My friend Geir Isene has written this article ‘On Will.’
According to this article the idea of will essentially depends on the idea of choice. But what is not clear is who or what is this thing called ‘I’, which makes the choice. The whole logic of this article depends on the underlying assumption that there is a spiritual element called ‘I’, which is absolute, permanent and independent in itself.
That is an assumption, which I do not see challenged in the western philosophy. But I do see it challenged in the Eastern philosophy. If there is no absolute, permanent and independent ‘I’ then there is no absolute, permanent and independent power to make choice; and there is no absolute, permanent and independent will – even potentially.
According to Buddhist philosophy, what we call a ‘being’ or an ‘individual’, or ‘I’ is only a convenient name or a label given to the combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies. They are all impermanent, all constantly changing. They are not the same for two consecutive moments. Here A is not equal to A. They are in a flux of momentary arising and disappearing.
One thing disappears, conditioning the appearance of the next in a series of cause and effect. There is no unchanging substance in them. There is nothing behind them that can be called a permanent Self, individuality, or anything that can in reality be called ‘I’. But when these physical and mental aggregates which are interdependent are working together in combination as a physio-psychological machine, we get the idea of ‘I’. But this is only a false idea of self. There is no other ‘being’ or ‘I’, standing behind these aggregates.
There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you move the thought, there is no thinker to be found. Here we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view is diametrically opposed to the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: ‘I think, therefore I am.’
Everything in the physical universe is relative to each other. According to Buddhism, this is the case with everything in the spiritual universe as well. There is nothing absolute… not even the soul.
The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without. – Buddha
.
Comments
A choice should be defined as one of many alternatives. It is not known how a choice comes into play. It seems that there is an ‘I’ that chooses, but this is just an assumption. That is not always the case anyway.
In a random environment, the alternative that comes into play is mostly unpredictable. However, in a structured environment, the alternative that comes into play may be predicted. Random and structured would be properties of environments. The enviroments are relative to each other.
Thus, a choice coming into play is likely to be a variable, which would be dependent on the properties of its environment.
.
If selection of a choice is the outcome of ‘will’ being exercised, then ‘will’ would be some kind of a mechanism or agency tied to the predictability property of the environment.
In the question, “Do you really possess free will?” the word ‘you’ would most likely be the environment, whose characteristics induce choices to come into play. This environment may be called called ‘I’ or ‘you’. It would be relative to other such environments. It would not be something unique and absolute.
This line of thought negates the idea of God being absolute. If there is a phenomenon called God, then that would be a relative phenomenon only.
.
Ability to choose, or the will, shall then depend on the very nature if the environment. ‘I’ or ‘you’ may best be described as such an environment.
Will is something black and white as Isene puts, “You either have potential free will or no free will.” Every ‘I’ or ‘you’ will have some gradient will depending on the nature (composition) of that ‘I’ or ‘you’.
.
No free will would mean that that an environment is totally structured. This is not possible in the absolute sense. Even when events are determined by the laws of physical universe, some play among them is still possible per the principle of Uncertainty.
It is not possible to know the state of the universe at any given time and all the laws that govern it, with total certainty, even when the astrophysicist Steven Hawking speculates upon it.
.
“Even when events are determined by the laws of physical universe, some play among them is still possible per the principle of Uncertainty.”
Tolerance among physical laws is an assumption on your part. Uncertainty is a principle regarding my inability to predict more so than a variation in physical law.
When I am trying to pinpoint both velocity and location, I can get closer to one while getting further in accuracy from the other. This is because pinpointing location precisely lowers both velocity and time to zero and is an argument for a Discrete Universe.
Here is a nice Wikipedia article on Uncertainty Principle. It puts it differently from what you are saying.
Uncertainty principle
“Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect,[4] which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg himself offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical “explanation” of quantum uncertainty.[5] However, it has since become clear that quantum uncertainty is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[6]. It must be emphasized that by measurement is not meant a process in which a physicist-observer takes part. By measurement, in quantum mechanics, is meant any interaction between classical and quantum objects independently of any observer. [7]”
.
That’s a good article and it reinforces what I am saying that uncertainty is within us. Explaining our inability to calculate accurately because of variations in the physical universe is just an admission that we are uncertain of what we are observing. The article explains that the variations are “out there.” That has a superstitious foundation and Godel’s proves it. What I am saying is that our inability to calculate is underlain with some false major premises of how the universe works.
