Bart Happel

What are you afraid of?

I’ve been thinking some more about this chaotic systems model of reality. To avoid the ‘endless creator’ paradox of a dualist view of reality, here’s a monist view, in terms of the model. Suppose God actually is the chaotic oscillation itself. Then God is the universe, and since God created the universe, God created himself. The oscillation may now be seen as pure spirit or energy. And the total amount of energy in the universe will be equal to the initial momentum of the oscillating ‘point-mass’. Time exists, if the speed of the point-mass is finite. While the point-mass describes its infinite chaotic trajectory in absolute-space, it may continuously dissipate and absorb energy into and from absolute-space. Initially the point-mass has so much momentum that it can only dissipate energy (big bang). Ultimately, however, it must reach an equilibrium, where as much energy is dissipated as is absorbed overall. Regions in absolute-space where the point-mass resides relatively frequently, will accumulate energy. Regions in absolute-space where energy is most concentrated, may be what we call matter or mass. Dead matter is solid carbon, silicium, and/or other heavy atoms or molecules. Living matter is fluid and gaseous and electro-chemically active. These may be qualitatively different dynamical regimes. And the living regime seems to be the most complex. We may now speculate that if God is conscious, then living organisms must be conscious, because they are part of God. However, when you try to explain ‘free will’ in this model, you will run into the deterministic wall of chaos. So maybe something even more subtle than chaos is needed to explain our free will. Nevertheless, the model may be useful..

Stated that way, probably both have free will and both are in ignorance at some level.

May be more than very nice, I must say

His consciousness of God may be 'blinded' by his involvement with material illusion. Why doesn't jeevatma have any free will, if "jeevatma's free will is paramatma's freewill."?

When it was discovered in the early twentieth century that Newtonian physics, although it had stood unchallenged for hundreds of years, failed to answer basic questions about time and space, such as 'Is the universe infinite?' or 'Is time eternal?', a new basis for physics was needed. This lead to the development of ‘quantum theory’ by Bohr, Schrödinger and Heisenberg and ‘relativity theory’ by Einstein. This was the first step in the development of a new basis for physics. Both theories, however are incomplete, and are limited in their abilities to answer many questions. Quantum physics deals with the behavior of very small objects, such as atoms, why they do not disintegrate as Newtonian physics wanted. The theory of relativity, on the other hand deals with much large scales, celestial bodies and others. Both theories fail when confronted to the other's 'domain', and are therefore limited in their ability to describe the universe. One must unify these theories, make them compatible with one another. The resulting theory would be able to describe the behavior of the universe, from quarks and atoms to entire galaxies. This is the ‘quantum theory of gravity’. Quantum gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity) is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify ‘quantum mechanics’, which describes three of the fundamental forces of nature (electromagnetism, weak interaction, and strong interaction), with ‘general relativity’, the theory of the fourth fundamental force: gravity. One ultimate goal hoped to emerge as a result of this is a unified framework for all fundamental forces – called a ‘theory of everything’ or ‘grand unifying theory’. So, the main problem with such a unification is ‘gravity’. Quantum field theories cannot account for the gravitational effects at large scales or high energies, described as ‘space-time curvature’ by general relativity. Furthermore, the version of general relativity theory used in cosmology is the Friedmann equations. In order to explain the current rate of expansion of the universe, a constant energy density must be put into the Friedman equations (typically about half a joule per cubic km). This is called various things like ‘Lambda’ and ‘cosmological constant’. Main thing is, it is just some energy density constant through space and time, its effect on expansion derives mathematically in a simple way from its constancy. But there isn’t enough matter in the universe to account for this constant metric in relation to the rate of expansion of the universe. Therefore, invisible stuff (‘dark matter’ or ‘dark energy’) must be assumed to exist in large quantities in our universe. Now, a ‘chaotic system theory’ of reality doesn’t have any of these problems. All fundamental forces at all scales, including large scale gravity, are intrinsic –, local and global properties of the ‘chaotic attractor’, and become manifest in a low-dimensional ‘phase-projection’ of the evolving system. A cosmological constant is not needed. Moreover, in a relativistic description of the phase-projection of the underlying system, it may take the form of a variable (i.e., not a constant) that may be locally different. The beauty of this whole idea is that in principle the entire universe can be described as a simple (chaotic) oscillation of a single point, e.g., in a 4 dimensional ‘state-space’. And our perceived reality is simply a 3-dimensional phase-projection of this 4-dimensional oscillation. All forces – and laws of nature we perceive in material reality, are simply emergent properties of the underlying chaotic system.

