Individual will, reality creation and miracles

[dawei]

Perhaps it's just a matter of where we choose to look and focus our attention.

 

Perhaps it's just a matter of what causes us to choose to look and focus our attention

[ilumairen]

Perhaps it's just a matter of what causes us to choose to look and focus our attention

 

[Karl]

My mind cannot currently resolve the seeming contradiction here.

 

Contradiction there is :-) define 'contradiction'. Either such a thing is, or it is not, it cannot be both. If it could be both, then no contradiction would be possible and there would exist no word to describe it...poof...like that, it would cease to be. So, will you give up the word contradiction because in the world you say exists, such is not possible.

 

Are you ready to take the red pill I wonder ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

One of the greatest powers to change reality is belief - utter, unquestioning belief that reaches beyond the conscious mind and that can't be pretended by the latter.

 

There can be no doubt about this (LOL).

 

Well you know what the Guru says. Meditate, pray, practice harder. When the student says he hasn't yet achieved the power to alter reality, the master tells him he hasn't yet meditated, prayed or practised sufficiently. He must keep going until he does. Ah such hard work hunting unicorns, but it's worth it in the end. ;-)

[Marblehead]

Perhaps it has got to do with the illusionary nature of cause and effect?

The problem is thinking that the causes are predetermined.  Preventive maintenance works extremely well.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I start seeing both choice and determination, control and acceptance, the Magician and the High Priestess, as the two sides of a coin. Yes, multiple probabilities exist, we can make better or worse choices between them, and our decisions matter. Yet by the same token (I didn't intend this pun, but it's somehow funny), whatever our choices, the results are as if predetermined, as if meant to be, serving a higher purpose. My mind cannot currently resolve the seeming contradiction here. Perhaps it has got to do with the illusionary nature of cause and effect?

 

There really is no problem looked at from a higher dimensional perspective. A fifth dimensional being would see your whole life as a finished and complete four dimensional object even though each part of it experienced by you as a series of three dimensional sensory spheres encapsulating your consciousness strung along a timeline would be experienced “in time”, a lifetime to be exact. Each change in the direction of this timeline could be a completely free act along that timeline, but to the Five dimensional intelligence it would already have happened from beginning to end, and if we communicated with this intelligence what would seem to us as prediction based on predetermination would simply be a description of things that were already a finished product as perceived by a Fifth dimensional being, even if they were yet to happen to us.

 

I suspect not many people will be able to understand this as written, because they are not used to thinking in these terms, but it is based on the mathematics of hyperspace and not mere fancy, and as a view of reality is at least implied by every form of physics since Special Relativity and therefore far more likely to be true than not. Unfortunately I don't have time to turn this response into an introduction to the type of thinking of which it is an example, that would take a small book and as such couldn't be posted here anyway, but for those hardy souls who take it as pointing in the direction of a solution to the problem of “free will vs. determinism”, a little research and then practice of some relatively easy “thought experiments” will make it clear enough.

[Marblehead]

A fifth dimensional being would see your whole life as a finished ...

Please define the fourth and fifth dimensions.

 

I understand what you are saying but it is only hypothetical/mathematical based on my understanding.

[Karl]

but for those hardy souls who take it as pointing in the direction of a solution to the problem of “free will vs. determinism”, a little research and then practice of some relatively easy “thought experiments” will make it clear enough.

 

There is no problem of free will vs determinism. We have free will otherwise we couldn't have this conversation.

[Michael Sternbach]

Contradiction there is :-) define 'contradiction'. Either such a thing is, or it is not, it cannot be both. If it could be both, then no contradiction would be possible and there would exist no word to describe it...poof...like that, it would cease to be. So, will you give up the word contradiction because in the world you say exists, such is not possible.

Mind you, that's why I wrote seeming contradiction.

 

And the existence of the latter has been known since the double-slit experiment demonstrated that electrons can appear as both waves and particles, if not before.

 

Are you ready to take the red pill I wonder ;-)

If offered by you, I would insist on reading the patient information leaflet first.

[Michael Sternbach]

There is no problem of free will vs determinism. We have free will otherwise we couldn't have this conversation.

 

This is a non sequitur. It could have been predestined that we have this conversation.