Here is some more data:
Observer Effect
It seems that a complete system would include both the observer and the observed, as well as the intrument used to observe. We cannot assume these things to be totally indenedent of each other. They would influence each other in some respect. That mutual interaction is more visble at Quantum levels.
I see a totally deterministic system to be a completely structured system with no options available. In this system, the observer would be structured with observed and no interaction between them would be possible. Since absolutes are unattainable, I don’t think a totally deterministic system is possible.
On the other hand, I see a totally random system as a completely free system with no structure at all. Everything in it would be an option. There wouldn’t by any identifiable differentiation between the observer and the observed. The two may freely interchange into each other. Since absolutes are unattainable, I don’t think that a totally random system is possible either.
Here I am making no differentiation between physical and spiritual. Both these aspects would be part of the system. The observed may be identified as physical. The observer may be identified as spiritual.
It is the configuration of such a system that would possess properties, such as, beingness, awareness, space, energy, matter and time. The configuration would be in a flux, and so would be all its properties,Thus, ‘I’ would simply be a property of this system and not some external and independent influence.
Also see,
THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE
.
Well if I read you correctly you are now saying that the observer and observed are part of the same system and therefore complete. Then back the other way…
So it is seeming obvious that our system defies precise definition. We can say the reason for this is because of the inconsistencies or completeness of our systems or there is another possibility that we are chasing wild geese down blind alleys.
All I am doing is wedging my mind open so that I don’t become too sure of my paradigms. Thank you for all the material with which to jam it open.
This discussion is giving me new insights. All is well.
.
Agreed. Your assertions provide the traction that I need to push against to shake out and then level the inconsistencies in my own considerations. This is very stimulating.
A proper discussion should be that way for all participants. There is no one-up-man-ship.
Discussions and what needs to be avoided
.
I know we have friction from time to time but for me that is only a physical result of and in direct proportion to the degree if inconsistencies rubbing up against each other. I am only interested in leveling my inconsistencies.
You seem to be taking the discipline regarding discussion on this blog well. I am very happy for that.
Thanks for putting up with me.
.
Well I got used to you and you’ve gotten used to me and each little thing is no big thing . . . 😀
Yes. It is the discussion that is important and not the consideration of self. 😀
.
ah but I thought we established that any discussion was a discussion of self! haha
Oh! For sure… you naughty boy!
.
Randomness is always there where alternatives are present. Will is something underlying the choice of which alternative will come into play. There is this idea that everything in the physical universe is pre-determined and no alternatives are possible.
This absolutism is not possible even if the brilliant French scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace endorsed it. We have Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to contradict that endorsement.
In a deterministic universe, “random” is just another word for there being possibilities, and also unpredicted consequences — not choices. Choice is a word describing choice between possibilities and something choosing. Choice is a meaningless word in a deterministic universe.
I think that we are getting our definitions mixed. ‘Random’ is not a subset of ‘deterministic’. These are two different characteristics of a system. They can exist side by side. The more deterministic a system is, the less random it would be; and vice versa.
.
. . . AND Godel’s alerts us to a Root Mean Misunderstanding (RMM) of quantum physics. His beautiful work points the way and describes the paradox that we must question until we get the question right. Written another way, there are false major premises at the root of our understanding of quanta. Godel points the way, so we should continue while understanding that we are definitely looking for not just new discoveries about Nature, but a definite misunderstanding about Nature. My hypothesis is that resolving this will consequently resolve Godel’s Uncertainty.
From the reference I gave above (Gödel’s incompleteness theorems):
“The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an “effective procedure” (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.”
Basically, it seems to say that to understand a system completely you need a datum of comparable magnitude. A system cannot be understood fully within itself. If we apply this to a deterministic system, we cannot say if a system is totally deterministic in itself. If we compare it with something else, we can get only a relative idea about that system.
.
And what in the physical universe would be of comparable magnitude to it?
The physics of this universe encompasses such diverse orders of magnitude as to be incomprehensible to the human mind, and really, I think these diverse orders of magnitude are the root source of obfuscation of understanding of this universe and the root source of the facts of brilliant observations such as Godel’s.
NOTHING.
Isene’s Deterministic model has some randomness in it due to the Principle of Uncertainty. So, in truth, we have just the Random Model. A random model provides alternatives. Which alternative will be chosen, or come into play, shall depend on the nature of the environment. That environment could by physical, or it could be the spiritual ‘I’.
There is no absolute boundary separating physical from spiritual. It is an error to think of spiritual ‘I’ as some influence “external” to physical. Both physical and spiritual are parts of the same universe.
