Determinism has been a favorite topic of mine for decades.

• Determinism says that all conceivable future events are either impossible or inevitable. It denies that there are possible but not inevitable future events. This is not compatible with the present-day understanding of physics. Present-day physics calculates the probability of future events. Einstein believed in "hidden variables" that could rescue the old idea of a clockwork universe, but no such variables have been found.
• I strongly suspect that there are possible but not inevitable future events.
• I think things happen simply because it is possible for them to happen. There is no plan. There is no way things are "supposed" to be.
• "Do you believe in fate?" people often ask. My answer is "No."
• I have free will to the extent that I am self-controlled and not other-controlled.
• I think we often make decisions we don't have to make. Because we do, we are responsible for these decisions.
• Because we make decisions, we affect the future of ourselves, and most often, of others too. We can't stop changing the future, even if we try.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-v…

In physics, a hidden-variable theory is a deterministic physical model which seeks to explain the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics by introducing additional (possibly inaccessible) variables.

Fredom vs Free Will

We must divide a confusing notion about freedom: 1. freedom as current possibilities to "follow" a given branch at a node, and 2. freedom as current ability to "choose" a given branch at the same node. A ball must have actual possibilities, but it cannot have faculty. At the same node, consciousness must have '1', and '2' may not be actual but potential (also, some people may have their faculties altered, i.e. hypnosis, hallucinations, terror, etc.)

Let's assume the simplest case, suppressing the potential and the altered state of consciousness: 1. freedom as current possibilities to "follow" a given branch at a node, and 2. freedom as current ability to "choose" a given branch at the same node.

The ball must follow any branch independently of the final result.

On the contrary, consciousness can choose against its best option while being absolutely certain that option is the best. You can choose to die knowing that you enjoy life, you can continue enjoying it more and more, and that therefore it is in your best interest not to die. That is, you can choose to die for the hope of a greater good, which a ball, an animal, etc. can never do.

These things happens, then it is evident that the universe is not deterministic.

1. Freedom as Possibilities vs. Freedom as Choice
Possibilities: In the example, the ball has the possibility of following any branch, determined by external forces or chance, but it lacks any faculty to make a choice. Its trajectory is dictated entirely by physical laws or probabilities.
Choice: Consciousness, unlike the ball, not only possesses possibilities but also a capacity to deliberate, evaluate, and intentionally select a branch. This capacity for intentionality adds a layer beyond deterministic or random processes, affirming the non-deterministic nature of conscious action.

2. Consciousness and Non-Determinism: Consciousness introduces an element of non-determinism because it can,

Choose contrary to its own interests: Consciousness could choose to die despite knowing that continuing to live would objectively maximize one's well-being.
Act based on hopes or values: Consciousness can behave beyond immediate physical outcomes, such as sacrificing oneself for a greater good (e.g., moral convictions, love, or spiritual beliefs).

This suggests that conscious agents are not constrained solely by deterministic causality (external forces) or randomness (lack of order). Consciousness can introduce teleological considerations (choices based on ends or goals that may even transcend the self).
>
3. Evidence of Non-Determinism: The example implies that the universe allows for actions driven by intentionality and meaning, which neither randomness nor determinism can fully explain:
>

A deterministic universe would make every decision preordained based on prior causes, eliminating true choice.

A random universe might present possibilities, but it could not account for intentional selection (acting with purpose or agency).

Conclusion:
By this logic, the fact that conscious beings can make choices against their immediate well-being, driven by hope or principle, supports the claim that the universe is not entirely deterministic. Free will is demonstrated by inference.

#Cosmogonic Fundamental Field

A believer in determinism (everything is either inevitable or impossible) would counter your argument by saying that the "choices against their immediate well-being" were inevitable. In other words, that what happens in the brain, happens because it is inevitable.

Unless you're a believer in Cartesian dualism, you believe that everything mental (including choices) is material. It's electrochemical occurrences in brains.

