Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead
Bruno wrote: And my (older) definition asks for one more thing: it is that the subject know (is aware or is conscious) about that inability and that he can still make the decision. There is a reflexion on the possibilities. If not, all non sentient beings have trivially free will. This is pretty much what I was thinking... It appears we live in a cause and effect universe. Things do not happen without cause. There is a decision making process each concious being embodies that is governed by cause and effect, while the being cannot understand the process in it's entirety, so thinks they have some magic called free will. The being has a will, the being embodies the decision making mechanism, the being's mechanism makes a choice, even if the being decides to make a random choice, it is the being's choice. The being's very existence is made possible by cause and effect, and so it's decisions are governed likewise. The being emodies a will, it can be called a free will if you like, but it is not free from the cause effect process. Even though in a multiverse a cause can have multiple effects. But that's another issue. A being can embody a will, a free will as the being views it, but still be governed by a complex cause effect process. The concepts are not really at odds with one another, as this being sees it. - Roy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/_qrKLv_hUk4J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Monday, June 11, 2012 10:45:16 AM UTC-5, RAM wrote: But what I'm saying here is not ontological determinism but in fact, about the subjective experience. I'm defending that we cannot imagine ourselves in exactly the same subjective situation and still think that we could have done otherwise. Or something equivalent, if we were put again in exactly the same subjective situation, would we do otherwise? I don't think so, but If yes, why? I'm assuming you mean by exactly the same situation, every atom in it's exact same physical state. You might think the next moment in time would be exactly the same, but at the quantum level the next physical state in time could be different at the quantum level, and if one was truly on the fence in making a decision, the decision could possibly fall to the other side of the fence. The two different futures both exist but do not interact. Any moment in time has multiple futures and multiple histories. Now the question that came up, is this person not responsible for his/her actions if only at the mercy of the physical laws of the universe (no free will). The answers I've been hearing that suggest she/he may not be responsible miss the point. The measure of wrongness was defined by society. If history and experience yields a member of society that does a horrendous wrong, he/she is a defect of society and needs to be removed, rehabilitated, or whatever society dictates. Here's where I don't agree with aquitting someone due to mental defect. If the defect is there, the result is the same. Fix it if it's fixable or if it's not fixable remove them from society. - Roy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rWOnm6N7FyoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On Jun 3, 4:38 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 3, 4:48 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 1, 7:07 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Free will is one of the laws of the universe. We are made of the universe, therefore whatever we do or can do is inherently a potential of the universe. Free will is not a basic law or building block of the universe. The sense of free will is a result of the process of the universe. I used to think that too, but why should a 'sense of free' will be the result of any process in any universe? What would it accomplish? What process would produce it? Anything that is in the present universe is here because it is either stable enough to last a long time or capable enough to survive a long time, basically the process of evolution. A sense of free will or consciousness developed as minds became intelligent enough to make decisions that would increase their chances of survival. Why would it develop though? It's like saying that vanilla palm trees developed as minds became intelligent enough to make decisions that would increase their chances of survival. My immune system makes decisions all the time which increase my chance of survival. Even if it could benefit by having some sort of experience of 'free will' in making those decisions (which it wouldn't), how could such an 'experience' appear in a purely mechanistic context. It's a just-so story. You assume the primacy of evolution and work backwards from there. Did electromagnetic charge evolve? Did velocity evolve? Mass? Not everything is explained by evolution - only the differentiation of biological species. I don't know what you are proposing - that the sense of will always existed and created the universe? Where did the sense of will come from if not through a process of evolution? Are you a creationist? Yes a non-biological evolution could explain electromagnetism, mass, velocity, energy, etc. I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself to avoid the end of my existence. While I'm here I cannot break any of the laws of the Universe. You don't break the laws, you make new laws. The law of the universe was once 'human beings cannot fly'. Laws of the universe I'm referring to are the real laws, not human's attempt at defining them. Human beings cannot fly is a human thought, not a law. All laws that we understand are necessarily defined by humans. They are our interpretations of observations using our senses, our body, and instruments which we have designed with our senses to extend our human body and human mind. If there is any truly real law, it