Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Bart Happel

Does 'free will' Exist?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

Bart, frankly I read your post many times but did not understand your chaotic model.

 

To keep it simple, if you believe there is a universe, there is a you, and there are others in the picture, the model is not purely monistic even if contained within God. In the monistic model, only one thing exists and that is the soul. The composition of which is entirely different than matter. You may call this model as pluralistic within a monistic whole but cannot claim it as a totally monistic one.

 

The above assertion 'that nothing is created' is not mine but Sankara's. Since some folks like to follow a few non-classical physics books instead of the traditional monistic philosophies, it becomes their individual opinion on Hinduism.

 

The model is really quite simple! Perhaps you must know a little about non-linear (complex) systems theory. Anyway, when I think of a more straightforward presentation of the model, I will post it here. That’s to say, when people like you don’t understand it; many more may not understand it.

 

If you say : “In the monistic model, only one thing exists and that is the soul.”, then I agree that my view is possibly not monistic. You suggest that monism is the idea that your soul is God and therefore there can be only one entity or being. I suggest, however, that your soul may be part of God and therefore there is only one entity (God). It’s a subtle difference.

 

Kind regards, Bart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The model is really quite simple! Perhaps you must know a little about non-linear (complex) systems theory. Anyway, when I think of a more straightforward presentation of the model, I will post it here. That’s to say, when people like you don’t understand it; many more may not understand it.
You are right about this one. I do not understand when people attribute classical or non-classical physics to spirituality. Maybe you do not belong to any of the categories below, but there are many others who belong to one of the below;

 

1. People like to consider their blind faith to be rational so try to explain their spiritual theories scientifically. Like some people are ashamed to announce they had an arranged marriage, so tell people they fell in love first before marriage. This is similar in which people cover their religious beliefs with science to justify their claims.

 

2. People like to console themselves that their theory is right by trying to justify it with quantum theories.

 

3. They know that non-classical science is a sure fire way of attracting a modern mind although no one has really understood or proved them yet.

 

 

If you say : “In the monistic model, only one thing exists and that is the soul.”, then I agree that my view is possibly not monistic. You suggest that monism is the idea that your soul is God and therefore there can be only one entity or being. I suggest, however, that your soul may be part of God and therefore there is only one entity (God). It’s a subtle difference.
Lets go back to the drawing board now.

My question was 'If soul is part of God, why is a part of God ignorant?'.

You answered 'God can be ignorant'.

My reply 'such a defective God is not worth praying to'.

My comment 'if God is ignorant or his part is ignorant, such a God's freewill is questionable. You still have to explain where God is getting this ignorance from?'

 

Your view is qualified monism and not pure monism. This opinion goes against the vedic scriptures which go to length to suggest that God is perfect and has no negative qualities. I think you agree with all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are right about this one. I do not understand when people attribute classical or non-classical physics to spirituality. Maybe you do not belong to any of the categories below, but there are many others who belong to one of the below;

 

1. People like to consider their blind faith to be rational so try to explain their spiritual theories scientifically. Like some people are ashamed to announce they had an arranged marriage, so tell people they fell in love first before marriage. This is similar in which people cover their religious beliefs with science to justify their claims.

 

2. People like to console themselves that their theory is right by trying to justify it with quantum theories.

 

3. They know that non-classical science is a sure fire way of attracting a modern mind although no one has really understood or proved them yet.

 

 

Let me emphasize that my primary interest in this thread is to validate a formal model of reality, by evaluating the model’s compatibility with religious or spiritual knowledge and experience, and not vise versa, i.e., evaluating the validity of religious or spiritual knowledge by fitting this into the model. The model is per definition a simplification of reality, so the latter will never be fully possible.

 

Even as a ‘unification’ of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the model can never account for all empirical data that has been collected in those fields of scientific research. The model is obviously too much of a simplification of reality to live up to such a claim. However, the model’s dynamical basic principles may indicate what’s really going on in reality and thus contribute to our understanding of physics and the direction of further scientific research. We will always need ‘working theories’ like quantum mechanics and general relativity, however, in order to predict material events in our perceived material world.

 

Likewise, the model may contribute to a better understanding of spiritual experience and religious knowledge, by providing a formal framework, i.e., a simple and compact way to make sense of some otherwise confusing and seemingly paradoxical religious concepts. But It was never my primary intention to provide the reverse argument, that is to justify some religious concepts and discard others on the basis of the model.

