Hi Tim, well there’s enough to chew on for a while, thanks… Just talked to my son yesterday about a lot of this similar debate. Between he and I, it came down to the incommensurabilities of ‘beliefs’ and ‘knowings’__He is of the opinion that we must have ‘beliefs’ to have ‘knowings’__and I’m of the opinion that we can have ‘knowing states’ not requiring ‘beliefs…’ His position is that of the ‘oneness’ requirement of total thoughts, and my position is that of the ‘manyness’ possible requirement(or at the least, useful mechanic) of total thoughts__or that ‘I know’ does not require ‘I believe’, whereas he demands(a belief) that ‘I know’ absolutely requires ‘I believe’__so you can see these differences exist, even within our own families__mine anyway. To me, the absolutely scientifically rational position would require ‘knowing states’ over ‘belief states’(at least to process fully accurately)__but I full well realize the incommensurable states of mind have existed since the dawn of time__where one side sees the logic of the opposite side’s contradictions, and the other side sees the psychology of the same contradictions, and/or vice versa__so and so, etc… I have about 20 people working on these same or similar problems of fundamental thought, just in my small circle of family, friends and associates… Round and round, the merry-go-round goes__where she stops, nobody knows… Please take this post with a very large grain of salt… :-)
Alright....I'll probably be spending some time at the motel tomorrow due to having to wait on a critical part to come in at work so I can now engulf myself back into the abyss that is the universal actions. Lol.
From what I gather about much of what you are speaking of, we are basically talking about causal light cones and the magnitude by which they effect other points within the universal field as being a logical argument against determinism.
I suppose you could put it that way, as I have written it in those same, or similar, words before__where the speed of light actually controls the abilities of our rationality to even think within certain constraints__and that actually being the collisions of points of light-information, in such group c collisions(where such collisions do not mean destructions, as such would destroy concept informations, and we know from memory recovery states, information is not destroyed…) Many have thought ‘thinking’ can escape the ‘laws of physics’, but I do not. To me, all thought, even our imaginary and dream thoughts, are subject to the c-laws of physics, i.e., the speed of light capabilities__and can not exceed c, but in our minds, are even limited to somewhere around 200 to 800 mph__far below c in the gray mush, that is scientifically known to slow such information and messages’ processing speeds…
You can correct me as needed if I'm misinterpreting here, but I feel that a visible example of such dynamics is captured within visible light itself as the very magnitude of causality itself fades per the inverse square relationship just as does the image of a distant object being focused to our eye by a telescope.
In that case then, wouldn’t you possibly have to explain how we actually/scientifically do see the galaxies in Hubble’s deep space images…??? I’m not sure they do fade, and we can’t ‘feel’ about these things, we really must have evidence__No…? I’m not even sure if there is evidence on the light spectrum’s em-fade, even though I do know there is, as to radio signals, but maybe it’s all atsmopheric densities, causing the radio signal, etc., fades…???
If we imagine the entire universal volume at an early contracted state, then all internal points and states are more symmetrically synchronized or within a closer temporal phase within the whole as all motions go into establishing the external identity/state of the whole with potentially no outside influence unless we acknowledge an ever larger cosmic field which can be left out of this debate.
I can’t really do that, Tim__as imo, we can not leave the larger cosmic field out of this debate by any sort of ‘possibly falsely imagining/theorizing’ ‘an earlier contracted state’, because there’s absolutely no evidence possible for ‘an earlier contracted state’, imo anyway__That would be a purely and falsely created belief imagination/theorizing interfering__No…?__and an improper(science would be lacking to back up or ground such thinking__no…?) interpretation of Einstein’s ‘relativity ideas’__and I know you don’t think that, so I’m not really sure why you are addressing the model as such, even though we have spoken about such models in the past, we must also re-relate them back to the scientific necessities, imo anyways. A true science processing would not allow you or I the freedom to create such non-realities(and I don’t think we should be copying other false thinkers’ ideas__Yes/No…?)__Imo, our thinking should/must stay within the ‘actual c-laws of physics’, and not any of the many exaggerated +c-theories of physics/cosmology__which is certainly what you seem to be referring to above… If you notice, I’m always trying to get you, or any others, to stay within the c-truth laws of physics’ models, so’s we can actually find and see the necessary scientific truths__with real factually possible and necessary evidence__and not overly conflating our ideas with the exaggerated nonsense of past theorists, who have contributed nothing but pure BS to our science quest… The instant any theory exceeds c, it’s left science, imo__except where the 2c distance of approaching photons, reduce the space between their approaches…
Now as the universal volume expands and structured systems form and gather within the expanding universal light cone, the causal effects of these individaulized systems are reduced per their distance of seperation as distance is internally established.
