will. By what right does this abstract deterministic motivation of our psyche get associated with it the ultimate power to do anything? Free probably meaning unrestrained which one can obviously denounce the second they use that will to pretend they'll fly after jumping from a roof. Perhaps more appropriately one should say free thought, though that would run into the same sort of complications. You can think of a gold mountain, but you still predicated that with the concepts gold and mountain. By having even a meager understanding or imagination for shapes and the arbitrary pronunciations of words, you could think endlessly about a whole host of blobs and abstract shapes and call them whatever you'd like.
The only things that could have the word free associated with it are "everything" and "nothing." Neither of which terms we can fully understand or appreciate. Given that we barely know how to think of "things" let alone every one of them for ever and ever, I'd venture a guess at saying our universe as a whole, ever expanding, is the closest to what we could call everything. Nothing may only exist as a mathematical concept. In space, there are areas of just "nothingness," but I've also read that matter can spontaneously arise from this nothingness. I think this is simply plagued by a bad word for what we (are) looking at. We're quick to jumping and saying that nothing can't do anything, therefore you can't start with it to form any sort of logical progression. As far as I know so far, this is simply a flawed objection.
I heard a good answer for why there was something rather than nothing: "Nothing is too unstable." If we expand that to ourselves, and maybe even the reason the universe is accelerating I think you might be able to squeeze some sort of "purpose" out of our existence. That simply being, to get stable. This would explain why people don't feel compelled to change regardless of what "belief" system, or ideas about themselves, they ascribe to. When your not pressured to change, you won't, lending more credence to the idea that it takes something outside of "you" to shape or determine you. If this is indeed the case, then you can't say there is anything "right" or "wrong" about it, it just is. I would put things now in terms of stable and unstable. Test scenario: Why shouldn't you kill other people? It makes the public view and debate more unstable. Why shouldn't you steal? It turns others' minds more wary and unstable.
And this isn't necessarily utilitarian or "if everyone JUST BELIEVED like this..." either. I think you are unable to escape the judgment that about some specific person's belief being there to rock the boat, or better humanity. This is why I try to refrain from encompassing a hoard of people into one category unless its for some easy racist joke. You can believe in a god and still know how and strive for bringing about a more stable and healthy world. You can be an atheist and be an asshole that gets off on insulting the stupidity of "all christians." Either way you're still susceptible to falling into the convolutions of right and wrong or moral and immoral. I suppose this translates into health as well. What's "good" for you being bad for me. I shall think on this longer, but I think I like what I've come across.
I also think it unwise to even use the term free will with no precise meaning of will. By what right does this abstract deterministic motivation of our psyche get associated with it the ultimate power to do anything? Free probably meaning unrestrained which one can obviously denounce the second they use that will to pretend they'll fly after jumping from a roof. Perhaps more appropriately one should say free thought, though that would run into the same sort of complications. You can think of a gold mountain, but you still predicated that with the concepts gold and mountain. By having even a meager understanding or imagination for shapes and the arbitrary pronunciations of words, you could think endlessly about a whole host of blobs and abstract shapes and call them whatever you'd like.
The only things that could have the word free associated with it are "everything" and "nothing." Neither of which terms we can fully understand or appreciate. Given that we barely know how to think of "things" let alone every one of them for ever and ever, I'd venture a guess at saying our universe as a whole, ever expanding, is the closest to what we could call everything. Nothing may only exist as a mathematical concept. In space, there are areas of just "nothingness," but I've also read that matter can spontaneously arise from this nothingness. I think this is simply plagued by a bad word for what we (are) looking at. We're quick to jumping and saying that nothing can't do anything, therefore you can't start with it to form any sort of logical progression. As far as I know so far, this is simply a flawed objection.
I heard a good answer for why there was something rather than nothing: "Nothing is too unstable." If we expand that to ourselves, and maybe even the reason the universe is accelerating I think you might be able to squeeze some sort of "purpose" out of our existence. That simply being, to get stable. This would explain why people don't feel compelled to change regardless of what "belief" system, or ideas about themselves, they ascribe to. When your not pressured to change, you won't, lending more credence to the idea that it takes something outside of "you" to shape or determine you. If this is indeed the case, then you can't say there is anything "right" or "wrong" about it, it just is. I would put things now in terms of stable and unstable. Test scenario: Why shouldn't you kill other people? It makes the public view and debate more unstable. Why shouldn't you steal? It turns others' minds more wary and unstable.
And this isn't necessarily utilitarian or "if everyone JUST BELIEVED like this..." either. I think you are unable to escape the judgment that about some specific person's belief being there to rock the boat, or better humanity. This is why I try to refrain from encompassing a hoard of people into one category unless its for some easy racist joke. You can believe in a god and still know how and strive for bringing about a more stable and healthy world. You can be an atheist and be an asshole that gets off on insulting the stupidity of "all christians." Either way you're still susceptible to falling into the convolutions of right and wrong or moral and immoral. I suppose this translates into health as well. What's "good" for you being bad for me. I shall think on this longer, but I think I like what I've come across.
You like this.
