Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Do the laws of physics prevent us from having genuine free will ?


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

It's out of date and ignores modern experiments.

So, your first comment now appears overstated. No disproof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What 'actual evidence'?  There's nothing to 'explain away', that's a term usually reserved for things that do have evidence for them.  You specifically try to avoid evidence-based conversations, ergo your invocation of the evasive and artificial 'there it must sit' when people ask you for it or present their evidence.

Back to 'no evidence', eh. I guess we'll have to end in disagreement. I consider anecdotal evidence myself as I am not claiming to do 'science' but rather addressing the question 'all things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe'. I consider mountains of anecdotal evidence in that kind of consideration.

The other day I saw a write-up that summarizes what I want to say.

PseudoSkeptics are always saying, "There's no evidence for any paranormal or psychic phenomena" no matter how much evidence is shown to them. That's because this statement is a religion to them, not an objective statement.

So no matter what evidence you give them, they will always deny it and raise the bar, simply because "there is no evidence" is a fixed belief to them. So, if you give them stories and experiences, even from credible sources, they will reject it as "anecdotal" and inadmissible as evidence. If you give them scientific studies that show positive results for psi, they will argue that those studies did not have proper controls (since, if they did, they'd only get chance results, so their fixed logic goes). And they will argue that the studies must be replicable. Then when you show them replicated studies (e.g. Ganzfeld), they will raise the bar again and argue it was not replicated enough times (until a debunker disproves it is what they mean), ad infinitum. So no matter how many stories or replicable research studies you cite, it's NEVER enough. There is no clear bar to meet to qualify as "real evidence" to them, because essentially, there is NO EVIDENCE in their mind, thus there is no real criteria to be met. That gives them the license to deny ad infinitum. It's like playing a shady game of three shells with a con artist. You can never win because the conclusion has already been decided from the get go. That's what makes these Pseudoskeptics dishonest and not what they claim at all.

40 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

No they are not.  Either God created the universe or God is the universe, on the surface those are exclusive and one at least must be wrong.  So there's no reason to think your philosophical/religious beliefs have anything to do with the case for true free will.

 

The universe is a creative emanation of Brahman/God and not separate from Him is my belief. We can go on a theology tangent but here I was only addressing the question: Do the laws of physics prevent us from having genuine free will ?  

Actually, the question itself is not rightly put to someone of a nondual school. Brahman alone has free will, but we are that Brahman. That answer takes time for someone with dualistic thinking to digest.

53 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

Now why should any rational person 'accept' that consciousness is separate from the physical, or anything really, while 'the way' is unknown and mysterious? 'The way' refers to the 'how' which you are nowhere near, you are still stuck at 'whether'.

 

I understand the appeal of the 'matter creates consciousness' theory because it seems to involve things our senses can detect and reason with. However, as a rational person, I also must consider the (so-called) paranormal evidence that is challenging to the 'matter creates consciousness' theory as well as the testimony of many masters/rishis/mystics that claim direct experience of the Oneness of all consciousness (as opposed to the many individual matter created consciousnesses). From all that I form my best judgment. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2022 at 10:05 PM, joc said:

So is Space a human concept as well?  It seems to be something beyond that.  How can you warp a concept?  Again thinking out loud...I actually had a lot of thoughts about Space this morning on my drive to work.  

This question may drive me actually insane at some point.  What is Space?  

Okay, so my thoughts this morning were...Space is a vacuum.  Then how did all the matter get into the vacuum...unless maybe there is a very small hole somewhere in the fabric of Space.  Doesn't make any sense though because where did all the matter come from outside of the vacuum...unless...there is another vacuum...kind of a Venn Diagram of sorts where there are two universes overlapping...the matter is sucked into Space...and the Space begins to expand...and as it expands it closes the vent between the two universes.  Then I began to think about the 'big bang' in which Space and Matter appeared at the same time.  So, I am right back where I started...Space a vacuum?  smh

Space is not composed of particles. Particles do exist in space. Space is mostly empty. This emptiness can be warped.

And you are smart to wonder what is space. It changes shape. It can become larger. How does that happen? There are ideas that are being tested about dark matter and dark energy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2022 at 10:57 AM, Ell said:

We are all governed by psychopaths and other mentally handicapped people, so we indeed do not have free will.

Yep.  Also ask any male who is missing something rather important how he had no say in the matter as it was taken against his will as an infant according to the laws of Moses and or ignorant parents.

