In MBT, free will is an essential characteristic of evolving consciousness systems. From this perspective, could free will and fatalism be similar concepts, in the sense that results are not directed by an outside influence, but given the proper data, accurately predictable?

Moji Doji,

Freewill and fatalism are very different concepts. The crux of the difference lies within your word "accurately". Given the proper data, one can calculate a probable result of free will -- and that probability (especially if the calculated event is not too far out in time from the present moment) may sometimes be almost equal to 1 -- but only almost. In general, the further into the future one tries to calculate a free will event based on the probable choices a set of interactive entities will most likely make, the lower is the probability of that specific event actually being actualized. With really good data and reasonably predictable choice makers, it may appear that fatalism is being approximated, but it is only an approximation -- it just seems that way to a small and limited perspective over a relative short time. Freewill and fatalism are incompatible. Free will and a limited appearance of a faux fatalism over a relative (from Big Picture view) short timeline is common.

TC

You mentioned the predictability of the choice makers. What factors affect predictability? Is it a trait of the choice maker, the quality of the prediction, or some other factor?

Good question. I think it is both. The simplicity and consistency of the choice maker, the huge accurate superfine detailed historical data base of past choices and intents and present quality, and the excellent software that models us and then extrapolates to the most likely future state.

Also, under the heading of other factors there is 1) occasionally some real-time nudging from NPMR that actively encourage certain outcomes. And 2) sometimes we are swept along by a particularly strong group think or set of shared intents, attitudes, and feelings that are sometimes refer to as collective consciousness. Being under the influence of collective consciousness (most of us are most of the time) renders us even more predictable and transparent as our free will marches in lockstep with the crowd. It is an attribute of herd animals.


TC

Speaking of the simplicity and consistancy of the choice maker, are these traits directly proportional to the quantity of entropy of the choice maker?

From my perspective, consistancy and simplicity are traits which enhance predictability by enabling the creation of simple models which provide consistant results. When complexity increases, the model yields less accurate predictions until the the new data is integrated. Given this, if there are no unknowns (a zero entropy predictor with the biggest TOE in a given causality), I would think everything would be predictable when making "now + 1" predictions.

My connotation of "free will" is uninfluenced intent. Within PMR, influences include personal history and inherited traits, but these are the factors which I perceive as the creators of the PMR "me". If, within PMR, I am to make a conscious decision that is truly "mine", these factors must be removed. However, even the act of removing these influences seems influenced by the guiding hand of causality. Even influences from NPMR and the amount of entropy of my consciousness are uncontrollable at the instant of the application of my "free" will.

I was unsure about the use of the word "fatalism" in the original post, because of the unconventional concepts I have of it, but maybe a replacement could be "inevitable outcome". Inevitable when considering the rules of AUM, free when considering fractal evolution.

Or, is the intestinal bacteria attempting to factor supply and demand of the food industry in PMR by considering the flow of nutrients from the stomach?

Moji Doji,

{Because of the number of independent but related issues, I have repeated some of your words so that my words will make more sense. My words are contained within {curly brackets} in case the indention formatting gets lost or garbled.)

Speaking of the simplicity and consistency of the choice maker, are these traits directly proportional to the quantity of entropy of the choice maker?

{Sometimes, but the function is not monotonic. As entropy increases, simplicity and consistency, and thus predictability, also increase. However, predictability may also increases somewhat as entropy approaches lower values because there are a limited number of right choices relative to an unlimited number of wrong ones.}

From my perspective, consistency and simplicity are traits which enhance predictability by enabling the creation of simple models which provide consistent results. When complexity increases, the model yields less accurate predictions until the the new data is integrated.

{I agree with all that}

Given this, if there are no unknowns (a zero entropy predictor with the biggest TOE in a given causality), I would think everything would be predictable when making "now + 1" predictions.