Tim, Universal volumes would have to shrink, to produce structured systems__not expand, as you imply__No…?__as densities, i.e., Bose-Einstein condensations, would absolutely require a shrinking volume of space, to produce real particle structures, from existing wave-particle-field/s(sorry here for not parsing you model fully into its entire necessities of always fundamentally being in its real three states of motion dynamics__Universe expanding/contracting, as structures within the Universe are expanding/contracting__Brain on strike at time of writing…) I think your above statement contains a logical contradiction of ‘Universal volumes expand to form structured systems’__Tis impossible for thinning densities of field to produce more dense objects__No…???(I’m really leaving this Tim, to stand as my contribution for other’s reading this, for clarity’s sake, even though I do fully now see your implied meanings as just stated above in parentheses…) Imo, this is why you always would/should have to start with FS-Field, as the most fundamental aspect of any theorizing or realizing thought/s__otherwise, you may be adding in pre-suppositionals, that the logic of the facts just does not allow, without having, or at the least contributing to, ‘a massive unwanted creation project’__which is outside of ‘all’ science__as I’m sure you agree with… These really are ‘the most deep fundamentals’, I’m always trying to get you to recognize… The most fundamental triad of scientific thought can not be broken apart, imo…
Naturally, at some point the distances will be so great that the causal mechanics of any nonlocallized point will be so faint that it's magnitude is seemingly unimportant to a local systems functioning and the present state of the local system is so far out of sync with the distant system that it is the very past state of the distant system which is contributing ever so slightly to the present state of the local system. Thus, being as information/causality of this sort travels at the speed of light, then the lesser the physical magnitude acting upon a local system from an equal magnitude nonlocal event, the further the distance of separation both spatially and temporally between the two as the present state of the local system is impacted by an increasingly earlier state of the nonlocal system.
Tim, logically staying within the c-laws of physics would not allow you the privilege of positing a distant non-local action on a local action__No…?__without severely contradicting the c-laws of physics, as far as I can see__thus thinking totally outside science and physics, and deeply into the possible exaggerated imaginations and beliefs__No…? Scientifically, we can’t falsely, and/or, exaggeratedly shrink the Universal Volume to make any sort of +c-physics function, within the laws of physics__That would simply be conjuring mystical physical actions__and imo, it just don’t happen…!!! Tim, you seem to me to be forgetting that once a particle is beyond the light-cone of return, within a sensible time-frame__it ain’t got a chance in Hell of re-a/effecting a local action. To me, it’s simply like the car driving across the African desert__when you are outta gas__your ars’ is cooked… Scientifically speaking, no non-local action beyond a sensible light-time-cone can effect a local action__Only the physicists of more modern funny-book fame are advocating such non-science__as all the best physics only accept EPR-Physics__as far as I know__They were correct in the `30’s, and they are correct today… Bell and Aspect are science fiction, imo__along with most modern physics theorizing about the many more unproven pseudo-science ideas… Tim, I can’t express this enough; ‘We gotta stay within the c-light-cone of real physics’__to do real physics__I hope you agree… There’s absolutely no getting around it, as David always tried to do, with his +c non-science thinking… That was always my major contention with him… Real physics stays within what science has evidence of__That still happens to be c__not c+ tachyons__no matter how much fasle information has been written about them…
This is evident of the image from distant stars arriving at Earth being representative of their past state and the further away the star, the further we are looking into it's past with no way of knowing it's present state at the moment which we turn our telescope towards it until the proper time has past per the distance of separation to recieve information of such by way of visible light. Yet, even if it takes a huge mirror to reflect the faint images, some residule visible radiation still falls upon the lens with the greater magnitude of such being detectable at an increasing magnitude towards the point of origin.
I fully agree with this, Tim…
Could a large enough event at the farthest conceivable distances within the universal volume effect our present state at some point in the future? I would think so, but it would take a relativel amount of time to do so.
Tim, you don’t have to think/theorize about this__you can calculate it. If our star is burned out in less time than the distant light takes to reach us__according to time-frame picture you are assuming, say 10 billion years__there’s no effect upon our bio-system, because it would be long ago died off at the future date of interaction, due to our star burning out. On the other hand, if something huge enough, say a super-massive super-nova explosion, or two or more black-holes collided__then we could definitely be affected, at least to the affects and effects of losing our bio-sphere, then all bio-life on Earth__Iff the gamma blast were close enough in scalar power distance, to retain substantial radiation power__I’ve often thought of just such events happening, but, there’d not be much we could do about it, as the event would be traveling at light speed, and the atmospheric damage would be over, before we fully realized we’d been fatally hit. These hypotheticals have to be put in precise time-frames to have any meaning to our dialogue, though__No…? I full well realize what we are really looking at is mostly a holograph, but there’s a real physical galaxies’ Universe behind all that incoming holographic light… I always look through the holograph to the physical realities, as best I can… I find ‘relativity’ much less useful, than reality though__even for all my most sensible and general theorizing…
The same as a catastrophic event within the sun would take a few minutes for us to know it's state and witness it, which at that point would be a past state. Distance establishes that we will never know the present state of any distant system as there's always a ‘time lapse’ in the conveyance of information. Density also plays a similar role, as the initial interactions which emited the light leaving the surface of the sun often took place at a much earlier time than that indicated by the much lesser distance the light had to travel due to the absorption emission mechanics of stars.