 

 

 

Lets go back to the drawing board now.

My question was 'If soul is part of God, why is a part of God ignorant?'.

You answered 'God can be ignorant'.

My reply 'such a defective God is not worth praying to'.

My comment 'if God is ignorant or his part is ignorant, such a God's freewill is questionable. You still have to explain where God is getting this ignorance from?'

 

Your view is qualified monism and not pure monism. This opinion goes against the vedic scriptures which go to length to suggest that God is perfect and has no negative qualities. I think you agree with all this.

 

Well, I’m prepared to rest my speculative claim that God is ignorant. Perhaps he isn’t. If our soul is a part of God, it implies that our soul is not the whole of God. Hence, the soul’s ignorance. Thereby, all souls are part of God, so God may be ‘the sum of all souls’. If there isn’t any collective ignorance (i.e., all souls together know everything) but only the individual ignorance of single souls, then God is not ignorant. I’m only speculating again here.. ;)

 

Kind regards, Bart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Bart Happel,

 

Thanks for the link. I read it and it is mind boggling. In fact I see Vishnu and comprehend his leelas more clearly in the Mentalbrot fractal picture than the Vishnu picture posted in post 59. Mentalbrot set clarifies lots and lots of religious concepts.

 

No! Science and mathematics are not devises to justify supersticious religious beliefs. They are very presise language of religious truths. I am now convinced that the future language of religion is Mathematics. Future religious texts are text books of Science. Mathematics and science offers clarification to religious concepts in such clear way that no religious text could do.

 

Science is not a justificsation for religion It is clarification of religion.

 

Thanks Bart Happel for such an enlightening work you are doing. When your work is complete please do share your model with me.

 

Pramod Trivedi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bart,

In your model, material reality is completely deterministic. But, according to quantum mechanics, quantities like position, momentum, energy etc. are not deterministic. The probability value of any of these quantities is deterministic but these quantities themselves are not deterministic. Then, how can material reality be deterministic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bart,

In your model, material reality is completely deterministic. But, according to quantum mechanics, quantities like position, momentum, energy etc. are not deterministic. The probability value of any of these quantities is deterministic but these quantities themselves are not deterministic. Then, how can material reality be deterministic?

 

The quantum state of a physical system actually evolves completely deterministically, and is exactly described by the Schrödinger equation. Ravindran already mentioned this in post #14. Probability only enters the system in the measured state, e.g., when we try to measure the state of a quantum particle (i.e., what it is). Max Born interpreted this as a ‘probability amplitude’, but Schrödinger himself opposed such a statistical or probabilistic approach. And Einstein believed that quantum mechanics is just a statistical approximation of an underlying deterministic theory. The chaotic system model of reality, proposed in this thread, indicates that such a deterministic theory may in fact exist.

 

Kind regards, Bart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attempt to link the quantum world to mysteries of the consciousness is not new. Most people cannot make head or tail about it. Some even spell it as 'mental-brot' ;) instead of Mandelbrot but pretend to understand it as clarification to religion.

 

There is no compelling evidence that quantum mechanics plays a central role in consciousness of the creatures in this world. There are no parallels that it complies with the spiritual connections across the universe. It is still materialistic and reductionistic and relies on observations made in the quantum world.

 

In my experience I have found many who 'like' to draw parallels without understanding neither religion (and that too monism of all the religions!!!) nor science. It has become a fad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Justin,

 

There isn’t really much to understand about the Mandelbrot set. It has been analyzed exhaustively, which revealed remarkable regularities and constants, and other fractal (sub)sets. However, basically it’s just an incredibly simple algorithm, generating the most amazing self-similar (fractal) patterns. I do not claim that reality (i.e., what we perceive) corresponds even remotely to the Mandelbrot set. ;) The Mandelbrot set is just an illustration and a computational proof of how a structural part can ‘contain’ the structural whole (universe).

 

The algorithm that underlies the Mandelbrot set is an entertaining computational ‘short-cut’ to visualize what self-similar (fractal) structures may look like. A picture of a ‘real’ chaotic attractor – that is: the fractal structure in the trajectory of a continuously (analogously) and chaotically oscillating physical mass in space – can, at best, only be approximated by digital computational simulations of the continuous real system. Good (accurate) computational simulations will be very time-consuming, even with present day super computers.