is that our understanding of what they are gets rewritten frequently. There is an underlying order to the universe that we have not defined yet, and may never be able to define. It does not mean that underlying order does not exist, or that the only order or law that exists is what we define. The whole idea that there is an order to the universe that is separate from the actual universe is metaphysics. If such a thing existed, why go through the formality of creating a universe? Why not just have the laws existing in perfection in their never-never land? There is no order without sense. I never said there was anything separate from the universe. The universe is everything. Everything possible. There never was nothing, there was/is always everything. We are all molecular machines. Then molecular machines are also us and molecules are telepathic. Systems of molecules and energy can transmit information across distances, so? Not information. Feelings. Thoughts. Images. Comedy. Irony. Human life. A bar graph is information. Getting your molars ripped out with a pair of pliers is more different. Sorry but feelings, thoughts, images, comedy, irony, are all the result of information processing. These things do not exist without the programming of our molecular computer. Why would information processing produce anything at all other than more information processing? There is no reason for feeling to arise out of information. If a system has data then it can execute a function without needing to conjure up some kind of 'feeling' or experience. Informaiton, on the other hand, is obviously a reduction of complex qualities into simplistic abstractions. I count five apples and then I can manipulate the quantitative concept of five rather than deal with the full reality of the apples. Feeling and sense
Re: Free will in MWI
On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 1, 7:07 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Free will is one of the laws of the universe. We are made of the universe, therefore whatever we do or can do is inherently a potential of the universe. Free will is not a basic law or building block of the universe. The sense of free will is a result of the process of the universe. I used to think that too, but why should a 'sense of free' will be the result of any process in any universe? What would it accomplish? What process would produce it? Anything that is in the present universe is here because it is either stable enough to last a long time or capable enough to survive a long time, basically the process of evolution. A sense of free will or consciousness developed as minds became intelligent enough to make decisions that would increase their chances of survival. I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself to avoid the end of my existence. While I'm here I cannot break any of the laws of the Universe. You don't break the laws, you make new laws. The law of the universe was once 'human beings cannot fly'. Laws of the universe I'm referring to are the real laws, not human's attempt at defining them. Human beings cannot fly is a human thought, not a law. All laws that we understand are necessarily defined by humans. They are our interpretations of observations using our senses, our body, and instruments which we have designed with our senses to extend our human body and human mind. If there is any truly real law, it is that our understanding of what they are gets rewritten frequently. There is an underlying order to the universe that we have not defined yet, and may never be able to define. It does not mean that underlying order does not exist, or that the only order or law that exists is what we define. We are all molecular machines. Then molecular machines are also us and molecules are telepathic. Systems of molecules and energy can transmit information across distances, so? Not information. Feelings. Thoughts. Images. Comedy. Irony. Human life. A bar graph is information. Getting your molars ripped out with a pair of pliers is more different. Sorry but feelings, thoughts, images, comedy, irony, are all the result of information processing. These things do not exist without the programming of our molecular computer. Those molecules operate within the laws of the Universe. We wouldn't know. We only experience molecules indirectly through our instrument-extended perception. What we see of molecules is even less than what an alien astronomer would see looking at the grey patches of human mold growing on the land surfaces of the Earth. The result of their action allows me to think and reason and decide on a course of action, execute a will so to speak, but that will is determined by the sequence of events of the molecules that make up my self. If I move my arm, I directly move it. I don't even need to cognitively 'decide' to move it, I just move the whole arm all at once from my point of view on my native scale of perception. That there are molecules, cells and tissues which make up my brain and body is a fact of a different layer, a different perceptual inertial frame where I don't exist at all. The fact remains though, that I can move my arm at will, and whatever molecular processes need to happen to fulfill my intention will be compelled to happen. That's why there is a difference between voluntary muscles and involuntary muscles. Some I control, some I don't, some control me. There is the molecular process that occurs when you command movement, but there is also the molecular and electrical process that occurs to develop that command. It doesn't happen out of thin air. It happens out of my active participation in the semantic context of myself and my world. It happens out of desire, purpose, whim, intuition. I command my brain directly. It is top-down as well as bottom up. You are assuming bottom up only which would posit the tortured reasoning of neurons moving my arm for some evolutionary or biochemical reason...which is not true. If it were true, it would be easy to tell because we would have no division of voluntary and involuntary muscle tissue in our body. It would all be automatic. Why should evolution not create both voluntary and involuntary muscle tissue? Animals are mobile for a reason, need to command voluntary tissue to find food or flee from predators. Need to make decisions. Develop the will to do so. All in response to outside
