The illusion of free will

[Quantum Quack]

Where am I suggesting the 2nd law is invalid? The 2nd law has been proven. Repeatedly. Don't blame me for you not understanding it.
Are you somehow suggesting that a system that has reached thermodynamic equilibrium does not exist???

actually yes I am... due to the fact that at that point of thermodynamic equilibrium [ an absolute term] there is no movement, no change and no potential to change therefore no time duration therefore no universe. [a state of absolute RIP [rest]] where x+(-)x = nihilo

 

[Quantum Quack]

Oookay... let's revist:
Me: How does this relate to your claim that at t=0 the universe does not exist?
You: it doesn't nor is it supposed to... it relates to : My post: "So at the exact zero point moment between future and past there is no time duration which logically leads to the conclusion that at any given t=0 we have only nihilo."

So you agree your post doesn't relate to your notion that at t=0 the universe does not exist, but it relates to your post in which you claim a logical conclusion of there only being "nothingness" (or am I meant to interpret "nihilo" as something else?), which you have previously stated does not exist.
But then you have also said that it does exist, and has causal influence.

And your reference to the quantity of posts merely speaks to your willingness to post, not to the quality on which perhaps you should be focusing.

and you expect me to take your word for it... please quote the posts you refer to...

 

[Sarkus]

This is worth a shot:

of course not....
Our physical bodies are only temporal as well however "we face" an event horizon of t=0.[nihilo] It is on that horizon that we make our choices and our actions with our imagination which immediately become temporal.
The leading edge, the brink of the abyss, the cusp of oblivion....the event horizon of nihilo. [The bottomless cup of coffee ]


------------------------------------------->|nihilo
temporal existence

And does time exist when we "make our choices", or does t=0?
One or the other.
If time exists (i.e. is non-zero) then your claims of what happens at t=0 are irrelevant.
If t=0 then you have yourself agreed that it is meaningless.

So we seem to be left with your arguments being meaningless or irrelevant... your choice, it seems. Or is it both?

 

[Quantum Quack]

But then you have also said that it does exist, and has causal influence.

never wrote that nor thought it nor said it..
please link to the posts that does.... because I am sure you have misinterpreted.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And does time exist when we "make our choices", or does t=0?
One or the other.
If time exists (i.e. is non-zero) then your claims of what happens at t=0 are irrelevant.
If t=0 then you have yourself agreed that it is meaningless.

So we seem to be left with your arguments being meaningless or irrelevant... your choice, it seems. Or is it both?

the use of the words "irrelevant and meaningless" are your words, and your interpretations Not mine!



However, [ignoring your incorrect interpretations and reading the question for what it is]

Or is it both?

Short answer: Neither.
This is actually a difficult answer to convey.. and I thank you for it...a challenge...hmmm

 

[Quantum Quack]

Some of the first questions that need to be addressed before even attempting to convey the answer to your question above is:

1. Is the product of the human imagination determined by the laws of physics?
2. Are our choices and decisions a product of that imagination?
3. Is the passage of time relevant to the act of the imagining?

 

[Quantum Quack]

regarding the
--------------------------->|nihilo
temporal reality

Consider this quickly created animation as part of explanation..

I wont say anything now, but offer it as a thought provoker...
I'll work on a better version in the mean time...

 

[NMSquirrel]

But feel free to sneak other concepts or claims into notions that you have previously argued in the hope that we won't notice, because if you throw enough of them around, one of them might actually make sense.

no one is wrong ALL the time...

actually yes I am... due to the fact that at that point of thermodynamic equilibrium [ an absolute term] there is no movement, no change and no potential to change therefore no time duration therefore no universe. [a state of absolute RIP [rest]] where x+(-)x = nihilo

.


see the above period,
no movement,no change,no potential to change, actually the period has no time duration, it just is.
the period is at equilibrium, and qualifies for the other requirements in your list. yet still the period exists.

any object can qualify your list and still be an object.

and your other arguments are sounding like you are saying we can make decisions during this t=0 phase as to what reality is.if so then something does exist within this t=0.
if you are saying we make our own reality, I would agree to a point.

edit>forgot your list

1.Is the product of the human imagination determined by the laws of physics?
2.Are our choices and decisions a product of that imagination?
3.Is the passage of time relevant to the act of the imagining?

my opinion:
no,yes,yes

influenced?yes, but not determined by physics

 

[Quantum Quack]

no one is wrong ALL the time...



.


see the above period,
no movement,no change,no potential to change, actually the period has no time duration, it just is.
the period is at equilibrium, and qualifies for the other requirements in your list. yet still the period exists.

any object can qualify your list and still be an object.

How so?

Explain in physics how an object including it's internal atomic structures can exist at absolute rest? [ I am referring to the absolute rest that Albert Einstein refers to, not some object stationary on your desk or period on a virtual page on the internetOK?]

if you are saying we make our own reality, I would agree to a point.

my post:

and from a more psychological/metaphorical sense it isn't hard to claim that life for humans is a work of fiction, a lie. "From behind the mask we all wear hides the truth" so to speak.

yes I guess I am...

