What Most People Fail to Understand about the Concept of Free Will

[Punjab]

In other words, the yogis are wrong. Particles don't spin in a vortex-like way since their spins are quantized.

One of the problems with the word ‘vortex’ is that itconjures up the conical spin of a tornado or hurricane, water swirling down the plug hole in a bath or a torroid smoke ring. However, ‘vortex’ applies to any ‘dynamic three dimensional spiral’ and there are many forms of these. One is a ball of wool. When someone winds wool onto a ball or knits from it, the ball is growing or shrinking. Then it is a vortex.

Imagine energy as wool. If it spins about a single point it will be free to spin in every direction so it will form a ball. There is no reason for it to form a toroidal vortex as depicted by the Victorian scientists. It would form a corpuscular or spherical vortex because of its freedom to spin on infinite axes, in infinite planes.

A conical vortex spins about an axis so it has poles. A spherical vortex is a perfect sphere without a discernible axis of spin or measurable poles because they are changing all the time. If the spherical vortex is a vortex of energy they will be changing at the speed of light; too fast to catch the spin at any moment in any direction.

The subatomic spherical vortex of energy provides a perfect model for the corpuscular particle of matter. Most vortex models for atoms and subatomic particles – like Lord Kelvin’s torroid vortex - fall at the first hurdle because subatomic particles are perfect spheres without any discernible axis or poles. For a model to work in physics it has to satisfy all the experimental observations that apply to it. The ‘ball of wool’ model is very powerful because it works well with experimental physics.

 

[Neil]

One of the problems with the word ‘vortex’ is that itconjures up the conical spin of a tornado or hurricane, water swirling down the plug hole in a bath or a torroid smoke ring. However, ‘vortex’ applies to any ‘dynamic three dimensional spiral’ and there are many forms of these. One is a ball of wool. When someone winds wool onto a ball or knits from it, the ball is growing or shrinking. Then it is a vortex.

Imagine energy as wool. If it spins about a single point it will be free to spin in every direction so it will form a ball. There is no reason for it to form a toroidal vortex as depicted by the Victorian scientists. It would form a corpuscular or spherical vortex because of its freedom to spin on infinite axes, in infinite planes.

A conical vortex spins about an axis so it has poles. A spherical vortex is a perfect sphere without a discernible axis of spin or measurable poles because they are changing all the time. If the spherical vortex is a vortex of energy they will be changing at the speed of light; too fast to catch the spin at any moment in any direction.

The subatomic spherical vortex of energy provides a perfect model for the corpuscular particle of matter. Most vortex models for atoms and subatomic particles – like Lord Kelvin’s torroid vortex - fall at the first hurdle because subatomic particles are perfect spheres without any discernible axis or poles. For a model to work in physics it has to satisfy all the experimental observations that apply to it. The ‘ball of wool’ model is very powerful because it works well with experimental physics.

You say "The subatomic spherical vortex of energy provides a perfect model for the corpuscular particle of matter," but the corpuscular model of matter was falsified over 80 years ago.

 

[Punjab]

A series of Yogic teachings in the late 19 th century appeared to confirm the Victorian idea that the smallest particles of matter are vortices. These were based on ancient records in India of Yogis probing the atom with their minds.

Through meditation they had developed extraordinary mental powers called Siddhis. Experts in physics with their quarks and quantum mechanics may consider the vortex of energy, as a scientific theory, unfashionable and naïve. However, as late as 1910 Cambridge University included questions on the vortex atom in the physics exams. Now, a hundred years later the vortex is making a comeback and in the 21 st century it might be the turn of quarks and quantum mechanics to be ditched.

 

[Neil]

A series of Yogic teachings in the late 19 th century appeared to confirm the Victorian idea that the smallest particles of matter are vortices. These were based on ancient records in India of Yogis probing the atom with their minds.

Through meditation they had developed extraordinary mental powers called Siddhis. Experts in physics with their quarks and quantum mechanics may consider the vortex of energy, as a scientific theory, unfashionable and naïve. However, as late as 1910 Cambridge University included questions on the vortex atom in the physics exams. Now, a hundred years later the vortex is making a comeback and in the 21 st century it might be the turn of quarks and quantum mechanics to be ditched.

