[MJA]

I'm not so sure about free will, perhaps there is a little more determinism than we think.
How did I get here, was it solely my choice?
An example of free will:
Your standing on the ground and Nobody (sorry Nobody, but I couldn't morally use somebody) high above you is planning to jump off the cliff. Would you yell JUMP!!! or DON'T DO IT!!! ?

=
MJA

[Profpat]

I would walk away, with no comment.

Really guys if you can't answer a simple yes or no thats OK.

Best to all,

Pat

[MJA]

Maybe free will and determinism are one and the same.
Much like a wave and a particle (you don't have to thank me Lloyd).
It is only our thoughts that divide them.
To tell you the truth Professor, I really don't NO, do you?

=
MJA

[Profpat]

Hi MJA;

A photon is a 2 dimensional transverse wave, it has 3 dimensional effect because the wave being transverse has the elements of LWH.

A light wave is an example of a transverse wave. The light wave is however composite, all parts of which have transversal wave properties.


Transversal plane wave



Propagation of a transverse spherical wave in a 2d grid (empirical model)


A transverse wave is a wave that causes vibration in the medium in a perpendicular direction to its own motion. For example: if a wave moves along the x-axis, its disturbances are in the yz-plane. In other words, it causes medium disturbances across the two-dimensional plane that it is travelling in. Contrary to popular belief, transversal waves do not necessarily move up and down.

The proton/neutron is a particle which can collapse into a wave see my An Idea which I believe you did but didn't think that much of it.

As far as free will vs determinism, I agree I really don't know, but my premise was ASSUME we have free will.

Best to you MJA,

Pat

P.S. If nothing else I hope I got you to thinking about the issue

[materielgirl]

Hi John

I'll play since no-one else will. Interesting thought Maybe I would call it fundamental attribute rather than "a law" to reduce obvious conflicts. Most of your readers seem speachless, how do you do that? MG

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by materielgirl Hi John I'll play since no-one else will. Interesting thought Maybe I would call it fundamental attribute rather than "a law" to reduce obvious conflicts. Most of your readers seem speachless, how do you do that? MG

Thanks Materielgirl for getting us back on John's topic, and welcome to toequest.
I hope you have an enjoyable time at this forum that Robert has provided to us.
And now I'll shut up so John can respond to your post.

Best to you,

Pat

[everymansmedium]

Originally Posted by materielgirl Hi John I'll play since no-one else will. Interesting thought Maybe I would call it fundamental attribute rather than "a law" to reduce obvious conflicts. Most of your readers seem speachless, how do you do that? MG

Hello MG:
First let me say welcome to my thread.
I think you are right. If I had thought of that I might have indicated it in that manner to begin with. We have rules about writing laws.

Fundamental attributes it is.

The Fundamental attributes of a being I would say are
awareness of self and of course motivation.

There may be more but that appears to be enough to look very much like the fundamental attributes of a force. You know,
"It must be apparent." and
"it must be constant." OPPS I mean the Laws of the recognition of a force. I am quite sure that was defined in the theory of Determinism.
I any case it appears very much the same as the laws of a force. The only two things that can be responsible for the initiation of a chain of actions. Awareness of self, is like being apparent to ones self, and motivation is a kindred to a constant if the constant is the motivation. It can be if the constant is simply continue. Word this concept as you must but recognize the value of this as a constant. This idea of continue as a constant is so very basic, I have no idea how it might be indicated mathematically.
It removes the dilemma of free will because under this concept the being itself becomes a prime mover, driven by the constant continue. Then free will is the freedom to calculate how best to continue, or how best to satisfy the constant.
It would be interesting to get some input here in this very basic logic relative to the concept of being.
I think the logical reasoning that indicates that a being must at the very least be aware of itself.
The level of that logic is something that could be posed to a class of 4th graders. Yet around here it appears to generate silence. I see that you are aware of the sound of silence here.
The other attribute, motivation is also an extremely basic thought. Without either of these attributes a being cannot exist.
I appreciate your reply.
To all, I await your comments!
John

[MJA]

Does free will mean freedom of choice, or rather freedom to accept was is.
Does freedom have laws and restriction, and what of free will.
Thanks for this line of thought John, what do you think?
Perhaps free will as been miss-defined.
Perhaps free will is simply determinism, or more simply, letting go.
Freedom!

=
MJA

[everymansmedium]

Hello MJA:
I base my thoughts on the concept of a probability priority loop as the basis for intelligent thought. What that means is that when a person thinks, be it consciously or otherwise. The action is the result of the determination of a series of logical probabilities that are used to produce a set of priorities that determine our actions. I see the primary motivation as (the drive to survive) = continue.

I see free will as the freedom to calculate how best to fulfill that which is the result of the primary motivation and the freedom to act upon that priority that is indicated by the calculation. It is also the freedom to do this calculation using the data of your own choosing.

The idea of free will is a concept that came as the result of a book of religion. It however did indicate a problem as to the primary idea of cause and effect. My thought was quite a simple one. That to determine if we could see awareness of self as being an example of being apparent. And if we could see the need of motivation as being a kindred to a constant, as the only motivation that I know of is continue. If these are true then it is possible to see a being as a prime mover in the same way that we see a force as a prime mover. Then the problem generated by the idea of free will becomes a moot point that can again be retired back to the book of religion from where it came.

This is the point that is difficult to handle as this gives a completely different viewpoint of a being. It now becomes as only a force was, in that it can be the origin of a chain of events. This will in effect put an unknown variable into every calculation that attempts to determine the path of our existence medium.
This makes everything unknowable because of the effects of many unknown beings.

However if this is the case we should at least be aware of what we are dealing with. There is something that is preventing us from finding the truth. There is life all around us yet we have never been able to create same from a true beginning. We say it could happen at random yet we still can not do so of our own purpose, with the backing of all the knowledge we have. Is there something wrong with this thought?
It seems to me to generate a need for the kind of faith that they ask of any other religion.
John.

[everymansmedium]

Hello people:
All I am getting is the sound of silence. I thought I was keeping the questions simple.

The fundamental attributes of a force are 1(it must be apparent) 2(it must be constant)

The fundamental attributes of a being are 1(awareness of self) 2(motivation)

Question #1: Who agrees with the fundamental attributes of a being?
Request #1: if you do not agree with these attributes of a being could you please inform me of alternatives.
Question #2: Do think it reasonable to compare the attributes of a being to the attributes of a law?
Question #3: Does it appear to you that these attributes are almost exactly the same?

Question # 4,5,6 relative to all of the above, “How” , “Why” This is to ask for your fundamental concept of all of these questions. Really people this is the key issue between science, philosophy, and God as a being. For as a being even the divine force must comply with the laws of being.
If there is a God as a being. There must be awareness of self and there must be motivation.

This is the very first building block of the bridge between science and the being. Who has the next block?
Lets build a bridge.
John