Jon writes: < Generalized, perhaps, by abandoning the distinction that living things are imbued with non-physical stuff and, instead, imagining *choice* to be an inherent and ubiquitous quality of the unfolding universe. And yes, this is clearly problematic too. >
In quantum computing, one typically regards measurement as the thing to be deferred or planned, as one can't take them back. If entanglement is a means for distributed communication that might be way to make choice a first class thing (in a model at least). Similarly if the metaphysics involves a multiverse one could brainstorm about how choice could arise. To me it all seems like fancy kinds of lookahead that play well in sci-fi but don't fundamentally change the story. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of jon zingale Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 10:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic "What is this pantheism and why can't we take it apart or study it?" FWIW, I am also an atheist and I feel that I never had a choice in being any other way. The free will-determinism discussion seems to happen seasonally on Friam and it provides an opportunity to reason differently. This round has proven intellectually fruitful for me, so thank you for your thoughtful and determined contributions. There are some here that post about pan-psychism/theism, posthumanism, private consciousness, platonism, transcendentalism, buddhism, satanism, libertarianism, goddess worship, you name it. For reasons beyond me, and especially lately, I find inspiration in sympathizing with the positions of others, others that present experiences radically different than my own[0]. For our discussion, pantheism seemed like the kind of doctrine that stands to benefit from finding *will in all things*, a generalized vitalism[1]. My posted objection to the metaphysical framing of the discussion was the result of my grappling with discomfort, a desire to clarify something for myself. Ultimately, I am unsure whether we will be able to take something like *will* apart. My feeling is that if it remains a negative object, then like absence, we certainly will not. If on the other hand, like vacuum, it comes to be defined positively, as fields or substrate or whatever, well then who knows? It seems to me that like a mechanistic description of the cosmos, we have to want to build it. In response to your closing remark, I add that if you want to change the world, will be granted, you follow the evidence _and_ what you want to be true. [0] Maybe it is from being couped up for a year? Maybe the echo-chamber is boring me to tears? Yo no se. [1] Generalized, perhaps, by abandoning the distinction that living things are imbued with non-physical stuff and, instead, imagining *choice* to be an inherent and ubiquitous quality of the unfolding universe. And yes, this is clearly problematic too. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
