Free Will vs. Determinism

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Meme Warrior

unread,
Aug 10, 2004, 12:19:11 AM8/10/04
to
Do we have free will in making desicions in our life or are we controlled by
the chemical reactions within our brain?


gil...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 2004, 10:27:20 AM8/10/04
to
"Meme Warrior" <Me...@memeist.com> wrote in message news:<31YRc.64594$J06.44733@pd7tw2no>...

> Do we have free will in making desicions in our life or are we controlled by
> the chemical reactions within our brain?

We have the gift of free will, but free will is limited by ignorance,
physical limitations and by free will itself (when you change our
mind). Limited free will is still free will. The most important choice
we can ever make is to choose God or not. We can make moral choices.
We know we are incapable of resisting ill choice (sin), so we accept
that God has saved us through Jesus Chris. He is perfect and always
capable of choosing right. We have to choose to accept this and we
will be saved.

With regards
Gilbert Gerber

Jared D

unread,
Aug 10, 2004, 1:15:37 PM8/10/04
to

"GIL...@HOTMAIL.COM" <gil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41f08074.04081...@posting.google.com...

If we are incapable of resisting ill choice then how is it a choice? If
accepting Jesus Chirst is the only outcome of our knowlegde, then is it
choice? Is it free will?


Danny

unread,
Aug 10, 2004, 5:47:51 PM8/10/04
to
gil...@hotmail.com (GIL...@HOTMAIL.COM) wrote in message news:<41f08074.04081...@posting.google.com>...

Given that god is omniscient, omnipotent and knows no sin how is sin possible.

gil...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 23, 2004, 5:15:03 AM8/23/04
to
"Jared D" <jar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Zo7Sc.68193$M95.27263@pd7tw1no>...

> If we are incapable of resisting ill choice then how is it a choice? If
> accepting Jesus Christ is the only outcome of our knowledge, then is it

> choice? Is it free will?

We are capable of resisting ill choice, but we are incapable of
resisting ill choice all the time.

We are also capable of accepting Jesus Christ. We are also capable of
rejecting God.

Regards
Gilbert Gerber

Milan Klima

unread,
Aug 23, 2004, 9:12:50 PM8/23/04
to

You can choose JC or many other mythologies which exist out there. You
can choose Apollo or Mithra. You can choose Superman or Peter Rabbit
or Santa Claus. They are all myths so you choose the one you think is
more fun. I personally choose Peter Rabbit.

regards
Milan

Milan Klima

unread,
Aug 23, 2004, 9:13:51 PM8/23/04
to
gil...@hotmail.com (GIL...@HOTMAIL.COM) wrote in message news:<41f08074.04082...@posting.google.com>...


How can you reject something that doesnt exist?

regards
Milan

Meme Warrior

unread,
Aug 23, 2004, 11:58:17 PM8/23/04
to

"Milan Klima" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:afe6b1c8.04082...@posting.google.com...

Uh, is that a trick question?


Roger Pearse

unread,
Aug 24, 2004, 4:06:38 AM8/24/04
to
mtk...@yahoo.com (Milan Klima) wrote in message news:<afe6b1c8.04082...@posting.google.com>...

And serve you right. Who says that unbelief isn't punished?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Milan Klima

unread,
Aug 24, 2004, 9:36:28 PM8/24/04
to
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.04082...@posting.google.com>...

Peter Rabbit is going to punish you. Repent now.

regards
Milan

Milan Klima

unread,
Aug 24, 2004, 9:37:01 PM8/24/04
to
"Meme Warrior" <Me...@meme.mem> wrote in message news:<t1zWc.190004$M95.80883@pd7tw1no>...


Only if you want it to be.
regards
Milan

Roger Pearse

unread,
Aug 25, 2004, 4:52:53 AM8/25/04
to
mtk...@yahoo.com (Milan Klima) wrote in message news:<afe6b1c8.0408...@posting.google.com>...

> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > mtk...@yahoo.com (Milan Klima) wrote in message news:<afe6b1c8.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > gil...@hotmail.com (GIL...@HOTMAIL.COM) wrote in message news:<41f08074.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > "Meme Warrior" <Me...@memeist.com> wrote in message news:<31YRc.64594$J06.44733@pd7tw2no>...
> > > > > Do we have free will in making desicions in our life or are we controlled by
> > > > > the chemical reactions within our brain?
> > > >
> > > > We have the gift of free will, but free will is limited by ignorance,
> > > > physical limitations and by free will itself (when you change our
> > > > mind). Limited free will is still free will. The most important choice
> > > > we can ever make is to choose God or not. We can make moral choices.
> > > > We know we are incapable of resisting ill choice (sin), so we accept
> > > > that God has saved us through Jesus Chris. He is perfect and always
> > > > capable of choosing right. We have to choose to accept this and we
> > > > will be saved.
> > >
> > > You can choose JC or many other mythologies which exist out there. You
> > > can choose Apollo or Mithra. You can choose Superman or Peter Rabbit
> > > or Santa Claus. They are all myths so you choose the one you think is
> > > more fun. I personally choose Peter Rabbit.
> >
> > And serve you right. Who says that unbelief isn't punished?
>
> Peter Rabbit is going to punish you. Repent now.

OK, I admit it. I laughed at the Watership Down joke -- "You've read
the book; you've seen the film; now eat the pie!" Have mercy, oh
fluffy one!

Robert Clifton

unread,
Aug 28, 2004, 3:26:51 PM8/28/04
to
gil...@hotmail.com (> We have the gift of free will, but free will is

limited by ignorance,
> physical limitations and by free will itself (when you change our
> mind). Limited free will is still free will. The most important choice
> we can ever make is to choose God or not. We can make moral choices.
> We know we are incapable of resisting ill choice (sin), so we accept
> that God has saved us through Jesus Chris. He is perfect and always
> capable of choosing right. We have to choose to accept this and we
> will be saved.
Good shot Gilbert,
but no roses.

Free will is, as you say, unlimited within the sphere of humanness
operating on this plane of existence. To speak of any thing else is
fantasy.
The most important choice we can make is whether or not to believe
that your choice of the most important choice is right or wrong. The
most important choice is (insert x to the nth.)
The most important choice you presented is only the most important
choice if 1. God exists, 2. God is so assinine as to make believing
in Him the criteria for future benefits, and , 3. God is so capricious
as to present humanity with nine (or more, count 'em) equally valid
Prophets from which to make a choice with not a whit of valid
information to aid the process.
Moral choice has nothing to do with free will. We know we are
incapable of resisting good choice and incapable of resisting ill
choice. Sartre splendidly pointed out that not to chose is choice.
Aristotle also presented the still unanswered question of what is good
choice, what is bad choice.
Those around Jesus have concocted a set of more' which they call
ethics. Those around (insert prophet of your choice) have
concocted....
Do we have free will? You bet! Within limits of the physical capacity
of being a human. You can't choose to be an elephant. Does hard
determinism trump free well? You bet! But not until we reach the outer
edges. Every choice we make is absolutely predictable if we only had
the machinery or skill to determine the direction of the last atom of
the last molecule of the last yeah or nay. Quantum physics is now
trying to plow its way through chaos theory to find that tool. But
then how do you measure, let alone predict, the vibration of an
elemental string?
The latest Prophet of God, Baha'u'llah, tells us to enjoy the show,
God is in control.

OBBB

Meme Warrior

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 4:41:18 PM8/31/04
to

"Robert Clifton" <cli...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:e3f87f43.0408...@posting.google.com...

Nice Reply.

The tool you speak of is called, in determinist lingo, Lapace's demon. A
Creature (or tool) who knows the present states of all matter in the
univearse and therefore can predict it's future states. Elemental strings
aside another problem occurs when trying to create lapace's demon. In order
to know all the states of matter in the univearse you would need a very
large information storage device. The storage device would be composed of
the very matter you are trying to catalog, atoms. One byte of information
would need a atom to be stored opon and as you catalog every atom as bytes
of information you would need a equal amount of atoms to store the
information. A univearse of atoms would need a univearse of atoms to store
the information.