[Michael Sternbach]

The problem is thinking that the causes are predetermined.  Preventive maintenance works extremely well.

 

This sounds interesting. Would you mind to elaborate?

[Michael Sternbach]

There really is no problem looked at from a higher dimensional perspective. A fifth dimensional being would see your whole life as a finished and complete four dimensional object even though each part of it experienced by you as a series of three dimensional sensory spheres encapsulating your consciousness strung along a timeline would be experienced “in time”, a lifetime to be exact. Each change in the direction of this timeline could be a completely free act along that timeline, but to the Five dimensional intelligence it would already have happened from beginning to end, and if we communicated with this intelligence what would seem to us as prediction based on predetermination would simply be a description of things that were already a finished product as perceived by a Fifth dimensional being, even if they were yet to happen to us.

Would we be able to deviate from what this fifth dimensional being would convey to us? If not, then free will is illusionary, for all intents and purposes.

 

I suspect not many people will be able to understand this as written, because they are not used to thinking in these terms, but it is based on the mathematics of hyperspace and not mere fancy, and as a view of reality is at least implied by every form of physics since Special Relativity and therefore far more likely to be true than not.

Quantum mechanics shows the existence of indetermism and probabilities. Especially the form this takes in Everett's Many Worlds interpretation is strongly supported by my experiences as a Tarot reader. I think a higher-dimensional being would be overseeing all those probabilities or alternative realities.

 

Unfortunately I don't have time to turn this response into an introduction to the type of thinking of which it is an example, that would take a small book and as such couldn't be posted here anyway, but for those hardy souls who take it as pointing in the direction of a solution to the problem of “free will vs. determinism”, a little research and then practice of some relatively easy “thought experiments” will make it clear enough.

Donald, there is hardly a post of yours that doesn't emphasize your lack of time. Does this have something to do with your restriction by a four-dimensional framework?

[Karl]

Mind you, that's why I wrote seeming contradiction.

And the existence of the latter has been known since the double-slit experiment demonstrated that electrons can appear as both waves and particles, if not before.

 

If offered by you, I would insist on reading the patient information leaflet first.

 

It's that like there is a seeming contradiction that an elephant is a cat, or a square is a circle.

 

 

Stop it with the bloody double slit experiment, it has nothing at all to do with it. This is what you get when you fuck about with philosophy and turn science into mysticism. You give up reason and head off into rainbow land, with lucky black schrodinger cats, quantum crystal balls and the wicked witch of the North......and relax...rant over ;-)

 

Yes, you should read the patient information leaflet first. That's the most reasoned thing you have said so far. :-)

 

 

[Karl]

This is a non sequitur. It could have been predestined that we have this conversation.

 

Only because you aren't able to follow the line of reasoning and I haven't been kind enough to show it to you. I hoped you could take that trip yourself with your new found care to examine the red pill contraindications. As you can't. Here's the double bind created by determinists.

 

"I am free to be objective, free to conclude-that I am not free"

 

Determinism is self refuting. Just as one must accept existence or consciousness in order to deny it, so one must accept volition in order to deny it.

 

Brian knows that one 'only the true messiah would deny he was the messiah'

 

You are going to have to come off this agnostic fence at some point Michael. Naturally I can't determine that, but, because you have free will, then you certainly can :-)

[Marblehead]

This sounds interesting. Would you mind to elaborate?

Yes, any elaboration would be interesting as my statement above was inspired, not thought out logically and rationally.

 

But, I enjoy trying to define my inspirations so here goes.

 

Predetermined future always speaks of what happens but almost never about what caused whatever to happen.  That is to say, what caused the cause that cause the cause to happen that caused the effect to become a reality?

 

So some power had to be sitting at their computer, make a time line and include every event from point time infinity beginning to time infinity ending.

 

This would require specifying the power the butterfly used to flap its wings at a given point in time in order to start a process of air movement that eventually caused a hurricane to hit Florida and kill exactly 273 people.

 

And this computering had to begin before time began because it had to include the cause of the beginning of time.

 

Any small and insignificant modification of any of the causes would alter the entire end result of time/space.  The butterfly's wing hit a twig when it flapped its wings, the hurricane didn't happen and the 273 people are still alive.