Yeah, there’s nothing wrong with these ideas… The ‘time lapse’ in the conveyance of information is the important aspect, here… It’s what gives us the incommensurabilities of even the number line, as per__“All positive and negative numbers start at zero, and go two directions approaching infinity on the positive side, and the infinitesimal on the negative side__but never does the infinitesimal meet the infinite again”__Thus those pesky incommensurabilities of all non-isomorphicalities of such maths, and herein lies the limit-problems of trying to prop math up as a false-god of rationality, also… Just thought I’d mention this, as what you stated, triggered my mind into that area__again…
The out of phase temporal aspect isn't as relevant to the determinism debate to me as is the question of the origin of motion itself at the Planck scales as causal temporal phase shifts is conserved by way of shifts of causal magnitude. This only means that mechanical determinism is limited to the speed of light and the allowable magnitude of distance. The greatest confusion in my opinion is creating a paradigm whereby motion is divided inwardly and outwardly, whereby distinguishing between the motions which go towards establishing structure outwardly from the micro scales vs the imposed motions which reverberate inwardly from an event at the macro scales.
Tim, I think I’m spotting some of the problem that keeps arising between our two different thinking systems__Would you say you seem to be trying to have your fundamental state be a point__whereas my fundamental state is a Universal Field Volume, even infinite, as the logic of eternity, to avoid the infinite regress into creation myths, necessitates…? To me, the problem lies in this ‘Absolutely Most Fundamental State of Thought’ as to what is absolutely required of the ‘Absolutely Fundamental Logic, Velocities and Maths’ to be ‘Absolutley Fundamental Logic, Velocities and Maths…’ Quite often in my view, you seem to want or try to make the “Absolute Fundamental Motions” and ‘In to Out’ the primary motion process(not sure if that’s true, but it seems that way to me…?)__Whereas my mind is always talking about an ‘Out to In’ primary motion process__Or ‘Endoporeutic Processing Motion’(even though both exist at once…), as I’ve referred to it from years ago, even in my very first forum post on TQ(but simply talking about such fundamental motion frames gets more than confusing, as per the lack of definition of real time and motion frames, when talking so fundamental, and this is a major problem, I fully admit…) If the Universe ever were possible of ‘Absolutely Fundamental In to Out’ motion__This would by Modal Necessity be a Non-Logical Creation Process, imo__Which we both know is impossible, as such would require Austin’s foolish state of ‘Something from Nothing…’ Therefore, “Absolute Fundamental Thinking of Motion” must ‘Absolutely Process Endoporeutically’__i.e., “Fundamentally Outside_In” as does all our fundamental inferences__Also… Logic works no other way Tim, unless it is to contain self-contradictions, and in order to remove these contradictions, one must further exclude all ‘beliefs’ from ‘knowings’__imo__to do real scientific truth and logic__at such fundamental levels(Yes, it’s choice to logically process ‘out to in’, but logic does require this choice of order, to function consistently, and without the pesky contradictions entering…) Imo, beliefs always enter false pre-suppositional entities or ideas, that can create the contradictions I often mention… To me, this is the hardest fundamental logic area to see entirely through… One simply has to make up one’s mind which is ‘Possible’ and ‘Necessary’__ “In to Out Motion First” or “Out to In Motion First”__When in fact__True and absolute infinity and eternity is indivisible to the ‘Knowing State’ of our feeble minds, but we still must decide which to pursue, to do such fundamental properly ordered science states__Imbo… The “In to Out Motion First State” always requires “The False Creation State” in one form or another__And, the “Out to In Motion First State” does not require any such “False and Contradictory Creation State” as it’s simply accepting a “Fundamental State of Eternal and Infinite Existence” by the possibilities and necessities of “Absolute Fundamental Modal Logics and The Necessary Laws of Physics, of Such Necessary Mechanics…” Tim, I’m not using desires here, to arrive at my positions__I’m using a thoroughly reasoned and rationally derived and grounded “Science of Inductive/Abductive/Deductive Thought” to arrive at my positions… It’s a thorough scientific methodology I’m using__Yet, I fully admit, a fundamental choice is required to see the entire Universe’s total mechanics__And that choice is either “In to Out” or “Out to In” fundamental motion processing… Logic tells me it necessitates “Out to In” to avoid the foolishness of false creation states__Plus the benefit of it being fully aligned with our “Natural Inference Mechanics…”
There are motions which internally establish the ever larger structural systems of a baseball which resonate from the micro scales ouwardly, and then there is the motions imposed inwardly towards these micro scales due to the ball making contact with a bat and having to act accordingly per energy conservation aspects along with trajcetories, etc, whereby distinguishing between the causal mechanics of systems bound by forces e.g. Strong, EM and gravity, and the causal mechanics of those same systems undergoing external forces due to the motions of other various systems, which ‘must be accounted for/ calculated at the deepest of internal scales and resolutions.’