You didn't address my point that the corpuscular theory of matter was falsified over 80 years ago.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So would the proposal that there is not, and in equal measure I think. That position too would have to demonstrate its ontic pith, if we are to speak of evidence. But for myself, I'm not completely convinced that "evidence" is a profound enough concept to penetrate that deeply into the nature of things. It has its utility. Can it really, especially of itself, tell us what the world is? Probably not.

Then we cannot know those parts of the world. But I don't think that the apparent existence of randomness is as extraordinary as the claim that there is a whole other realm of existence buried in indeterminism.

Cosmic rays, like anything else, would be part of the cosmic event stack A >> ZZZZ in a proper determinism.

Yes, but they would be essentially random with respect to the goings on here on Earth. It doesn't matter, though, since we agree that the universe is not deterministic.

You don't have forks. The event stack A >> ZZZZ cannot be altered.

Of course there are forks. Logically, things can happen differently under determinism. All the forks just happen to go in a predetermined way. Evolution can proceed, even though it proceeds determinstically.

No I don't. I already defined it. See previous comments about toothache.

No biologist would know what you meant by "evolutionary incentive," either, since there is no incentive in evolution.

This is not an explanation of how randomness is random...what is the "scheme"?

There is no scheme. When there is no scheme, what you get is randomness. I don't think you don't get decisions made based on the wants and desires of agents. There is exactly one scheme-free event: a completely arbitrary one.

No it won't. See above.

See what above?

I don't need to know that. The expertise associated with the problem is outsourced. All I need are the final bias advice and the ability to choose.

That's what I gave you. But the choices are maningless to you. And you won't know what effect your decision has. I cannot conceive of how you think this is a free choice.

Or completely unbiased cosmic will without context. I would think that the method for consulting memories, if one deems this important, would be the method memory already has, considered as an issue in itself, for being consulted. I'm just not seeing your point. You want a mechanism. But there isn't one. But then, there has never been one for your "randomness" either...

I don't need a mechanism. I'm happy to agree that it's mechanism-free, just like randomness. What I don't see is how that results in anything but an arbitrary choice unrelated to the agent's want and desires.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Through meditation they had developed extraordinary mental powers called Siddhis.

These were introduced in the Transcendental Meditation movement as I was becoming a trained teacher. They are still not flying, and no one mentions walking through walls and talking to animals. I wanted to learn to talk to animals!

~~ Paul

 

[Punjab]

Then learn to speak to yourself.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then learn to speak to yourself.

I shall do so. But I really wanted a chit-chat with a cat.

~~ Paul

 

[Punjab]

I shall do so. But I really wanted a chit-chat with a cat.

~~ Paul

This should help.

 

[Kai]

Then we cannot know those parts of the world. But I don't think that the apparent existence of randomness is as extraordinary as the claim that there is a whole other realm of existence buried in indeterminism.

Well, it depends on what you mean by evidence. If one means the objectivized measuring of the historical scientific process, it is doubtful that this is sufficent to know or understand properly the issue of "presence" in existence and being such a presence.

Yes, but they would be essentially random with respect to the goings on here on Earth. It doesn't matter, though, since we agree that the universe is not deterministic.

Again, there is no such thing as "essentially" random...they are either truly random or they aren't.

Of course there are forks. Logically, things can happen differently under determinism. All the forks just happen to go in a predetermined way. Evolution can proceed, even though it proceeds determinstically.

Explain to me by what process in the event stack A >> ZZZZZ a fork can take place. Use this template F >> (something happens here) >> G to explain what you are talking about.

No biologist would know what you meant by "evolutionary incentive," either, since there is no incentive in evolution.

This doesn't matter. Biologists are by no means immune to flawed thinking. I view pain as clear evidence that there is incentive in evolutionary adaption, because nature has gnosis at some level of what nature itself is (a landscape of selectable choices by the action of a cosmic will embodied in conscious being).

There is no scheme. When there is no scheme, what you get is randomness. I don't think you don't get decisions made based on the wants and desires of agents. There is exactly one scheme-free event: a completely arbitrary one.