 

What I am saying is that any slight modification of any cause changes the entire remaining life of the predestined universe.  It would also eliminate the word/concept "accident".  We could never make a mistake.  We would always be perfect.  Would our regrets of having made a mistake be predestined too?

 

Why even write such a complicated story?  Why would humans even need to think?

 

No.  I don't accept any of it.  It's just not rational or logical.

 

So anyhow, what caused One to give birth to Two?   I have no idea.

 

I will say that if One (Singularity) had not expressed itself as it did there would be no universe.  Too little or too much would have ruined any chance of a universe as we know it.

 

And how many times did Singularity Bang and fail before it actually got it right?

 

Cause and effect and preventive maintenance:  There is a cause:  The driver in front of me changes lanes without making sure they have clearance.  If I do nothing they hit me.  If I brake there is no accident.  Now, was the accident predetermined or was it predetermined that I brake to avoid the accident?

 

To think that there is a script already written that defines whether or not I am going to brake and avoid the accident is well beyond my ability to comprehend.

 

So events occur constantly.  Good things happen and bad things happen.  We alter the causes of the bad things that might happen in our life (preventive maintenance) and none happen.  We weren't predestined to die in that auto accident.

 

Similar with a comet, large enough to totally destroy all life on Earth, on a direct course to hit Earth in 2 years, 2 months, 27 days, and 32.5 minutes.  That would be the amount of time humanity has to create something that would alter the course of the comet and cause it to be a near miss.  (Actually, the time to prevent would be less but that's beside the point.)

[Michael Sternbach]

It's that like there is a seeming contradiction that an elephant is a cat, or a square is a circle.

This is rather unintelligible gibberish.

 

Stop it with the bloody double slit experiment, it has nothing at all to do with it. This is what you get when you fuck about with philosophy and turn science into mysticism. You give up reason and head off into rainbow land, with lucky black schrodinger cats, quantum crystal balls and the wicked witch of the North......and relax...rant over ;-)

No worries. When I'm doing martial arts, I habitually relax when facing the opposition. Not least, it facilitates dismantling them.

 

Yes, you should read the patient information leaflet first. That's the most reasoned thing you have said so far. :-)

Well, if you say so.

[Karl]

This is rather unintelligible gibberish.

 

No worries. When I'm doing martial arts, I habitually relax when facing the opposition. Not least, it facilitates dismantling them.

 

Well, if you say so.

 

Yes, unintelligible gibberish, quite so.

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Yes, any elaboration would be interesting as my statement above was inspired, not thought out logically and rationally.

 

But, I enjoy trying to define my inspirations so here goes.

 

Predetermined future always speaks of what happens but almost never about what caused whatever to happen.  That is to say, what caused the cause that cause the cause to happen that caused the effect to become a reality?

 

So some power had to be sitting at their computer, make a time line and include every event from point time infinity beginning to time infinity ending.

 

This would require specifying the power the butterfly used to flap its wings at a given point in time in order to start a process of air movement that eventually caused a hurricane to hit Florida and kill exactly 273 people.

 

And this computering had to begin before time began because it had to include the cause of the beginning of time.

 

Any small and insignificant modification of any of the causes would alter the entire end result of time/space.  The butterfly's wing hit a twig when it flapped its wings, the hurricane didn't happen and the 273 people are still alive.

 

What I am saying is that any slight modification of any cause changes the entire remaining life of the predestined universe. 

What you are describing here is the so-called Newtonian universe, a totally determined clock work. Even though Newton himself didn't really support this extreme view, and it was ascribed to him rather inappropriately; it actually goes back to his opponent Leibniz. It is also at odds with quantum physics, essentially.

 

What this model implies is that human beings have no freedom of choice whatsoever, that we are pure automatons (just like the rest of the universe). I agree with this view as little as you do (but for a short while, you made me worried...).

 

But I also don't accept chaos theory's postulate that the flapping of a butterfly's wings can cause a tornado somewhere else arbitrarily, despite the popularity of this concept. Nature has plenty of built-in checks and safety systems that would balance the disturbance, unless it was in accordance with the scheme at large.