Mike
Gough at 1:07am May 25
nick, i think you know that i have
also given some thought to this, and i'll tell you what i think.
firstly, i decided that the 'free will' argument is irrelevant when
you view time as simply another dimension. everything that ever was
or will be or is, is already there, whether you thought it into
existence or not. sure, you could say that every ... Read
Moreexistence is the result of some other first cause, but in the
concept of space-time, things don't happen before or after; they
just fit together like a puzzle. if this is not the right way to
look at it, then there's always the multiverse concept, which i
think supports free will... assuming that decision-makers can steer
themselves into one of an infinite number of universes, and each one
is the created result of a unique choice... in the end, though, i
think i'm a pragmatist and this stuff is all irrelevant. i just want
to be happy. if i don't have a purpose here, i can honestly say i'm
ok with that
Billy
Bowman at 1:10am May 25
If you subscribe to the idea of
parallel universes, then fate is no doubt real, for everything you
could ever think of doing does exist, so everything is
predetermined. I say we let the physicists sort it out before we
begin any more metaphysical debates on the subject.
I'll agree with many concerns about the definitions by which we attempt to ... Read Moreapply concepts, but that is a limitation of language. If we could communicate with thought, such conversation on these subjects would be easier.
I'm going to have to admit that I lose you half way through that fourth paragraph..I'm just not really sure how it relates... but I think it may be a result of reading web comics for the past 12 hours.
I'll agree with many concerns about the definitions by which we attempt to ... Read Moreapply concepts, but that is a limitation of language. If we could communicate with thought, such conversation on these subjects would be easier.
I'm going to have to admit that I lose you half way through that fourth paragraph..I'm just not really sure how it relates... but I think it may be a result of reading web comics for the past 12 hours.
Nick
P. at 1:18am May 25
I'm with you Gough. I just had a spur
of the moment compulsion to type this out. I'd go for the puzzle
over the multiverse.
Bowman, I take the Futurama stance, there are only two parallel universes, and I'm wearing a cowboy hat in the other one. I definitely just kinda decided to write so my bad if things are unclear. I tend to just write out what makes sense to me at that moment so I can move past it.
Bowman, I take the Futurama stance, there are only two parallel universes, and I'm wearing a cowboy hat in the other one. I definitely just kinda decided to write so my bad if things are unclear. I tend to just write out what makes sense to me at that moment so I can move past it.
Greg
Smith at 3:37am May 25
"If you subscribe to the idea of
parallel universes, then fate is no doubt real, for everything you
could ever think of doing does exist, so everything is
predetermined."
I agree and disagree. (Maybe both in parallel...)
Even if every possibility is accounted for in an infinite web of splitting and converging universes, that doesn't quite get us ... Read Morepast the question of why we perceive only one of these paths. It doesn't quite suffice to say that some other instance of us is perceiving each other possibility-- if we think back to Descartes, the only unwavering truth that one can ascertain is that one has a singular consciousness. In some way that singularity is more fundamental than any other truth the universe can try and throw at us. Why do we perceive a single path, seemingly associated with one's free will? It's a hard question, and personally I think that it's unanswerable (in much the same way that the halting problem is undecidable). I have a lot of thinking yet to do though.
I agree and disagree. (Maybe both in parallel...)
Even if every possibility is accounted for in an infinite web of splitting and converging universes, that doesn't quite get us ... Read Morepast the question of why we perceive only one of these paths. It doesn't quite suffice to say that some other instance of us is perceiving each other possibility-- if we think back to Descartes, the only unwavering truth that one can ascertain is that one has a singular consciousness. In some way that singularity is more fundamental than any other truth the universe can try and throw at us. Why do we perceive a single path, seemingly associated with one's free will? It's a hard question, and personally I think that it's unanswerable (in much the same way that the halting problem is undecidable). I have a lot of thinking yet to do though.
Mike
Gough at 10:58pm May 25
just because we percieve a single
conciousness does not mean that there exists only one conciousness.
how can you explain the existence of billions of people, each
percieving their own reality? if there was only one conciousness,
how could this be possible? i think that if there can be multiple
conciousnesses during the present, in the percievable universe, then
there could also be other conciousnesses in parallel universes
Greg
Smith at 2:32am May 26
That's not my point. Why do we
perceive only one of these? This is what free will is about.
Nick
P. at 12:35pm May 26
How is only perceiving on of those
paths what free will is all about? I get that your asking why if
there's so many we're only acting in this one, but that seems to
support that we don't given that we can't escape this one.
Greg
Smith at 7:14pm May 26
If there are infinite paths and we
only perceive one, then what selects which one? Free will seems as
good an answer as any. It's not so much that we can't "escape"
this path, but rather that we are actively selecting the path we
perceive from infinite possibilities.
Adam
Brewer at 10:02pm May 26
"If there are infinite paths and
we only perceive one, then what selects which one? Free will seems
as good an answer as any."
By that logic, then who's to say that that a God or Gods doesn't choose? Who's to say that my shut-in great uncle doesn't select which path? Who's to say that the perceived path doesn't waiver upon the whim of Joe Pesci? Thus is the doctrine of Faith. Faith of what, and in what/whom, is not the issue, I must add.
By that logic, then who's to say that that a God or Gods doesn't choose? Who's to say that my shut-in great uncle doesn't select which path? Who's to say that the perceived path doesn't waiver upon the whim of Joe Pesci? Thus is the doctrine of Faith. Faith of what, and in what/whom, is not the issue, I must add.
Greg
Smith at 4:50am May 27
Nothing says that but intuition. I
believe the answer is unknowable.
