Universal Will

[Dglgmut]

Let me postulate that existence is non-conforming and completely independent.

It doesn't have to be anything, and yet it is. This, to me, is an indication of a Universal will.

We can look at complex patterns found in nature, or the intelligent collaboration of barely conscious lifeforms, and be impressed. Or we can look at skyscrapers, space shuttles and computers and be more impressed for the same reason.

My thoughts are the cooperative efforts of billions of brain cells... My levels of awareness can vary, and yet I remain to be me.

Typing these keys, I am completely unaware of how I do it. The sensory information I receive is provided by reality, not consciously created. When I open my eyes, I don't choose what I see, only where I look... reality does the rest.

We do not consciously create any experience, we consciously affect reality, which indirectly leads to an experience.

Conscious actions depends on awareness of self, but what about unconscious action? Do they not come from the same place?

[Xray]

Let me postulate that existence is non-conforming and completely independent.

Non-conforming to what? Independent of what? Please be more specific.

It doesn't have to be anything, and yet it is. This, to me, is an indication of a Universal will.

First you say existence is "competely independent", and now you say a "Universal will" is behind it? This is a contradiction.

Typing these keys, I am completely unaware of how I do it

You had to learn first how to type though. With practice come certain automatisms.

[Dglgmut]

Well, there's nothing else for it to conform to. It is what it is for its own reasons. It is a self-cause.

Existence is independent because it cannot need anything. I believe there is a Universal will because existence exists on its own.

The will is unguided, but it is a will. Maybe willpower would be more accurate? Definitely unguided, though.

Existence has divided itself, and some of it is conscious, most of it is not... but all of it is active.

As far as our actions go, could you explain to someone how to move a body part? You and I both learned how to type through trial and error, the same way we learn everything else.

Trial, error, and most importantly, memory.

As parts of existence, we can look to our own behavior to better understand the behavior of existence itself.

[BaalChatzaf]

As parts of existence, we can look to our own behavior to better understand the behavior of existence itself.

Looking at ourselves in a mirror won't tell us how an atom works or what it is made of. We cannot deduce the underlying nature of the world from inside our heads. We have to go out, look, and measure. Knowledge of the world is bought with hard work, sharp wit, sweat and blood.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

Why are we here? This question is about our life's purpose... That's too abstract...

Why are we aware? Why are parts of existence aware?

To me, it makes sense that we have the level of awareness we have, and intelligence is increasing through evolution the way it does, for the same reason: to help guide that universal force.

Looking at us in the mirror, looking at an atom, how will either tell us anything about what anything is made of? We could just keep going infinitely smaller...

Looking at an atom like it's made of something other than we are is not going to help us find out what an atom's made of, is it?

[BaalChatzaf]

Looking at an atom like it's made of something other than we are is not going to help us find out what an atoms made of, is it?

Observation has yield this: we are made of the same stuff as rocks and trees.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Looking at us in the mirror, looking at an atom, how will either tell us anything about what anything is made of?

Looking in the mirror won't do - but educating oneself through info from reliable sources will.

Looking at an atom like it's made of something other than we are is not going to help us find out what an atom's made of, is i?

We are all stardust, as the wonderful Lawrence Krauss put it:

Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist:

"The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today."

YouTube link:

(16:50-17:23)

[Dglgmut]

The "reliable sources" are reliable in that they relay the truth, or that they present to you an accurate portrayal of existences.

Even if we eliminate the middleman, and you could observe any level of existence you wanted, what could you learn about what it's made of?

edit: We cannot extrapolate the causes of existence by looking at existence itself. However, there is nothing to know about non-existence, and so there are no answers there, either.

[Xray]

The "reliable sources" are reliable in that they relay the truth, or that they present to you an accurate portrayal of existences.

They portray to me that which we, given the current standard of scientific knowledge, have reason to accept as true.

So when for example a high-ranking physicist like Lawrence Krauss gives a lecture on "A Universe From Nothing", I'm grateful as a layperson to be offered the opportunity to learn more.

I'm not expecting "omniscience". Errors are always possible.

But I'm just no 'doubt-it-all' who thinks that since we we can't know everything, it would be futile to try finding out at least something.

What we don't know will probably always exceed that which we know. But then this is the adventure of existence (at least it is to me).

Lawrence Krauss, "A Universe From Nothing",

[BaalChatzaf]

But I'm just no 'doubt-it-all' who thinks that since we we can't know everything, it would be futile to try finding out at least something.

What we don't know will probably always exceed that which we know. But then this is the adventure of existence (at least it is to me).

