Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will answer forthrightly, and hopefully, not arrogantly (I can be such a snob at times).
My honest answer is that I do not usually entangle myself in questions that countenance futility. For example, what if a twenty-mile wide iron asteroid is about to impact (and sterilize) the planet next month? Likewise, if we speculate that we might not exist, then what practical use could conceivably result from that speculation? My choice is to pursue lines of thought that have the potential to improve our (perhaps nonexistent) lives, just on the off chance that maybe we do exist after all. I accept the axiom that we do. In my view, physics has ignored the 800-pound gorilla in the room, which is the life/consciousness/free will phenomenon that we all observe. I am submitting a scaled down re-write of my work in progress to the moderators. I will greatly appreciate anyone pointing out any errors I have made in facts or logic. You know, practical stuff that will hurt my feelings and improve my writing. I am too simple a mind to correspond in terms of--- what if I am really a butterfly dreaming that I am human. I leave those kinds of questions to the gurus. I am not a teacher, only a seeker. :) ------------------------------------------------------- On Apr 5, 4:28 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
