Posted on 09/24/2003 11:25:56 PM PDT by betty boop
You are going to have to help me out. I suspect I really don't know what you are getting at. Since the non-volitional creatures are precluded from doing anything except what is, "on the list," (that is, the set of automatic behavior instinct provides), only man is required and capable of discovering what is possible, and what the requirements of his life are and choosing how to apply what he learns to his own chosen goals and purposes.
For man, there is no list, only reality and his ability to observe, to reason about what he observes and thereby learn. But all this is not possible except to creatures who are free to choose. Within the limits of physical and logical possibility, for volitional beings, there are no limits and there is no finite list of possibilities.
Where are the limits being able to choose imposes on beings that would not be imposed on them if they could not choose?
I'm not arguing with your point, only trying to discover exactly what it is. I might agree with it if I knew what it was.
Hank
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a non-volitional creature, or how you assume a creature, such as a cat is limited to automatic behavior. I don't see this at all.
From a higher dimension view the entire movie is seen at once - the entire 4D block. And within the dynamics of such a higher dimension, all of the events within the 4D are malleable. That is where I see free will being manifest to change the script, so to speak. But it is the dynamics of the higher dimension, the will of God, which allows the free will to actualize in 4D - i.e. change the course of events from our 4D view.
And following betty boop's proposal that one or more of the higher dimensions is an extra time dimension - what appears as a timeline to us in the 4D is actually a plane (or brane) and thus also malleable in the same fashion, e.g. superposition, non-locality, etc.
OTOH, time as a brane also explains many other phenomenon such non-locality, superposition, dark energy, acceleration of the universe, near death experiences, extra sensory perception, precognition, retro-cognition and so on.
I am very sure that you are correct about such research! However, they have also determined that gravity is a factor. There is not as much on that particular aspect as I had hoped, but when I read articles tied directly to NASA and space biology, it made sense why that would be so.
You should see what I pulled out of my gutter drains yesterday.
I googled for gravitational biology and got some hits although not a specific journal. Much of it seems to be space related. Plants are easily studied on earth because the gravitational field can be reversed (the plants can be grown upside-down). But mammalian studies are important for future space programs.
Richard Feynman, paraphrasing, said those who maintained they understood quantum mechanics hadn't studied it enough. I couldn't agree more and with particular reference to this citation. While the development of the probability wave distribution is completely deterministic, its resolution is completely mysterious. Not to mention that I exercise my free will multitudinous times on a daily basis. To assert that free will does not exist, if that is what's being asserted, is absurd and it is precisely the thing with which you and bb are being charged; i.e. an excuse for ignorance. My humble opinion ...
I'm glad you did. Your input was invited to that post because I knew I did not represent your position correctly, and it also needs to be here for the same reason.
OTOH, time as a brane also explains many other phenomenon such non-locality, superposition, dark energy, acceleration of the universe, near death experiences, extra sensory perception, precognition, retro-cognition and so on.
Amazing that something could explain so much! It is too bad I cannot accept it. How much easier it would make life. But alas, I do not accept it, and in fact, I do not believe there are actually "three" dimensions, in the usual sense, and time, is not for me, a dimension at all.
The three dimensions are only a means or method of dealing with positional relationships, and time is nothing more than one of the qualities which describe the relationships between changes in position, that is, motion.
While the, "loss of a firm cause/effect relationship," would never bother me, since that is not that nature of cause in the first place, and since reason and volition are actually confirmed by the true nature of cause, there is no real advantage to these invented extra dimensions. They might be useful devices for picturing certain mathematical relationships pertaining to some phenomena of physics, but to reify them into actual ontological existents is just more mistaken platonism.
Now, for those not familiar with the term "brane:"
Brane: Any of the extended objects that arise in String Theory. A one-brane is a string, a two-brane is a membrane, a three-brane has three extended dimensions, etc. More generally, a p-brane has p spatial dimensions.
This theory would be very difficult to beleive except for the overwhelming evidence and commoness of the "p-brane."