 

I agree with you that quantum mechanics is just a materialistic, reductionistic (statistical) theory. ;)

 

Kind regards, Bart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree with you that quantum mechanics is just a materialistic, reductionistic (statistical) theory. ;)

 

Thanks for being honest Bart. We can use anything as an analogy, isn't it. Fact is that some of the analogies make sense (like the Mandelbrot) besides sounding fantastic! But the derivations of the analogies wrt to non-dualism do not. It gets worse when some folks who do not even know how to spell it, let alone understand, claim that it fits with Visnu as parcel of Krsna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But the derivations of the analogies wrt to non-dualism do not. It gets worse when some folks who do not even know how to spell it, let alone understand, claim that it fits with Visnu as parcel of Krsna.

 

Dear Justin,

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p> </o:p>

Spelling mistake has nothing to do with the understanding. Why are you being mean? It is not a spiritual quality to be mean and rude. Claiming to be religious and not practicing the good qualities prescribed in religion is no religion. Have I provoked any religious insecurity in you? If that is the case my apologies.

<o:p> </o:p>

I do understand better by rigorous logic of mathematics and science than faith and authority based claims. Note that I am only appreciating Religion – not rejecting it. In fact only now I am fully able to understand and appreciate religious conceptions. It is a good thing to happen rather than becoming an atheist and ridicule religion as illogical mumbo-jumbo. You seem to be contemptuous of my conversion rather than appreciative of it. What is your problem if I understand God through science? You mean god cannot reveal him through science?

<o:p> </o:p>

God can declare his existence through scriptural proposition, reveal himself through mathematical algorithm, and show himself through quantum field theory. It is another matter that some don’t see him in scientific formulas as some don’t in scriptures. Don’t block people’s spiritual development just because you don’t understand their path.

<o:p> </o:p>

If you are trying to be a bakta, learn to be a true bakta. Develop appreciation of god from whatever source he is showing Himself, develop humility, see god in everybody. Be pleasant and kind to every body. Drop meanness, bitterness, criticism and arrogance.

Develop Love. That is being truly religious, not calling oneself religious.

<o:p> </o:p>

With kind regards and best wishes,

<o:p> </o:p>

Promod Trivedi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The quantum state of a physical system actually evolves completely deterministically, and is exactly described by the Schrödinger equation.

Yes, but what is the meaning of that state? In Schrodinger's equation, it is wave function. As per Born's interpretation, this wave function represents probability. Irrespective of whether it is probability or not, just because wave function evolves deterministically, we cannot say that position, momentum etc. evolve deterministically.

 

 

Ravindran already mentioned this in post #14. Probability only enters the system in the measured state, e.g., when we try to measure the state of a quantum particle (i.e., what it is).

Physical quantities have various probable values before they are measured but they get one precise value once measured. This is called as collapse of wave function. May be this is what you are also saying.

 

 

Max Born interpreted this as a ‘probability amplitude’, but Schrödinger himself opposed such a statistical or probabilistic approach.

Yes, Schrodinger opposed but it has been mathematically proven that his wave equation is equivalent to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

 

 

And Einstein believed that quantum mechanics is just a statistical approximation of an underlying deterministic theory. The chaotic system model of reality, proposed in this thread, indicates that such a deterministic theory may in fact exist.

Yes, it is possible to have an underlying deterministic theory. But, could you explain how the chaotic system model leads to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as approximation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Avinash,

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p>

The original quantum states -before we measure - are not associated with probabilities. They are associated with probability amplitudes. Probability amplitudes are not probabilities at all. The qualifier ‘probability’ to the total word 'probability amplitude' should not confuse us. Probability amplitude is can aspect of wave function and is associated with the amplitude of the wave. Hence probability amplitude can be and has been also called simply as amplitude. Hence to avoid the confusion we will also use that word.

 

 

 

<o:p></o:p>

 

 

Amplitude is a complex quantity (expressed by a complex number of the form x + iy) where as probability is a real number. Schrödinger’s equation is a deterministic equation involving this complex quantity of amplitude. Once the initial value is known this equation precisely determines the particle's – or rather the wave's – evolution deterministically for all the time to come. There is no indeterminism or probability at this level.