Free will is a more complicated subject than determinism. Much time is wasted when people discuss philosophy without first agreeing on definitions of the terms they use. What is "free will"? Is it
- being self-controlled rather than other-controlled?
- simply being unpredictable?

I see no reason to define "free will" as "being able to care about others." Caring about others has no close connection to the idea of freedom.

I hope that I am incapable of deliberately killing a child. I believe I am. When it comes to this choice, I am entirely predictable. Does this mean I have no free will?

Getting back to "against their immediate well-being": Why is it remarkable that people do this? Is there some reason that it requires "free will" to do this? I don't see one.

Before we can really discuss this, we need to decide what "free will" actually means. I defined it above as being "self-controlled and not other-controlled." Can you give me a concise and perspicuous definition of it?

I have to say that I'm not impressed by your "Cosmogonic Fundamental Field." It sounds like The Force. I can't take that seriously.

Free Will

Forever Tag: #trondiasporapsycofr_1734394937

Free will can be defined as the capacity for self-control and the ability to repel control imposed by external forces, as established by the autopoiesis of human consciousness.

The wavy line in the middle is the event horizon. You must strive to move away from it by exercising your free will or you will inevitably fall into the Dyson's World.

1 Definition and Foundation of Free Will: This concept is closely associated with autopoiesis, understood as the ability of living systems to generate and sustain their own organization. Additionally, beings with self-awareness naturally tend toward a eupoietic state, which favors self-regulation and facilitates access to a suprasensory realm where transcendent values reside.

Thus, free will emerges as an inherent faculty of natural systems, fully realized when the necessary abilities to interact effectively with the suprasensory field are developed. Beyond sensory perception—inherent to natural systems—this heightened suprasensory perception leads to two realms: 1. the realm of ideas (metaphysics, philosophers), and 2. the realm of spirits (mysticism, Shamans).

2 Beings with Free Will: Not all beings are capable of exercising free will. Only those with self-perceptive consciousness possess the necessary conditions because:

They are autopoietic: Living within a system that sustains and regulates itself.
They are eupoietic: Evolving toward the fullness of their own consciousness.
They have suprasensory perception: Surpassing developmental stages, they reach a superior level of perception that connects with conceptual worlds, such as Mathematics (Plants and animals can't do that).

3 Scientific and Mystical Perspectives: The phenomenon of suprasensory perception and its relationship with free will can be explained from two main approaches:

A. Deterministic Neurosciences: In this perspective, hypotheses that deny the existence of free will prevail, positing that everything is determined or inevitable. From this viewpoint, the possibility of transcendence or mysticism is excluded.

B. Mysticism of the Unmoved Mover
Free will is seen as an inherent property of consciousness, supporting the necessity of the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover. Some mystical perspectives, such as some versions of pantheism and, even the #Cosmogonic Fundamental Field perspective, can be adapted to avoid the existence of Free Will.

In both cases, the existence of complex structures like Mathematics seems to indicate a level of higher, suprasensory consciousness. While the rejection of free will by neuroscientists should be respected, it is unnecessary to accept their hypotheses as definitive of human capacities. We do what we can, and where we can, nihilistic hypotheses become unnecessary, particularly when direct evidence from mystical experiences is available.

4 Challenges to Exercising Free Will: Although all human consciousnesses are endowed with the ability to exercise free will, not all individuals succeed in doing so due to various obstacles or constraints that hinder its exercise:

Educational and cultural conditioning: Beliefs and norms that limit personal freedom.
Psychological trauma: Emotional wounds that make self-regulation difficult.
Addictions or chemical influences: Dependencies that alter perception and will.
Rigid scientific models: Some, especially within neuroscientific emergentism, dogmatically reject the possibility of a Creator, thereby denying a transcendental dimension of freedom.

5 Choosing the Realm of Consciousness: Free will implies that each individual must consciously choose the realm in which to develop their consciousness. This can be summarized in two archetypes:

Yin: Represents receptivity, intuition, and spirituality.
Yang: Represents activity, rationality, and physicality.