1.Is the product of the human imagination determined by the laws of physics?
2.Are our choices and decisions a product of that imagination?
3.Is the passage of time relevant to the act of the imagining?

my opinion:
no,yes,yes

influenced?yes, but not determined by physics

Why would you answer yes to #3

 

[Sarkus]

never wrote that nor thought it nor said it..
please link to the posts that does.... because I am sure you have misinterpreted.

Oh, I'm sure you will claim I have.
But let's see:
Regarding the existence of "nothing"... and these are just a few of the many examples:

Post #444: @ Sarkus, You claimed that "nothing" was a non issue , that it didn't "exist" as such. I responded by mentioning unconsciousness and how this is evidence of the experience of "nothing".
Do you expect us to be able to experience something that does not exist?

Post #465: So we have this situation:
If there is no "nothing" then movement is impossible.
If there is movement then "nothing" exists as a reality.

Post #475: You see movement is indeed possible and accordingly "nothing" must be present to facilitate it which is confirmed by the fact that movement is indeed occurring.
And further down in the same post:
so the "existence" of "nothingness" or non-being " is very easy to show once you know what to look for.

Post #548: Have I proved the existence of nothing?... no because I don't have to, the universe does it extremely well, all by itself!


Regarding the causal efficacy, one only needs to review your view of the Centre of Gravity.


So, does this satisfy your desire for links?

 

[Sarkus]

the use of the words "irrelevant and meaningless" are your words, and your interpretations Not mine!

They are my words, and they are indeed my interpretation of the situation you are describing. If you wish to dispute their accuracy then please do so.

However, [ignoring your incorrect interpretations and reading the question for what it is]

Short answer: Neither.
This is actually a difficult answer to convey.. and I thank you for it...a challenge...hmmm

Take your time.

Some of the first questions that need to be addressed before even attempting to convey the answer to your question above is:

1. Is the product of the human imagination determined by the laws of physics?
2. Are our choices and decisions a product of that imagination?
3. Is the passage of time relevant to the act of the imagining?

To answer:
1. Probably not strictly determined (again, I am not an adherent of strict determinism) but the imagination process obeys the laws of physics, yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Oh, I'm sure you will claim I have.
But let's see:
Regarding the existence of "nothing"... and these are just a few of the many examples:

Post #444: @ Sarkus, You claimed that "nothing" was a non issue , that it didn't "exist" as such. I responded by mentioning unconsciousness and how this is evidence of the experience of "nothing".
Do you expect us to be able to experience something that does not exist?

Post #465: So we have this situation:
If there is no "nothing" then movement is impossible.
If there is movement then "nothing" exists as a reality.

Post #475: You see movement is indeed possible and accordingly "nothing" must be present to facilitate it which is confirmed by the fact that movement is indeed occurring.
And further down in the same post:
so the "existence" of "nothingness" or non-being " is very easy to show once you know what to look for.

Post #548: Have I proved the existence of nothing?... no because I don't have to, the universe does it extremely well, all by itself!


Regarding the causal efficacy, one only needs to review your view of the Centre of Gravity.


So, does this satisfy your desire for links?

not at all. No links means you avoid allowing the reader context so they can form a proper opinion.
Why do you wish to prevent the reader from ascertaining your distortions or other wise for themselves?

Your post fails to mention that when talking about the center of gravity I stated quite clearly that the center of gravity is only determined by it's effect and NOT by it's cause.
Yet you missed mentioning this... why?
edit: do I need to report you for deliberately misleading the reader?
I have never stated that "nothing can be considered as a cause.. this is your distorted interpretation not mine.

 

[Quantum Quack]

They are my words, and they are indeed my interpretation of the situation you are describing. If you wish to dispute their accuracy then please do so.

yet you clearly state that

If time exists (i.e. is non-zero) then your claims of what happens at t=0 are irrelevant.
If t=0 then you have yourself agreed that it is meaningless.

So we seem to be left with your arguments being meaningless or irrelevant... your choice, it seems. Or is it both?

proving yet again what a nasty piece of work you are!

 

[Quantum Quack]

They are my words, and they are indeed my interpretation of the situation you are describing. If you wish to dispute their accuracy then please do so.
Take your time.
To answer:
1. Probably not strictly determined (again, I am not an adherent of strict determinism) but the imagination process obeys the laws of physics, yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

Please clarify ? Item #1

Is the product of the imagination determined by the laws of physics or not?
or do you not understand the question somehow?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The problem is, Sarkus, you are envious of not having the "imagination" to deal with this issue "freewill is an illusion", adequately.
You have contributed almost nothing to solving this historically intractable issue.
So you resort to constant obfuscation, diversions, and hostility disguised as genuine discourse.
Your use of insult is spectacular I must admit. However it is your only way of avoiding admitting to yourself a few salient truths about your apparent intellectual competence and how easy it is for a rather brilliant mind to become so distorted with envy and a heart so filled with hatred you probably spit green bile as you respond to my posts!
If you have pain in your chest it is probably a hyper active Gallbladder!

