Kindly see the trail....
[log in to unmask]"> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.DL: Peter, the best & easiest way to understand spontaneity is to imagine a solar system or a planet or earth devoid of anything conscious or living or wielding intent/purpose/desire. If everything on a planet or solar system is devoid of intent, howsoever minute, then everything in that solar system or on that planet will happen only spontaneously - means entropy will increase at a pre-defined rate that is in concurrence with laws of physics.
Deepak, and All,
Though I have difficulty with your use of the word “spontaneity” if I accept it as used in the argument presented in your essay, I agree with you.
[log in to unmask]">DL: If we agree freedom is a property, either it is a function of accumulation of proto-freedoms of constituent systems or it evolves somehow as an emergent property of a complex system. Both are bottom-top processes. If freedom is a top-bottom property, the obvious question is - where did it originate? The only possibility then is to consider that its origin is not in the current universe of space, matter & energy. Then we are talking of a parallel informational universe, which many have proposed. I really have no proofs against it, but it is counter-intuitive for me.Referencing your email rather than your article, I’m uncertain about reducing freedom to bottom-top or top-bottom. If we can allow that choosing is itself a fulfilled expression of freedom, then there is no downward slope to the event; it is top-top. Or maybe I am skipping the first step: bottom-top-top.
[log in to unmask]">
On the other side, bottom-top, although there is factual certainty about matter and energy, I have a hard time with quantum theory arguments about the human experience. To me it seems as though the history of mankind has been of events and environments that are only ever presented robustly. We interact with things that always have essence or create results of essence, we do not interact with matter or energy that’s undefined. So I’m fine with notions about experiences with sticks and stones, but not with particles.
DL: Peter, I
fully endorse your view. The free-will we experience in our
day to day experiences is true. But how it looks when seen
in yocto is very different. And yes you are right the
challenge is to perceive how a random yoctometer delivers an
orderly millimeter. Indeed, my Book & ALCCO approach is
majorly about explaining the evolution of quantum randomness
into millimetre order. Let me explain it in a different way.
Here's an interesting exercise... just do the thought
experiment asked for in next para...
Imagine a car
driven on a bumpy road in which a crate of 24 beer bottles
is kept. The bottles are jumping a bit, striking each
other's neck, are limited to the small cardboard cuboid into
which they are fitted, yet vibrate within this area. Since
they strike each other, they are surely not vibrating in
tandem.
Here's the interesting thing... There is a major likelihood that when you imagined the aforementioned, you , as an observer placed yourself in the car, not in the sky, such that you are static to ground. Even if you imagine yourself to be placed static to ground, up in the sky you will still not be able to perceive the trajectory of the bottles. Now let me help you imagine the trajectory of the bottle....
Imagine,
yourself static to ground and in the sky and imagine
everything - the driverless car, seats, its roof, floor,
tyres, crate and bottles - everything but the aluminum
bottle caps to be 100% transparent. Imagine you are not
allowed to imagine anything but the caps. Chances are
brighter you will be able to imagine the trajectory of the
caps. And you will see them making waves with a flat top,
everytime two caps strike each other for a millisecond.
Let's now come
to a second question. Can one (assuming one is not a
superman) project the trajectory of bottle caps (with
everything else 100% transparent), with the bumps on the
road, the two suspensions of the car which are differently
eroded, shockers at each wheel, varyingly eroded rubber of
wheel-tyres are and varying millimetric distances among the
caps? Likelihood - it is indeterministic in real life even
if calculated with a super computational capability. The
real life stuff cannot be calculated or predicted. So for
all practical purposes it is indeterminate. But fact is,
irrespective of its indeterminate and random movement would
one desire to predict it, the movement of caps will still be
easily determined within the limits of road on which the car
is moving.
The reason I
quoted this thought experiment is because it showcases
millimetre indeterminance (or close to randomness) existing
in pretty determined meter. It also showcases how relativity
and observer position is crucial. And lastly, how important
it is to make everything transparent in mind to see how the
bottle tops move. Until and unless this mental action is not
undertaken, you will see bottles moving in such a way that
you are static to relative to the car not the ground. This
showcases how our mind tricks us for its own ease.
[log in to unmask]">DL: I fully endorse your view. Things like quantum causality, spins twisters, complex planes, wave functions all the mathematics leads to production of such a semantics that is misinterpreted very literally. I have explained entire quantum part of science of consciousness in a non-mathematical easy to understand way in my book "Awareness & Consciousness - Discovery, Distinction & Evolution. The New Upanishad.". A good example is of retro-causality in quantum mechanics. Yes it is a process that does seem to occur, but it manifests itself only at quantum level. It does not mean, as in common language is illustrated to be, "Back to the Future", kind of a movie scene. It is a probability of a possibility limited to such ultra small events (below a billionth of a billionth of a second or even below), that causality as we perceive it - "cause precedes, effect follows", is no more valid as these are beyond any observation or observer.
I may be missing your point on this, or I may be biased about quantum mechanics applied to human behavior. But I generally agree with your linked essay.
[log in to unmask]">
I also fully agree with Gregg’s point: “ As such, the question becomes, does one’s theory account for (a) self-conscious persons operating on that plane of existence; and (b) is it consistent with the laws of physics.” My thought is that (a) though requires further explanation. Does a self-conscious person need to be self-conscious of a choice for it to be an expression of freedom
DL: Very
interesting question Peter. My answer is no. Because, choice
is degree of freedom. Let's replace beer bottles with a
truck load of tightly packed people, who in contrast to beer
bottles, will tend to counter the displacement (have
conscious choice) and avoid bumping into each other. Does
anything change, would one look at the heads with everything
else, incl. the human bodies and truck are transparent? No
nothing really. The heads will be randomly moving, but will
still be within the limits of the truck and the road.
Consciousness is availability of intent. Beer bottles don't
have it, so they will bump into each other to reverse their
direction of fluctuation from mean position. Humans will do
it of their intent & volition. Yet, both will seem
random to an observer in the sky, static, relative to the
road. The word choice is connected to human intention. But
would you disengage it from intentionality, all it means is
degree of freedom in displacement.
[log in to unmask]">or can their history of self-conscious events prior to that choice be proof enough of freedom? And when we choose this or that, relying on our history that has led to that choosing, when might we have truly made that choice?
DL: Choice as showcased above, is treacherous word. Though arbitrary, yet, think of choice of moving a car steering left or right, being done by arms, which are commanded by brain, which uses signals from memory, vision, audition, touch probably 100s of subsystems. At the the subsystems of subsystems level it could be even more, and at cellular & subsequently atomic level it might literally be a random perturbation. But when summed up cumulatively, from the least complex to the highest complexity system (cars on the road), it gets ordered so much in a feedback loop that it all seems to be causal & beautifully repetitive, in reality it is not. Everything in the universe is like cooking the same recipe food daily. It seems same, but it is actually similar, not same. When the difference is marginal, we call it same, or objective, in reality perfect objectivity does not exist in universe as the universe is never same again.
I highly
recommend this text
on self-observation, which showcases that the only way
to make a 100% objective observation is through
self-observation, which is condition when the observer and
observed co-occur and co-locate. This text is an expansion
of my above
quoted book into electronic files where I provide
details to those, who are interested in very fine details of
certain sections/concepts discussed in the book. This
ensures that the book is renewed and interesting critique on
each section of the book is available as more and more
people discuss and describe their views on various segments
of the book. This makes my book more organic, evolving &
in-depth with various views and opinions rather than being
static - for all times to come till people read &
comment on the book.
TY
DL
[log in to unmask]">Best to all,Peter
############################
Peter Lloyd Jones
562-209-4080
Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1