Right. There is no scheme...exactly the same for your ontic notion of randomness and the alternative of unbiased cosmic will. So now you can stop asking for a scheme, since you have successfully answered yourself.

That's what I gave you. But the choices are maningless to you. And you won't know what effect your decision has. I cannot conceive of how you think this is a free choice.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Bear in mind that the artificial "me" we're discussing in terms of that model is simply the choosing module. It doesn't need to know the "meaning" of the choice. Other modules handle that. But as I said, in the *real* situation, I think that cosmic will acts as you, the person.

I don't need a mechanism. I'm happy to agree that it's mechanism-free, just like randomness. What I don't see is how that results in anything but an arbitrary choice unrelated to the agent's want and desires.

It isn't arbitrary. The choice event is informed by advice. This is a recording.

 

[Punjab]

You didn't address my point that the corpuscular theory of matter was falsified over 80 years ago.

Alchemical corpuscularianism? What granularity of matter do you dissolve? Finer? Gross? The recombination of the etheric body template to create the ectoplasm for an apport?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Again, there is no such thing as "essentially" random...they are either truly random or they aren't.

Agreed, but pseudorandomess can be coupled with or decoupled from the system sampling the numbers. If it's decoupled, I don't think there is much difference between that and truly random numbers.

Explain to me by what process in the event stack A >> ZZZZZ a fork can take place. Use this template F >> (something happens here) >> G to explain what you are talking about.

F >> the rabbit could logically turn left or right >> the rabbit turns left

That fork is selected by the events up through F. Had they been different, the rabbit might have turned right. Which way the rabbit turns depends on the antecedent events, but there is a logical fork.

This doesn't matter. Biologists are by no means immune to flawed thinking. I view pain as clear evidence that there is incentive in evolutionary adaption, because nature has gnosis at some level of what nature itself is (a landscape of selectable choices by the action of a cosmic will embodied in conscious being).

Nature has knowledge of spiritual truth? That makes it anagnostic.* Anyhoo, I guess we'll just disagree on this.

Right. There is no scheme...exactly the same for your ontic notion of randomness and the alternative of unbiased cosmic will. So now you can stop asking for a scheme, since you have successfully answered yourself.

Wait, unbiased cosmic will? Have I been missing the un- prefix all this time? Doesn't will necessarily imply bias?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Bear in mind that the artificial "me" we're discussing in terms of that model is simply the choosing module. It doesn't need to know the "meaning" of the choice. Other modules handle that. But as I said, in the *real* situation, I think that cosmic will acts as you, the person.

Then the choosing module does nothing more than an $n$-sided die can do.

It isn't arbitrary. The choice event is informed by advice. This is a recording.

It is arbitrary with a skew based on the probabilities of the choice assigned by other modules. And apparently those other modules are deterministic. Or at least that's what I'm getting out of the presidential model: determinism followed by a stochastic choice.

Okay, well, I'm unsatisified but probably fated to be so. I appreciate the conversation, Kai.

~~ Paul

* See what I did there?

 

[Kai]

Agreed, but pseudorandomess can be coupled with or decoupled from the system sampling the numbers. If it's decoupled, I don't think there is much difference between that and truly random numbers.

Unless there is true randomness in the system, you have a determinism. QED.

F >> the rabbit could logically turn left or right >> the rabbit turns left

"Logically" doesn't mean anything in this context. For such logic to be enforceable in the cosmos, said comsos would need to have true open-ness as a component, in order for forking to be possible, even in principle.

That fork is selected by the events up through F. Had they been different, the rabbit might have turned right. Which way the rabbit turns depends on the antecedent events, but there is a logical fork.

The antecedent events cannot be different, again unless we are in a cosmos where true open-ness (or true randomness as you would have it) contributes to event pivots.

Nature has knowledge of spiritual truth? That makes it anagnostic.* Anyhoo, I guess we'll just disagree on this.

Not knowledge in the sense of book knowledge. Knowledge in the sense that a gnostic nature knows it is not a determinism, because the splitting of choices is its own mode of action...which it is aware of by definition.

Wait, unbiased cosmic will? Have I been missing the un- prefix all this time? Doesn't will necessarily imply bias?