I'm thinking about it.. I'm not so sure however. This is relativity theory and although that seems to be a much more 'complete' theory than quantum mechanics, it's most likely wrong, especially on this point.

My 16th post. Here's a link: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/448303-does-free-will-exist.html See post #10 in that topic.

And this also fits nicely into the 'chaotic model' presented in thread: Spritual Discussions / Does 'free will' exist?

Dear Suchandra, I don’t have any experience on the battlefield, and I don’t intend to become a paid mercenary for any government. However, many young people (soldiers) find themselves in this predicament. Since they can’t change their current situation, what should one say to them? Many religions are based on fear. But what exactly is there to be afraid of? Physical death is part of an irrelevant material illusion. And, as I understand it, spiritual death is impossible. So, fear of death seems to be just another example of being involved with material reality. Moreover, we may not even have a choice (free will) in our material world. The only willful choice there may be, is to become conscious of God. I’m just trying to see this myself, so please correct me if I’m wrong here, or if I do not understand you correctly. Kind regards, Bart

Why not?

Exactly! you shouldn't be afraid to 'die'. Of course, there is no free ticket to die (e.g., the way suicide terrorists die), but don't be afraid to die! When you want to live, you will live, and when you want to die you will probably die. What's the problem?

If God is your religion, then what are you afraid of?

Indeed This paradox is endless..

In time we should hear from these guys, or not..

Dear Ravindran (or is it Kasevan? ), This is, of course, a very difficult question. Possibly one that human consciousness cannot know the answer to. The real answer will at least be mindboggling. I can, however, use this simple chaotic system analogy of reality, to illustrate the possibility of a dualist scenario in principle: A computer programmer can implement a chaotic computational system on a powerful computer. Once the program has been started (e.g., by the programmer), it may infinitely display phase-projections of its chaotic behavior on the computer screen. The programmer (and his friends) can now sit down and watch the projections evolve over time. He cannot interfere with the running system, so all is perfectly dualistic. While he watches, he may be surprised, or otherwise mentally moved, by the beautiful colors and the intricate structures that evolve on the screen, but he cannot interact with the running system. He might, however, have a ‘free will knob’. When he turns this knob, the sample frequency of the phase-projection on the screen will change. As a result he may see a totally different projection on the screen, but he is still not interfering with the underlying running system. Infinitely many sample frequencies will produce infinitely many different projections of exactly the same underlying system, and many different viewers of the system may watch many different projections. The computer programmer may even have a second powerful computer on which he started exactly the same program 1 year earlier. This would be the only way to know the future of the system he just started on the other computer, up to 1 year ahead. Kind regards, Bart

Dear Ravindran, I would agree with most you say. But allow me to elucidate this chaotic system analogy of reality a bit more. A chaotic system is, indeed, completely determined by its underlying algorithm. Consequently, there can be no free will in a chaotic reality. However, although the underlying algorithm can be very simple, its recurrent dynamics produce an infinitely diverse self-similar structure. When, for example, you zoom in on this structure, you would infinitely find new structures at every scale. These structures may look similar, but they never exactly repeat themselves. Basically this means that the system will never reside at the same point in its state-space twice. Moreover, this means that the only way to get exact knowledge of the future of a chaotic system, is by running the system itself. There is no shortcut; the underlying algorithm cannot be solved or reduced to a simpler form, such that we can infer its infinite future beforehand. This is what I meant when I said: “… although the system (reality) is completely deterministic, its future can never be predicted with certainty.” Determinism doesn’t automatically imply the possibility of complete knowledge of the future. I agree, as you say, free will may be spiritual. This would mean that the spiritual world is completely detached from the (chaotic) material world. This makes us spectators of material reality, just perceiving how material events unfold over time, without interfering in any way. Spiritual free will may then lie in an ability to view or experience material reality in multiple, qualitatively different modes. I.e., we may be able to willfully view qualitatively different projections of material reality. This is what I meant when I said: “Maybe … the evolution of our consciousness has something to do with a change of the frequency of our perception. And our Free Will might be limited to inducing such a change.” Ultimately, in such a view, the infinite deterministic dynamics of material reality may proceed autonomously, whether we perceive it or not, and irrespective of our personal mode of perception or experience. Kind regards, Bart

Actually there may be a compromise. The chaotic systems that I talk about, display hierarchical, self-similar, or fractal structure. This means that similar structures reoccur many times, at many places and at many geometrical-scales in the state-space. Hence, Krishna will be able to make very good guesses about the future, based on past or present similarities

Indeed, without ‘free will’ there is no paradox, and without an ‘omniscient God’ there is no paradox. And both cannot be true at the same time. So which route is true? (Note that both routes fit into the model I presented in my previous post). Personally I would like to incorporate ‘Free Will for all’ into my universe! What’s so important about being able to see the exact future anyway? And as I said earlier in another topic: Suppose that we were able to answer questions about our own existence and the existence of God, in exact mathematical language. The behavior of such ‘formal models’ will (necessarily) be much simpler than the reality we perceive, but they still might show equivalent dynamics that can be seen and ultimately understood by many people. Such a model may convince many people of the existence of God and their own spiritual position! (See topic: Spritual Discussions / I would like to start a new spiritual language).