See Tim, imo, this is where I see you maybe keep making the same false and contradictory assumptions about fundamental motions, which seem at variance with my views of fundamental motions__you always seem to end on, I think anyway, assuming, without fully reasoned scientific logic, which is really pure naked belief imo, that ‘cause and effect’ must be accounted for/calculated at the deepest of “Internal Scales and Resolutions”__Which is nothing more than “Creation Scales” to me__as I don’t see the same possibilities and necessities here__and possibly not fully processing the external realities of the existing ‘modally’ necessary and infinite/eternal science states__To First Necessarily Exist__Science can’t be created from Austin’s, Melanie’s and Nobody’s “Nothingnesses”__which I’m sure you know, but my mind keeps seeing traces leading me to think you sometimes go down such paths__unnecessarily so. This is why I keep trying to mention to you that; “Everything must be accounted for/ calculated at the deepest of “External” scales and resolutions”__as “Internal” simply goes to “Naked Creationism”, imo__and gives “The Logically Impossible” false incommensurable results, if that can make any sense…
How we interpret the Planck scales establish the logic by which we must view determinism from my perspective, because if motion is quantized to a spacetime matrix or fabric whereby the smallest of scales undergo discrete motions which aren't causally connected and contributing to the state of a system but rather are motions due to the mere inability and impossibility of being at rest, with only a degree of motion being causally and constructively connected, then determinism dies as a result of mechanical necessity. However, if the FS is continuously connected, whereby there is no underlying PSF and the unity of motion can take place at any scale or resolution whereby disection to a Planck scale field is impossible due to the impossibility of finding any degree of discreteness within a continuous flow, then how are we to distinguish that any aspect of motion or state of the whole wasn't an aspect of the connected whole at all, even if spatial and temporal phase shifts contribute to the magnitude thereof.
Anser: “You realize the multiplicities of the actual logic realities of how c-truths process our “Inference Mechanics” into real and usable images, within our lil’ ol’ pea-brains__First and Foremost…” Everyone has been brainwashed by the “Oneness” click for so many centuries, they actually believe this bullshit, without even considering the “Absolutely Necessary Modal Mechanics of Our Very Own Simple Inference Mechanics…” Inference mechanics must have many bio-agents__real physical spaces and neuronal areas, such as memory, judgment and will states, to process all that “Incoming” noise and images. Our lil’ ol’ pea-brains are not the simple “Monistic” and “Dyadic” Bull-Shit systems much of modern academics and cognitive science have oh so foolishly run on about__It’s a much more complex triadic+ system of “Inference Processing Mechanics” having many more “Necessary Motion Actions and Physical Parts” than much of the science mentions, although some of this science has been mentioned and known for a few centuries, now__but, most academics still choose to take the easy psychological path, instead of the much more difficult path of deep and sound logic and maths, plus its accompanying empirical experimental evidences__Or Pure Non-Naked Thorough Science__The Real Path to Truth…
I'm not trying to sneak determinism in Lloyd, as I've recently admitted to being agnostic towards the subject as having no definite proof our path of logic to support or deny it's existence.
And this is precisely where we would be in dis-agreement, Tim… Though you have admitted your agnosticism to the idea, I still see a profound glue in you ideas and thinking, thoroughly wedded to determinism, at the exclusion of indeterminacy and free-will’s ability to have and secure actionable intelligence, where I simply know it does, and is included__or we’re just simply lost in non-sensible determinism, just as the logical positivists were for decades__until they learned the truth of their own wrong inference mechanics’ processings…
However, It will always take a better argument than implying that we have a multitude of choices at any one moment and our ability to focus on one and act upon it rather than the others disproves determinism in favor of free will as I've explained before, our ability to imagine, rationalize and concieve endless mental possibilities doesn't imply that there is any more than merely one physical path.