Re: Free will in MWI
Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in this Universe? Some can believe that. Open question in comp. Actually this universe is a quite vague concept with comp. Don't know comp. As far as I'm concerned, universe can be everything, all permutations. I don't believe there is a mind separate from body. You don't have a mind (or a soul, or whatever metaphysical description of consciousness one might subscribe to) until you have the matter and energy arranged to form the mind. I know matter is a mental concept but yeah, whatever makes up the calculation of that stuff we perceive as matter and energy. When that comes together, you have a mind, and at some point that mind develops a will, but not the other way around. They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Not the compatibilist one. I think free will is not prevented at all by determinism. I agree, will (free has no meaning to me) is enabled by determinism. If there were no process of cause/effect then there could be no calculation of will. I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself to avoid the end of my existence. If that exists. Again my existence is quite a vague notion. Basically I'm saying existence is needed before a will can exist, not the other way around. You have to build the computer before you can execute a program, not the other way around. While I'm here I cannot break any of the laws of the Universe. We are all molecular machines. Locally, that is very plausible, but near death, this is no more assured unless you introduce actual infinities in bith matter and mind, and some link between. We are not bodies, we own bodies. Molecules are clothes, and actually they are map of our most probable computations in arithmetic. This is a consequence of the idea that we are machines. It makes materialism wrong eventually. Matter is a mind construction. We are the program which does not exist without the machine (computer). Those molecules operate within the laws of the Universe. If that exists. Locally, it is true, but not globally. Locally and currently, yes, I understand. The result of their action allows me to think and reason and decide on a course of action, execute a will so to speak, but that will is determined by the sequence of events of the molecules that make up my self. To say free will implies that I somehow avoided the laws of the Universe and resulting cause and effect. Free from the laws of the Universe. In that sense, there is no such thing as free will, only will, that is determined by your physical being and sequence of molecular action. OK. Locally. Now I myself believe that probably the laws of the Universe allow it to be non-deterministic. My logic might be simple on this, but if there were no randomness at all, there could be no evolution of the Universe (and probably the laws of the Universe) to become the Universe we observe today. I think if we started (over and over again) with the same initial condition of this moment, that the next moment could be any number of potential outcomes, all within the same laws of the same Universe. The Universe is built upon the laws of probability, and at the short term macro level things can be fairly predictable, but at the micro level and over long periods of time, things are not so predictable, due to random events at the quantum level. I also subscribe to the idea that all possible outcomes exist simultaneously and forever, as do all possible histories. OK. But with different probabilities, and we can manage them from inside. Yes I understand. We can manage to an extent. There are probable outcomes of our attempts at managing. If restarted with all same initial conditions, our same attempt at managing the probable outcome may result in a different outcome. (Many with equal probability, some not so probable). At any instant in time I think multiple outcomes emerge in the next instant, each just as real to the observer/manager. Or should I say observers/managers, as there are multiple of these for each multiple outcome. A good thing to avoid sending to a gibberish message. I didn't catch the intent of this statement. Maybe I did. Snipped the rest as we seem to agree on the rest. - Roy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On Jun 1, 12:27 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/1/2012 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Not the compatibilist one. I think free will is not prevented at all by determinism. It just boils down to how you want to define 'free will'. The definition is purposeful and free of coercion is important because it plays a part in social judgement and legal assignment of responsibility. Determinism is thought to be inconsistent with responsibility because some cause outside yourself doesn't count as your responsibility; but given determinism each of your actions can be traced back to causes outside yourself, even to before your birth. Brent Social judgement and such are all human constructs. What is physically behind free will? The programming of our human mind affects the choices we make. We choose to call heads, or we choose to call tails. What is behind our choice? Our complex system of memories and information, current physical cues, etc, all will go into our decision.. we feel the power to make the call whichever way we