 

It would also eliminate the word/concept "accident".  We could never make a mistake.  We would always be perfect.  Would our regrets of having made a mistake be predestined too?

Oddly, this is where the 'Newtonian' view seems to meet Zen Buddhism, when the latter states that the key to enlightenment is accepting that everything is perfect the way it is: "All you can do is to laugh heartily right now."

 

Why even write such a complicated story?  Why would humans even need to think?

 

No.  I don't accept any of it.  It's just not rational or logical.

Or it might be overly rational. Even Mr. Spock eventually concluded that logic is the beginning of wisdom, not its completion.

 

So anyhow, what caused One to give birth to Two?   I have no idea.

 

I will say that if One (Singularity) had not expressed itself as it did there would be no universe.  Too little or too much would have ruined any chance of a universe as we know it.

 

And how many times did Singularity Bang and fail before it actually got it right?

 

Cause and effect and preventive maintenance:  There is a cause:  The driver in front of me changes lanes without making sure they have clearance.  If I do nothing they hit me.  If I brake there is no accident.  Now, was the accident predetermined or was it predetermined that I brake to avoid the accident?

 

To think that there is a script already written that defines whether or not I am going to brake and avoid the accident is well beyond my ability to comprehend.

These are indeed difficult questions. Therefore let's talk about them on this mind boggling thread.

 

So events occur constantly.  Good things happen and bad things happen.  We alter the causes of the bad things that might happen in our life (preventive maintenance) and none happen.  We weren't predestined to die in that auto accident.

 

Similar with a comet, large enough to totally destroy all life on Earth, on a direct course to hit Earth in 2 years, 2 months, 27 days, and 32.5 minutes.  That would be the amount of time humanity has to create something that would alter the course of the comet and cause it to be a near miss.  (Actually, the time to prevent would be less but that's beside the point.)

Again, we should ask if such an occurrence would mean that some "force" (we might say, Dao) had concluded that it was best to end the human experiment at least in its present form and clear the stage for whatever were to follow. In that case, I think we would be pretty much screwed, no matter what we would try to save ourselves, as nature would be way more resourceful than us.

 

What it boils down to: "If you drink and drive, whatever happens is NO accident."

 

If the dinosaurs hadn't become extinct due to a huge comet or asteroid impact, it is doubtful that mammals would ever have evolved to the level of the homo sapiens.

[Michael Sternbach]

Only because you aren't able to follow the line of reasoning and I haven't been kind enough to show it to you. I hoped you could take that trip yourself with your new found care to examine the red pill contraindications. As you can't. Here's the double bind created by determinists.

 

"I am free to be objective, free to conclude-that I am not free"

 

Determinism is self refuting. Just as one must accept existence or consciousness in order to deny it, so one must accept volition in order to deny it.

Well, hypothetically, it could be that Man was predestined to develop the concept of having a free will, as well as, at some stage, the insight that this is merely an illusion. Mind you, I say hypothetically because this is NOT my philosophical position, overall.

 

Brian knows that one 'only the true messiah would deny he was the messiah'

This is quite a different topic and has got to do with his followers' projections of what the messiah is supposed to be.

 

You are going to have to come off this agnostic fence at some point Michael. Naturally I can't determine that, but, because you have free will, then you certainly can :-)

I don't see myself as being agnostic, rather, I feel that there is validity to both views (freedom of choice and determinism), and I am interested in the question how they relate to each other and can be reconciled.

 

This even blew the mind of a philosopher like Ken Wilber, but hey, there is nothing wrong with trying.

[Marblehead]

Hi Michael,

 

I first want to point out that I did not plagerize either Newton's or Leibniz's thoughts.  I have never ead either of them.  They are my thoughts.

 

I especially like your pointing to the concept the nature will do only what it has to do.  When out of balance it will do what needs be done in order to harmonize Yin/Yang.

 

The other is about the dinosaurs.  Yes, it was an asteroid.  Asteroids have large amounts of iridium whereas comets do not.

 

And that is why I believe it was a comet that hit Tunguska in 1908 because there was no signs of iridium or even any iron/nickel.

 

 

Anyhow, what were you interested in exploring?  Yea, What caused One to give birth to Two, etc?

