Of course it can be travelled...We are travelling in it now...forward. The only constant in Einstein's relativistic universe was the velocity of light...everything else is a variable, including time.

Here's a point to ponder...What if there are no constants and everything is a variable, including the velocity of light...What becomes of the theory of relativity?

I already proposed that argument few years ago as I don’t believe Einstein’s theory is all that correct. Recently I came across Michio Kaku saying the same thing.

Then reality is a gooey amorph playdough in metaphycisal terms.

You stretch reality here, and it must therefore contract in another part of itself.

Think of reality as an elastic space, and if there are are no constants in this space, that is, if this space behaves not randomly, but changably due to no constancy, the players or agents that play in a particular set of physical laws, they are at liberty to bend the laws (not break them, they still have to obey them), and thus the law (physical law) will be changing within its parameters how it acts on its subjects, and the subjects themselves will influence the parameters of the law's applicability in any one instnce.

This would lead to the "chewing gum" conceptual reality space, in which the law is influenced by its objects, the objects obey their laws, and therefore you can't take the entire miazma in your mouth, so to speak, all at once, that is, you can't comprehend the entire miazmatic relationships of laws vs their objects. Gaining knowledge would become impossible, even our minds could not develop in the biological form as we know it and have learned to like it.

In other words, the entire concepts of "reality" and "knowing reality" would need a new paradigm for their existential birth, and our paradigms, the ones we know, and operate with, would need to be discarded.

Wux

Just too funny- we were talking about relativity not reality

I liked the way you put things, though I don't think the paradigm shift necessarily has to be that "out to lunch." For instance, the theory of quantum gravity allows for differential velocities for different frequencies and some allowable mass for photons. Granted the amounts are miniscule and the measurements might be confined to unobservable differences, but we nevertheless may be forced at some point to consider a non-classical theory that takes off where relativity leaves off.

It may also be that the observed velocity of light is more of a local phenomenon and that it may differ in some far reaches of the universe.

Frankly, I'm a little enchanted with the idea of a universe with no constants, only correlated variables. It would be in keeping with my belief that chaos is the foundation of everything (i.e. a fractal universe).

More blather.


No where in Chaos theory is there required acausal events. Again back to the epistemic - ontologic gulf.

What does this mean? It means that claiming the foundation of the universe is fractal does nothing to explain a theory of undetermined free will. Nice sound bytes that make people think your smart, but nothing of substance.

Swing and a whiff.

I clearly said my BELIEF that the universe is fractal in nature; there was no claim involved. Traditional chaos theory is entirely deterministic and I don't believe the universe is, since at it's "root" it is probabilistic (once again, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle)

You are quite right that a fractal universe doesn't necessarily correspond with the existence of free will, and in fact by calling the universe a fractal, I was essentially (by my own imprecision of expression owing to laziness) saying by the classical implications of fractal definition that free will didn't exist. My only excuse is that it was intended to be a digression from topic unrelated to the free will discussion, so I didn't expect to be "called" on it.

Now that I have been, I'll have to state in more precise and explanatory terms what I intended to say and how by belief does not conflict with my argument for free will (based on the probabilistic nature of nature). In saying I believed the universe to be fractal, I was more correctly stating that I believe the universe is a finitary construction (approximation) of an ideal fractal. One might see it as the (I believe) fractal approximation we call the physical universe approaching the limit wherein the correspondence principle of quantum theory and relativity would hold true (in a "Platonic form" of the ideal infinite fractal).

My crack about chaos was referring to non-deterministic chaos, which conflicts slightly with the traditional definition for (deterministic) standard chaos theory. Again, I didn't expect to be challenged on it, so I left out the clarifying adjective.

I don't know why you are still harping on acausality...As I've stated before, that isn't part of my argumant at all. My argument for free will is based on probability, not acausality.

In my opinion, Steven Hawking is wrong if he thinks we do not have "free" will, and stupid for using the terms "free" with "will."

The the will, if it exists, is always free.

A thinking center, once evolved to a certain point of awareness, develops a conscious will.

A computer, as far as we know, has no will of its own. It only has programs. To say that a person has no will, is to say that they are no different than a robot or computer.

Hawking said: Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws.

That is laughable and ignorant.

"Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view...." is by no means the beginning of a statement of proof. It is simply razzle dazzle to try to convince someone to agree with that view.

Also to say that the will developed along with language is like saying that a child is not conscious or cannot think before the development of language.

That's ignorance.

Hawking actually has many good points and I'm inclined to agree with him that we are biological machines (though I wouldn't say "merely").