 

 

 

Edited by Festina
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I find the scientism types to have an anti-religious, anti-paranormal bent to them. They don't like the paranormal, religious, spiritual, psychic as in their minds hard science as to explain away all that superstitious stuff in materialistic ways. When actual evidence suggests the ultimate failure of the materialist worldview, they become irrationally resistant to the evidence.

The words 'right' and 'wrong' are too simplistic for this discussion. My opinion is that (non-fundamentalist) Christianity is on the right track, but eastern Vedic (Hindu) philosophy has reached a deeper level of understanding than the Abrahamic religions. Monotheism expands into pantheism.

My opinion, that will produce endless debate no doubt with a materialist, is that those with a bent for a materialist view will never accept consciousness as affecting the physical in some yet unknown and mysterious way. It is like asking a Christian fundamentalist to accept evolution. It must be fought forever.

Here's the first thing my search on Quantum Observer Effect turned up:

The term observer effect in quantum physics means that the act of observing something will influence the thing being observed and by the observation, waves turn into particles. The observer effect was validated with the double-slit experiment which revealed that particles are in the state of potential until they are observed.

When has anyone supplied any evidence of this nature: "When actual evidence suggests the ultimate failure of the materialist worldview" I know you have not. You rely on the words of story tellers and pretend that they are somehow evidence. The only one irrationally resistant to evidence is you because it shows your claims are nonsense at best.

Science, about which you seem to know nothing, accepts its limitations. It is often stated overtly that science is limited. On the other hands we have religions that tell stories. Their stories of the world we observe are often very wrong. Examples:

  • Geology shows that creation stories are wrong.
  • The big bang shows that the cycling of souls requires a time there are no souls

A materialist, as you call them, is someone that rejects story telling and wants evidence to support an idea. You are willing to take in every really dumb story that suits your fancy instead of applying even some critical thinking which should quickly tell you that those you claim to respect are charlatans.

Again, you have never ever supplied anything of this nature. ""When actual evidence suggests the ultimate failure of the materialist worldview""

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Back to 'no evidence', eh. I guess we'll have to end in disagreement. I consider anecdotal evidence myself as I am not claiming to do 'science' but rather addressing the question 'all things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe'. I consider mountains of anecdotal evidence in that kind of consideration.

The other day I saw a write-up that summarizes what I want to say.

PseudoSkeptics are always saying, "There's no evidence for any paranormal or psychic phenomena" no matter how much evidence is shown to them. That's because this statement is a religion to them, not an objective statement.

So no matter what evidence you give them, they will always deny it and raise the bar, simply because "there is no evidence" is a fixed belief to them. So, if you give them stories and experiences, even from credible sources, they will reject it as "anecdotal" and inadmissible as evidence. If you give them scientific studies that show positive results for psi, they will argue that those studies did not have proper controls (since, if they did, they'd only get chance results, so their fixed logic goes). And they will argue that the studies must be replicable. Then when you show them replicated studies (e.g. Ganzfeld), they will raise the bar again and argue it was not replicated enough times (until a debunker disproves it is what they mean), ad infinitum. So no matter how many stories or replicable research studies you cite, it's NEVER enough. There is no clear bar to meet to qualify as "real evidence" to them, because essentially, there is NO EVIDENCE in their mind, thus there is no real criteria to be met. That gives them the license to deny ad infinitum. It's like playing a shady game of three shells with a con artist. You can never win because the conclusion has already been decided from the get go. That's what makes these Pseudoskeptics dishonest and not what they claim at all.

The universe is a creative emanation of Brahman/God and not separate from Him is my belief. We can go on a theology tangent but here I was only addressing the question: Do the laws of physics prevent us from having genuine free will ?  

Actually, the question itself is not rightly put to someone of a nondual school. Brahman alone has free will, but we are that Brahman. That answer takes time for someone with dualistic thinking to digest.

I understand the appeal of the 'matter creates consciousness' theory because it seems to involve things our senses can detect and reason with. However, as a rational person, I also must consider the (so-called) paranormal evidence that is challenging to the 'matter creates consciousness' theory as well as the testimony of many masters/rishis/mystics that claim direct experience of the Oneness of all consciousness (as opposed to the many individual matter created consciousnesses). From all that I form my best judgment. 