<o:p></o:p>

But the moment we attempt to measure the state at any given time, the wave function collapses and no more the amplitudes -which are quantities associated with wave -are available. With the collapse of the wave function the complex quantity amplitude collapses to the real quantities probabilities. This is where the probability enters in to the seen. When the complex numbers are converted to real numbers probabilities appear. In its original state (described with amplitudes) the quantum state is very deterministic and can be predicted with complete accuracy. Of course notions like position doesn’t make any sense with wave dynamism. Position is a property of particle not of wave. But that does not mean the situation is vague or probabilistic or random. Instead of the particle-property like position if we take the wave-property like amplitude, there is no uncertainty at all and quantum states evolve in strict deterministic laws.

<o:p></o:p>

The problem is with our measuring – with our knowing. Not with the actual state of affairs as it is. The problem is epistemological not ontological.

<o:p></o:p>

Regards,

K.Ravindran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Ravindran,

For simplicity, I was using probability to mean probability amplitude though I accept that it is complex quantity as opposed to real number between 0 and 1 as used in Probability theory. But the two are related in the sense that if we know probability amplitude values of positions, then we can find the probability of the occurence of a particle in a given region.

 

Yes, it is true that Schrodinger's equation determinines the values of probability amplitude for all times to come. But this does not guarantee us precise determination of measurable quantities like position, momentum, energy etc.

I agree with you that position is a property of particle and not of wave. I also agree that if we consider wave property like amplitude instead of particle property like position, then there is no uncertainty. But why should we not consider particle property? And what is the real-world significance of this amplitude? These are important questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider double slit experiment. A very common interpretation of quantum mechanics says that if experiment is set up to observe particle property, then a photon behaves like particle and goes through one slit. And if we set up the experiment to observe wave behavious, then the photon behaves like wave and goes through both slits.

But, I personally do not believe at all that the experimental setup affects whether a photon should behave like wave or like particle. I do not believe that a photon can hit a screen, the behaviour of a photon is affected by what is there in that screen.

Rather, I believe that photon is neither a particle nor a wave. It is something entirely different. It is just that there are some experiments in which we get the same results which we would have got if photon had been a particle and there are some experiments in which we get the same result which we would have got if we photon had been a wave.

I am reminded of the analogy of an elephant and blind men. One blind man touches one of the feet of the elephant and says that elephant is a pillar. Another touches one of its ears and says that the elephant is a large winnowing fan.

Is elephant a pillar? Answer is no.

Is it a winnowing fan? Answer is no.

Is it a duality of the two? Answer is no.

 

It is something entirely different. It is just that the first blind man did an experiment and got the same result if he had done the experiment on a pillar. The second blind man got the same result if he had done his experiment on a large winnowing fan.

 

So, I believe that we are the blind men and photon is the elephant.

I used photon only as an example though I could have used elecron, proton, neutrino and many others.

 

Our current scientific understanding is heavily dependent on the understanding of elementary particles (or rather, so called 'particles'). It is important to first understand what these particles are. As I mentioned earlier, we are like the blind men of that story when it comes to interpreting what these elementary particles are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I mentioned the analogy of blind men is because scientists are talking about a unified theory. Superstring theory being the strongest contender for the theories at present. But my point is that we do not even understand what the elementary particles are. Therefore, is it not important to first understand them correctly and then attempt unified theory? Experiemental results match with Mathematics of quantum mechanics. But what about Physical significance? Therefore, first the basics are to be corrected. By basics I mean understanding what these particles are. As I said, wave-particle duality explains observed phenomena. But this is a false duality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But, could you explain how the chaotic system model leads to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as approximation?

He didn't know the complexity concerning the law of karma. Whe studying the 100% accuracy of action and reaction in all levels of life we find that there's no uncertainty but only exactitude.

Video below looks like there's an uncertainty principle. However, although things happen against the will of a person, there's a mathematical equation explaining why this had to happen.

 

source

 

.

 

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNtPuuXLF1Y&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Avinash,

 

Imagine a complex (chaotic) oscillation of a point in a 3-dimensional (state) space. (The speed of the point may be almost infinite.) When we define a 2-dimensional plane through the space, the trajectory of the point may intersect the plane an infinite number of times. Since we do not know the exact properties of the oscillation, there is no telling where the trajectory of the point will intersect the plane at any time. In fact the intersections may seem to be completely random.

 

Now suppose that the plane is our perceived world, and that it will light-up or glow for some finite time interval at the location of each successive point-intersection. We may then see regular patterns emerge in the plane. Regions where the point intersects the plane relatively frequently, will light-up more brightly than regions where the point intersects the plane less frequently. This way, our entire world may be ‘described’ by the chaotic oscillation.

