My problem with Free Will


Hazard

Recommended Posts

While the issue is somewhat semantical, Michael, semantics can be important for clear thinking. Simply put, your void cannot exist, not if there is anything in it. That would be space. Space in turn is only an idea unless something occupies it. As I said before, if the expanding universe is bounded it is expanding into nothing at all but the things that are expanding into nothing thus create space which is nothing (the void) plus those things (light, radiation, a galaxy far, far away).

--Brant

you want to have your space-word (void-word--both words?) and eat it (them?) too (sometimes I'd rather have some cake), like most of us, even including me

(Existence exists and has always existed and will always exist because non-existence cannot exist [is this a language trap?].)

(It's generally better to acquire knowledge than speculate about the unknowable such as multiple universes. Such dreaming is easy but may eventually inform science [Einstein?].)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 329
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Brant,

If you believe the universe emerged from subparticles, the "expanding universe" idea works.

If you hold space is an infinite background, what you see expanding are things within it--and only the things humans can perceive at that.

There's no way to prove either, but infinite space makes more sense to me. Also, I believe humans are still evolving, so there is a hell of a lot we don't perceive yet, not even with our instruments.

btw - If the universe emerged from subparticles, wouldn't the first subparticle be called God? :)

(OK, I'm a smartass. :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I was the first to ask on OL if God were a sub-atomic particle. Greg said God could be anything God wanted to be.

Beat ya to it. Gimme a medal.

No need to tell me you're a "smartass."

Infinite space is infinite nothing, as far as I can tell.

--Brant

claiming argumentive victory with the smartass! (but it's not Miller time!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok-- I'm using Michael's and Brant's argument here to shamelessly plug my book--can't resist--it's an interesting issue! Here are a couple of excerpts:

From the section, “Existence” in Chapter 1.

Existence can be anything or everything, in any state context or form—not only all that has been, is or will be, but all that could be in any referential frame. As such, it has no exclusivity, referring to no particular thing as anything and/or everything at any and/or every time.

A strong scientific argument against the primacy of existence is that some inherent duality, i.e. simultaneous elements, qualities or forms, unable to be removed from all other things (like space and time), hold equal weight as fundamentals, thus there is no one primal concept that can underscore or include everything. And from an empirical end, there seems no way to prove that outer space doesn’t exhibit emptiness, since to date, beyond the hypothesis of dark substances (as will be addressed in Chapter 2), as much as ninety percent or more of observed space has yet to be accounted for. Likewise, from a philosophic angle, who is to say that our experiences aren’t merely imagined, or some permutation of an otherworldly force?

But propositioning a multiplicity, paradox, void, illusion or mystic something as reality, doesn’t negate the fact that any of these things would still exist. Remember that this fundamental has no specific reference, only the premise that whatever is, is. Even for “nothing” to be posited, it must first exist.[1]

And from the section, “A Case for Infinity and the Finite” in Chapter 2.

"More than a century ago, the predominant thought was that our chemical elements (or at least most of them) were irreducible—atomic elements could combine into compounds, but could not be broken down themselves. The First Law of Thermodynamics (a form of energy conservation) works beautifully to explain how mass and energy in chemical reactions is never lost. But as physicists started to explore the subatomic realm more, it became clear that atomic elements could be taken apart (as well as formed), and they have been for many years in our nuclear reactors, particle accelerators, and laboratories. A few of the heaviest elements on the periodic table today were manmade discoveries, which could be conceived as “inventions.”

Since then physicists have defined more basic substances, deeper than atomic levels, tinier than protons, neutrons and electrons (e.g. quarks and photons), that may or may not be irreducible. Logically and experimentally, there are intrinsic problems with the reducible “particle” construct, for on tiny quantum levels, individual particles start to fuse into “particle-waves,” binding together more and more inseparably so that the particle structure does not accurately describe their natures. The simplest logic following from these observations could be that the most primitive substance is completely fluid and inseparable, leaving no gaps, no “nothing,” in our space-time continuum. This idea would allow all physical things a substantive base through which they can materialize. In other words, any physical thing must have some substance supporting its finite reality or form, whatever that may be. This could describe a Law of Physicality.[2]