 

This is the whining that is common of those with a failed position. Those promoting the failed agendas complain that bad experiments should be accepted, that storytelling is important, etc. That is what those with a failed position do.

Now you might be thinking I am referring to the paranormal, ghost, psi, whatever. I am also referring to science. Consider such tales as HCQ. That fits into the whining in the paragraph you posted. The early trash studies are used to promote HCQ as are storytelling from politicians. But large properly run studies show HCQ is of no use in dealing with COVID-19. The same can be said for ivermectin. I have met retired astronomers that still push the steady state universe and their complaints sound very much like the whining you posted. There are also wacko stories about Tesla. The same applies there.

Your whining paragraph also fails in that they pretend this: "So no matter how many stories or replicable research studies you cite, it's NEVER enough. " The person is pretending this exists. It doesn't. It's typical of whiners backing failed ideas to complain and make up stories. Story telling is the essence of ideas that lack supporting evidence.

And it is not rational to consider made up stories to support whatever nonsense you wish to promote. That's self deception. That's wishful thinking possibly. More likely it is an excuse to avoid following the evidence.

Here you wind up with your only thinking, which is storytelling: "the testimony of many masters/rishis/mystics". That is nothing more than story telling. No matter how you attempt to use the appeal to authority  informal logical fallacy, it just shows you have nothing to support your tales.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a person is presented with an animation of nine circles with a red dot on the circumference their emotions will change as the dots move along the circles. 
 

There are also differences between random dot positions and all nine dots being in the same place on their respective circles.

 

This simply wouldn’t happen without materialistic determinism.

 

my favourite is when all nine dots reach the 12 o’clock position, and it is more appealing to me if they converge there despite random speeds.

Edited by Frank_Hoenedge
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frank_Hoenedge said:

This simply wouldn’t happen without materialistic determinism.

 

huh?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, stereologist said:

Space is not composed of particles. Particles do exist in space. Space is mostly empty. This emptiness can be warped.

And you are smart to wonder what is space. It changes shape. It can become larger. How does that happen? There are ideas that are being tested about dark matter and dark energy.

I have heard or read or somehow have in my mind that particles....? particles ?...I don't even really know what particles are...quarks, planks?...fade in and out of existence...they are here and then they are not.  I have no idea what that means or where it came from really.

All I know...is that I learned something in this thread...from you Stereo.  That consciousness is indeed physical.  Every aspect of consciousness is physical...the chemicals, the biology, the electricity...what else is there going on inside our brain except physical?  Nothing.  Consciousness is not a product of or bi-product of the physical...it is physical.  I just need to wrap my head around what physical actually is.  So thank you for that Stereo!  @lightly I was wrong...the song in our heads is physical...it's all physical.

If space warps....and space isn't physical...what is it that is warping?  Warping to me sounds like some kind of displacement.  I really don't even know what I am talking about...anyway thanks.

I apologize @stereologist for being so  antagonistic toward you.  I will be more mindful in the future as @Sherapy has taught us all to be.:hmm: 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, joc said:

I have heard or read or somehow have in my mind that particles....? particles ?...I don't even really know what particles are...quarks, planks?...fade in and out of existence...they are here and then they are not.  I have no idea what that means or where it came from really.

All I know...is that I learned something in this thread...from you Stereo.  That consciousness is indeed physical.  Every aspect of consciousness is physical...the chemicals, the biology, the electricity...what else is there going on inside our brain except physical?  Nothing.  Consciousness is not a product of or bi-product of the physical...it is physical.  I just need to wrap my head around what physical actually is.  So thank you for that Stereo!  @lightly I was wrong...the song in our heads is physical...it's all physical.

If space warps....and space isn't physical...what is it that is warping?  Warping to me sounds like some kind of displacement.  I really don't even know what I am talking about...anyway thanks.

I apologize @stereologist for being so  antagonistic toward you.  I will be more mindful in the future as @Sherapy has taught us all to be.:hmm: 

Let's be careful. I haven't stated that consciousness is completely physical even though that appear to be the case. In all cases it appears to be physical. Maybe there is a test that will show it to be not physical. Remember in science it is possible to falsify a theory, but never prove a theory.

The nature of space is a mystery. How can it stretch? That is a clear observation. It warps. That too is observed.

It's okay to be as you say "antagonistic" if the end goal is to learn. I often find that posters are either being dumb asses or they are showing me I am unclear about issues. You have shown me times when I think I understand but I do not. That forces me to learn and I appreciate that.

What is space? What is this supposed emptiness between things we see? You've raised good ideas.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, joc said:

I have heard or read or somehow have in my mind that particles....? particles ?...I don't even really know what particles are...quarks, planks?...fade in and out of existence...they are here and then they are not.  I have no idea what that means or where it came from really.

All I know...is that I learned something in this thread...from you Stereo.  That consciousness is indeed physical.  Every aspect of consciousness is physical...the chemicals, the biology, the electricity...what else is there going on inside our brain except physical?  Nothing.  Consciousness is not a product of or bi-product of the physical...it is physical.  I just need to wrap my head around what physical actually is.  So thank you for that Stereo!  @lightly I was wrong...the song in our heads is physical...it's all physical.

If space warps....and space isn't physical...what is it that is warping?  Warping to me sounds like some kind of displacement.  I really don't even know what I am talking about...anyway thanks.

I apologize @stereologist for being so  antagonistic toward you.  I will be more mindful in the future as @Sherapy has taught us all to be.:hmm: 

That idea you raise, of particles (matter, physicality) popping in and out of EXISTENCE, is, to me, the most interesting question in ‘physics’.  (because I wonder If some sort of non-physicality, is required for physicality  to become …physical).     Nature seems to thrive on ,be energized by, opposites.?    ( I think existence precedes physicality ..and not the other way around, but that’s a big can of worms;)  What is space is a good question too!  :tu:   (as for thoughts (songs in our heads) my ‘argument’ was that thoughts are REAL,  so it seems we now agree on that in some sense or other;)

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, stereologist said:

Let's be careful. I haven't stated that consciousness is completely physical even though that appear to be the case. In all cases it appears to be physical. Maybe there is a test that will show it to be not physical. Remember in science it is possible to falsify a theory, but never prove a theory.

To be more accurate...you taught me that atoms are made of particles.  I didn't know that.  That light is made of particles...I didn't know that.

From that  I considered what happens in our brains...the mechanism for thought, for memory, for taking what comes in from our five senses and arranging it in a form where we can understand the world around us...all of that is physical.  So, if all of that is physical...if the entire functioning process of consciousness is physical,  then how can consciousness be anything but physical?  With the primary thought being that when the physical life dies, the mechanism for producing consciousness is gone and the consciousness ceases to exist.  

Something that @Liquid Gardens said once about how it could be that we are living in a matrix...

...I now think I understand where he was coming from...maybe not...   but if that is the case it would seem to me that the Matrix is the neuron paths themselves inside the cortex of our brain. That makes sense that our consciousness is actually a matrix... but that doesn't mean that the physicality of the universe isn't real.  

but then again...if particles go in and out of existence...perhaps the entire Universe itself is the matrix of a much larger entity and we ourselves are just thought processes inside that matrix.  I don't think that is a path worth going down though.  But the matrix in our head is.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought this was interesting..  light can be particles or waves?   Particle/matter    Wave/energy     But, energy and matter are interchangeable .. one becomes the other .  
    https://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/as/physics/5/asp5_1a.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the ‘particles’ of which atoms are formed    proton+ (neutron)   ~ electron     are actually just the points in space where the positive, and negative forces meet.    Where their energy fields intersect.     ???

Edited by lightly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Probably not.   ;)     I hear it coming..BUT lightly, what about CERN ?   Particle accelerator / collider.. the particle collisions of which create great bursts of energy?              Well,   maybe the collisions don’t disintegrate ‘particles’. .but instead burst the barriers between the forces , allowing them to directly engage / interact  with each other causing the bursts of energy.  ??   I dunno, I’m just wondering , and talking too much! 
    The disclaimer at the bottom of my posts is there for good reason.   :P

Edited by lightly
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lightly said:

I wonder if the ‘particles’ of which atoms are formed    proton+ (neutron)   ~ electron     are actually just the points in space where the positive, and negative forces meet.    Where their energy fields intersect.     ???

Protons and neutrons are composed of particles called quarks. A proton is made up of two up quarks and one down quark. A neutron is composed of two down quarks and one up quark. Quarks combine to make hadrons. That is what is used in the LHC, the large hadron collider. Electrons are different and are a type of particle called a fermion.