.
This type of randomness only points to our uncertainty and not necessarily to arbitrariness in the extant universe.
Randomness needs to be there for an alternative to be brought into play (will to be exerted). If there is no randomness, then no alternative can be brought to play, and no will can be demonstrated.
Therefore, randomness and will go hand in hand.
.
Considering the current works in mathematics demonstrating “unpredicted randomness rooted in iterated mathematical calculations” I see no reason to think that randomness needs to be considered as any going any deeper in meaning than “unpredicted illusion.”
That will do. Yes.
.
Isene puts forth Objective Theories of (1) Deterministic Model, and (2) Random Model, but a closer examination (see above) shows that the Deterministic Model is a subset of the Random Model. Thus, we only have the Random Model as part of the Objective Theory.
Isene then goes on to say, “In the Objective Theories, there is no will that can cause anything.” The truth is that there is no absolute cause either objectively or subjectively. Isene seems to be saying that there is no absolute cause objectively. But then there is no absolute cause subjectively either.
But there are relative causes both objectively as well as subjectively. Thus, there is will both objectively and subjectively. It is an error to assume that ‘will’ can only be subjective.
.
As shown above, the Objective theory demonstrated through Random Model, does not seem to deny ‘will’. There is will in the physical universe, just as there is will in the spiritual universe. Will is defined here as that property of the environment (whether physical or spiritual), which brings certain alternatives, or choices, into play. ‘I’ and ‘you’ simply represent a spiritual environment, and not some elemental entity that is absolute.
The accountability for any action can only be assigned to the environment, which induces it. ‘I’ and ‘you’ are environments created by physical and mental forces and energies. There is no single, permanent ‘spiritual’ element that can be held accountable. Awareness would also be a property of this environment. This viewpoint shines a new light on our concepts of self, responsibility, control, awareness, etc.
.
Pretty good. I can see how you arrived at that.
As long as there is an environment, either physical or spiritual, and there are alternatives in that environment, then there shall be a ‘will’ present, because one of those alternatives is in play. It will be so because of the particular constitution of that environment at that moment, and that would be its will.
One should look at self as a sort of an environment, and a physical environment as sort of a self. There is never a situation when there is no will, because absolutes are unattainable. There will always be a certain gradient of will. So, any speculation about the conditions when there is no will is superfluous.
.
Responsibility would be determined by tracking actions back to the originating configuration of the environment. Thus, a certain constitution of the self would be responsible for a certain action. Any wrongness and rightness is a consideration added to what is there. Wrongness and rightness are add-ons.
Being objective may be defined as seeing things as they are without any add-ons. An observation may be considered subjective to the degree there are add-ons. But objective and subjective have been defined in many other ways.
.
So attachment to the body is the source of suffering, and yet the body is all there is, so this presents a problem.
It could be attachment to body…
It could attachment to the physical universe…
It could be attachment to the mind…
It could attachment to the mental universe…
It could be attachment to spirit…
It could attachment to the spiritual universe…
It could be any attachment.
What is attachment? It is fixation. One doesn’t need to be fixated on life in order to enjoy life. Let it come and go. Appreciate each moment.
.
Free will is governed by laws, whether these are the ‘Laws of Consideration’ or the laws of the physical universe. These laws bring about a certain constitution to the self, or certain configuration to the environment, to induce certain actions (an alternative among many possibilities)..
The ‘Law of Consideration’ may be described as follows:
The moment a consideration is made and held in place, it would influence and/or limit the next consideration in areas that overlap. Then these two considerations shall influence and/or limit the next consideration in areas that overlap. And so on with subsequent considerations. So here we have a very basic law that applies to considerations.
.
. . . Yes Vinaire, and for me seems to be described in all the variations of fractal mathematics. I am saying that your statement is consistent with what the view becomes when running these mechanical iterated processes. Nothing in my experience of growing up and education has clicked in quite this way. Granted, I have had some similar enthusiasm and hope in the past upon embarking on each philosophical and scientific path. This a new level of consistency for me.
🙂
Isene’s article states:
“The power of choice must at least in part be separate from the physical universe in some way. And only if it can potentially be completely separate can it potentially be fully free. Free implies free from space, energy, matter and time. It does not suggest that free will is somehow physically located outside the universe as that would still subject the will to physical laws and hence it would not be free.”
Free does not imply free from space, energy, matter and time. These four components span the whole gradient of which physical and spiritual are different aspects. These components characterize anything that is manifested. Please see
THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE
When Will is manifested, it is subject to the laws that represent space, energy, matter and time.