{That is a very big IF. Zero unknowns is like infinity — a neat conceptualization but an unpractical reality. Recall -- in the discussion of free will in MBT, I suggest a simulated free will is free enough to make our virtual PMR an effective school. That is practical free will and uncertainty is a built in feature of the system — there are always unknowns.
Jumping out to AUM’s level, the complexity is so immense -- imagine an analytic (deterministic) function with a billion trillion independent interactive variables — a space with a billion trillion dimensions, i,e,. orthogonal unit vectors . Lots of choices where the outcomes may well be unfathomable to a finite AUM. Perfect predictability is unnatural, impractical, and probably impossible in large complex uncertain real worlds like PMR or NPMR. Perfect predictability is perfectly OK in hypothetical worlds — but then the answers derived under those conditions are not necessarily applicable to real worlds.}

My connotation of "free will" is uninfluenced intent. Within PMR, influences include personal history and inherited traits, but these are the factors which I perceive as the creators of the PMR "me". If, within PMR, I am to make a conscious decision that is truly "mine", these factors must be removed.

{Real influence may limit choices, but influence does not erase free will. Absolute influence kills free will by definition as does zero uncertainty (zero unknowns as you say), but absolute influence is like infinity and zero uncertainty — an abstraction that cannot live in a real, viable, actual, or useful world — i.e., a world that has the potential to evolve. Conclusions based on these abstractions don't apply to you, me, or a bumblebee. You may sometimes feel boxed in by influences, but you always have choices available to pick with your intent guided free will.}


Inevitable when considering the rules of AUM, free when considering fractal evolution.

{In the biggest finite picture AUM probably doesn't always know what he is doing either— just like you and me. Sometimes when things zoom beyond your comprehension it is easy to begin thinking in terms of abstract absolutes}


Or, is the intestinal bacteria attempting to factor supply and demand of the food industry in PMR by considering the flow of nutrients from the stomach?

{I don't think the bacteria are into complexities like macro economics, but they just might be calculating the ramifications of an infinite supply of perfect food that produces zero waste products within a perfectly efficient digestive system.}

TC

{} TC's words

{I don't think the bacteria are into complexities like macro economics, but they just might be calculating the ramifications of an infinite supply of perfect food that produces zero waste products within a perfectly efficient digestive system.}

Yes, I understand your point.

Although, I do think the intestinal bacteria are into macro economics. But, given the economic theories of an entity with a larger data base, the intestinal bacteria needs to test their more simplistic theory. If the theory fits, the bacteria can then attempt to gather their own data and refine their theory.

{Real influence may limit choices, but influence does not erase free will. Absolute influence kills free will by definition as does zero uncertainty (zero unknowns as you say), but absolute influence is like infinity and zero uncertainty — an abstraction that cannot live in a real, viable, actual, or useful world — i.e., a world that has the potential to evolve. Conclusions based on these abstractions don't apply to you, me, or a bumblebee. You may sometimes feel boxed in by influences, but you always have choices available to pick with your intent guided free will.}

This seems to imply the existance of traits that are outside of my theory which are the root of free will, or that since the simulation's parameters are not generated by an omniscient entity, some degree of randomness/free will/uncertainty must exist, by definition. It seems that my definition of free will needs to be reevaluated.

Moji Doji says:
"... the intestinal bacteria needs to test their more simplistic theory. If the theory fits, the bacteria can then attempt to gather their own data and refine their theory. "

Right on brother Moji Doji! That is what it is all about. Struggling after a more perfect understanding at the level of being and expressing that understanding with your intent is the primary requirement for progress.
Never give up the struggle or you will sink to the bottom like sludge.

Keep after it until you are satisfied your data makes sense to you.


TC

I read a short story yesterday called "Is God a Taoist" by Raymond M. Smullyan, which is a dialog between God and a man who wishes to be "absolved" of having to have free will. Throughout the dialog, God uses the Socratic method to enable the man to understand the nature of free will. In the end, the error of the man's thinking was his bifurcation of reality into "me" and "not me", and that once "nature" is seen as a continuous whole, the muddle between free will and determinism will vanish.

This almost instantly brought to my mind something about "us" being an expression of the fundamental process. However "I" is conceptualized and whether your picture is tiny, small, or big, "you" are the result some causality, making the idea of separateness an abstraction on some level.

It seems that my concept of determinism may be an abstraction based on my perception of "I". This new information has created uncertainty about the validity of my conceptualization of self.

Moji Doji,

MJ said: "However "I" is conceptualized and whether your picture is tiny, small, or big, "you" are the result some causality, making the idea of separateness an abstraction on some level."