Allow me to explain. My question is sincere. I’m very much inspired by the Krishna-conscious view of reality. As far back as I can remember, I felt a fundamental detachment from the material world in the sense that ‘I do not really belong here’. I never found a religious system of idea’s that so clearly corresponds with this personal intuition and my sense of truth. I also am profoundly interested in psychology and quantum physics, and I’m convinced that ultimately quantum physical phenomena are the key to understanding consciousness. However, I do agree with Einstein that our probabilistic quantum mechanical models must be wrong or at least incomplete: “God doesn’t play dice”. So, I’m inclined to accept the idea that the complex quantum physical whole that we call reality is in fact completely deterministic. In my view, quantum mechanics is nothing more than an incomplete model of quantum physical reality, corresponding only to our incomplete perception of reality. Alternatively, more complete mathematical models can be conceived. In complex systems theory, for example, models exist that describe a complex oscillation of a point in a multi-dimensional ‘state-space’. At any moment in time the position of this point in state-space is precisely determined as a function of its previous position. Nevertheless, its trajectory may be highly erratic or ‘chaotic’. Typically, however, there are ‘attracting’ regions in the state-space where the point resides more frequently than in other regions. To see this order or structure, one can construct a so called ‘phase-projection’ of the system. To do this, basically one defines a low-dimensional ‘hyper-plane’ through the state-space on which the intersections of the trajectory of the point with the hyper-plane are plotted. In some chaotic systems, highly intricate ‘self-similar’ structures then emerge. Such structures are called fractals. A well known example of a fractal is the ‘Mandelbrot fractal’. I like to think that our limited perception of reality can be compared with such a phase-projection. In this view, seemingly random quantum physical events represent the intersections of a complex high-dimensional oscillation with the low- dimensional hyper-plane of our perceived world. In such a model, the complex underlying system that defines reality can never be fully known on the basis of its perceptual projection. Another method to construct and visualize the attractor of a chaotic system, is to plot the position of the point in state-space at ‘timed intervals’ (Edit: e.g., at every 10000 iterations of the system). This also produces a low-dimensional phase-projection. And when the interval is changed, the projection will qualitatively change. Maybe, analogously, the evolution of our consciousness has something to do with a change of the frequency of our perception. And our Free Will might be limited to induce such a change. Finally, although a chaotic system as described above is characterized by a relatively stable complex attractor, the system never exactly repeats itself. Its trajectory in state-space may be orderly, but all emergent structure is infinitely diverse and infinitely changing over time. This implies that although the system (reality) is completely deterministic, its future can never be predicted with certainty.

But suppose that we were able to answer questions about our own existence and the existence of God, in exact mathematical language. The behavior of such ‘formal models’ will (necessarily) be much simpler than the reality we perceive, but they still might show equivalent dynamics that can be seen and ultimately understood by many people. Such a model may convince many people of the existence of God and their own spiritual position! In complex systems theory, for example, mathematical models exist that display dynamics in multi-dimensional ‘state-spaces’, that are at least reminiscent of the Krishna-conscious view of reality. Such models are characterized by stable ‘attracting’ regions and highly unpredictable ‘chaotic’ regions; as well as by transitions (!) between different dynamic regimes..

Thank you for your thoughtful reactions. Perhaps my original question boils down to another question: Is it possible for any (spiritual) being to see the (material) future? If so, the material world must be completely deterministic, and the (free) spiritual world must be completely detached from the material world (in order for the material world to remain deterministic). But apparently the latter is not the case..

L.S., After reading the much inspiring book ‘The Science of Self-Realisation by/about A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami', I am (for now) left with one question: Since all human souls in the relative material world have a choice to enter the absolute realm of Krishna through the development of Krishna-consciousness, ‘free will’ must exist. However, it is also stated in this book that Krishna sees the future (as well as the past and the present) of our (material) existence, which implies that we do not have a choice and that free will does not exist. Can someone explain this apparent contradiction? Could it be that Krishna 'only' sees (multiple) 'possible' or 'likely' futures? And do other books (e.g., the 'Bhagavad gita') say anything about this specific issue? Kind regards, Bart