.
Isene’s article states:
“Let’s explore a theory of free will: You can choose. It is up to you. You can change the course of events. You are accountable for your actions and are ultimately responsible. This assertion can be labeled a Metaphysical Theory or a Subjective Theory.”
I look at this differently. Self is not a constant that wills and intends. It is the constitution of self, which manifests as will and intention. This constitution depends on the physical and mental forces and energies that are organized as self.
To get what it desires the self shall have to continuously adjust its very make up starting from considerations and all the way down to matter.
.
Isene’s article states:
“Free will introduces the observer into the universe, an element that seems to fit well with quantum mechanics. Lee Smolin, in the book The Trouble with Physics, lists the five great problems facing the science of physics today. The second problem reads: “Resolve the problems in the foundation of quantum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense”. The external observer possessed with free will seems to resolve the problems in the foundation of quantum mechanics, as will be explored later in the article.”
There cannot be an observer possessed with free will that is external to the universe. That would be self-contradictory because, by definition, the universe encompasses all manifestations. There cannot be any manifestation, such as, observer or will, that is not part of the universe.
.
Your bold-typed statement makes sense; however, now we need to re-ask or rephrase the question having to do with the wave collapse.
It seems that it is a matter of really understanding what attention and awareness is actually!
.
hehe — I think that’s what I just said, right?
There is considered time, consisdered space, considered energy and considered matter.
Considered matter is what we call consideration.
.
Axiom #1 should be:
“THERE IS NOTHING BESIDES THIS UNIVERSE.”
All that there is constitutes this universe. That includes you, your thoughts, your visualizations, and anything that you can be aware of, and the awareness itself.
Any speculation on NOTHING is also part of this universe. There is no escape. There is only facing up to what is there.
The first step of facing up to it is seeing things as they are and recognizing what is what.
The second step is recognizing any and all fixations (attachments) and dissolving them.
Then you’ll be there resonating with this universe in every respect. That would be really living life.
.
I am in a grumpy mood this morning. I stayed up late doing calculations by hand trying to frame up the concept of a Planck second in terms that the human mind can wrap itself around and failed. The orders of magnitude are too greatly different. There there are no two things within the human experience which prepares the mind to allow for these two orders of magnitude to sit side by side. When I try to increase the scales bringing the Planck second up to an SIU second of duration, or even compare it to a millimeter in length; The upper end of the scale leaves the universe behind.
Therefore, this discussion of human being within and only within the subset of the universe seems correct. Also, in this context, the thought that man’s will exists outside this set seems to come from some sort of mental malfunction — a megalomania. Some virulent spinning off tangent like a fractal that drifts off into infinity. Unstable. Detached yet derived from the seed equation. I’m having nightmares just worrying about it . . .
Maybe there is something to this. Maybe something to understand in this example.
The unknowable strikes again!
It is better to start with the knowable and work our way backwards toward the unknowable rather than speculating about the unknowable, as people on Geir’s blog seem to be doing.
.
Isene:
“As free will lies outside the realm and laws of the physical universe and acts as an external influence, it cannot be directly proven or disproved in and by the physical universe. Any proof can only be circumstantial. For that reason, the weakness of this theory is that it cannot be proven to those who will accept only direct physical proof of a phenomena.”
Vinaire:
Physical and spiritual are parts of the same universe. It cannot be said that the spiritual universe is external to the physical universe and influences it, without being influenced back.
There is no need to prove anything to anybody. Only a procedure needs to be provided through which one may experience it for oneself if interested.
.
Free will, or will, does not exist outside the laws of this universe. It does not supersede time. Free will is created and destroyed just as beingness is created and destroyed.
‘Free will’ is limited by its own constitution, which is made up of considerations. It is subject to the Law of Consideration.
There are no subjective or objective theories of FREE WILL. Looking at the fundamentals, WILL may be defined as that aspect of the physical environment or spiritual constitution, which brings certain alternatives, or choices, into play.
.
WILL shall always exist as long as there are alternative possibilities, and one or the other comes into play. The factors, which bring a possibility into play could be given the label WILL. WILL could be of any form from simple to sophisticated. It resonates with what comes into play.
The mysterious factor seems to be the SELF. It is a feeling that there is something that is choosing, commanding, or being at effect. It is like the center of consciousness analogous to center of mass (or gravity) of an object.
Thus, SELF is a simple and convenient way of looking at a more complicated phenomenon.
.