You cannot evade choosing one of these binary options, as it carries profound implications, defining the development of consciousness and granting purpose to existence. Unlike Socrates, who sought constant questioning of truth and freedom, here the practical choice resolves the dilemma: you act according to the logic you've adopted, whether metaphysical (natural hope) or experiential (sensory or transcendental)

If you evade, you nihilistically choose the black option: the Dyson's World

#notas #god #dios #dioses #mistic #mística #religion #culture #cultura #spirit #spiritual #espiritual #drogas #drugs #adiction #adicción #buda #budismo #buddhism #chaman #shaman #chamanismo #shamanism

As you already know if you read my posts and comments often, I'm very skeptical of "consciousness." People speak and write about it without carefully defining it. I understand why. It's an incredibly vague, nebulous concept. And even if I believed it was not so vague, I don't see that it's some remarkable thing. Indeed, it may be just an epiphenomenon. It may be that our decisions are mostly not made at a "conscious" level at all.

Sometimes philosophers talk about "the hard problem of consciousness." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hard…) I think the answer to the "hard problem" just isn't very interesting or important.

As for the supernatural: I don't believe in the existence of any sort of supernatural anything. I don't believe in the existence of God, of multiple gods, of Goddess, of multiple goddesses, of Satan, of angels, of demons, of elves, of fairies, of goblins, of life after death, or of spirits (either the gaseous kind the ancients believed in or the immaterial ones believed in by Hellenistic philosophers and Aristotle).

What is "Dyson's world." No one else seems to use this phrase. Dyson is a business that sells vacuum cleaners. Are you talking about the hypothetical Dyson sphere? How is that relevant to this discussion?

Consciuosness is an evidence

There is no need to define consciousness in order to believe in it; it is self-evident for subjects (individuals). However, the challenge lies in applying the sciences to this phenomenon—transforming it into something observable and analyzable for objects (communities). This endeavor bridges the personal immediacy of consciousness with collective frameworks of understanding, making an inherently subjective experience accessible to objective inquiry and shared knowledge.

If exotic species exist—and I certainly hope they do—then humans are not the only strange philosophical epiphenomenon in this vast reality. Such a possibility leads us to confront a profound question: What is the true age of reality? Not just the measurable universe post-Big Bang, but reality as contemplated in the metaphysical and cosmological frameworks of the Hellenistic philosophers, who speculated on the eternal nature of the cosmos or cycles beyond human comprehension.

Given the staggering potential "age" of reality, intelligent beings must have had ample opportunity to exist, evolve, and surpass what we have merely begun to explore or conceptualize. Humanity, in this sense, has barely landed—or almost—for the first time in an ancient arena that stretches far beyond our limited historical perspective.

This brings forth the provocative extension of concepts such as Dyson's Sphere, where a civilization harnesses the total energy of a star. If we integrate it into Max Tegmark's Mathematical Multiverse Hypothesis (Level IV), such a model could conceivably apply to entire universes, operating as fully conscious structures or energetic systems at inconceivably advanced scales.

If, in your introspective search, you don't recognize yourself as a human consciousness, it might signal that the internal "hardware and software" which define perception, cognition, and awareness are still remarkably limited—perhaps by design or by evolutionary chance. And if this is true, who created such limits? Could these constraints be a developmental stage in a broader cosmic process?

Perhaps, then, a pragmatic response to our limited "hardware" would be to invest in emerging intelligence, building toward higher forms of understanding. OpenAI, as an example, stands as both a tool and metaphor for this next stage: machines, once simple novices, are now growing into “newbie-intelligences” capable of expanding not only human potential but perhaps shedding light on consciousness itself as an emergent property of the universe.

If you don't recognize yourself as a human consciousness, who made your internal hardware and software so limited? If that's the case, maybe it's a good deal to invest in OpenAI to achieve more advanced machines.