Robert Clifton

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 3:49:40 PM9/1/04
to
Hello "Meme Warrior"


Excellent statement.
Lapace's demon is only a demon because it is constructed from within
the elements of this contingent universe. When creating anything from
within a creation one necessarily uses the elements of that creation.
As you point out with your description of Lapace's demon it is
impossible to create something larger than the creation from which it
comes.
Given that as a start, your statement is an excellent exposition of
the problem, and succinctly points out why the freewill/determinism
debate will continue – but only until we hit a particular paradigm
shift.
That paradigm shift struck me some time after I became a Baha'i when I
was told that God was an unknowable essence. (A separate argument with
another person on a different board). Of course that set my wheels
turning.
Quantum theory, chaos theory, and elemental strings are all constructs
within this contingent universe to explain elements of this creation
and thus subject to Lapace's demon. What within this box is not?
The infinite observer is not contained by this box. (I originally
called it the Clifton Observer but changed to the more descriptive and
less contentious IO.) This is a tool which allows understanding of all
phenomena and is an Einstienian gedankenexpiriment The infinite
observer can move within and without the contingent universe. It is
free to roam at any place, at any speed and to observe any essence
within the space box and time box.
The IO changes size according to the phenomena being observed and
reports back to the constructing mind.
Zeno's paradox thus can be explained as a truth by the IO because the
IO handily reduces itself by half with each half way movement. At the
point of non-existence, slightly below the elemental strings, both the
distance and the observer disappear and indeed one never ‘gets there'
because you ‘must go half way'.
What then can observe strings? Obviously that would be an IO riding
upon or within one of those strings. What can contemplate all of
those strings without upsetting the interaction of the strings? Again
that would be an IO much larger than the containment area of this
contingent universe. (This cosmos is finite and a rather small box
within the time box, and within the space box. (another topic.))
While the IO has the freedom to roam at will as far as the edge of
space and forward and backward as far as the first or last moment, at
this point in time the IO has not been able to size itself to
encompass space nor time. Thus Lapace is proven true since the IO
springs from the larger box of space and time and is limited by those.
As I understand it, God encompasses both space and time rather than
space and time encompassing God. Consequently the IO constructed from
the space box and the time box cannot stretch to encompass God. This
leaves God as an unknowable essence.
Since hard determinism is a fact and all effects are from some cause,
what is there which can cause strings and thus cause this contingent
cosmos? Obviously that would be an entity large enough to be
undetectable by anything within the space box or the time box. An
essence therefore unknowable to anything within this creation.
Since those elemental strings are the stuff of all compositions in
this existence then the strings must be intelligible to that entity
which I call God. They are certainly intelligible to the IO.

OBBB

Meme warrior

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 3:23:56 PM9/2/04
to
cli...@eudoramail.com (Robert Clifton) wrote in message news:<e3f87f43.04090...@posting.google.com>...

> Hello "Meme Warrior"
>
>
> Excellent statement.
> Lapace's demon is only a demon because it is constructed from within
> the elements of this contingent universe. When creating anything from
> within a creation one necessarily uses the elements of that creation.
> As you point out with your description of Lapace's demon it is
> impossible to create something larger than the creation from which it
> comes.
> Given that as a start, your statement is an excellent exposition of
> the problem, and succinctly points out why the freewill/determinism
> debate will continue ? but only until we hit a particular paradigm

> shift.
> That paradigm shift struck me some time after I became a Baha'i when I
> was told that God was an unknowable essence. (A separate argument with
> another person on a different board). Of course that set my wheels
> turning.
> Quantum theory, chaos theory, and elemental strings are all constructs
> within this contingent universe to explain elements of this creation
> and thus subject to Lapace's demon. What within this box is not?
> The infinite observer is not contained by this box. (I originally
> called it the Clifton Observer but changed to the more descriptive and
> less contentious IO.) This is a tool which allows understanding of all
> phenomena and is an Einstienian gedankenexpiriment The infinite
> observer can move within and without the contingent universe. It is
> free to roam at any place, at any speed and to observe any essence
> within the space box and time box.
> The IO changes size according to the phenomena being observed and
> reports back to the constructing mind.
> Zeno's paradox thus can be explained as a truth by the IO because the
> IO handily reduces itself by half with each half way movement. At the
> point of non-existence, slightly below the elemental strings, both the
> distance and the observer disappear and indeed one never ?gets there'
> because you ?must go half way'.