And I beg to soundly differ__As it certainly does not only imply, but necessitates more than one physical path to achieve a single final path__which you seem to always be ignoring__and anyone’s simple common sense is insulted by such strict determinist anti-science views. Yes, though we may see scientifically only a single general physical path, in the macro-Universe of structured objects__Quantum Mechanics posits a probability path of many unseen objects__does it not…??? These are the wave-particle paths of the images and ideas of logics, within our pea-brains of “Sound Inference Mechanics” even you admit to__but out of the other side of your mouth, you do seem to try and deny what you’ve openly admitted to, creating the contradictions in your logic and science__to me anyways, Tim. You can not admit to “Inferences and QM” and deny the same “QM to these same Inferences”__Without creating unnecessary contradictions in your logic and science. You must admit “QM” probabilities and capabilities for “Inferences” just as much as for physics__as thought is just as real a physical wave-motion as is any other em-wave-particle__It’s necessarily a probability wave, that actually exists, or it doesn’t exist__and I think even you’ll have to admit you think… “Ergo Cogito” is a fact of “QM”__no matter how you cut the mustard. These are not simple “wild choices”, but real “Physical QM Facts”__Whether thoughts or light photons, it’s all em-waves of some frequency or another. Btw, I always see thoughts as real physical wave-particles passing first from “out to in”, then “in to out”, as our natural inference mechanics, as John Locke and hundreds of other logicians, mathematicians and many other scientists of minds have long stated… My thinking’s nothing new Tim, It’s as old as history, herself… It’s simply “Out to In First”, the way any normal sexual encounter works__The Universe is quite the same mechanics as us…
It's just that with free will, the seeming potiential for various paths seems to disprove the one.
I don’t really know how you are interpreting that Tim, but, my micro-QM-thoughts work quite easily along side the other physical paths of the macro-Universe… There’s no visible undue interference between my physical em-thoughts’ paths, and the particle paths of the other micro- and macro-Universe’s paths__Is there…??? And btw, I always choose the concept of my goals, I and Only I, wish to follow… The Universe does not choose for me__If it did, I’d have long ago committed suicide…
While with determinism, the one path must inevitably account for the illusion of the potiential for various others as an aspect of a deeper fundamental mechanics of the bio realm.
I hate to mention this here Tim, but the only illusion is the illusion of your illusion__thinking free-will to be an illusion__come on get real__Free-will exists. It’s just not intelligent to think it doesn’t… Bio-em-mental paths can just as easily exist alongside the excretions of my bio-body, as ice-cream and apple pie. What’s the use in trying to be an exclusionist__that’s the same foolish mistake every ideology and dogma has made, since the dawn of history. Inclusionism, with a sound sortal logic is a much better path__As only it functions, without contradictions… The false oneness path is no more than creationist BS, imbo… Where does the bad exhaust go, as it passes through a catalytic converter__you don’t see the chemical gasses being converted, but the converter simply splits these gasses into inert gasses and or elements and or other sub-atomic divisions, and sends them straight back into the em-field, as the car continues on its path__much the same as all our excess thoughts are thrown back into the em-field, while we satisfy our freely chosen paths and goals… You gotta get over this “Christian Exclusionary Oneness Bull-Shit”(though I do greatly appreciate the counter-voice of reason, in all other areas of your logic__determinism simply goes beyond the pale)__to see the true paths possible and necessary, of real science and logic… There ain’t no self-contradictory oneness rocket flying through the Universe, Tim__It’s a multi-operationally functioning system, with many, many, many independent paths of all them thar em-wave fields and extended and entangled wave-particles…
This isn't a robotic view, but rather an evolving view of the whole which gets increasingly complex at the bio level with it's imaginations, evolutionary aspects, ecosystems, etc. Just as I discussed earlier about the inward and outward motions, thoughts to me are the inward reverberations from the external more macro geo world as their only ‘outward connection’ to the world is by way of the physical actions they preceed and influence. I know of no scientific evidence of our thoughts alone having the ability to influence any other aspect of this world other than the muscles which our brains are wired too which then influence many physical aspects of this world. This implies to me that the flow here is inward from the macro enviromental aspects whereby being processed to some micro resolution within the accumulative pool of lessons, knowledge, memories, etc, after which reverberating back out by way of physical action to further effect our world or the inward processing of another system. “We can't use intelligence as an indicator of free will” or having a dependence thereof either if we are to believe in bio evolution because bio evolution is a seemingly intelligent physical process of life taking different shapes and forms as the system appears to 'learn' and work from it's mistakes and successes, yet it has deterministic aspects of a physical algorithm running it's course over the entire spectrum of life and not just the individual (which is often the least important in favor of the species) with no emotion but rather a mere process.