 

Based on my understanding of Dao and what science still does not have an answer for, Dao giving birth to one started the process of cause and effect that is still on-going today.  It is called Tzujan (Ziran).

 

Yes, I know, that wasn't an answer.  But it was the best I could do.

 

Where to next?

[Michael Sternbach]

Hi Michael,

 

I first want to point out that I did not plagerize either Newton's or Leibniz's thoughts.  I have never ead either of them.  They are my thoughts.

Roger that.

 

I especially like your pointing to the concept the nature will do only what it has to do.  When out of balance it will do what needs be done in order to harmonize Yin/Yang.

 

The other is about the dinosaurs.  Yes, it was an asteroid.  Asteroids have large amounts of iridium whereas comets do not.

 

And that is why I believe it was a comet that hit Tunguska in 1908 because there was no signs of iridium or even any iron/nickel.

For all we know, in Earth history, there may also have been mass extinctions due to comet impacts. But yes, the one that ended the dominion of the dinosaurs seems to have been an asteroid that left a crater in Yucatan, and substantial amounts of iridium.

 

Anyhow, what were you interested in exploring?

The reconciliation between application of will power on the one hand, faithful acceptance on the other. Practically speaking, we need both. But the right mixture is not always easy to hit.

 

What did Nietzsche say about the will?

 

Yea, What caused One to give birth to Two, etc?

 

Based on my understanding of Dao and what science still does not have an answer for, Dao giving birth to one started the process of cause and effect that is still on-going today.  It is called Tzujan (Ziran).

 

Yes, I know, that wasn't an answer.  But it was the best I could do.

 

Where to next?

Where the flow will take us.

[ilumairen]

 

Stop it with the bloody double slit experiment, it has nothing at all to do with it. This is what you get when you fuck about with philosophy and turn science into mysticism. You give up reason and head off into rainbow land, with lucky black schrodinger cats, quantum crystal balls and the wicked witch of the North......and relax...rant over ;-)

I lived with a lucky black cat, his name was already Magic when he arrived. He was demanding and insisted that if I was going to read, that I do so aloud for him.

 

And honestly, Glinda did kind of come across as a bit too saccharinely sweet... wickedly so, imo. Hehe

 

Yes, you should read the patient information leaflet first. That's the most reasoned thing you have said so far. :-)

You forgot the 'in my opinion' part Karl. Edited March 6, 2016 by ilumairen

[Brian]

I just wanted to chime in and point out that the Witch of the North was a good witch (named Glinda, as Michael said) while the Wicked Witch of the West was named Momba.

 

Also, while those who claim to be messiahs are either messiahs or loonies or frauds, I personally will not be a member of any group which which claims me as their messiah. It's sorta in the handbook...

 

Oh! As to this free will vs. cause & effect conundrum -- why would I make you pick one? It's either, both and neither, of course!

 

[ilumairen]

I just wanted to chime in and point out that the Witch of the North was a good witch (named Glinda, as Michael said) while the Wicked Witch of the West was named Momba.

My comment was a playful reference to the book Wicked, and at a bit deeper level reference to things not always being what they seem and the confining nature of labels.

Edited March 6, 2016 by ilumairen

[Karl]

Well, hypothetically, it could be that Man was predestined to develop the concept of having a free will, as well as, at some stage, the insight that this is merely an illusion. Mind you, I say hypothetically because this is NOT my philosophical position, overall.

 

This is quite a different topic and has got to do with his followers' projections of what the messiah is supposed to be.

 

I don't see myself as being agnostic, rather, I feel that there is validity to both views (freedom of choice and determinism), and I am interested in the question how they relate to each other and can be reconciled.

This even blew the mind of a philosopher like Ken Wilber, but hey, there is nothing wrong with trying.

 

That you think there is validity in both views cancels out determinism. You had to 'choose' to think that way. You are standing on stolen ground if you could but see it. Retrace your thoughts back to reality from the higher concepts. Anchor everything to existence.

 

Im guessing here, but I suspect the issue is in your belief of the primacy of consciousness. Now, if that's where you are, then what you are really talking about by 'determinism' is possibly the primacy of existence. Is it your contention that mans consciousness partly/fully creates his reality ?