> What then can observe strings? Obviously that would be an IO riding
> upon or within one of those strings. What can contemplate all of
> those strings without upsetting the interaction of the strings? Again
> that would be an IO much larger than the containment area of this
> contingent universe. (This cosmos is finite and a rather small box
> within the time box, and within the space box. (another topic.))
> While the IO has the freedom to roam at will as far as the edge of
> space and forward and backward as far as the first or last moment, at
> this point in time the IO has not been able to size itself to
> encompass space nor time. Thus Lapace is proven true since the IO
> springs from the larger box of space and time and is limited by those.
> As I understand it, God encompasses both space and time rather than
> space and time encompassing God. Consequently the IO constructed from
> the space box and the time box cannot stretch to encompass God. This
> leaves God as an unknowable essence.
> Since hard determinism is a fact and all effects are from some cause,
> what is there which can cause strings and thus cause this contingent
> cosmos? Obviously that would be an entity large enough to be
> undetectable by anything within the space box or the time box. An
> essence therefore unknowable to anything within this creation.
> Since those elemental strings are the stuff of all compositions in
> this existence then the strings must be intelligible to that entity
> which I call God. They are certainly intelligible to the IO.
>
> OBBB


Your Idea of a Infinite observor is an intresting device to use in
determinism. I too have played with the idea an IO like you describe,
but in a slighty different way. I used an analogy of a virtual
universe contained in a computer to ponder the existence of a IO. A
computer user intreacting with a virtual universe would have much the
same abilites as the IO. They would be able to consider all states and
thusly this virtual universe would be deterministic. However, the
virtual universe and conversely our own, becomes severally limited by
the exsistence of an IO. This is due to the same problem I described
before as the IO would need to be just as large if not larger then the
universe in order to interpt all the nesscary information needed to be
a IO. If the computer user wishes to have a virtual universe with the
same properties as the universe he inhibits then for every virtual
atom in the virtual universe there needs to be a coresponding byte of
data existincing in the real universe. Each byte of data requires real
world material to be stored apon and his virtual universe's matter
requires, at the very least, an equal amount of real world matter to
utilize.

Unless we can reason to belive that an IO would be exempt from the
need for a material base for it's infromation, then we must assume it
to be the same volumne as the spacetime box.

Another point in the debate which dosen't represent a fatal flaw in
determinism but is intresting when thinking about IO's is that if a
observer is watching an non-deterministic world, it's potential space
becomes much less limited. the observer could abondon his need for
hard determinsim and allow the universe to be created as he observes
it. For instance if a observer sees a far off landscape and only
interpets it's shape and position relative to themself, then they no
longer need a large amount of material to intpret his universe. The
observer is still infinte because what he is observing is all of the
universe that actually exists. As his prespective changes the universe
that which he is now observing gets created as he observes it. The
universe is still in some way deterministic because it is created
according to preset algorthims which could be potentailly known to the
IO. But the same problem of materialism would be present if a IO tried
to intrept all the algorthims.

-MW

gil...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 3, 2004, 5:31:20 AM9/3/04
to
> Moral choice has nothing to do with free will. We know we are
> incapable of resisting good choice and incapable of resisting ill
> choice. Sartre splendidly pointed out that not to chose is choice.
> Aristotle also presented the still unanswered question of what is good
> choice, what is bad choice.
> Those around Jesus have concocted a set of more' which they call
> ethics. Those around (insert prophet of your choice) have
> concocted....
> Do we have free will? You bet! Within limits of the physical capacity
> of being a human. You can't choose to be an elephant. Does hard
> determinism trump free well? You bet! But not until we reach the outer
> edges. Every choice we make is absolutely predictable if we only had
> the machinery or skill to determine the direction of the last atom of
> the last molecule of the last yeah or nay. Quantum physics is now
> trying to plow its way through chaos theory to find that tool. But
> then how do you measure, let alone predict, the vibration of an
> elemental string?
> The latest Prophet of God, Baha'u'llah, tells us to enjoy the show,
> God is in control.
>
> OBBB

Are you saying that the vibration of an elemental string cannot be
controlled, that one thing leads to the next and we involuntary end up
bouncing around in the chaos?

I think human life brings an unknown x to the equation, where we get
the opportunity to direct, accelerate or oppose the direction of that
previously stated equation. I think the creative nature of human
beings proves our ability to introduce an unknown into the equation.
Our ability to act creatively allows us to influence that elemental
string. Being creative will make events unpredictable. Being creative
allows us to make good or bad choices.

Gilbert Gerber

Meme Warrior

unread,
Sep 3, 2004, 2:05:39 PM9/3/04
to
news:41f08074.0409...@posting.google.com...

what is human creativity when reduced to it's basic componets?


Robert Clifton

unread,
Sep 3, 2004, 5:05:08 PM9/3/04
to
(Meme warrior)

>>the IO would need to be just as large if not larger then the
>>universe in order to interpt all the nesscary information needed to
be a IO.