I pity your situation I really do...

so ... with that said,

Is the product of the imagination determined by the laws of physics or not?
(of course the above is a pivotal question)
And I know of about a dozen+ guest readers just waiting for your response to it...

 

[NMSquirrel]

How so?

Explain in physics how an object including it's internal atomic structures can exist at absolute rest? [ I am referring to the absolute rest that Albert Einstein refers to, not some object stationary on your desk or period on a virtual page on the internetOK?]

first you will have to link the absolute rest that Einstein refers to.
remember I am an amature, and don't always have the same info as you.

my post:

and from a more psychological/metaphorical sense it isn't hard to claim that life for humans is a work of fiction, a lie. "From behind the mask we all wear hides the truth" so to speak

yes I guess I am...

from the psychological/metaphorical sense I would agree, we reinterpret things to make them more palatable to our sense of worth, in this pursuit we 'lie' to ourselves, hiding truth.
but its not a physical thing, its a mental thing.

1.Is the product of the human imagination determined by the laws of physics?
2.Are our choices and decisions a product of that imagination?
3.Is the passage of time relevant to the act of the imagining?

my opinion:
no,yes,yes

influenced?yes, but not determined by physics

Why would you answer yes to #3

would you classify imagining as static or dynamic?
I would classify it as dynamic, thereby requiring time.

and by your arguments, t=o, nothing exists at 0, so anything outside of 0 exists, anything outside of 0 requires time.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Thanks for your post!

first you will have to link the absolute rest that Einstein refers to.
remember I am an amature, and don't always have the same info as you.

I believe that absolute rest is a natural outcome of the theory of Special Relativity. An aspect of which I can fully agree with as it also agrees with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
a wiki article:

In fact, there is nothing at absolute rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_(physics)
I must admit when searching for an appropriate link it appears that the notion of absolute rest is a "taken for granted" one in most articles I have read concerning Special relativity [on wiki] however If I find a few credible articles outside of wiki I shall post the links.

from the psychological/metaphorical sense I would agree, we reinterpret things to make them more palatable to our sense of worth, in this pursuit we 'lie' to ourselves, hiding truth.
but its not a physical thing, its a mental thing.

I agree but would extend it to just about all actual behavior quite easily demonstrated in normal every day living.

"Life's a stage that we are mere actors acting upon" someone famous once said...[or something to that effect]

would you classify imagining as static or dynamic?
I would classify it as dynamic, thereby requiring time.

and by your arguments, t=o, nothing exists at 0, so anything outside of 0 exists, anything outside of 0 requires time.

The question that comes to mind is that yes indeed the act of imagining has an element of time.
But who's time is it? Is it time you internally manifest/create as part of the act or time from an external universe?

I know that doesn't resolve the main issue. I am currently attempting to work out how to convey the way I see it in a way that makes sense.
And shall do so very soon...

 

[NMSquirrel]

I am currently attempting to work out how to convey the way I see it in a way that makes sense.

that's been the prob all along, what makes sense to you, doesn't necessarily make sense to others.
just because we can think of a thing does not mean we can communicate what that thing is.

But who's time is it? Is it time you internally manifest/create as part of the act or time from an external universe?

who's time??
time is time..
and the way you phrased it, includes all.


are you saying an object at absolute rest does not exist?

 

[Sarkus]

yet you clearly state that

I know what I stated. How is retelling me in any way addressing the issue?

proving yet again what a nasty piece of work you are!

How does it prove what you claim? You don't like me arguing with you? You don't like having your arguments shown up for what I think they are?

 

[Sarkus]

not at all. No links means you avoid allowing the reader context so they can form a proper opinion.
Why do you wish to prevent the reader from ascertaining your distortions or other wise for themselves?

Oh, for Pete's sake, QQ. You are being totally pathetic.
How is it any different between posting the link, or merely posting the Post number so that they can view context for themselves?
Your posts contain so much nonesense that I posted both the relevant post number AND the relevant part of the text.
But please, explain to me how the context of those claims and comments of yours in any way alters what someone would understand of what you said from those quotes alone.

Your post fails to mention that when talking about the center of gravity I stated quite clearly that the center of gravity is only determined by it's effect and NOT by it's cause.

And if it creates an effect it is, by definition, a cause. Period. That is what being a cause means... that it creates an effect.

Yet you missed mentioning this... why?

I didn't want to further highlight your misunderstanding of the issue. But you have subsequently brought it up.

edit: do I need to report you for deliberately misleading the reader?
I have never stated that "nothing can be considered as a cause.. this is your distorted interpretation not mine.

So how is considering the Centre of Gravity as a zero point, a point you consider to be "nothing", and you have previously stated "nothing" to exist, and having that CoG creating an effect, not the same as stating that "nothing" has causal efficacy.

As I said, you do not seem to understand the logic of your own statements. You say something and think it means one thing, and cry foul when someone shows you differently.