There is a whole menagerie of particles in the universe.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks stereologist.    Just one more, possibly idiotic, question please .. .   Might space be considered Potential energy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lightly said:

Thanks stereologist.    Just one more, possibly idiotic, question please .. .   Might space be considered Potential energy?

Space seems to be something that can be warped and change size. My guess is that space is not potential energy but does contain potential energy. The long distance forces are gravity and electromagnetic forces. These forces are the source of the potential energy. Gravity potential energy is because things are placed where they are. EM is not that important in the universe for potential energy since the charges balance out relatively close to the objects they are associated with and magnetic fields are tied close to the matter.

Good questions such as yours are interesting.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it:

 

Mental states are brain states, or at least tied directly to your brain.

Brain states are biological states.

Biological states are physical states.

The physical world is deterministic.

Therefore, our choices are never free.

Edited by Akez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2022 at 7:27 PM, stereologist said:

Space seems to be something that can be warped and change size. My guess is that space is not potential energy but does contain potential energy. The long distance forces are gravity and electromagnetic forces. These forces are the source of the potential energy. Gravity potential energy is because things are placed where they are. EM is not that important in the universe for potential energy since the charges balance out relatively close to the objects they are associated with and magnetic fields are tied close to the matter.

Good questions such as yours are interesting.

Thanks, Ok, one more question for ya then ;)   Could Quantum fluctuations be considered potential energy ?

Edited by lightly
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, lightly said:

Thanks, Ok, one more question for ya then ;)   Could Quantum fluctuations be considered potential energy ?

So now you are making it even more unlikely that I can produce not onl a readable statement, but an accurate and correct statement.

I looked up quantum fluctuation expecting that the mean, the average, would be the same as ground state. In other words, the ups and downs would balance out with no net gain. But what I saw suggests that the fluctuations may not be observed but are described by the mathematics. Or they are observed and they do not act like other things that are similar.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

I do not think these are potential energy since anything that happens does not react with normal matter

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s an interesting video hosted by the essentia foundation in which Dr Raymond Tallis takes part in an interview regarding materialism dualism etc..

 

We have different opinions, likely based on different streams of information and experience, however it explores the topic professionally.

 

My position differs because a roll of a 6-sided die, metaphorically, represents the notion that rolling anything other than 1-6 is magical whereas I hold that rolling “green” is evidence that the neural network of the brain can resolve green and chooses to do so when rolling a die because “green” exists as a function / information elsewhere in the universe, which would still be materialistic determinism.

Edited by Frank_Hoenedge
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, lightly said:

Thanks, Ok, one more question for ya then ;)   Could Quantum fluctuations be considered potential energy ?

If you don't mind me stepping in .....

Depends how it is used. In general space no, as positive and negative tend to form in equal amounts and cancel each other out. How we got a positive balance to kick of inflation is a subject of great interest. 

However, if you consider the Casmir effect, uncharged plates are drawn to each other through quantum fluctuations, but it's a very weak force at a macro level. If you could tap into the micro level it's a very strong force. Not sure how you would utilise it but that's the energy involved. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2022 at 3:37 AM, papageorge1 said:

Sorry, but it has not been disproven. At the strongest you can say ‘controversial’. 

Disproven?

What's to prove? 

A detector reads the particles as they interact. We don't physically observe them. And who's sitting on the surface of the sun monitoring the direction of those photons? 

You're not considering the meaning of "observation" here. A machine observed. Not a human. We observed the results as measured by a machine during the interactions of the experiment. AKA the "object" being "observed".

One just has to actually think about it. As usual that's where the answer is. Right under our noses. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Disproven?

What's to prove? 

A detector reads the particles as they interact. We don't physically observe them. And who's sitting on the surface of the sun monitoring the direction of those photons? 

You're not considering the meaning of "observation" here. A machine observed. Not a human. We observed the results as measured by a machine during the interactions of the experiment. AKA the "object" being "observed".

One just has to actually think about it. As usual that's where the answer is. Right under our noses. 

Consider the double-slit experiment:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=double-slit+experiment&&view=detail&mid=F1A2ED3B30289019B287F1A2ED3B30289019B287&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Ddouble-slit%2Bexperiment%26FORM%3DHDRSC3

 

Why should a passive detector have any effect whatsoever? That is the mystery strongly suggesting the universe does not work according to the assumptions of materialism. And materialism is the philosophy that determinism relies on.

Edited by papageorge1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.