This construction/model is absolutely correct. The IO would need to be
equally as large as itself, but then it would then need to duplicate
itself again, then again ad infinitum. Turtles all the way down.

>>Unless we can reason to belive that an IO would be exempt from the

>>need for a material base for it's information
So far so good. but,

>>, then we must assume it to be the same volumne as the spacetime
box.

Why is that assumption preferred over the assumption that the IO is
larger than the space/time box?
My first thought is that you and I can not perceive a thing which
encompasses space nor time: or space and time. To any entity (us) from
within our cognizable space/time box such an external IO would be an
unknown and an unknowable essence.

The necessity for a material base is a construction from within our
provable knowledge base. The only support for that necessity is that
we can not conceive of any other form of entity. Again the IO would be
an unknown and an unknowable essence. Not knowing is not the same as
not existing.
We can not conceive of an edge to space. What would be on the other
side of it? Either more material or more space or an unknown essence.
We have no way of cognizing what.

An IO capable of observing everything within this space time box would
have to be outside. OR
As you postulate for a non-deterministic IO the IO could be creating
this contingency within the space time box in an isolated location
within space. I can handle that more easily than an IO which
encompasses space.

Infinite incidences of finite universes. I postulate that the cosmos
within which we find our self is finite and merely an island in space.
There are multiple incidences of other finite cosmos and they cannot
interact unless they collide, because there is no such thing as an
open orbit. All known entities are subject to the gravitational pull
of other entities. Excluding tachyon for the moment, even light is
known to be affected by the pull of gravity. Thus even a photon
exiting our known cosmos would have a curve induced at the final tug
of gravity. It would then curve back into this cosmos. The outer
reaches of that curve would be the limit to the edge of this material
cosmos. (I allow the argument that the final tug could set the photon
on a course perpendicular to the center of the cosmos and thus it
could exit in a straight line. An open orbit being an exception rather
than the rule leaves interaction between cosmic islands unlikely.)
As you suggest; an IO resident within the space box could be dreaming
up this contingent cosmos we call home. I agree that determinism could
still be hard and contingent upon the IO dream. The IO could within
that dream allow latitude in action or choice. The IO would not be
limited by the need for an equal dream. The IO could then enter that
dream at any point, large or small, or could even step back and
analyze the whole thing, as we partially do our dreams in a waking
state.
It could also be that the resident IO has a thorough understanding of
material and energy and has set about to mold this cosmos using that
stuff. In which case hard determinism is more an object of physical
laws, like growing tomatoes. I know I will get a tomato but I do not
know how small it will be.
In any case the IO does not need to be limited by being a construction
from within the box as the IO has merely boxed this material into a
specific space. The IO thus becomes more a recognition that given the
proper entity observations can be made of every aspect of our known
universe without the need for a duplicate set of data. That parallel
data is contained in the mind of the IO and the laws which govern the
material and energy of the cosmic construction. This postulation is
more acceptable to me because of Descarte' ‘cogito ergo sum.'
All we need to do then to understand our cosmos is to determine what
that IO would ‘see' at any given level, inside or outside the box.

Hello Mr. Gerber: I am working on a response to your post.

OBBB

Robert Clifton

unread,
Sep 4, 2004, 12:22:13 PM9/4/04
to
> "GIL...@HOTMAIL.COM"


Hello Mr. Gerber,

>>Are you saying that the vibration of an elemental string cannot be
>>controlled, that one thing leads to the next and we involuntary end
up
>>bouncing around in the chaos?

I don't think I would have phrased it quite that way.
The vibration of an elemental string is absolutely under control of
whatever natural laws exist at that level. Some of us believe that
that elemental string is harmonized by a God force.
Cause follows effect follows cause follows effect follows.. (You could
not respond to my post had I not made that post) The elemental strings
would not vibrate without a cause.
We bounce because there are events over which we have no control. We
control some events within a limited sphere of influence reducing the
bounce to a point where we appear to be captains of our ship.
What chaos? Everything is explicable – if you have the tools.

>>I think human life brings an unknown x to the equation, where we get
>>the opportunity to direct, accelerate or oppose the direction of
that
>>previously stated equation.

I agree; but that multidimensional unknown x is severely limited by
our humanness and our limited opportunities are more severely limited
by all sorts of things, such as knowledge, desire etc..