Boy, you certainly go out of you way to state only a personal deterministic opinion. Tim, we truly do use intelligence as an indicator of free-will__as without free-will, there’d be no definition of intelligence possible__so intelligence absolutely does necessitate free-will, but quantum mechanically, you also have no other explanation for our known inference mechanics, perception system and conception systems’ mechanics. Ya done gotta be free to choose from all the inferences nature, or as you stated, the geo-world dumps in the skull every second, of every day of our lives. I’d like to see you even begin to try and act on every inference dumped into your skull by the geo-mechanics__alone. I know you simply can’t/couldn’t__and absolutely must use your intelligent/or even a sleepy unintelligent free-will to make such decisions of which inference idea to follow, or set a sortal goal over all the inferences dumped into your skull__That’s simple decision choice Tim, and you can’t deny you use your decision engine over your primary thoughts about all those inferences__remember, I’m well aware that every word on a printed page, or spoken by self or others, creates a concept all by its lonesome__so that’s a lotta’ bio-geo concepts cluttering up your mind, if ya don’t choose to free-will sort the mess, before you decide to act__No…??? Tim, it’s quantum mechanically necessary to have free-will to sort the mechanical inferences of nature alone, or your brain would be over-flooded with trees and leaves alone, not to mention the thousands or millions of other green/pink striped elephants, etc., etc., etc… Where’d you be, if you couldn’t free-will sort that much junk…??? Just think how much inference is involved in simply spinning one circle, with your eyes open__that’s a lotta giga-bytes of image inference mechanics__No…??? If you couldn’t freely and intelligently sort it, your mind wouldn’t work__Period… And that’s Free-Will__and to think otherwise, such as you saying the Universe is doing all this, is simply the old ‘God Omniscience, Passing the Buck, of the Church…’ You see Tim, you’ve really got only a choice to make the Universe be ‘God’ or yourself to be ‘god’__and notice I premised self as the small case ‘god’__but it is a logical fallacy to not have one or the other acting as the god of choice__Either you have the free-will choice, or the Universe is Alive with Free-Will Determined Choice__Which is a pure logical contradiction in terms, even if you state the Universe as a pure deterministic machine__the machine is either a god, in your deterministic system, or it ain’t__and if it ain’t, then it’s up to you to assume the responsibility of self-control of your own free-will decisions and actions__And pleading ignorance of these very laws of science, free-will and logic is no excuse__And any judge on Earth will give you a minimum 30 days in jail to think about it, if you insist on; “The Universe made me do it”__“I have no responsibility over my Universally caused free-will actions…” Tell that to a judge and see how far it goes… Tim, the law holds us all responsible for our personal actions, because it knows we have free-wills, and only because it “KNOWS” we have free-wills__Laws and courts work no other way__Sorry__and ya can’t have science in contradiction with the law, as that’s simply not scientifically sound thinking__This is a state where your ‘Oneness’ does apply across boundaries of laws, logics and free-wills, with science held in common physical action status, as per “The Universality of Truth Systems’ Functions…” These same ideas could be just as easily explained with mathematics__Though addition, subtraction, division and multiplication apply Universally across the entire Universe__these sub-motions of mathematics nowhere in the World apply simultaneously across the entire Universe__as you are trying to falsely insinuate ‘Strong Determinism’ does. “What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander…”
If such a system of interaction can have aspects of intelligence and intelligent operation but also have no intelligence overseeing it and can be explained away as a physical process, then why should our systematic methodology of sorting, storing, and evaluating ideas and aspects, which defines an intelligent process be indicative of definate proof against an underlying process which we don't understand completely, due to complete understanding requiring the ability to analyse a thought by way of thinking?
Tim, if you had read carefully, I never said free-will annuls determinism__I’ve always and constantly stated they are compatible, and act together, as part and parcel of the greater Universal and personal mechanics of everything… Free-will acts intelligently inside the greater deterministic geo-systems__and never annuls the fundamental actions of these greater geo-systems, except where man clearly chooses to alter the geo-world he inhabits, by building new structures, the geo-determinism does not supply for his pleasure, wants and needs… Btw, determinism is even classed as a falsely stated definition, in almost every source__where none of these definitions mentions__Determinism is a human trait of free-will__Only, i.e., I’m determined to be free of society’s silly definitions of positivistic determinism’s false free-wills__which is really just the old negativistic determinism, of Logical Positivism’s long gone era of its severely false interpretations of such knowledge states…
My point here being, if there be no higher intelligence, and the entire bio systems interactions as a whole show aspects of intelligence to which we can identify with/to our own intelligence and minds, and the larger system can be explained by mere physical interactions and processes, then why too can't the lesser recursive process within our minds be accomplished by the same means.
Because of the sortal faculty of free-will the bio-nature has, and the geo-structures’ complete lack thereof, of such free-will__at least as pertains to the bio-systems with such free-wills…
This is the essence of the religious debates, as a product of intelligence within the mind is to recognize the interactions which define it in other systems as with seeing intelligent design underlying nature, thus some project those aspects contradictive to a process and supportive of an independent entity (which is how we see ourselves) upon those things which reflect our own intelectual processes back at us.
Yes Tim, I’m well aware of the religious and intelligent design arguments__but though free-will be used in their arguments__their arguments apply to an entirely different aspect of bio-evolitionary and geo-structuring states… They are applying free-will to the entire Universe through living Universal Minds and Gods, and I’m using say Spinoza’s “Dead God” premise, where only bio-beings on Earth, as far as we thus far know, exhibit intelligent free-will, which is far short of the religious and intelligent design’s exaggerated nonsense… Let’s not confuse and conflate science with religion and intelligent design__as I’m simply speaking about scientific free-will, QM and possible and necessary bio-intelligence…
Some cannot relinquish themselves to the system anymore than they can acknowledge that intelligence in any and all forms is a product of the system whether within the mind of the individual or the survival and mutation of the species and the system is not a product of intelligence.