choose, but that feeling comes from our internal program developed and shaped by our life history. It was determined by our past and our current information. In the instant we make the call, we could be teetering on the very edge of probability, we could go either way, and some quantum event could be just the slightest push needed to have us fall on one side of the fence or the other, in making that call. Replay the same event over again, and we just might make the opposite call, and write a different number in on our lotto ticket, and end up a million dollars richer rather than a dollar short, affecting the rest of our lives so much differently. Free will, or will, is the feeling of having a choice, regardless of the ultimate outcome. What shapes our choice is the deterministic quality of our universe. We have a choice but that choice is determined by all events leading up to that choice. The choice can be between a multitude of potential possibilities, any of which we can make real. All of which are real, to the observer in that particular future. Somehow that gives us a sense of free will. An illusion of free will. Just like the illusion of time. I've come to believe there was no beginning and no end to the universe (universe defined by everything possible), it has always existed and will always exist. It is the set of all possible states, all possible computations. This life I'm leading has been there forever, has played out forever, and every possible variation of it has played out forever, as has every other possible existence, from the lowest form of life to the most intelligent possible. A universe short of infinite might as well be nothing. A large but fixed number of possibilities is about as boring as having only smallest number of possibilities, white versus black, on versus off. The universe should have been nothing at all, or it should be infinite, for me there is no in between. Infinite does not imply there are no impossibilities. Just that the number of possible computations is infinite. Anyway, that's my feeling. Subject to change without notice. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Free will is one of the laws of the universe. We are made of the universe, therefore whatever we do or can do is inherently a potential of the universe. Free will is not a basic law or building block of the universe. The sense of free will is a result of the process of the universe. I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself to avoid the end of my existence. While I'm here I cannot break any of the laws of the Universe. You don't break the laws, you make new laws. The law of the universe was once 'human beings cannot fly'. Laws of the universe I'm referring to are the real laws, not human's attempt at defining them. Human beings cannot fly is a human thought, not a law. We are all molecular machines. Then molecular machines are also us and molecules are telepathic. Systems of molecules and energy can transmit information across distances, so? Those molecules operate within the laws of the Universe. We wouldn't know. We only experience molecules indirectly through our instrument-extended perception. What we see of molecules is even less than what an alien astronomer would see looking at the grey patches of human mold growing on the land surfaces of the Earth. The result of their action allows me to think and reason and decide on a course of action, execute a will so to speak, but that will is determined by the sequence of events of the molecules that make up my self. If I move my arm, I directly move it. I don't even need to cognitively 'decide' to move it, I just move the whole arm all at once from my point of view on my native scale of perception. That there are molecules, cells and tissues which make up my brain and body is a fact of a different layer, a different perceptual inertial frame where I don't exist at all. The fact remains though, that I can move my arm at will, and whatever molecular processes need to happen to fulfill my intention will be compelled to happen. That's why there is a difference between voluntary muscles and involuntary muscles. Some I control, some I don't, some control me. There is the molecular process that occurs when you command movement, but there is also the molecular and electrical process that occurs to develop that command. It doesn't happen out of thin air. To say free will implies that I somehow avoided the laws of the Universe and resulting cause and effect. Free from the laws of the Universe. No, just free from automatism. If you look at the patterns of low level inorganic matter and distill the most simplistic mathematical patterns within that, and then consider them the only 'laws of the Universe' then you succumb to the cognitive bias of mechanemorphism. The laws of inorganic matter cannot be applied to meaning and awareness. There is no such thing as magic. A computer program can become self aware, and obtain the sense of a free will. In that sense, there is no such thing as free will, only will, that is determined by your physical being and sequence of molecular action. Where would sequences of molecular action get a sense of 'will' from? It doesn't make sense. The molecular and electrical action creates a closed loop system of action and observation of it's action, and resulting adjustment of it's action. It is a program with a broad matrix of inputs and outputs. That matrix of senses is consciousness. Molecular action doesn't get a sense of will, it creates a sense of will. Therefore, it does, make, sense. Now I myself believe that probably the laws of the Universe allow it to be non-deterministic. My logic might be simple on this, but if there were no randomness at all, there could be no evolution of the Universe (and probably the laws of the Universe) to become the Universe we observe today. I think if we started (over and over again) with the same initial condition of this moment, that the next moment could be any number of potential outcomes, all within the same laws of the same Universe. The Universe is built upon the laws of probability, What are the laws of probability built on? Mathematics. Quanta. and at the short term macro level things can be fairly predictable, but at the micro level and over long periods of time, things are not so predictable, due to random events at the quantum level. I also subscribe to the idea that all possible outcomes exist simultaneously and forever, as do all possible histories. If it is possible for it to exist, it exists, and always can exist. Else it would be impossible, and not exist. I doubt anything like this could ever be proven, but it makes logical sense to me. But I do not see that this non-deterministic quality