It is intellectually dangerous to mix "consciousness" with "free will." IMO, this has been the primary error that has led people astray and forced an erroneous idea of both concepts on everyone by falsely colouring the interpretation of each definition with unstated preconceptions. Recent experiments in neuroscience show a latency of seconds between the time that the brain makes a choice and the time we become aware of the choice made. This implies that the choice is predetermined before it is actually made, and hence, that free will is an illusion. Based on this alone, I'd hardly say Hawking is "out of it" for suggesting that acts of will are mechanistic and that free will seems to be an illusion. His point is a good one that must be addressed if we are not to simply give up on free will existing at all.

In order to address his argument, it is best to go back to square one. To exist at all, free will relies on freedom to choose between alternatives. If there are no alternatives, then there is no choice, and if there is no choice, then every "cause" results in a unique effect. This makes the entirety of spacetime (theoretically) mappable (predictable) such that all events are determinable. If all events are determinable, then so is any collection of them, no matter how small or large, so to spite the brain's complexity, it reduces to little more than a simple input/output machine. (I'll save the "garbage in...garbage out" stuff for discussions on politics).

"Consciousness" gets kinda confusing in terms of its definition as "awareness" when we interpret it in the usual ego-laden preconception of "personal, conscious awareness." It gets all the more confusing when we start thinking in terms of the human "unconscious" and "conscious" minds. Throwing all that crap into the mix is bound to lead to erroneous ideas, especially regarding the latency period shown to exist between our decisions and our conscious awareness of them.

The confusion clears up when we pay strict attention to the definitions. We should think of the brain as an input/output processor, not a conscious & unconscious mind (then the "predetermination problem" arising from the observed latency between unconscious & conscious personal awareness disappears).

As far as the predetermination problem goes, I would have thought that a man who's worked with the probabilistic nature of nature all his life wouldn't get suckered by a "B only if A" scenario for causality that implies a "no free will" universe. To spite that, and to spite the fact that I disagree with him, I wouldn't categorize him as "stupid" for associating "free" with "will"; that association has been made for thousands of years and the debate is still going strong.

I would suggest, however, that saying "the will, if it exists, is always free" is to argue an unproved hypothesis as though it were fact. If simply opinion, this is allowable as fair play. What might not be allowable is categorizing a generally great thinker as something of a moron for not agreeing with you, or for falling into the common and all-too-human "trap" that I believe you fell into, by allowing yourself to think people are somehow divinely superior to robots or computers.

I disagree strongly. It is the degree of consciousness that allows the will itself to emerge. One must be aware (conscious) of options and choices in order to actually make a choice. Therefore consciousness is necessary for will to stir.



Those experiments are misleading. The brain does not make choices. If it did, then if you kept a brain alive in a jar, you would see some kind of brain activity. The brain, does however, respond to programming. It does not make choices via the will. It follows programming.





It implies no such thing. A choice cannot be "predetermined" before it is made. All the scientists are observing is that the brain itself is not yet aware of the choice that has already been made. The brain does not make the choice. It reacts or responds to the choice.




Hawking is wrong if he actually believes that choices are "predetermined" or that the will does not exist. Choices are made. His observation is simply that the choice is made before the brain responds to it.

His assumption that the choice is "predetermined" is just that, an assumption. Where the experiment fails is that it cannot see or detect the consciousness that made the choice and sent that choice to the brain. This mistake again, is made because of assumptions that the brain is the only place where consciousness exists.

The brain is a computer. It can be programmed. A person with a brain can totally be programmed, and a person can program their own brain.

The will is the self programmer. If a person does not use their will, they will just follow their programming.

Yes the brain is a computer. I agree. But alone, kept alive in a jar, it does not posses human consciousness. Neither does a computer possess human consciousness. Both the brain, and a computer, are programmable. Neither a brain or a computer can make independent choices. (However I can't imagine a universe where there are no alternatives.) Both the brain, and a computer, follow programming.




When one defines "will" as "the soul" (as in the book "The Power of Will") then one can understand that the will is always free. The will is simply the will. It is either awake or it is asleep. It is either being used or it is not. If your will is not being used, then you are like a robot reacting and responding completely according to programming.

A computer or a robot is not an entity who has no "free will." It is an entity that has no perceptible WILL AT ALL. Meaning, that it only follows its programming.



The will, if it exists, is always free. I will state this as a fact.
You can call it an unproven hypothesis if you want. To me, it is self evident. You can call it my opinion if you want. It is my opinion, as everything I say is my opinion. I will also state that it is a fact because I believe it is a fact.





My feelings on Hawking is that he does not actually believe we don't have free will. If he is a great thinker, as you say he is, then he cannot possibly believe that there is no such thing as a "free will" (or will)

(BTW It is I who do not agree with him, - as he does not know or care what my belief or opinion is.)

His first questions in the O.P. were: “Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? "

If you read the first paragraph, he is asking questions. I can answer those questions, but my answers are only my own hypothesis (unproven).

The strength of will is completely dependent on how conscious an organism or entity is. When consciousness is only present in small amounts (tiny as in a bacteria or worm) then the organism/entity operates more reliant on programming than will.

How does life operate? It operates mostly on programming, and as it becomes more conscious, it can operate on will.

Human consciousness is a self-aware consciousness. Animals are conscious, but they operate mostly on their programming. Humans also rely to a large extend on their programming, but they are conscious enough to employ their strength of will.

You are not your brain. Your brain is not where 'you' are. Your consciousness permeates your entire body and surrounding bubble. That bubble is a magnetic force field. The earth also has a magnetic force field. Without your magnetic force field, you would die. The earth would also die without its magnetic force field.

If you study hypnotism and NLP you will learn how a less conscious person can be hypnotized (programmed) very easily even without them knowing it.

By a less conscious person, I mean someone who is dazed, distracted, half asleep, or not paying attention etc.

People can easily be programmed to kill someone and to do things you would think was against their (free) will while they are less conscious.

Jeanniebean, I was going to rip you a new one. Then I remembered the words of one of my heros.

You could not rip anyone a new one.

If you have a counter argument that makes any logical sense, lets here it. Rip away.


I'm not surprised that clown is one of your heroes though.

Today I remembered something that should add a little salt to this debate.

There's a parasite that lives in cat's guts. Sometimes though a rat will eat some cat poop and the parasite ends up in the rat. But, the parasite doesn't want to be in a rat, it wants to be in a cat. So, what does it do? Instead of hanging around in the rat's gut it finds it's way to the rats brain. Once there it it changes the rat's thinking. It makes the rat think the scent of cats is sexy. So, the next time the rat smells a cat instead of following it's nature and running away, it instead approaches the cat. Then the cat eats it and the parasite ends up back inside cat gut where it wants to be.

Now, what do you think happens when one of these parasites gets inside a human? Well, sometimes the person just goes crazy. But, another thing that often happens when it's inside a woman is it turns her into one of those crazy cat ladies.

Another example of this sort of thing is rabies. Rabies causes mammals to foam at the mouth and bite any living thing it can get it's teeth on. This of course spreads it to other mammals and the cycle repeats.

If a parasite can get inside you and completely change your personality in a way that benefits the parasite, what does that say about free will?

Another question I'm wondering about is why are people so upset about the idea that we may not have free will? If our ability to make what we think of as choices is really nothing more than instinct programed by millions of years of natural selection what would it change? Would anyone stop looking both ways before crossing the street?

Alcohol and drugs can also change a person's personality. It does not rob them of their will. Neither do parasites.

True, addicts suffer the ability to use their will and drugs and alcohol will weaken a person's will. But the will is still there. It is either used or it is not used in making a decision.

A decision is made either by influence and programming, or it is made by the will.




If nobody has free will then personal responsibility goes out the window.

Murderers... oh its not their fault, its probably in their genes.
Pedophiles... They were born that way, its not their fault either, its some anomaly in their brain.
Rapists... Not their fault either I guess.

So perhaps we should just pamper these people and label them "sick" people who need to be taken care of, because after all, they have no will of their own, they can't help themselves. They will never change, they can't be rehabilitated. May as well just shoot them right?

Our society does not operate with the false assumption that people do not have a will of their own and cannot make choices or else we would not have any prisons.

There would be no rehabilitation centers of any kind, because people can't change their programming if they have no will of their own.

Why are people "so upset" with the idea that we 'may' not have free will? Because it is just a stupid and incorrect idea.

And because it is not true, and because it absolves people of all responsibility for their decisions and actions.

If we do not have a will, then we cannot learn the difference between right and wrong, and we cannot change our programming or our instincts or our "hearts."

The idea that humans do not have "free" will or the ability to make a conscious choice is ignorant and no real good "scientist" would ever come to that conclusion.

"Free will" is the ability to make a conscious informed choice, not only about what to DO, but about how to feel and what to think, even if it goes against instinct or mental programming.

Most important is deciding how to feel and how to think because that is what leads to the decisions about what to do.

The importance of our decisions about what to think and feel have been duly recognized by those people who have made it their business to shape the feelings, thoughts and emotions of the public at large.

Advertising....
News.....
Propaganda...

....all designed to shape thoughts feelings and actions. Can these be manipulated? Of course!!

But people still have a choice about how they will interpret and respond to such things, however, they need to be CONSCIOUS.

Unfortunately, many people are not as conscious as they think. We all need to be more aware. The more aware you are, the more you are able to be guided by your own will, and not the will of others.

I think most scientists were forced to come to that conclusion when we based everything on classical physics.

That is one of the reasons I have lost respect for what we currently call "science."

It has placed limits upon itself.