>>I think the creative nature of human beings proves our ability to
introduce an unknown into the >>equation.

True and vice versa: the unknowns in the equation, induced by us or by
others, allows an expression of our creative nature.

>>Our ability to act creatively allows us to influence that elemental
string.

I disagree. That elemental string is as far below our ability to
manipulate as changing the orbit of the moon is far above our ability.
We have limits. I may be proven wrong later on both counts.

>>Being creative will make events unpredictable.

Being creative makes events violate expectations thus showing
creativeness but not negating cause and effect. Events being
unpredictable make us appear creative. With adequate tools events
would not be unpredictable.

>>Being creative allows us to make good or bad choices.

"Nothing is either good nor bad, only thinking makes it so."
Shakespeare
"To choose not to choose is a choice" Sartre Is that a good or a bad
choice?
Being alive presents us with a steady stream of choices.
Most choices of most people affect only themselves and maybe half a
dozen around them. Some people make choices which affect many people
during one lifetime. Rare people make choices which affect a large
portion of mankind for more than two or three generations. Unique
people make choices which affect humanity for hundreds of years. As of
this date no one person has made choices which affect every man woman
and child. The elemental strings affects every one of us and every
thing else in the universe as they bounce around eternity on their
merry journey.
You and I make choices but they don't amount to much.
Perhaps you were talking of moral choices i.e. good or bad?? Whole
different subject.

OBBB

Meme Warrior

unread,
Sep 4, 2004, 6:15:38 PM9/4/04
to

Robert Clifton wrote in message

> The necessity for a material base is a construction from within our
> provable knowledge base. The only support for that necessity is that
> we can not conceive of any other form of entity. Again the IO would be
> an unknown and an unknowable essence. Not knowing is not the same as
> not existing.
> We can not conceive of an edge to space. What would be on the other
> side of it? Either more material or more space or an unknown essence.
> We have no way of cognizing what.
>

Your Ideas about an IO closely align with my own, execpt I disagree with
your statement above. We can concive of what is beyond the edge of space we
just need to apporch it from a different angle.

The ability to be an IO isn't resevered to this unknowable essence, we can
ourselves be IO's to virtual universes created within computer systems. If
you where to programm a virtual enivroment in a computer's cyperspace, you
could have the same deterministic power over that universe as a IO would
have over our own. The ability to create a universe as large and detailed as
our own is beyond our technological ability, but it could theortically be
achived in the future. By pondering our own ability as a IO, we can become
more intimate with the idea of a IO presiding over our universe.

-MW


Robert Clifton

unread,
Sep 5, 2004, 1:38:07 PM9/5/04
to
"Meme Warrior"
Hello MW

> We can concive of what is beyond the edge of space we
> just need to apporch it from a different angle.

And what would that angle be? Describe for me what is on the other
side of the edge of space.


> The ability to be an IO isn't resevered to this unknowable essence, we can
> ourselves be IO's to virtual universes created within computer systems. If
> you where to programm a virtual enivroment in a computer's cyperspace, you
> could have the same deterministic power over that universe as a IO would
> have over our own. The ability to create a universe as large and detailed as
> our own is beyond our technological ability, but it could theortically be
> achived in the future. By pondering our own ability as a IO, we can become
> more intimate with the idea of a IO presiding over our universe.


Somehow or other my infinite observer took on a life of it's own. It
has none. It is an observation tool, not too unlike microscopes and
telescopes which can present visions to me (or who ever uses it) at
the particular level required. It can change sizes in paradoxes and
thus prove the dox of the paradox. It can crawl around inside of an
elemental string and report back what it found. If there is a little
universe inside that string it can penetrate that universe to its
smallest string. (At this point in time it reports that the string is
void of internal objects.)
I have not been able to use th IO to observe anything outside the end
of space even if I speed beyond that edge and look back from a
different angle. It merely sees more space, which must then be
incorporated into the present space.

As postulated in your response the IO you describe is more in the
realm of a soul if not a God force. To me that is a different subject
and outside the realm of knowledge based on this contingent universe.
I know of no physical method for examining a soul. Our knowledge is
limited by what our scientific method can discern from our physical
universe. I know of no tool to transport our methodolgy into the
spiritual realm. Anecdotes abound but there is no consistency or
replication.