And no reputable scientist is a "doubt-it-all" However, it is likely that our best theories will give way at the edges when obscure new facts are discovered through advancing technology. That has been the general pattern since the time of Newton. At any given stage we do what we can do with what we have in hand. When something new comes in that forces a change, we change and get on with it.

Such is the human condition. Live and learn and live better.

Those things of which we are "absolutely certain" are of limited scope. It is always a bit fuzzy at the edges.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Dglgmut/Calvin,

This link might be of interest to you. "Does the Universe Have a Purpose?", the John Templeton Foundation asked nine scientists, two theologians and one professor in the Humanities:

Lawrence M. Krauss, David Gelernter, Paul Davies, Peter William Atkins, Nancey Murphy, Owen Gingerich, Bruno Guiderdoni, Christian de Duve, John F. Haught, Neil deGrasse, Jane Goodall, Elie Wiesel.

http://www.templeton.org/purpose/

[BaalChatzaf]

Dglgmut/Calvin,

This link might be of interest to you. "Does the Universe Have a Purpose?", the John Templeton Foundation asked nine scientists, two theologians and one professor in the Humanities:

Lawrence M. Krauss, David Gelernter, Paul Davies, Peter William Atkins, Nancey Murphy, Owen Gingerich, Bruno Guiderdoni, Christian de Duve, John F. Haught, Neil deGrasse, Jane Goodall, Elie Wiesel.

http://www.templeton.org/purpose/

Lawrence Krauss "kept the faith". He did not give an inch on purpose bullshit. Krauss has a very Feymanesque aspect to his outlook and spirit. Richard is gone, but fortunately we have Larry now.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

I've thought about this some more, and I think it is quite evident that the Universe does have a will; not an objective will, but a sustained commitment to change and progression.

Change is as unexplainable as existence itself. A lack of change is as inconceivable as nothingness.

What really changes, though? If the content of the Universe will never change, then what is it? But wait, physicality is somewhat of an illusion... it's a misconception that anything could be static in the Universe... so the content is change.

Change is dependant on form, and form is dependant on consciousness. The will of the Universe would seem to pertain to the experience of forms and change.

I've been thinking about how energy is recycled, and how we are part of the cycle... how we get our energy required to form thoughts from food that was sustained by the soil...

Where is the progression heading? It seems to be aimed at more and bigger progressions. Change, change, and more change...

[Dglgmut]

Ok, I think the free-will vs determinism debate should focus on the metaphysical aspect of our relationship with the rest of existence.

It all comes down to one question: Why do you want what you want?

There are two fundamental answers. Either "I don't know," or "Because it's best for me."

If we can not support our desire with a reason, our desire must be automatic and the argument for determinism is strong. If our reason for a desire is our own interest, then the question becomes: Why do you desire to benefit yourself?

Why do we even care about ourselves? Is that a choice?

If everything is determined, then what is the determining factor of existence? Existence itself could not be determined... what would it be determined by? Non-existence? No.

Existence can not be determined unless existence determines itself.

We are forced to exist, we want to exist, we choose to exist, then we are forced to not exist. The last part may change some day...

Maybe we want to exist so that we can exist. Think about it, if we didn't want to exist, as a species, we wouldn't have survived this long.

Ayn Rand had argued that instinct leaves no option for self-destruction, where free-will does. I'd say that free-will is the choice of HOW to benefit oneself, where instinct has a much narrower range of options.

Maybe instead of isolating freedom from what is not free, in order to better understand freedom, we ought to look closer at what we assume is not free.

Even simpler: We choose to make choices, AND we are forced to make choices simultaneously.

What is more logical, a circle, or an infinite line?

[Xray]

Dglgmut/Calvin,

This link might be of interest to you. "Does the Universe Have a Purpose?", the John Templeton Foundation asked nine scientists, two theologians and one professor in the Humanities:

Lawrence M. Krauss, David Gelernter, Paul Davies, Peter William Atkins, Nancey Murphy, Owen Gingerich, Bruno Guiderdoni, Christian de Duve, John F. Haught, Neil deGrasse, Jane Goodall, Elie Wiesel.

http://www.templeton.org/purpose/

Lawrence Krauss "kept the faith". He did not give an inch on purpose bullshit. Krauss has a very Feymanesque aspect to his outlook and spirit. Richard is gone, but fortunately we have Larry now.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I too like L Krauss's no-nonsense approach.

Neil de Grasse Tyson's answer was interesting too:

http://www.templeton.org/purpose/essay_Tyson.html

Anyone who expresses a more definitive response to the question is claiming access to knowledge not based on empirical foundations. This remarkably persistent way of thinking, common to most religions and some branches of philosophy, has failed badly in past efforts to understand, and thereby predict the operations of the universe and our place within it.