Re: Free will in MWI
Following the last couple of weeks of exchange between Craig and John Clark... Interesting. I would say John has the edge. And I have some comments... Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in this Universe? They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself to avoid the end of my existence. While I'm here I cannot break any of the laws of the Universe. We are all molecular machines. Those molecules operate within the laws of the Universe. The result of their action allows me to think and reason and decide on a course of action, execute a will so to speak, but that will is determined by the sequence of events of the molecules that make up my self. To say free will implies that I somehow avoided the laws of the Universe and resulting cause and effect. Free from the laws of the Universe. In that sense, there is no such thing as free will, only will, that is determined by your physical being and sequence of molecular action. Now I myself believe that probably the laws of the Universe allow it to be non-deterministic. My logic might be simple on this, but if there were no randomness at all, there could be no evolution of the Universe (and probably the laws of the Universe) to become the Universe we observe today. I think if we started (over and over again) with the same initial condition of this moment, that the next moment could be any number of potential outcomes, all within the same laws of the same Universe. The Universe is built upon the laws of probability, and at the short term macro level things can be fairly predictable, but at the micro level and over long periods of time, things are not so predictable, due to random events at the quantum level. I also subscribe to the idea that all possible outcomes exist simultaneously and forever, as do all possible histories. If it is possible for it to exist, it exists, and always can exist. Else it would be impossible, and not exist. I doubt anything like this could ever be proven, but it makes logical sense to me. But I do not see that this non-deterministic quality of the Universe in any way creates a free will. It just makes the Universe really infinite in possibilities. Will cannot be executed without cause. Even if the result of that process of executing a will was at some point affected by a random quantum event. - Roy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
No, we see the effect of photons on our receptors. Our dreams re-inact that effect. On Aug 12, 9:01 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 12, 9:55 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Photons don't carry charge. If they did they'd interact with other photons and we wouldn't be able to see anything. Would you say that what we see is photons? Even in our dreams? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about this and seem to approach it from a different perspective than you have. Not much use in wondering why something exists rather than nothing, because obviously the latter is not the case. I came to the conclusion, if something exists, why doesn't everything exist? Why should anything be excluded? In your paper, you state that if any one spatial dimension is non existent (zero) then nothing exists. One step further, if time is non existent, then nothing exists. Time is the change from one state to the next. If all we have is now, and never a before and never an after, there is no existance. As states change, time occurs... does the historical state still exist? or is now the only state that exists? If whatever started the whole thing rolling happened at some point in time, maybe the beginning of time, what would preclude it from happening again, and again, and again, every moment of time that ever exists. Because time is relative, I think every possible state exists and has never not existed. Esentially, a multiverse where every possible state exists and has always existed. The relation between one state to the next manifests itself as time and experience to the observer. If it is possible, it must exist. Else it is not possible. Everything must exist. Not just something. Everything. On Aug 8, 1:40 am, Roger roger...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi. I used to post to this list but haven't in a long time. I'm a biochemist but like to think about the question of Why is there something rather than nothing? as a hobby. If you're interested, some of my ideas on this question and on Why do things exist?, infinite sets and on the relationships of all this to mathematics and physics are at: https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/ An abstract of the Why do things exist and Why is there something rather than nothing? paper is below. Thank you in advance for any feedback you may have. Sincerely, Roger Granet (roger...