As to creating our own virtual universes you are correct. We do that
in our dreams, our imaginations, and to a lesser and severely limited
degree in our computors. Each of those are limited by our knowledge
base. Even unique compositions in our imaginations are in fact
compositions, albethey unique ones.

Robert

gil...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 5, 2004, 3:10:06 PM9/5/04
to
"Meme Warrior" <Me...@meme.mem> wrote in message news:<Tn2_c.312656
> what is human creativity when reduced to it's basic componets?


I do not have an all-encompassing definition to your question. I do
think creativity enables us to alter the elemental string in a way
that is both, unpredictable and original. A Minor change is still a
change. The elemental string has brought us from the amoeba to human
beings. But we have taken it further to rock art, mobile phones,
computers, birthday cards and nuclear bombs.

The basic laws of nature would only allow us to choose from 1 to 5,
but creativity allows us to choose from 6 onwards too. Free will is
enabled by being able to choose beyond that what is predictable and
optional.

Gilbert Gerber

Jack

unread,
Sep 5, 2004, 6:52:49 PM9/5/04
to
"Meme Warrior" <Me...@memeist.com> wrote in message news:<31YRc.64594$J06.44733@pd7tw2no>...
> Do we have free will in making desicions in our life or are we controlled by
> the chemical reactions within our brain?

A combination of several facets;

*DNA, or rather genetic predisposition.
*Experiences that shape our individual understanding of events.
*The Culture in which we are raised.
*The desire to find/attain that which is missing in our immediate environment.

...to name a few.

Meme Warrior

unread,
Sep 6, 2004, 10:32:48 PM9/6/04
to

"Robert Clifton" wrote in message


>


> And what would that angle be? Describe for me what is on the other
> side of the edge of space.
>

Sorry, that's what I have been trying to do for most of thread. My position
is that our universe is encompassed in a universe with similar physical
rules governing information entropy. While it is true that beyond our space
is unknowable to us, it is difficult for me to concieve of a space where
information can exist without a material base. Unfortunely, however, my
entire agruement is depended on my above statement to be true and yes, it is
impossible to prove our too even ascertain probablity. One piece of insight
I hope you have realised, though, is that for determinism to exist in our
universe, the space beyond ours must have the ability to contain an infinite
amount of information within any size quatinity of material. So if
determinsim is fact, then that is one more thing we do know about the other

Robert Clifton

unread,
Sep 7, 2004, 10:34:58 AM9/7/04
to
"Meme Warrior"

> My position
> is that our universe is encompassed in a universe with similar physical

> rules governing information entropy. ... it is difficult for me to concieve of a space where information can exist without a material base.

This is as I understood you to say and this is the crux of the problem
in your postulation.
There is no indication that knowledge is limited to a physical base.
True, information about the contingent cosmos is based on the physical
material of the cosmos. To replicate that would require an equal
amount of material. What is known is known physically at some level
due to our physical base. What is not known has yet to develop a
physical base for it's recognition. Now consider the other statement
you made:


>One piece of insight
> I hope you have realised, though, is that for determinism to exist in our
> universe, the space beyond ours must have the ability to contain an infinite
> amount of information within any size quatinity of material. So if
> determinsim is fact, then that is one more thing we do know about the other
> side of the edge of space.

((This statement did help clarify a couple things for me. Thank you.
Determinism while immutable is relative. There is no space beyond what
we know as space thus any God force must be contained within that
space, thus entropy may be a part of that force. That would make God
mortal within space but would change nothing at our human level.))

You are correct in your error. Any knowledge we can put our hands on
must have a physical base is correct but to assume that knowledge does
not exist without a physical base is an error. For us to know
something the knowledge of that thing must have become revealed to us.
There are two ways of revelation: physical (invention, discovery) and
spiritual (people of insight). The physical we accept after
considerable objection and verification, The spiritual we accept and
then perpetually fight about.
The physical is hard determinism visibly at work, the spiritual is
knowledge yet to be realized. The physical is finite, the spiritual is
infinite.

((We can petition the (unknown - spiritual) knowledge base through our
thought waves (meditation). Circumstance, chance, or cause and effect
then may alter an elemental particle to create a physical response to
our petition. Prayer may work. Thinking directs action. Both however
work as a factor in determinism.))

New question: if "The physical is finite, the spiritual is infinite."
is true then could the known universe become saturated with the
physical? What would that do to the edge of space?

