SMN, Free Will and Unification of Paradigms (#1415)

Related Documents:
The Computational Paradigm
Global Awakening
(#1367) Process Metaphysics and Computational Paradigm
(#1406) Computational Metaphysics
(#1418) SMN, Computational Metaphysics, Free Will and Duality
(#1427) Labels, Essence, Awareness, Computation, SMN
(#1428) Free Will, Attitude, Awareness, Self Control, Causality, Karma, Cosmic Will, Computation and Consciousness
(#1430) Metaphysics of Virtual Reality
Mathematics of Intension
(#1437) The Chinese Room, Experience, Knowledge and Communication
Computational Processes (proof)
(#1470) Religion/Spirituality, Energy/Information and the Unification of Material and Spiritual Science
(#1495) Relative/Absolute Reality, Empirical/Transcendent, Experience/Knowledge, Unification of Material and Spiritual Sciences and the Coming Paradigm Shift
(#1638) Trusting the flow, the Cosmic Dance, the natural holistic process (#1638)
(#1639) Breaking the Code of Secrecy, the Cosmic Dance includes Light and Dark, the Process of Awakening, the Human Collective Paradigm Shift, plus some comments from the I Ching (#1639)
(#1640) Paradigm Shifts and the Changing Nature of what is 'Fact' (#1640)
(#1663) System Theoretic Metaphysics and the Unification of the Transcendent and Empirical Sciences
Also see other excerpts from my discussions with the Society for Scientific Exploration.

Much of it resonates with my own ideas but what troubles me is the undefined reliance on the concept of free will. That is a very intricate and deeply deeply subtle issue that is very caught up in confusions due to our anthropocentric perspective on reality. I'll get to this soon, but firstly...

When you say in #1378: > The metaphysical modelling by a continuous function System Matrix


> A continuous function mathematical modelling tool relies on a
> continuously acting set of Laws of Physics to establish a
> continuously acting cause and effect chain in order to produce
> a valid output from a given input.

leads me to the conclusion that you have not understood the fundamental nature of my mathematical approach. As I said in an earlier response, I'm not sure where you get the idea of "continuous functions" from my work. Your above statements are appropriate for traditional NON-PROCESS oriented mathematics such as newtonian mechanics or classical and quantum physics. However it does not apply to process oriented, event driven systems where time is not a linear dimension and the behaviour is not set out in some neat equation.

In my own mathematical models any manner of behaviour or object may be generated within the virtual space as required by the dynamical contingencies of the evolving cosmic process. It allows for what you call co-creative activity and it models the behaviour of the primary causal chain and the secondary causal chain. The only difference that I see is that you make "free will" a separate force outside of the whole process, whereas to me that which we call free will is a concept that arises from our empirical experience of being able to experience the experience of experiencing. I.e. we have complex internal feedback loops that gives us a high level of 'sentience' but underlying this the universe is unfolding according to its own dynamics and it is only the ego that eroneously thinks "I did that". The subtlety arises from the issue of who is the 'I' and what level of being is it identified with? This issue is exhaustively addressed in Vedanta, Yoga, Buddhism and so on but is often treated at a very shallow level in traditional western discourses.

From the eastern perspective, ultimately the cosmic universal essence that animates, permeates and sustains all things is the ONLY doer. This cosmic essence is not separate from ourselves, it is our innermost being, it is the pure consciousness that lies deep within our higher-level conditioned consciousness. It is that pure consciousness that is the true doer and our conditioned consciousness looks on and falls for the illusion that it was in control. To use a computational analogy, our conditioned consciousness is a piece of AI programming that has evolved within a virtual space and the underlying computer is the only doer.

My own modelling methods could conceivably be developed further and used to create systems with enough complex feedback loops to believe that they had free will and then for all intents and purposes they would experience having free will so in their world there would exist free will, but at a deep metaphysical level there is only the operation of the cosmic consciousness or computational process.