Hank
Another quibble: Time involves a bit more than changes in position. It involves changes, period. All changes occur over time. If something were regarded as motionless, for example, the sun, it would still be changing over time. (I know, it moves, but you could arrange your coordinate system so that it's in the center.)
Need to compare notes here, Phaedrus. Have I been charged with making an assertion anywhere that free will does not exist? Where? How so?
Just checking in....
Well it certainly isn't being asserted by me, although I never use the expression, "free will," I must have said (or implied) at least five or six times on this thread: within the constraints of logical and physical possibility and one's knowledge, one is completely free to choose, in fact, must choose all their actions in both thought and action. Please see my post #417
The little piece you quoted pertains to my argument that volition does not require an appeal to QM to be true. I was certainly not arguing for determinism, only that QM is not the way to argue against it.
...it is precisely the thing with which you and bb are being charged; i.e. an excuse for ignorance....
Wow! I didn't even know an, "accusation," was being made, and bb is going to be very surprised since she disagrees with almost everything I believe. Poor bb.
As for being ignorant, I certainly don't need any excuse for it. I'm ignorant by design, I am blatantly and openly ignorant, unashamed and defiant about it. The one thing I have learned in over three score years is that there are more things I don't know than there are that I do. How's that for ignorance. I would like to see somebody charge me with more ignorance than I charge me with.
However, that does not mean I do not know anything, and what I do know I know certainly, and know exactly how and why I know it. I suspect there is one thing you do not know, and that is what my position or philosophy is. If your interested, start here:
Hank
No. All motion is relative. In fact, there is nothing in the material universe that is ever absolutely static, especially when you consider anything's relationship to everything else in the universe. You might come close if you could find the center of the universe (if there is a center) and place there an object at absolute zero, and ... on second thought, there is no way to even imagine something that is completely static.
There is one thing you forgot in your hypothetical example of the sun and an adjusted coordinate system. We are dealing with real entities, and material entities have mass and all masses accelerate toward all other masses and no matter how you design your coordinate system, the sun always moves being pulled about by all the bodies revolving around it (even if ever so slightly). You get the idea.
Finally, all physical change requires motion. There is no physical change independent of actual physical motion.
However, I would be willing to entertain suggestions of physical changes that were possible without any physical motion whatsoever. Have any ideas?
Hank
Lots. First of all, I'm aware that everything is in motion. But it can be ignored for purposes of my response. Here's an example. Heat something up, then set it down on the ground, where it will be motionless with respect to the earth. As it sits there, it grows cool. That's a change. It occurs over time. (Again, I know the molecules are moving, but that's not an objection to my example of something that changes over time without moving.) And if we beat this "time is just motion" topic to death we'll destroy the thread, so I'll let you have the last word. It's not a really significant subject in the context of what the thread is all about.
Lots.
Good!
Heat something up, then set it down on the ground, where it will be motionless with respect to the earth. As it sits there, it grows cool. That's a change. It occurs over time. (Again, I know the molecules are moving, but that's not an objection to my example of something that changes over time without moving.)
But wait a minute, you cannot give me an example, then tell me what I must ignore. Heat is motion. It is not possible for something to "heat up" or "grow cooler" without motion, and motion that directly relates to the heating up or growing cooler.
The whole of thermodynamics depends on motion. In your example, heat is only the measure of the activity of the molecules in whatever you heated. If it cools down, it can only do so by a "deceleration" of the motion of the molecules, and that deceleration can only occur as the momentum of the individual molecules is transfered to molecules outside the heated body. Without motion, that transfer would not be possible.
And if we beat this "time is just motion" topic to death we'll destroy the thread, so I'll let you have the last word. It's not a really significant subject in the context of what the thread is all about.
As you wish, but I think it is quite relevant to the subject, because bb and AG both think time, especially as it relates to what they believe are "extra dimensions" is ultimately what makes possible (or not, if not possible) human volition. It is not my view, but the true nature of time definitely relates to that view.
Thanks for the interesting thoughts and comments.
Hank
Indeed, the logical conclusion of a strongly deterministic worldview is that nobody could be personally responsible - e.g. murderers, tyrants, terrorists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.