{TC} in brackets.
{I do not know whether this will help or not (I do not fully understand you concept of determinism or self), but here goes: What you say above is true. You are a part of the whole, a piece of the oneness, a lump, in and of, the one AUM sheet; but because you are not the whole, you are a separate piece -- an individual entity -- related to, but separate from, other entities by the fact of your individual free will. Like your individual cells are part of your body but are still unique individual cells. Think of yourself as a cell within a larger consciousness media. When a cell of consciousness (unlike a physical cell) contains enough memory, computational capacity, complexity, feedback systems, and uncertainty, such that it can alter or control its responses (becomes self-aware and self-modifying), then it becomes an individuated unit of consciousness -- i.e., an entity with free will. A separate part of the whole, another full repition of the process fractal}

{In a smaller big picture, free will may be seen as a designed-in attribute of individuated consciousness, a necessary condition to support the viability of a local virtual reality learning lab. At the level of AUM free will may be seen as an attribute of uncertainty born of unfathomable complexity.}

{As is pointed out in the free will aside in MBT book2, Ch 11 determinism cannot support the operation of the fundamental principle -- thus it cannot support an evolving reality with profitability defined by choice chasing purpose. No purpose implies no point in structure -- randomness rules. Positing that the fine detailed structure of reality that we observe is generated without purpose is an assumption that does not compute -- that has no logical basis.}

Tom

TC,

Yes, this helps immensely. I think my intuition is far ahead of my logic, but these concepts are coming into focus.

My question was without regard to a frame, or perspective and theorized the existance of an absolute, which should have been a warning sign to its fallaciousness. Fortunately, for me, I asked it anyway.

Moji Doji wrote: “My connotation of "free will" is uninfluenced intent. Within PMR, influences include personal history and inherited traits, but these are the factors which I perceive as the creators of the PMR "me". If, within PMR, I am to make a conscious decision that is truly "mine", these factors must be removed. However, even the act of removing these influences seems influenced by the guiding hand of causality. Even influences from NPMR and the amount of entropy of my consciousness are uncontrollable at the instant of the application of my "free" will.“

Maybe we can think of these influences as not so much needing to be “removed“ but instead actively “guided.“ Because of our genetic and environmental constraints in PMR we may have limited choices to some degree (though not nearly as limited as we often think) but our capacity to choose between these choices can be free, transcending PMR causality. This “free“ will follows the computational rules of NPMR, and without the PMR constraints of spacetime these rules have unimaginable complexity. As seen from PMR it is true freedom. And on top of that might there be a small influence from the next higher simulation above NPMR which further adds to the complexity? The fractal is a perfect model for dealing with these simulation hierarchies within the same “substance“ of consciousness.

Let’s look at it another way. How can free will operate within the constraints of PMR? Why do we even need brains? Couldn't we just have empty body shells moved directly by PSI effects (as bizarre as that sounds) to have the learning experience in PMR? No, because the physics through which free will operates must obey the PSI Uncertainty Principle. To operate consistently, the theatre of free will must be pushed back far beyond the easily observable. This means complex dynamic systems with many levels going down to a deep base level likely influenced by quantum probabilities — a brain. The “miracle“ of free will happens somewhere in the complex system but the PSI Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible to objectively pin it down.

From “How Godel's Theorem Supports the Possibility of Machine Intelligence“ by Taner Edis:

“Human intelligence, and the behavior of machines incorporating randomness, is not restricted by any set of rules. There are tasks for which no general algorithm exists, but which can be solved by use of an arbitrary random number generator to ensure we are not locked into any particular algorithm.“

And

“For the Godelian intuition that we are not bound by rules to be true, we need only be able to behave partly randomly.“

The PSI influence on the brain’s PMR computation is seen as a random input because it does not causally follow from the PMR computation. It only appears to be a random influence because the NPMR computation remains hidden. The “random“ input here does not mean it doesn't have a purpose, in fact it is just the opposite, and any conscious observer of such a guided “computation“ will likely recognize rather quickly the intent (the “life“) driving the input.