Tim, I think you are again conflating the issues of those religious and design nutcases__with that of science’s full position. Free-will is possible and necessary, but only as a minor mechanic, within the greater Universal Totally Mechanical System… Intelligence is the tiny living micro-em-field, within the massively larger non-intelligent/non-living macro-em-field__though by necessity of particle actions, it does form logical structures, and at least here on Earth, intelligent bio-free-will beings__as a final em-field product, to re-act back into the inert non-intelligence…
Thus, you can't prove or disprove a more constituent aspect of a processes such as the existence or lack thereof of deterministic interactions within thought itself by way of the composite outcome of the process, which is to think.
Well, I’d dis-agree with you completely here, Tim. You seem to be stating I’m trying to prove determinism does not exist at all, and I have never stated such__I’ve simply tried to bring attention to the false definitional processes of interpretation of the words mis-applications to the geo-world__which definitions I hold to be improper and fasle to cognitive realities__They always need clarifying, but when anyone attempts clarity, the strict determinists go nuts on ya__Oh well... But, the “composite outcomes of the thought process” does prove that non-deterministic processes exist alongside the deterministic processes__even though in a per percentage Universal concept, they are admittedly miniscule__as when macro-geo-fields are compared to living micro-bio-fields… You quite often seem to be debating what I’m not debating, instead of what I am stating and debating… Sometimes this takes many written words to resolve, whereas simple presence can solve in short order__these are the problems of using electronic media, or even telephones__as I used to use Skype, but found that useless, and refuse to use it any more, and I also hate telephones. I’ve found only personal presence possible of resolving deep held differences__such as being discussed here, then sometimes even that is impossible__but, I don’t really think we are that far apart, as I see it simply as that ol’ ‘One and The Many’ bogoie-man again__which has plagued history, since the dawn of time…
But as I've stated, I'm only playing the devils advocate here not to sell you on determinism, but rather to introduce you to the further complexities of proving/disproving such as it isn't as cut and dry as you would have me to believe, at least not from where I stand as I am still agnostic to such things.
Well, you may see yourself as agnostic, Tim, and by your use of this term, I take it you mean non-commital to a position__When in fact, I see you fully committed to a very strong determinism, by the very concepts you use__which I know you can’t prove, as it’s impossible for your model to prove the fundamental cause of motion__and therein lies your determinism’s ultimate infinite regress problem... And, if you were truly agnostically skeptical of all positions, maybe I could see you as agnostic, but I just don’t see that in your writings. I do think if you follow the laws and logics to their full conclusion, you can only arrive at a single scientific opinion about eternity and or creation though__which to me, is and always historically has been the heart of this devil’s advocate free-will/determinism debate. Could it be as simple as history “Not” recognizing “Eternity/Infinity” and “Creation” being absolute scientific and logical contradictions of each other…??? From my speaking to many people about these ideas, this seems to be the crux of it__And it must be dealt thoroughly with in order for the present states of the sciences to progress…
If you were to swap and declare a fully deterministic system, I would have to bring up points I see against that also, but I would try not to base them off of subjective aspects of highly composite interactions, but rather the before mentioned origin of motion whether localized or nonlocalized.
I noticed your interpretation of what you consider subjective as verses objective not to be as my understanding of these concepts are. Any action, divorced from feelings’ judgments can be considered objective__as per I and most history have generally processed such ideas. Subjective judgments only enter in when someone is using purely opinionated and un-scientific, un-methodological, feelings attached to their ideas based on beliefs, opinions and faith. Some people think the objective to be a purely external object oriented language use, but this is not the case__or we could never have made objective sense of our language use, all throughout the centuries. Many great objective logical and scientific minds have known about and interpreted the inference mechanics objectively since our earliest records, but many writers have confused sound inference mechanics of having subjective epistemic elements attached__but the truth of these matters rests with judgments within the inference mechanics system__if judgments are free of subjective feelings, beliefs and opinions__then these epistemic judgments are, or at least can be, actually fully objective, as they are being drawn from pure a priori rationality and empiricism/experimental evidences. So, I’m usually very carefully and most always parsing my sentences into objective inference mechanics, and it’s the judgment area of the inference mechanics that falsely falls into the subjective feelings, and only this area of inference mechanics’ judgment, that does create the pseudo-subjectivities, or the psychologies which I try to almost always avoid. Tim, I can easily state the complete a priori rational paths, empirical experimental evidences and real world facts and groundings of all my ideas__which I think most others would have great difficulty doing… And yes, I also agree that a healthy skepticism is extremely necessary to keep our objective intuitions tuned up…
The same aspects can be applied to free will and the mind. Do thoughts discretely originate within the mind with no preceeding influence of any kind needed, similar to the quantization of discrete motion at the PSF or are they a product of external influence coupled with internal chemistry with physical chains of events always preceeding the thought even if in another form of energy?