To assert that the universe has a purpose implies the universe has intent. And intent implies a desired outcome. But who would do the desiring? And what would a desired outcome be? That carbon-based life is inevitable? Or that sentient primates are life's neurological pinnacle? Are answers to these questions even possible without expressing a profound bias of human sentiment? Of course humans were not around to ask these questions for 99.9999% of cosmic history. So if the purpose of the universe was to create humans then the cosmos was embarrassingly inefficient about it.

And if a further purpose of the universe was to create a fertile cradle for life, then our cosmic environment has got an odd way of showing it. Life on Earth, during more than 3.5 billion years of existence, has been persistently assaulted by natural sources of mayhem, death, and destruction. Ecological devastation exacted by volcanoes, climate change, earthquakes, tsunamis, storms, pestilence, and especially killer asteroids have left extinct 99.9% of all species that have ever lived here.

How about human life itself? If you are religious, you might declare that the purpose of life is to serve God. But if you're one of the 100 billion bacteria living and working in a single centimeter of our lower intestine (rivaling, by the way, the total number of humans who have ever been born) you would give an entirely different answer. You might instead say that the purpose of human life is to provide you with a dark, but idyllic, anaerobic habitat of fecal matter.

So in the absence of human hubris, and after we filter out the delusional assessments it promotes within us, the universe looks more and more random. Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as other events that would just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible, to assert. So while I cannot claim to know for sure whether or not the universe has a purpose, the case against it is strong, and visible to anyone who sees the universe as it is rather than as they wish it to be.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist and the Director of New York City's Hayden Planetarium.

[Xray]

What is more logical, a circle, or an infinite line?

I don't think it is a question of logic. It is more a question of perception: One can perceive a circle, but not an infinite line.

[Brant Gaede]

"

What is more logical, a circle, or an infinite line?

I don't think it is a question of logic. It is more a question of perception: One can perceive a circle, but not an infinite line.

That's because you can draw a circle, then perceive it, but not "an infinite line." That'd be all in your head unless you could come up with an out-there example. We can perceive the universe by perceiving part of it--we perceive a horse the same way but with more data relative to the perceived--for we have the idea of the universe as a thing bound together at least by gravity but we cannot perceive reality for reality is both the universe and anything not yet discovered and maybe never will be discovered that is extra universe. Rand conflated the two. She thought reality and the universe were one and the same. She is so far existentially correct. However, next week astronomers may discover the first evidence of another universe as it collides with our universe. What we know axiomatically is reality exists.

--Brant

"existence" and "reality" are interchangeable here

[BaalChatzaf]

What is more logical, a circle, or an infinite line?

Both are mathematically definable so they are equally "logical" But there are topological differences.

A topologist is a perseon who cannot tell the difference between a donut and a tea cup.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

What is more logical, a circle, or an infinite line?

Both are mathematically definable so they are equally "logical" But there are topological differences.

A topologist is a perseon who cannot tell the difference between a donut and a tea cup.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why is the topologist unable to tell the difference?

[Dglgmut]

Here's an argument I made in defense of free-will that I think is metaphysically relavent:

What would it mean, to will one's will?

By what standard would we choose our desires? Would we automatically choose the easiest desires to fulfill in order to achieve happiness?

Would we want to suffer, and to die, because those things are unavoidable?

Would we choose to want reality in whatever form it happened to take as a means of always being happy?

Would we want for no other reason than the attainability of the desire?

Is that what you think free-will is? Being able to choose your desire without having a reason for it?

Desire is not the obstacle keeping you from your happiness, but it is your only means of existing as a free and conscious being. You choose to exist. Why? I don't know, but if your desire to live ever truly faltered there's nothing that could have stopped you from ending it all. You can choose to exist, rather than to die, without committing to making your existence spectacular. You can blame the universe for not providing you a spectacular existence, or you can place the blame where it rightfully belongs.

...

Rand said that man is an end in himself... Did she ever say that existence was an end in itself? Did she imply it?

[Dglgmut]

Self-referential thought proves free will. The "I" that we conceive of has to be conceived of by us, and so we must be the cause of our thoughts. Our point of view affects the reality it percieves.

This means there must be a flaw in the concept of causality. I believe it is our conception of "events".

In reality there are no objective beginnings or ends because nothing ever stops. Even a still object is only temporarily still, and even while it is still it is constantly getting closer to the point when it will not be any longer.

The illusion of separation is necessary for the illusion of causality. Causality is a pragmatic concept, as is identification, but it is useless when considering the nature of "control".

A thing cannot exist independant of time and space, and time and space do not exist independantly of things... that's all I mean about separation being an illusion. The "state" of things is only in our heads, because nothing is ever in a "state"; if it is, it's a state of constant change.