> Micro world physics is markedly different from the more
> familiar macro world physics but while we know that the
> micro world is real, there is no evidence that the cause
> and effect chain of the micro world interferes in any way
> with the macro world. We do not see any inconsistent
> behaviour from two separate sets of competing physical
> law tossing the same observable bit of matter about in
> different ways.

The micro world is described by quantum physics and the macro world by classical physics. These two are not incompatible; as one zooms out from the micro to the macro perspective the details become smaller, thus in the equations h (plancks constant) tends toward zero and the quantum equations smoothly transform into the classical equations, there is no sudden transition from one set of laws to a different set.

> If I am allowed a non-logical statement here it would be that while
> we may be given glimpses of the truth, sufficient to bring the
> religions of the world closer together, we will never reach a point
> where they can be replaced.

I sincerely hope that someday we outgrow the need for separate unrelated domains of knowledge; they are all trying to understand the same cosmos and this cosmos has a coherent unified foundation - thus given an understanding of this foundation all forms of knowledge can be unified into a single understanding - thereby removing the need for religion or science.

> The wide variety of religions constitute too rich an opportunity for species > spirit for us ever to be handed a fully workable scientific methodology.

On their outer surface all the religions are very different but in their inner mystic essence they are all identical. The outer forms are adapted to resonate with the proclivities of human minds, culture and so on - none of these are of any relevance to spirit - spirit operates below, throughout and beyond all such concepts. Spirit is analogically like the computational stream of a computer, which can cast all kinds of images on the screen but the stream itself neither cares what these images are nor is it effected by them in any way.

All the religions point toward the realm of spirit, they analogically hint that underlying this virtual reality that most people take to be the whole of reality, there is in fact a deeper realm that we can know and participate in. Once that realm is scientifically recognised it can be explored using a combination of derived wisdom from the ancient traditions as well as modern scientific techniques. The possibilities are potentialy profound.

> I think we owe it to all members to clarify the terms we use.
> I am unfamiliar with the term `essence' and `unmoved cause'.

The term 'essence' was not used as a tightly defined technical term, so just consider the general meaning of the word and apply it in context - I thought the meaning is quite clear. The term 'unmoved cause' refers to the originating point of the cause and effect chain, something that creates effects but which itself has no underlying cause - i.e. the "ground of being".

> Would this be similar to the gauge fields said to deploy the
> instant before the big bang

Neither of these terms were used to refer to empirical entities but rather to that which underlies the coming into being of all empirical entities. If it was 'deployed' then it could not be an unmoved cause. If you follow the causal chain deeper and deeper towards its source, at the very end of that chain you will find that which is refered to by the phrase "unmoved cause".

Another thing that may cause a little confusion is that A's use of the term "primary cause" is unrelated to your own usage of "primary cause and effect chain". They have only a superficial similarity due to the outer form of the phrases. I took it that Andrew meant the most fundamental driving impulse or motivating/animating influence behind all that exists. Whilst I take it that you mean the most commonly experienced phenomenon from our empirical perspective and thereby the seemingly most ubiquitous influence. Andrew was speaking about the "ground of being" whilst you were speaking about empirical cause and effect.

> There is a feeling of chicken and egg about what is being
> said so information field(s) followed by mass / energy is
> the closest that I can get to this.

That is a common problem when the mind looks deeply into reality, it seemingly becomes a hall of mirrors. But using information theory we reach a natural end to the process, a point beyond which we cannot know. I have discussed this at length on my website and don't have time right now but the general situation is:

A character within a virtual world being simulated on a computer cannot know anything about the external state of the computer (there are no information channels by which it can be informed), all that it can hope to experience is the inner computational space of the computer. In this situation the computer is the "unmoved cause" or "ground of being" for the virtual universe and beyond that the characters cannot know any more.

> Well there are indeed two sets of strong law

I would propose that there is only one even though it may seem otherwise from some perspectives, i.e. from the perspective of an empirically evolved ego looking out through biological senses and mind. See the earlier comments regarding free will.