As I’ve most always stated elsewhere; “All thoughts originate external to thinking beings, except the thoughts of bio-beings’ internal mechanics knowledge, i.e., we absolutely know we have bodies, pains and visions within our bio-beings-brains…”
Perhaps they are a continuous flow of interactions with no discrete aspects or origins to identify like a river flowing through our minds whereby displaying the same causal aspects as the lightcone discussion earlier, with memories having magnitudes relative to certain perameters which influence the flow of information which we can never seemingly disconnect from fully, not even while sleeping.
Tim, I think you know “Perhaps” does not have any meaning, nor should it be used, in a scientific debate, but thought I’d mention it anyway. Yes, it is a continuous flow of inference mechanics, as we see this daily__but never does the inference mechanics account for our total self-knowledge of our own bodies, pains and visions within our bio-beings’ brains… If we seriously scientifically account for all our internal and external known actions and states__we absolutely know that process necessitates a very powerful sortal intelligence, beyond the pure determinism of any such simple inference mechanics of strong determinism… Neuro-medicine has already physically proven such, by inspecting and recording the actions of patients with either damaged dorsal or ventral canals, leading to our perception center, as per what parts of the body were controllable by the brain, or not, after such severly brain injured patients were fully medically tested… Science now knows much about the internal necessity mechanics of our brains, and also about the free-will intelligence choices of damaged and undamaged patients, as well__forcing many strong determinists to take another serious look at their highly mis-guided ideas…
I often consider the thinking process as being fluid in nature with no starts, stops or gaps, but only changes in the direction of flow, as the mind drifts from thought to thought to the point that the rest of our body seeks relief from it's relentlessness in an attempt to disconnect if only for a little while as we sleep. You ever tried to actually think of nothing? I'm not sure it's possible.
Yeah, I have tried, and I agree with you__I don’t think it’s possible__but, I’ve also discovered many gaps in our thinking processes, by being involved and exposed to so many raised in group discussions, that I now realize how prevalent they truly are__and have been discussed at least since the early Greeks. That’s why I’ve mentioned so much about Ramsey, Godel and Herbrand, etc., as they covered so much of these areas of thought… Imo, we know far less than we actually think we do, yet at the same time, if we choose to be general in our thinking, we know far more than we think we do__as my wife and son are always pointing this out to me… Just yesterday, my son mentioned his evolutionary stages of regular thought, religious and new age nonsense, he finally boiled down to three simple states of mind__Objective logic, subjective psychology, and morality__as that’s really the entire general picture of everyone’s reality, imo__in every field of study, when all is considered under the simple category of generality… He and my wife choose to process most all public information to their simplest common sense states, and my daughter and I choose to process most all information, public and private, to their most complex states, and back to simplicity and common sense…
As to the signal frequency analysis from the other day which I think you said was out of sciences abilities or something, I was only speaking of a frequency counter or simple radio receiver. Consider the dopler shifts of visible radiaton. Now consider two objects of exact physical makeup with one on each side of your direction of travel. Any relativistic shift of color, apparent physical makeup, or any other frequency dependent aspect provides a means to make an objecitve calculation of absolute position and motion by way of a comparison of the frequency dependent changes undergone between the two objects. Such frequency dependent aspects take the form of various types of information within the radio frequencies, thus the same message would be recieved and interpreted differently depending upon it's point of origin. Any situation which effects the frequency of a clock, such as the motions of the gps satelites should be subject to some aspect of this as a clock is merely an oscillator. The effects would still be very small at current acheivable velocities but should be present none the less.
Yeah Tim, my point wasn’t that this wasn’t scientific, it’s the point that due to so much noise of different frequencies involved__certain frequencies are presently beyond science’s ability to detect, i.e., those of morphogenetic fields, or brain aura fields, etc.__until science develops more sensitive detector capabilities… As to what science is presently able to detect of the total em-frequency spectrum, where signal noise is an issue, I’m not really familiar enough to comment further about… I just know it is an issue, as to my studies about brain waves and the cognitive medical studies I am familiar with__There’s a lot we can not yet detect__that I do know…
Hey, thanks for all the devils advocate material. Gives me something new to do, as I’m really bogged down a bit with trying to word this total central processing problem of; “The absolute infinite is indivisible…???” I don’t know if this statement of Spinoza’s is true or not, or even if it’s possible to answer to, in the form posed, but it’s just one example of how this issue has been approached by another historical thinker, in another time far away… The thing with Spinoza, he was considered an atheist and excommunicated from the Jewish faith, yet endorsed by many Christians as a great Christian thinker. Now that’s quite a feat__to be thought an anthiest and a believer of god, at the same time… And remember from above; Spinoza’s god, was a dead materialistic god__you’d most likely be in complete agreement with his scientific ideas__whereas, I am not…
“An emotion can only be displaced or overcome by a stronger emotion.” Spinoza
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please let us know your logical, scientific opinions...