@yahoo.com) Abstract: In this paper, I propose solutions to the questions Why do things exist? and Why is there something rather than nothing? In regard to the first question, Why do things exist?, it is argued that a thing exists if the contents of, or what is meant by, that thing are completely defined. A complete definition is equivalent to an edge or boundary defining what is contained within and giving “substance” and existence to the thing. In regard to the second question, Why is there something rather than nothing?, nothing, or non-existence, is first defined to mean: no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think about this lack-of-all. It is then shown that this non-existence itself, not our mind's conception of non-existence, is the complete description, or definition, of what is present. That is, no energy, no matter, no volume, no space, no time, no thoughts, etc., in and of itself, describes, defines, or tells you, exactly what is present. Therefore, as a complete definition of what is present, nothing, or non-existence, is actually an existent state. So, what has traditionally been thought of as nothing, or non-existence, is, when seen from a different perspective, an existent state or something. Said yet another way, non-existence can appear as either nothing or something depending on the perspective of the observer. Another argument is also presented that reaches this same conclusion. Finally, this reasoning is used to form a primitive model of the universe via what I refer to as philosophical engineering. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
On Aug 11, 3:48 pm, Pilar Morales pilarmorales...@gmail.com wrote: ... To truly define non-existence, you would have to define a set of all that it is not: no time, no matter, no energy, no ideas, no mathematical constructs, and no each of the etcs to infinity. So out of nothing the universe of everything is born. In the beginning there was nothing. But what is nothing. The lack of an infinite number of potential somethings. So nothing is just one of an infinite number of possible states. All possible states exist because they are possible. It has all always been here and will always be here, all possible states, all possible events. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why I am I?
On Jan 8, 12:38 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Welcome RMahoney, Nice thought experiments. But they need amnesia (like in going from you to Cruise). I tend to think like you that it may be the case that we are the same person (like those who result from a self- duplication, both refer as being the same person as the original, yet acknowledge their respective differentiation. Yes I think I understand what you mean by amnesia, you couldn't carry any rememberance of your old self when changing to Tom Cruise, but you would in the intermediary steps and gradually would lose the concept of your old self that is gradually replaced by Tom's self concept. Thing is, it is very similar to the process happening as we age. I began a journal when I was in my 20's, capturing my thoughts every time I visited this subject in my mind trips. So when I read a page from that journal today, I sometimes go wow, I was thinking that, then? I've obviously acquired a bit of amnesia. Yet I feel like I'm the same person because I've always had this body (although an aging body). What would it be like if everyone had default amnesia such that any thought older than 20 years is erased? So you wouldn't remember your earlier years but you were that person once. I could claim to have originated from Tom Cruise's childhood and it wouldn't make any difference. Just like I don't believe it makes any difference to say why I am I? and not you?, as we are we, simultaneously, and we are they, all those who lived past lives, etc. RMahoney -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: R/ASSA query
On Jan 16, 1:06 am, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Evolution doesn't count as an answer since it has to be cashed out in terms of some more fundamental theory, right? To answer evolution is dodging the question. I think evolution is the primary driver of everything, as evolution could be applied to non living as well as the living. It is basically that which survives in time, adapting to physical laws. It could apply to all forms of matter, those forms of matter too unstable or incapable of lasting long enough to be detected, are not here. What is left are a hodge podge of particles that survive. The physical laws themselves within this particular universe may be the result of a process of evolution in the relative association of quanta. Relative association of quanta, creates time, creates space, creates physical laws, creates forces, creates conciousness, creates pain, creates pleasure, creates it all, level upon level upon level, dimension upon dimension upon dimension. Pain is real to a concious being, yet if you break it down completely, it is only a relative assocation of quanta. My evolved belief is that, since I know at least one possibility of a (very complex) association of quanta exists, then nothing prevents all possible associations of quanta from existing. So all possible associations of quanta must exist. And since time is just an artifact of an association between sets of quanta, none of these possible sets goes away, the universe, or multiverse, however you want to call it, just exists, with no beginning and no end, and what creates the observer moments within is just the relative association between sets of quanta. There is no observer moment without an interval of time, created by a string of similar sets of quanta. Of course this means there are any number of possible subsequent sets of quanta that follow from this very instant, when you look at any possible set of quanta in relation to another, thus the multiverse concept. It'll be that or something quite like it, my bet. :-) RMahoney -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why I am I?