Not if we're talking about your idea of "true randomness," which in my worldview would put cosmic will unbiased by precedent. But I have to say that I suspect that this situation (and "true randomness") don't really exist. What exists (I think) is likely always open choice informed in some way or other.

Then the choosing module does nothing more than an $n$-sided die can do.

If the die were weighted on certain sides, then you are correct. In a mechanistic model, and assuming true randomness as an input to the final fall of the die (again on your terms...I'm skeptical of "true randomness" see above...) this mirrors the "president module."

It is arbitrary with a skew based on the probabilities of the choice assigned by other modules. And apparently those other modules are deterministic. Or at least that's what I'm getting out of the presidential model: determinism followed by a stochastic choice.

A "skew" is not arbitrary. That is the input of the advice modules. On the mechanistic model, yes, those modules would have to be considered determinsitic, unless choice modules of their own were also embedded in them. In reality, of course, I don't think cosmic action is separable from cosmic gnosis (in which such seeming categories as memory, information etc finally come home to roost, imo).

Okay, well, I'm unsatisified but probably fated to be so. I appreciate the conversation, Kai.

You are welcome.

 

[Neil]

Alchemical corpuscularianism? What granularity of matter do you dissolve? Finer? Gross? The recombination of the etheric body template to create the ectoplasm for an apport?

I don't understand the question here.

 

[Punjab]

I don't understand the question here.

I don't understand which of the five questions proffered you do not understand.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Unless there is true randomness in the system, you have a determinism. QED.

Agreed, but that does not rule out evolution.

"Logically" doesn't mean anything in this context. For such logic to be enforceable in the cosmos, said comsos would need to have true open-ness as a component, in order for forking to be possible, even in principle.

One doesn't enforce logic. There are many logically possible paths that the universe could take but doesn't. This is true with or without indeterminism.

The antecedent events cannot be different, again unless we are in a cosmos where true open-ness (or true randomness as you would have it) contributes to event pivots.

They don't happen differently, but logically they could have happened other ways.

Not knowledge in the sense of book knowledge. Knowledge in the sense that a gnostic nature knows it is not a determinism, because the splitting of choices is its own mode of action...which it is aware of by definition.

So the cosmos is aware of every wavefunction collapse, using a standard definition of aware? Okay, but I really think some evidence of this would be helpful.

Not if we're talking about your idea of "true randomness," which in my worldview would put cosmic will unbiased by precedent. But I have to say that I suspect that this situation (and "true randomness") don't really exist. What exists (I think) is likely always open choice informed in some way or other.

Then it isn't unbiased. Anyway, I'm glad I finally notice the un-.

If the die were weighted on certain sides, then you are correct. In a mechanistic model, and assuming true randomness as an input to the final fall of the die (again on your terms...I'm skeptical of "true randomness" see above...) this mirrors the "president module."

Which therefore is not making a free choice. If there is any free choosing going on, it seems like it is in other modules.

~~ Paul

 

[Neil]

I don't understand which of the five questions proffered you do not understand.

Any of them.

 

[Punjab]

Any of them.

Ectoplasm is created from the recombination of oxygen and hydrogen that has been dissociated (unbound chemically and energetically), originally taken from the physical medium and the seance sitters. The apport's etheric body is replicated and used as a template to exactly copy the qualities of the object being apported. The template is filled with ectoplasm and, often, combined with elements not found within the medium's/sitters physical being (eg. high levels of copper). Consciousness is applied and the energy from that consciousness 'transports' aka apports through the medium as conduit into the seance room.

 

[Neil]

Ectoplasm is created from the recombination of oxygen and hydrogen that has been dissociated (unbound chemically and energetically), originally taken from the physical medium and the seance sitters. The apport's etheric body is replicated and used as a template to exactly copy the qualities of the object being apported. The template is filled with ectoplasm and, often, combined with elements not found within the medium's/sitters physical being (eg. high levels of copper). Consciousness is applied and the energy from that consciousness 'transports' through the medium as conduit into the seance room.

What does that have to do with the corpuscular theory of matter being falsified?

 

[Punjab]

What does that have to do with the corpuscular theory of matter being falsified?

Thank you for your non-time.