 

Although the underlying chaotic oscillation is completely deterministic, there is no way to predict where the next intersection will take place. We only know that the probability of the point intersecting some regions is higher than the probability of the point intersecting other regions. Et voila, the link with quantum probability.

 

In the perceptual plane, something like a moving quantum particle may appear as a result of a sparse but regular pattern of successive intersections, that follow some 2-dimensional trajectory in the plane. In an experimental setup (that is also described by the oscillation), the measured state of the particle may then show up as a probability, just like the probability of individual intersections of the oscillating point. In fact, the particle may continuously and deterministically alternate between different states, until the measuring device destroys it at some particular probable state.

 

Kind regards,

 

Bart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The reason I mentioned the analogy of blind men is because scientists are talking about a unified theory. Superstring theory being the strongest contender for the theories at present. But my point is that we do not even understand what the elementary particles are. Therefore, is it not important to first understand them correctly and then attempt unified theory? Experiemental results match with Mathematics of quantum mechanics. But what about Physical significance? Therefore, first the basics are to be corrected. By basics I mean understanding what these particles are. As I said, wave-particle duality explains observed phenomena. But this is a false duality.

 

Dear Avinash,

 

Since the wave particle duality is a falsae duality, since there is a strong possibility that reality is something totally different from our present notion of wave or particle, it is unimportant to understanrd the particle first before we move on to string theory, presisly because string theory transcend the wave particle duality. This is a new way of looking at the issue. Perhaps the key to understand the basic entities of universe is in string theory rather than breaking our heads with the old problematic notions like particles. We need a paradigm shift.

 

Thereby I am not saying that String theory is that paradigm- is the right theory - and it has solved all the problems. We are not sure at this point of time. Yet this could be a posibility. We need to wait and see. But it is wort trying.

 

K.Ravindran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Pramod

 

 

Spelling mistake has nothing to do with the understanding. Why are you being mean?

Well, if putting out the truth out there is mean, so be it.

 

It is not a spiritual quality to be mean and rude.

You seem to be very sensitive.

 

Claiming to be religious and not practicing the good qualities prescribed in religion is no religion.

That is your opinion. Even Lord Krishna was accused of being rude and mean.

 

Have I provoked any religious insecurity in you? If that is the case my apologies.

Not at all. You provided a good example that helped convey a message.

 

I do understand better by rigorous logic of mathematics and science than faith and authority based claims. Note that I am only appreciating Religion – not rejecting it.

Good for you. I have no problems with you appreciating science, geography, astronomy, archeology, etc., or any other field. But I have a right to comment on your technical understanding as much as you have the right(!) to comment that I am arrogant, mean and rude. Although I must say I did not get personal as you have in your post.

 

In fact only now I am fully able to understand and appreciate religious conceptions. It is a good thing to happen rather than becoming an atheist and ridicule religion as illogical mumbo-jumbo. You seem to be contemptuous of my conversion rather than appreciative of it. What is your problem if I understand God through science? You mean god cannot reveal him through science?

I have no problem. There are millions who go astray without understanding either science or religion. I have no problems with those.

 

God can declare his existence through scriptural proposition, reveal himself through mathematical algorithm, and show himself through quantum field theory. It is another matter that some don’t see him in scientific formulas as some don’t in scriptures. Don’t block people’s spiritual development just because you don’t understand their path.

You are becoming emotional now. Sorry if I triggered it. I will refrain from picking on you as an example.

 

If you are trying to be a bakta, learn to be a true bakta. Develop appreciation of god from whatever source he is showing Himself, develop humility, see god in everybody. Be pleasant and kind to every body. Drop meanness, bitterness, criticism and arrogance.

With this statement, you are exhibiting the very bitterness, meanness and arrogance you accuse me of. What happened to your spiritual pleasantness? Your opinion has nothing to do with my qualities as you wrongly perceive. Many times truth is bitter and if you cannot take it (or you take it personally) when pointed out to you, it does not become anyone else's problem.

 

Develop Love. That is being truly religious, not calling oneself religious.

Thanks for the advise. I see this as arrogantly advising others without knowing the true purport of the conversation. It comes out of a high-handed superior feeling that you know better than me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bart, you could have sent your issues about me (that I spoilt the topic) in a PM yourself instead of submiting your post in public :)

 

I do not have any issues with member Trivedi. I was responding to an email that he personally directed at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×