Ah man!! You burn my brain!

OBBB

tasoti

unread,
Sep 8, 2004, 2:24:40 AM9/8/04
to
bgst...@shaw.ca (Jack) wrote in message news:<c19fb194.04090...@posting.google.com>...

Whats interesting too is how these different facets are experienced.
Recently my husband and I were making love and the urge to actually
make a baby overcame me powerfully. It felt chemical/primal, and
deeply emotional. It wasnt just sex, or the desire for sex, there was
definitely an added component that I have not ever experienced. Nor
was it just sentimentality or emotional drive. Very definitely both.
Its almost impossible to describe.

This is interesting to me because for many years I have felt I did not
want a child, and Im still not sure I do (we still arent sure, I
should say). This very distinct moment felt almost like it was out of
my hands (mentally) and my body made a decision for me to not prevent
pregnancy. Afterwards I felt truly free and unburdened from all fears
relating to making the decision to have a child (the free will
choice).

Well, I didnt get pregnant. So, now Im thinking that if we do want a
child, we should decide and then try. But this is an entirely new area
of contemplation for me brought about by some extremely great sex that
clearly stirred up some deeply encoded drive- or _something_. All I
can say is WOW.

tasoti

unread,
Sep 8, 2004, 2:24:42 AM9/8/04
to
bgst...@shaw.ca (Jack) wrote in message news:<c19fb194.04090...@posting.google.com>...

Whats interesting too is how these different facets are experienced.

Meme Warrior

unread,
Sep 8, 2004, 1:37:15 PM9/8/04
to

"Robert Clifton" wrote in message

>


> Determinism while immutable is relative. There is no space beyond what
> we know as space thus any God force must be contained within that
> space, thus entropy may be a part of that force. That would make God
> mortal within space but would change nothing at our human level.))
>

Intresting, but I need more information to understand what you are talking
about.

> You are correct in your error. Any knowledge we can put our hands on
> must have a physical base is correct but to assume that knowledge does
> not exist without a physical base is an error. For us to know
> something the knowledge of that thing must have become revealed to us.
> There are two ways of revelation: physical (invention, discovery) and
> spiritual (people of insight). The physical we accept after
> considerable objection and verification, The spiritual we accept and
> then perpetually fight about.
> The physical is hard determinism visibly at work, the spiritual is
> knowledge yet to be realized. The physical is finite, the spiritual is
> infinite.
>

From what I understand you are postulating two distinct types of Knowledge,
the physical and the spirtual. Physical being all knowledge we are able to
verify using our senses and spiritual being knowledge we are unable to
verify because we lack the ability to interpt the knowledge for our sense to
absorb. While this is sound logic from my perspective, it dosen't put my
statement in error.

My position is the information, not knowledge, requries a material base.

information and knowledge encompass too different definitions, although they
do overlap in some areas. Knowledge, as far as I know, was descibed pretty
well in you defintion. Information however is much more obtuse then
knowledge and extends beyond the human mind.

Information is the order of data used to interpert any seperate construct.

Information exists everywhere, nothing can exist without it. The physical
laws of nature are intreprations of information which have been rendered to
our senses as natural constuctions. A simple water molecule, for example,
when intrepreted through the phyiscal laws produces what we sense as water.
The *information* was the order of the molecules which produced the reaction
nesscary to form the liquid we know as water.

This paradigm shift is hard to make, which is way I often revert to the
analogy of the computer simulated reality. A computer interperts data on a
hard drive in the same way our universe interpts data or information of
molecules. Producing different effects based on the order of there
arrangment.

When reduced down to the very bottom it is all just information.


> ((We can petition the (unknown - spiritual) knowledge base through our
> thought waves (meditation). Circumstance, chance, or cause and effect
> then may alter an elemental particle to create a physical response to
> our petition. Prayer may work. Thinking directs action. Both however
> work as a factor in determinism.))
>

Agreed

> New question: if "The physical is finite, the spiritual is infinite."
> is true then could the known universe become saturated with the
> physical? What would that do to the edge of space?
>

Sure that known universe could become saturated but I would worry more about
our cosmos then the edge of space if that happen.

-MW


Greig

unread,
Sep 16, 2004, 11:14:22 AM9/16/04
to
aynat...@yahoo.com (tasoti) wrote in message news:<3d5b67b6.04090...@posting.google.com>...

yadaya

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages