It seems like the most logical explanation to me. IMO, it is that simple. I believe that all life is concious.

Its only contentious to those who have bought into another more complicated line of BS.

Its very simple really. Im very comfortable with that explanation. It makes allot of sense to me, it feels right, it makes sense. I understand it. I believe it.........

.......and I dont waste any time attempting to prove other theories that dont make any sense.

I remember the first time I looked at biocentrism, I grinned ear to ear. I was happy and free at last! Its a beautiful thing. It works for me.

IH

Ego based is assuming we are the only beings in this vast universe that have any knowledge of conciousness

oh my!

lol

IH

exactly

the chances of us being the only conscious things in the universe is basically 0%, imo

A physics professor at my university told me that quantum processes appear to be random (thus quantum mechanics works) but quantum mechanics is still just a model, and the apparent randomness of particle behavior is really caused by our interaction with the unfathomably complex systems we are trying to measure.

My impression is that quantum systems are only virtually random. They appear to be random for the following reasons:
1) The number of interacting bodies is incomprehensible and thus quantum systems are beyond calculation and thus prediction.
2) Due to uncertainty, there are limits on how precisely we can measure things and any attempt to quantitatively map out part of a system disturbs other parts of the map.

I'm making a calculated guesstimate that the future lies in the meshing of biocentricism and information science, represented as a theory of digital physics. When one looks at life as a chance occurence we run into nihilism. When we look at life as the inevitable source of being, everything is filled with intrinsic meaning.

There is a meaning to the flutter of every leaf, there is a meaning to the ants underneath every rock, to the billowing winds on Jupiter with nary a soul to witness them, to pulsars pulsing away in deepest space. Such meaning is left as an exercise to the reader of the book - the Book of Life.


hixidom: I totally agree with you bro. As Max Planck stated - Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.


It appears random to us but any sufficiently complex interaction will appear indistinguishably magical (aka random) to an intelligence that has a Sentience Quotient below that necessary to process it.



It seems to me that this is a higher order conservation of some momentum-like quantity going on. One way of looking at it is thus. Let's say I have two points each atop a hill, a mile apart. I shine a laser onto a target on the other hill.


Let's picture it; I think you should be able to smoalk and stare at the diagram and just get it. I have reason to believe this is a sufficient exposition of the delusional nature of anthropocentricism.

Let's expound. For each valid reference point in spacetime there is a ray emanating from Source to that point. Let's take the example of the subject-object paradigm. While our observable universe appears to us as "all there is" in that framework, it is actually half the actual reality we experience! The other half is composed of the object's observable bubble. Let's give these bubbles a name: univercells.

As you can see, all measurements require the decoherence of wavefunctions in two univercells. This intimate connection is the reason why we observe Heisenberg uncertainty. In a sense the 4D structure of the universe is like a horn or a funnel. One half of the funnel will not touch the other half of the funnel. But it can touch the other side of it with a time delay!


The time delay is caused by the other half of the funnel from a fixed point. We can see that the univercell expansion is a direct consequence of some function (aka consciousness/awareness/intelligence) that decodes the light emanating from the Universal Sun or what we know in ourselves as the Clear Light of the Void. The Clear Light at (0,0,0,0) emanates rays in all directions through all dimensions. Not a single ray could concievably capture the essence of the Clear Light yet each and every one possesses its fingerprint, the Tao. As all rays share the same point of origin, the holographic nature of being is given a foundation to stand on.


There are three rays from the Clear Light in every subject-object observation. One of the subject, one of the object and one of the common centre, demarcated by the line bisecting the distance X in the diagram, let us call this univercell X. The horizon interaction between A and B is captured perfectly in some encoded fashion in the horizon of X. One cannot make a statement as to causality if things are appearing of their own accord in each and every univercell so as to produce the appearance of movement & causality. That young-Earth creationist argument about dinosaurs being put on Earth just to test us wee humans? Heh.


Now consider the univercell X at t=Now. Laser light is shining from A to B. Suppose you are at X. If you look towards A you see light coming. If you look towards B, you see light going. But what are YOU doing at X? You are transmitting the photons from A to B. Are you doing it because A told you or B told you? You could just as well tell either to bugger off and transmit nothing! I hope you can now see where I am coming from. The subject-object duality is actually a triality: it is an agreement between three univercells to transfer data from A to B. Crucially, the element of Heisenberg randomness may potentially be eliminated by considering what is happening at point X in relation to A and B.

Interestingly another member of the Nexus (InfiniteFacticity) covered this eloquently in a directly related thread - It takes 2 to bring things to reality.

From the point X emanating outwards, both A and B experience light emanating toward them. For example, when you shine the laser and observe the beam scattering with air, that is the direct result of the information flow from X=>A, likewise for B. So what is this, where reality is literally hitting you from every angle concievable? Each univercell is something like a self-resonant cavity in harmony with its pair. The truly bizarre thing? Univercells have a nucleus, and a cell membrane. Yet they have neither!


We may extend this to the omniverse: the Clear Light emanates in all directions and all dimensions. Consequently there may be univercells that do not even know of each other, they are separated well over 4x96 billion light years apart. Yet they are transferring information to each other purely by virtue of their common origin. That is Tao.

Synchronicity abound!

From the Hebet En Ba: the Book Of Rites



We may have a lot more Karma than we realize!.. some of which may be surviving bits of "past lives." Do you think you may have lived before as a human being?, or in a non-incarnate Spirit-form before your human birth(s)? This Rite is designed to "surface" those and put you in touch with the other self-fragments hidden in your psyche. The Three Paths spoken of are called by Kaballists "the Hermetic, the Orphic and the Mystical Paths;" and the Two Pillars mentioned here are Aima/Anima the Black (feminine) Pillar of Psyche and it's White Twin, Abba/Animus the masculine side of Self. All of these things this Rite gives you entry to.. as you explore the Akashic Records of soul memory within you.


=================================
The Akashic Records are an energetic imprint of all experiences, every thought, each action, every emotion, and experience that has ever occurred in time and space, ever. It is an imprint of all lifetime experiences in all realities. They are an etheric, holographic library of information about all consciousness, human or otherwise, of the past, present and future potentials. The energy that makes up the Akashic Records is of the creator and therefore made up of love. The information contained in the Akashic Records is imprinted upon a substance called “Akasha”, which is the energy of Love that permeates and creates everything in the Universe.

Thank you educated moderator and senior member for misquoting me. It clearly says right there, let me make it a little clearer for you:

SO FAR



This is not complicated nor is it BS:

The only things that come as close to facts as we can possibly hope are the results of experimentation and the physical tangible things we can observe. Since there is no proof at all that our consciousness (if such a thing truly even exists at all) creates the universe, I would say this is never going to be factual until we have some evidence. Till then it is merely a belief. As valid as Santa Claus.

And universecannon, despite whatever the odds may indeed be, once again, we do not KNOW if there are other consciousnesses out there. There could be, but we do not KNOW.

Belief is not knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge.

remaining humble and not underestimating the knowledge of another reguardless of context is a valuable trait for a person to carry. Just saying..

This thread is becomming undesirable.

A lot of knowledge is also shaped by belief. Most of us can't (or at least won't) even ask new questions because they are outside of our belief system. And we don't usually discover something new until we ask the questions. Thinking outside of preconceived beliefs is one of the main ways we advance knowledge.

Funny game, isn't it?

Of course, that's the whole fun of the ride, the NOT knowing. The experimentation, the willingness to discover is the key to life. Well, that's my opinion, I find it difficult to enjoy life without discovery.

It's healthy to be confused I would say. This used to be my signature, 'If you know whats going on, you're not confused enough'. Which I still think is pretty on point, especially with this subject, which so far there is surely no definitive answer to.

So there seem to be a couple of different threads running through this one.

We began by examining in what ways conceptual distinctions arising from an exclusive free will or determinism disjunct can be satisfactorily dissolved.

The topic has grown to include a rather loose debate about the status of scientific knowledge.
IceHouse, I think it is fair to say, feels that consciousness causally precedes the referent of scientific knowledge.
Scientists develop models that presuppose a referent independent of consciousness, and thus conflict with IceHouse's conception.
I would be interested in hearing IceHouse's own voice on the matter.

For me, the question rests on pragmatic and ethical ground. Science develops models, which through their predictive capability and methodological suggestions allow human beings to harness electricity, fly through the air in hunks of metal and plastic, and split atoms to release their energy. These models, or their precursors, basically enabled human beings to enact far greater changeovertime on the environment than any other species in our immediate environment. So that's the pragmatic point: something is happening, regardless of whether it is life creating the universe or the universe creating life. In fact, I took the point of this thread to be that this distinction can be dissolved without much consequence. Whatever is happening, science tries to explain, and sometimes succeeds in its predictions.
So, why shouldn't we "buy into another more complicated line of BS?" An ethical point could most definitely be raised here. The ability to enact such change on the environment has quite obviously not been prudently used in all cases, and has been incredible harmful to other species and humans through both direct impact and systemic effects.
I believe you practice an extremely sustainable lifestyle? That choice is the strongest possible argument against science, in my view. It is a silent voice that points out that a happy and fulfilled life can be lived without the seductive power of destructive technologies. However, not all are content with such a life, and so it goes. Thus, I have the greatest respect that you are able to enjoy the fruits of life without craving power or wealth, and that with such a life a theory such as Biocentrism is quite enjoyable and satisfying. There do seem to be those who feel a need for more control over the environment though, and for them Biocentrism is as good as meaningless.

http://nirmukta.com/2009...of-a-conscious-universe/

Nice post! free will is always thought provoking.

I see the above, as you recognised, to be false dichotomies.

However, the rest of your post didn't logically follow..

you evoked the notion of the big bang as the source of free will, without defence? what notion of free will is this? there seems to be no choice to speak of in the big bang.

You also dismissed the notion of self, in terms of brain and mind, and so concluded that your free will derived from the first cause? the analogy of a domino and a multi verse seemed to have no defence or rationale behind it.

I think you need to define what you mean by free will and the agency of this free will (who it is that exerts this will). If its a free choice then that doesnt sit with the deterministic big bang you evoked. Even if the first cause was a choice, which is an absurd statement, that doesnt reflect a free agency within us. That is exactly a naturalistic, determinist viewpoint.

your final conclusion, that we are dominos and our freedom to choose lies in the begingins of the universe doesnt fit together, nor have you provided any defence of rationale for it to be the case. you just asserted it?


[edit] I dont want to come of as caustic at all, I hope I havnt! I just wanted to point out that your use of thusly suggests some sort of irony?
thusly is actually an ironic term; convuluted and improper english. Not trying to bring you down at all, just mentioning for two reasons: I hope your not making fun of us! But i didnt get that impression, otherwise, just watch using that in papers, it wont reflect well to the professor (if your at college).

For starters, this thread is not about "free will". Actually it is about will.

The assertion is that there is no distinction between "my" will, "your" will, the will of the chair I am sitting on, the will of the squirrels running around in the park somewhere in my city, the will of Neptune spinning itself around who knows where.



Instead there is a single contiguous field of decision making that contains the entire universe, all of it. The emergent sentience of human neurons results in the creation of the feedback loop (default network) to which we give the label "I".

So that appearance of an "I" is often debated; thusly when we ask "do humans have free will", what we are actually asking in strictly rigorous terms is along the lines of "Can the default network of a human brain move anywhere in phase space?". In fact it's a very vague question and the vagueness of it has resulted in much philosophical flapdoodle over the millenia. This thread is not about the free will of any individuated appearance of a self!




What is also incredibly and amazingly overlooked is that we can preserve the useful aspect of determinism and throw away the paradoxical aspects of it.
This is only valid in a continually expanding universe with increasing entropy. The cause-effect chain is always preserved: that's the useful part of determinism.

The idea of zero freedom of movement can be thrown away entirely - it bears zero actual relation to reality. This is because of entropy continually increasing. Let's not be deceived by the colloquial usage of "entropy".


Entropy does not mean decay. Decay is what happens as a natural result of entropy increasing, but life is a natural result! In fact, life and death are merely a subset of a more grand process, which we may call Tao.

Entropy is defined as "the number of available microstates [i.e. particle positions, momenta] in relation to the number of macrostates [i.e. temperature, volume, pressure]". It is literally the resolution of the universe. A huge number of possible micro-states correspond to a single macro-state but not vice versa.



This is how it dissolves both free will and determinism: each tick/clock cycle of the universe, there is an expansion and a corresponding increase in entropy.

So let's say for example your room is cold and you up the thermostat. In that expansion, the new macrostate is a higher temperature. The magic of the Omniself is that it chooses trillions upon trillions upon trillions of particle microstates, out of an unfathomably large though finite set of possible positions. Why place particle #54833028854930385876038201083244 in slot #9329876665559229039202098982100288340902000111898010002124493020202020399211111994466666666666? We perhaps will not be privy to that in this lifetime.

This is Will. The continual choice of a precise set of microstates for each and every quantum of spacetime, to create a given appearance. The important thing is that each second, the number of pixels, the number of arrangements is always increasing. This means that where last instant you had 4 choices to choose from, the next moment you have 16. Only one path can be chosen. That is Will.

Your distinction between will and free will isn't clear to me?

Will, to you, is just statistical potential?

To assert increasing statistical potential doesn't seem to contingently proceed any conclusion about choice. Other than there are more options to choose from.

The second you evoke the concept of choice it is synonymous with free will. To choose requires being free to choose.

Thusly,

you are confining yourself to a deterministic view.

There is a SINGLE will. It controls everything. From the blink of my eyes, to the particles spinning around in the bricks right next to me.

This Will is free. Being the decider of all things, who is there that can overturn it?

It is not constrained by "chance", "probability" or "randomness", each of these things being words we use to describe its behaviour, its inclination to carrying out certain acts. These are NOT limitations upon the will, just labels, nothing more.


It is NOT statistical potential. It is a mechanism that works really simply:

1: Take instantaneous past moment as a 4D volume
2: Multiply it into F(n+1) potential configurations where F(n) represents some currently unknown function that operates on entropy and incorporates both the wavefunction and the stress-energy tensor of general relativity (this step expands the universe)
3: Decohere set of probabilities into the most suitable potential, set n=n+1
4: GOTO 1


Of particular interest: Quantum Darwinism - Evolution of the present moment by means of natural selection

When the “decider of all things” makes a decision, on what basis is the decision made?
When presented with a choice, how can anything, even the “decider of all things”, choose freely?

How does an algorithm, such as the one you present, allow for freedom of any sort?

When a choice is made, either the choice has a cause (deterministic, algorithmic) or it doesn’t have a cause (random).

If there are other options, please explain.

If you follow through to that link on Quantum Darwinism, you should perhaps have your answer.

Essentially each of these potentialities fights for survival in real time. You can experience this for yourself: that inner struggle between tasty cake now, or a healthy body later for instance. One part of you wants this, another part of you wants that.

This "fight" is what we experience as "free will". It happens everywhere. Wavefunctions compete with each other for survival. They breed and pass on their traits.

This is especially vivified in the case of DNA/genes and language/memes. We can watch wavefunction evolution in real time. LOL cats are a great example.



This "fight" between wavefunctions literally seems to push space apart. The KEY to this whole dilemma is in watching how space expands, why it expands. Each decision ripples outwards spherically and pushes against other decisions. They dilate and contract but the overall movement pushes the universe apart, in the direction of decreasing average temperature. This is what I understand of entropic gravity.

Where the key fits into the lock, is in relativity. Namely, the 'relativity of simultaneity' (look it up, it's mind-bending to get your head around). You have two kinds of separation between objects. Spacelike separation and timelike separation. In timelike separation you can have a cause and effect relationship between two things. In spacelike separations you cannot.



In your mind's eye, you may visualise how this whole process works. Here is one extremely freaky paradox to help: the Ladder Paradox. A basic visualisation is presented in a diagram further up this page.



Of course all of this is theoretical. But it's intuitive. It's geometrical. Geometry generally tends to be impossible to mess with.

No answer there. How does Quantum Darwinism explain free will?

Isn’t there a logical contradiction in your statements:



I would argue that no one can overturn the will of the “decider of all things”, not even the “decider of all things” itself.

So how is the “decider of all things” exercising free will?

Now we may define "free".

There is no "free will" in the sense of a will that can act outside of Tao.

However if we remain within the Tao, all things are available to choose from.

No square circles. But have as many teapots orbiting Alpha Centauri as you please.



In fact the constraints of a human will are reduced to a finite set of interactions. If you refer to the diagram in my now updated last post, a human mind is constrained to those regions within the light cone. The space outside the cone is the boundary of its will.

Within the cone, it is free to traverse in whichever direction according to the phase space of the neural connections. More intelligent people may travel with more freedom, ideally you want neuroplasticity. That is to say, there are degrees of freedom of will. It's not binary. It is a continuum. It's not that animals have "no free will" and humans have "free will". Rather, animals have a Sentience Quotient below the SQ of humans. That's all there is to it. They have a higher SQ than plants. Plants have a higher SQ than rocks. SQ is a direct rigorusly defined mathematical measure of the "life" and consequently "Will" of an entity.



The set of possible movements is dependent entirely on two things. One, the edges of your light cone. Two, the entropy change involved in the decisions you wish to make. These two things combined present you with a finite set of choices to move through. You are free to pass through any of them such as you please. There is no force of determinism but causality is preserved.

For example you cannot think a thought that will cause a temperature increase beyond a certain range (explains spontaneous combustion, eh?!?). The entropy change says NO, not happening. You cannot send a message beyond the horizon of the observable universe (the edge of your light cone). So these are the two types of limits we have on our will.


As for the decider of all things: That itself is Tao. Please refer to the Tao Te Ching. There is no describing the originator of language with language. That is Godel incompleteness. Which is also Tao. Let's put this bluntly. The Tao does not give a shit about what limits you put upon it.