pretty cool thread (read most but skimmed thru some of it though). I've spent the past 35 or so years (i'm now 56) pondering the subject of why I am I and doing thought experiment after thought experiment with cloning, copies, changing I one particle at a time until I am you or someone else, and ultimately came to the conclusion as someone posted midway thru this thread of the concept of the universal person or universal soul... consciousness is basically universal, there is no priority of one bit of consciousness over the other. Within just my own life, the organism I was 35 years ago is not the organism I am today, I am only connected to that former organism by sequential events in time and space, threaded together. With an advanced technology I could become Tom Cruise by sequential changes particle by particle, memory by memory, thought by thought, until I became the currently existing Tom Cruise. Would my I which changed over the course of 35 years from my former I be any different than Tom Cruise's I that was changed over time (bit by bit) from my former I? Thought experiments like these made me realize we're all essentially the same universal concept, we're all just unique pieces of the whole of the everything. It's just really cool to find like thinking by a string search on the web, having done all this thinking in isolation and coming to the same conclusion as other minds have. What brought me to this site was a string search for everything possible exists, something I now believe and was just curious if there was any text on the web with the same line of thinking. It was my answer to the other question I've always had as to why does the universe exist at all? I came to my own conclusion that if anything exists (which apparently it does), then every possible event must exist, every possible outcome from one state to the other must exist, and if it existed once, nothing stops it from existing again, and actually, every possible event not only exists but has always existed and will always exist. Kind of expands the universe quite a bit, virtually infinite. There's not only me, but every possible outcome of my life. There's every possible outcome of my mom dad's reproduction, some of which produce me but nearly infinitely conditions that do not produce my starting organism. My dad wouldn't have existed, if it weren't for the lightning strike that killed his mom's first husband. So I'm here because I am just one of nearly infinite possibilities of consciousness. Disconcerting, at times, where I used to think, glad it's them and not me (like tortured terrorist victims), well, we're all the same basically, and while the whole of everything contains terrible things, including the very worst of possibilities, it also contains the very best as well. Having figured this much out to my satisfaction actually gives me a very contented, peaceful and secure feeling. - Roy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why I am I?
pretty cool thread (read most but skimmed thru some of it though). I've spent the past 35 or so years (i'm now 56) pondering the subject of why I am I and doing thought experiment after thought experiment with cloning, copies, changing I one particle at a time until I am you or someone else, and ultimately came to the conclusion as someone posted midway thru this thread of the concept of the universal person or universal soul... consciousness is basically universal, there is no priority of one bit of consciousness over the other. Within just my own life, the organism I was 35 years ago is not the organism I am today, I am only connected to that former organism by sequential events in time and space, threaded together. With an advanced technology I could become Tom Cruise by sequential changes particle by particle, memory by memory, thought by thought, until I became the currently existing Tom Cruise. Would my I which changed over the course of 35 years from my former I be any different than Tom Cruise's I that was changed over time (bit by bit) from my former I? Thought experiments like these made me realize we're all essentially the same universal concept, we're all just unique pieces of the whole of the everything. It's just really cool to find like thinking by a string search on the web, having done all this thinking in isolation and coming to the same conclusion as other minds have. What brought me to this site was a string search for everything possible exists, something I now believe and was just curious if there was any text on the web with the same line of thinking. It was my answer to the other question I've always had as to why does the universe exist at all? I came to my own conclusion that if anything exists (which apparently it does), then every possible event must exist, every possible outcome from one state to the other must exist, and if it existed once, nothing stops it from existing again, and actually, every possible event not only exists but has always existed and will always exist. Kind of expands the universe quite a bit, virtually infinite. There's not only me, but every possible outcome of my life. There's every possible outcome of my mom dad's reproduction, some of which produce me but nearly infinitely conditions that do not produce my starting organism. My dad wouldn't have existed, if it weren't for the lightning strike that killed his mom's first husband. So I'm here because I am just one of nearly infinite possibilities of consciousness. Disconcerting, at times, where I used to think, glad it's them and not me (like tortured terrorist victims), well, we're all the same basically, and while the whole of everything contains terrible things, including the very worst of possibilities, it also contains the very best as well. Having figured this much out to my satisfaction actually gives me a very contented, peaceful and secure feeling. RMahoney -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
