Suppose we do not exist--and do not know that we do not exist---how does this free will (sounds like the proverbial ether!) thing come in?
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > Draft of a work in progress. > Comments are invited. > Please email me at [email protected] with your responses, > as I may not otherwise know you responded. > > Quintessence Revisited: > What is Reality Made Of? > > Conscious Free will is quintessential: > The universe cannot exist without it. > > Among the vital questions that science studies, are, of what > components is the universe made? And how are these components related > to each other? > > The earliest known scientists answered this question by dividing > everything they saw into four elements, or essences. These were > earth, air, fire and water (not to be confused with the musical > company of a similar name). Everything they saw seemed to fit into > one of these four categories. > > But after a time, it became apparent that the sun, moon, stars and > planets did not fit into these four categories, and so it was supposed > that they were composed of a fifth element, a quintessence. > > Quin-tes-sence [kwin-tes-uhns] > (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element, > supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies, the > others being air, fire, earth and water. > > Since then, science has divided the material components of the > universe into not four, but rather, more than 100 elements, each > element being a different kind of atom. Atoms, in turn, are composed > of even more basic materials. > > But it is clear to scientists that the universe consists of more than > merely atoms. There are also forces. Atoms are held together and > governed by forces, or forms of energy. Four basic forces are > recognized: Gravity, magnetism, and two nuclear forces, the strong > and the weak. > > Nor are we yet done. Besides atoms and forces, there are two more > components of the universe. These are space and time. > > So, in a sense, we have come full circle, back to the four basic > essences. Only instead of earth, air, fire and water, we have: space, > time, energy and matter. According to the conventional science of > today, everything that we observe in nature can be explained by these > four essences. > > Well, not so fast. Space and time are considered to be two different > aspects of the same basic thing, something called space-time. > Similarly, energy and matter are interconvertible forms of mass- > energy. > And gravity is a bending of space-time by mass-energy, so we might > consider all four of these to be the same thing: space-time-energy- > mass, or, (see how clever I am), by the acronym, STEM. > > But while mathematically the four may be combined into one, our > ordinary experience is of four essences: space, time, energy, and > matter. > > Well, not so fast again. Our ordinary experience includes a fifth > essence, and a very critical one at that. It is the essence that > makes experience itself possible. We may call that fifth essence by > various names, such as consciousness, or awareness. But for reasons I > shall expound upon, I prefer to call that fifth essence, spirit. > > Now when it comes to physics, spirit has been the gorilla in the room, > so to speak, the one that amazingly enough, has been pretty much > ignored. > > To study physics as it is currently taught, is to study a universe > that might conceivably never have had any physicists to study it. Of > course physicists do study biology. But conventional biology reduces > life to a mere set of chemical reactions completely separated from > what it is that you and I (and physicists, one must presume) > intimately experience in terms of, not some generic concept of life, > but the reality of it. > > Now let’s pause here to explore in more detail the significance of how > life itself must be predicated upon a fifth essence beyond space-time- > energy-mass. > > To begin with, while physics as we know it might explain life in terms > of chemical reactions, it cannot explain our conscious awareness as > living beings. There is no traceable connection between the inert > atoms of which we are made, and the ineffable experience of conscious > awareness. No effort of physics has bridged that gap. There is not > even a theoretical framework that can credibly make the leap from > inert atoms to the experience of experience. > > Conscious awareness is just too revolutionary a concept for physics, > even though without it, there would be no physicists. > > But there is more, an even more revolutionary concept that must > utterly shake physics to its core. And that is the concept of free > will. > > Be warned. Discussions of free will elicit the most obtuse and > blinded comments of any discussions I have ever engaged in. Even some > of the most intelligent of people seem to have a huge blind spot when > it comes to this topic. Of course, you may believe that it is I who > am obtuse, but I shall make my case anyway. > > It is my contention that free will exists. If it does not, then all > is absurdity. For absent free will, you would have no choice in your > actions. Without free will, you would be a mere robot of natural > forces, a puppet on a cosmic string. You could make no decisions, you > would simply react. Therefore, were I a puppet, I could only say that > I believe in free will, because I would be compelled to say it. And > those who disagree, they likewise would have no choice in the matter. > > Without free will, there