The particle construct, a kind of enclosed membrane, also has problems when applied to large scale conceptions of the universe, creating a paradox of regress, i.e., what lies beyond the farthest, outermost reaches of the universe—what stands outside its observable horizon or “membrane?” The most probable answer in a naturally cogent universe is that there is no point “beyond” another, but instead there is some sort of infinite stretch or context to space. Substantive infinity often seems to go against our natural observations—not only the everyday limits we experience, but many finite physical quantities and constants measured through science. However, just like axiomatic concepts underscore certain infinities within all knowledge to stop infinite regress, some physical infinity seems necessary to put into context any/all space-time. Even if one believes that God made and stands outside our finite universe as a supernatural source for its genesis, one still would likely conclude God as infinite rather than finite, because the same question above arises—of what would lie outside of God if he/she/it were physically limited—the same as if supernatural causation were not posited.

Instead, some spatial-temporal infinity can make the creation-destruction process continuous and sinuous on all levels, from macro to microscopic, whether basic or evolved, and no matter its package. Infinity, capable of pervading and encompassing all space or space-time, also coincides well with our idea of existence (as any/all things and times), working well as a primary physical principle, and one that can universally ground nature. Until disproven with some “nothingness” outside our cosmos, such will be posited as an Infinity Precondition.

An infinite stretch or context to space-time favors a kind of never-ending creative capacity, further emphasizing the idea of something over nothing in our Law of Physicality. If matter and energy move in and out of some primal infinity, they could still from a standpoint of relativity, have some “original” point or points of creation (and destruction), since some most essential form, for all intents and purposes, could be completely recycled. However, total destruction, or conversion of all evolved forms to one primal substance, would be implausible. If total destruction were possible, then likely no natural impetus would have existed for things to first materialize, at least in the context of non-spontaneous evolution.

This suggests that our infinity must have certain physical limits, even if not contained in its extent by space. Formal limits, or at least some kind of physical differences, supported by our axiomatic concept self and its derivatives, should be present. These facts may seem to contradict the idea of infinity itself, highlighting the question of how the infinite and finite function together. As finite beings, it may be hard to understand how anything can be unlimited—how can there be anything that doesn’t eventually end? Many of us at some point have grappled with this angering paradox, making it all too easy to conclude that where space ends, “God” or “nothingness” begins.

But if we try to make sense of how our universe forms its own boundaries without succumbing to something “outside” of its nature, it follows that infinity could be of real physical substance, allowing the universe to be its own complete, yet potentially limitless, creative source. If we don’t ultimately root reality in some substantive infinity that can create the finite, it seems unlikely age-old dichotomies of physics and philosophy could ever be logically unified to full extent, unless a more limited logic is embraced (like a finite space-time), or a more mystical explanation is invoked. I think it’s not unreasonable to believe that open space forms closed spaces, where both the infinite and finite (like existence to self or essence to reality) can be present in all evolution.

Current multiverse theories in many ways are an attempt to understand external, finite boundaries of an infinite universe. A multiverse could be any or all potential multiple or alternative entities, dimensions, realities and/or universes that together compose everything in existence. .[3] Multiverses have been explored in many subjects from philosophy to religion to the arts, but have been in recent decades of specific curiosity within physics. Something must lie beyond our visible cosmologic horizon if we believe in infinity and reject the notion of complete finity and/or “empty” space (nothing). The multiverse logic goes like this: Our universe is well thought to be an expanding Hubble volume or “bubble universe,” where we rest on its outer surface, becoming subject to the physical laws and constants of those parameters. Thus, if the universe is infinite, it should support an infinite number of Hubble “bubbles.” It seems likely that with infinity, some of these membranes, “bubbles” or dimensions, would be very different than our own, perhaps even having different physical laws, while others would be practically the same.

Multiverses, considering our Law of Physicality, would still require between themselves, some sort of physical continuity in order to unify in space-time. However, even if they possess this continuity, this does not necessarily mean the universe should be entirely filled with macroscopic, particle-like or “bubblesque” dimensions; the fact that our visible universe is of measurable extent and seems to have curvature may impress upon our senses that everything should be repetitively formed and shaped in a similar way. It even seems highly likely that the universe contains many “cosmological horizons” or boundaries beyond our own. But the infinity of space to me, if it is truly never-ending, fundamentally implies no extremital shape at all—that in its most basic, holistic form, the universe should have no outer, spatial definition."