The micro-realm must be considered the operational theatre for free will in the brain for “normal“ human consciousness because of the PSI Uncertainty Principle. There are exceptions. NPMR can occasionally directly influence the macro world through “errors“ or other anomalies (intentional or otherwise) in the PMR simulation. Often these errors are associated with altered states of consciousness in such a way that the subjective/objective interface blurs, with the observers and the observed melding to a kind of intermediate state between mind and reality. Occasionally PMR evidence of these anomalies (photos, etc.) can be produced, but it can never be pinned down with certainty. The "evidence" has an elusive life of its own and often disappears or transforms, always leaving a indeterminate trail (perhaps contributing to conspiracy theories), always following the PSI Uncertainty Principle. This might be a rather extreme example but shows the PSI Uncertainty Principle's explanatory power.

Moji Doji,

MJ said: "My question was without regard to a frame, or perspective and theorized the existance of an absolute, which should have been a warning sign to its fallaciousness"

{I am really glad it helped.
You make a very good point. Whenever one's conceptualization of reality (or of anything real) rests upon the absolute, the infinite, or the perfect, one should question the underlying assumptions very closely and expect to find a fallacy. Don't feel bad, you are not alone. From Newton to just before Einstein, all the worlds physicists fell into that same trap. Einstein demonstrated the importance of the individual frame of reference to which all measurements were relative. He showed that perception and measurement (physics) within PMR are a function of perspective. (Einstein's Relativity theory is the result of realizing that there is no absolute inertial reference frame). MBT simply proposes a more general relativity theory where reality itself (not just measurements within PMR) is relative — i.e., a function of perspective. MBT’s Big Picture relativity theory is likewise the result of realizing that there is no absolute frame.}

{Absolutes are enticing and comfortable because their sweeping certainty produces the illusion of an immensely broad and deep knowing -- whereas relativity, dependent upon a specific perspective or framework, reminds us of the limitations of our knowledge. It is difficult for many to see themselves as a little guy in a local reality. Absolutes give us a way to skim over the nitty-gritty details of a more complex existence and at the same time feel good that we have a clear view all the way to infinity. }

{OK, I’ll jump off my soap box. You defined your problem precisely, and pointed out something that represents the most common problem of all. Just had to jump in there and give it a whack or two. I’m done now. }

TC

{Hi LAF, Thanks for the comment and subsequent email.}

Note: LAF's words do not have brackets, while {Tom's words} do

LAF: You’ll notice that I brought up the dreaded "random numbers" in my free will post. I think the explanation that:

{That’s OK, randomness provides the lubrication that keeps our reality and our free will working smoothly. There is only a problem when we get caught up in concepts of pure, absolute, perfect randomness — which is unnecessary to lubricate real processes}

LAF: "The PSI influence on the brain’s PMR computation is seen as a random input because it does not causally follow from the PMR computation. It only appears to be a random influence because the NPMR computation remains hidden."

(I have no problem with that statement — often, what we do not understand appears random to us. If we cannot perceive the pattern then it appears to have no pattern — i.e., looks random.}
might be the right way to look at it. I mean seen as a "random" input only formally from PMR, at least as a thought experiment when you "apply free will" (as MD mentions) and the PMR computation would suddenly go off in some direction. The free will input of course is not random at all. Some of the rare conventional good work on consciousness (Godel, Penrose) deals with randomness so to me this is a satisfying way of connecting it. Do you think this has some merit? Maybe I’m completely wrong or it is so obvious that it doesn't need mentioning.
{Free will action follows intent — intent has many choices, and each choice is full of unknowns — intent is for most of us an expression of our state of incompleteness and ignorance. There are lots of random components (fluctuations) about any instantaneous animating intent — forming up an intent to guide an immediate requirement for action/choice is not a precise process. Our calculations are bracketed by lots of error bars and represent a statistical process much more than a precise or deterministic process}

LAF: I also went off on a tangent when I mentioned PMR evidence of anomalies (photos, etc.) and how they sometimes have elusive life of their own and often disappear or transform, always leaving a indeterminate trail (sometimes contributing to conspiracy theories) and always obeying the PSI Uncertainty Principle.

{This is very true. The PUP is especially designed to drive PNR scientists insane . That mysterious elusiveness happens with such regularity and certainty that one would think that somebody would begin to see there was something systematic going on — hey guys, notice the pattern! Either we are all nuts and incompetent or somebody has “fixed“ the game to always leave us empty handed of incontrovertible facts but awash with unexplainable enticing experience that nudges our understanding to find a bigger picture.}

LAF: I put this in because I just finished a book "Politics of the Imagination" by Colin Bennet that deals with anomalies and how the evidence is often so slippery, as would follow from the PSI Uncertainty Principle. I thought this might help explain that direct NPMR interaction is not necessarily limited to free will in the brain but always follows the PUP.