can be no study of physics. For the > physicist who has no free will cannot make independent inquiry. > Everything he does in physics is imposed upon him not by intelligent > choice, but by, well, by physics. > > Now I recognize that there are some very intelligent people who > disagree with me on this. They are idiots. Yes, there can be highly > intelligent people who, in this topic of discussion, are utter morons, > and nothing can be done to enlighten them. I have gone round and > round on this topic with some of them, and in the end, I can only > conclude that there must be some people who actually do not possess > free will. Which is why they are compelled to make obtuse and blind > arguments. > > So let’s leave behind those who deny that there is free will. For > their declaration is that the universe is in essence, absurd. They > will not follow the continuation I am about to make. Because my next > contention is even more revolutionary. It is, that the known laws of > physics not only cannot explain free will, but they must prohibit it. > > Yes. Conventional physics rules out free will. If one accepts the > known laws of physics, then one must reject even the possibility of > free will. It is utterly inconsistent with those laws. Unless… > > In order for physicists to accept that free will exists, then they > must necessarily accept the proposition that there is a fifth essence > beyond the four fundamentals of space, time, energy and matter. > Without that fifth essence, physics must deny free will. > > Why? Why is free will so adamantly in conflict with the known laws of > physics? > > It is because of what free will really is. Free will is the ability > of an autonomous individual to exhibit genuine volition. Huh? Why is > that so special? > > It is special, because conventional physics explains everything, every > observation, in terms of its causes. (There is a modification to this > statement, but for present, I’ll let it stand as is.) Those causes may > be purely random, but randomness is not free will. In physics, > everything happens because some previous event in nature forced it to > happen. > > According to the concept of free will, an event can happen because an > independent, volitional agent was unconstrained by previous events, > and through deliberate, intended purpose, caused it to happen. In > other words, free will is a causative force in nature, but one which > itself has no preceding cause, not even a random one. > > That concept is so inconsistent with presently accepted physics, that > it must be regarded as unproved at best, and impossible at worst. > There is nothing known in physics that allows free will. Nothing in > physics allows an uncaused, non-random, event to occur. > > But wait. Is it really true that nothing is known of free will? > Let’s look at some other things that physics recognizes, but knows > almost nothing about. > > One of these is “dark matter.” Physics has posited something about > which so little is known that it is called “dark matter.” Dark matter > has never been directly observed. It is simply a conceptual > explanation for observed gravitational effects that otherwise defy > explanation. Dark matter is the cosmic equivalent of elves. It may > be an addition to our list of essences. > > There’s more. There is not only dark matter, but there is also “dark > energy.” Dark energy is yet another cosmic elf. Like dark matter, no > one has any detailed definition of what “dark energy” is. It is > simply yet another conceptual explanation for the observed anti- > gravity effect upon the cosmos as a whole. > > If dark matter, and dark energy, are candidates for status as > quintessences (or sexta-septa essences), then why is not > consciousness, and particularly free will, also a candidate? Unlike > the two “darks,” you don’t need to look into the vast reaches of outer > space to see the effects of free will. You see it within yourself > every waking moment. > > You yourself are the evidence. You yourself are the proof. You are > not merely a biological computer that behaves as if it were > conscious. You are conscious. You do not merely behave as if you had > free will. You have free will. > > To deny that free will exists makes as much sense as to deny that > consciousness exists. And to posit that a sentient being could > observe himself, yet not be free to choose his actions, is to assert > that such a creature could be aware that he is an automaton, an actor > watching himself play the role, but unable to depart from the script, > a prisoner, helplessly trapped in his own being. > > Such absurdities might have a place in the realm of speculative > thought experiments, but otherwise, they are of no practical use > whatsoever. Were we to declare ourselves incapable of autonomous > volition, of what use would such a declaration be? > > Yet, the acceptance of free will as a quintessence has remarkable > implications for science, philosophy and society. > > For it is proof of the spirit. Moreover, it is proof that we are > created in the image and likeness of God. > > For if life, consciousness and free will comprise a fifth essence, a > fundamental essence of reality, then reality cannot exist apart from > spirit. The Bible says that God did not merely create nature, but > that He perceived it. > > Genesis 1:31 “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good….” > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- nubiaafrika.blogspot.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