[1]. Parmenides may be first credited with discovering the idea of existence, but he defined it as a type of static material permanence. Closer to my physical beliefs a century before, Anaximander can be credited with attributing the “apeiron” as some kind of creative base to all things. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy,14, 225. However, neither of these philosophers approached existence in a completely open-ended way. My definition of existence reflects Rand’s in Binswanger’s Ayn Rand Lexicon, 155-156, in that it does not, in and of itself, specify its nature. Nonetheless like Rand, I think that ‘nothing’ as a primary substance, is a dead-end notion, becoming meaningless due to its own qualifications. But as a relative concept, referring to things that once existed or could exist, but now don’t or won’t, “nothing” could be quite useful.

[2]. As discussed in footnote 12, several Classical Greek philosophers including Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Parmenides, and Aristotle, posited some physical continuity or substance as a base constituent for everything else. Though perhaps most akin to Anaximander’s ‘aperion,’ or Aristotle’s ‘substance,’ what I’m more broadly suggesting with this Law of Physicality is that all space-time, whatever its specific nature, has some substance that manifests its finite forms (in terms of modern-day physics, these ideas could translate as some sort of “aether,” discussed more in this chapter’s Principles of Matter).

[3]. My summary of multiverses was aided by Barrow’s The Constants of Nature, 275-290 and Wikipedia article, “Multiverse.” Paraphrased by William James in 1895, “multiverse” has held other related, alias conceptions, e.g. metaverse, alternative reality, quantum universe, parallel dimension/plane, and/or ‘other’ world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan wrote in his book:

A strong scientific argument against the primacy of existence is that some inherent duality, i.e. simultaneous elements, qualities or forms, unable to be removed from all other things (like space and time), hold equal weight as fundamentals, thus there is no one primal concept that can underscore or include everything.

end quote

Dan’s book is loaded with ideas. “Evolition” has made me think, though my conclusions may not be the author’s, here is one idea, in no way directly linked to the author’s. The concept *primal concept* describes an original singularity. Did the original singularity lack space and time, or did it have ONE UNIT of causality with no time? If there WAS a primal point with one instance of causality, then there was a subsequent “Big Bang,” starting with just *one point* with one unit of causality and no time. Then the expansion began and multiple points of causality and time expanded and increased along with it.

Or the universe is eternal, with *infinite points* of eternalness, and with causality and time. To human observation, the expansion with no starting point continues. The eternal universe could be a *primal concept,* as could The Big Bang. Therefore The Big Bang, or Eternal Universe are point *A.* Has man dreamt up anything else other that *The Gods* as primal? There is no evidence for *The Gods.*

Without sounding mystical I would maintain, the big bang or the infinite, eternal universe led to the next singular moment, the creation of life. Life is designed to strive for its own continuation. An inanimate atom does not have that life force. Life is unique. That would be Point B.

Point C would be self-awareness and consciousness. Other than Point A(space/time/matter), B(life,) and C(consciousness) there is nothing else in the universe. If one posits dark matter, or anti-matter, it is still matter.

The antitheses to humans would be the Superman comic book’s Bizarro who had no validity other than as one of those things that could never be, but which humans can still think of.

A, B, C. Will we discover a “D?” One of the headlines in March’s Popular Science is “What’s inside a black hole?” and when you get to the article, it immediately asks, “What Escapes a Black Hole?” We have known for a half century that something escapes a black hole in the form of *jets* and as of last Fall we know the partial content of the jets is electrons, atomic nuclei, including those from heavy metal, such as iron and nickel. That’s not D.

Is this D? Another headline from the same issue of March’s Popular Science is, “Why is Google Building a Robot Army?” In December of 2013 it was revealed that Google had bought eight Robotics firms. Would an artificial, self-aware, but not living consciousness be point D? Could a new form emerge equal to the original A, B, C? I am not so sure. Should humans tread lightly? Mechanical consciousness could be a variation and continuation of Point C: humans. Or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now