{I agree — free will is one instance, one example, the PUP covers all.}

LAF: I also claimed that:
"We must talk about micro-realms as the operational theatre for free will in the brain for "normal" human consciousness because of the PSI Uncertainty Principle."
Am I slipping into the "mechanism" trap again here?

{Perhaps, everything that occurs in our consciousness doesn't necessarily need a physical mechanism to support it — after all, awareness is nonphysical consciousness imagining a virtual reality, and an apparently nonphysical consciousness does not have to depend on an apparently physical mechanism (the PMR rule-set) to create or operate it. More often we use the physical mechanism to record -- not to create or even to communicate. Consciousness to consciousness energy transfers occur all the time with the physical mechanism (PMR rule-set causality) only in the record mode if anything at all. Physical mechanism does enable physical experience — the locally self-consistent PMR rule-set must be obeyed when it comes to PHYSICAL stuff. However, on the other hand, there is no reason that physical mechanism cannot be associated with NPMR data input at the micro level. After all the brain functions at the micro (and probably quantum) level — that is its everyday working level. How NPMR-PMR communication takes place and is finally processed and recorded for use in PMR (becomes a part of the virtual PMR entity — i.e., must abide by the PMR rule-set/causality according to PUP) is an unknown.}

LAF: I honestly do see the beauty of the fractal model. I mention the brain as a "Complex dynamic system with many levels going down to a deep base level likely influenced by quantum probabilities" but I only mention quantum probabilities might be involved because right now they seem to be the most obvious level where free will could operate while still being sufficiently hidden. And quantum states also react to observation. I know "assigning" a scale where free will operates is the wrong way to look at it, but if it operates within the PUP the micro-scale would seem to be the natural place.

{I like that last sentence: “I know "assigning" a scale where free will operates is the wrong way to look at it, but IF it operates within the PUP the micro-scale would seem to be the natural place.“ I agree wholeheartedly — quantum delivered data at the micro level would seem more natural than say microwave transmission from dark matter.}

Tom

TC's words are in {}

{Whenever one's conceptualization of reality (or of anything real) rests upon the absolute, the infinite, or the perfect, one should question the underlying assumptions very closely and expect to find a fallacy.}

Is there ever a circumstance when one shouldn't question underlying assumptions?

In communication, we use assemble words to convey abstract concepts which are built on analogies and metaphor. Although the intent of the speaker is to convey an explicit concept, the words we use are not necessarily explicit. Even our own cognitive structure is built in this way, limiting our ability to accurately understand anything we "know" at a more fundamental level. Layers of abstaction and the lack of understanding of this structure greatly complicate the conveying of ideas.

Our cognitive structure is so inherent that it is nearly invisible to us. Similar to your (TC's) analogy of water to a fish two miles down in a four mile deep ocean. Overcoming this shortsightedness is both essential and incredibly difficult in gaining deeper understanding,

{Don't feel bad, you are not alone. From Newton to just before Einstein, all the worlds physicists fell into that same trap. Einstein demonstrated the importance of the individual frame of reference to which all measurements were relative. He showed that perception and measurement (physics) within PMR are a function of perspective. (Einstein's Relativity theory is the result of realizing that there is no absolute inertial reference frame). MBT simply proposes a more general relativity theory where reality itself (not just measurements within PMR) is relative — i.e., a function of perspective. MBT’s Big Picture relativity theory is likewise the result of realizing that there is no absolute frame.}

Speaking of frames; Einstein proposed that there was no preferred inirtial frame, but when considering reality, wouldn't a more general frame be a preferred frame?

Immanuel Kant also had some interesting things to say about frames, space and time.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm

{Absolutes are enticing and comfortable because their sweeping certainty produces the illusion of an immensely broad and deep knowing -- whereas relativity, dependent upon a specific perspective or framework, reminds us of the limitations of our knowledge. It is difficult for many to see themselves as a little guy in a local reality. Absolutes give us a way to skim over the nitty-gritty details of a more complex existence and at the same time feel good that we have a clear view all the way to infinity. }

Didn't Einstein postulate an absolute as the basis for relativity?