Free Will Is A Construction


We are free to be more liberated if we freely decide what our freedom will be submitted to…

Free Will, the eternal debate. We have it… sort of. In truth, we are free to set up our Free Will, to some extent. I write an essay on the “Fake Left Financed By Plutocratic Conspiracy”, Facebook comes in, and “an administrator” discreetly removes it. My free will to use my isegoria, their Free Will to extinguish it.

We are free to direct some conditions to free ourselves, or not. One could elect to read the New York Times, where even now, under a new president, Biden, 50% of the articles are Trump Derangement Syndrome certified… Or one could read me (say), where a different flavor of the universe is found. In any case what we are exposed to create neural networks and those are what ideas and emotions are made of. The point is that when they are made, they are there, just like the Colosseum, and it would take a lot of effort to put something else in place. It is the hardest work. Minds have huge inertia. Is something with inertia free? It neither comes for free, nor is its trajectory changed for free.

Emotional inertia is always there. Many intellectuals nowadays need their fix of Trump hatred, just as they need Morning Joe (insider joke: a pluto media, NBC has a morning show animated by the Harvard connected daughter of the guy who attacked Afghanistan in 1979, under Carter, and her husband, named Joe; this is very popular among pseudo-intellectuals; they love to hate be it Afghanistan, or “low lives” they despise…). This is emotional inertia: hatred is the gift which keeps on giving.

But where does the spark come from? The pure gesture? The free act? When there is a need for the spark of Free Will? Quantum Field Theory postulates the existence of a universe of virtual particles coming in and out of existence. Experiments show that this seems true; direct fluctuation experiments using gravity wave detectors confirm it. No doubt those interact with our minds, which are Quantum objects.

Much has been pondered by claiming that Classical Physics is deterministic… That is not quite the truth. Classical physics, which is driven by Partial Differential Equations, is deterministic… As long as the initial conditions are 100% known. As this is clearly impossible, it is not deterministic, and never was…

Quantum Physics is driven by a variety of equations. Schrodinger equation (many low energy particles), Dirac equation (electrons), the equations of QCD (quarks, gluons), Maxwell equations (low energy photons), etc… the Schrodinger equation is a HEAT equation with… complex time. This is indicative that there is a hidden thermodynamics of (subquantum?) particles… That thermodynamics of this Subquantum Physics, in turn, would drive minds…

Better: Quantum physics rests on Quantum Entanglement: all objects in displacement are Quantum waves, spread all over. Are our minds static or dynamic? If the latter, as they obviously are, they are spread out all over, and the object of interference from Alpha Centauri… Taking this into account, some recent experiments on nonlocality in Quantum Physics were driven by signals coming from quasars at the opposite ends of the observable universe… Free Will? Only in a Free Universe? Not really, Free Will, in the end is about controlling the “Butterfly Effect”: little expositions, similar to, or identical to what some fundamentalists in Quantum Physics call “weak measurements” are what much of our minds billow from. They have to be freely controlled if we want to augment our freedom of will.
We are free to be more liberated if we freely decide what our freedom will be submitted to…

ianmillerblog

You will see many discussions regarding free will. The question is, do you have it, or are we in some giant computer program. The problem is that classical physics is deterministic, and you will often see claims that Newtonian physics demands that the Universe works like some finely tuned machine, following precise laws of motion. And indeed, we can predict quite accurately when eclipses of the sun will occur, and where we should go to view them. The presence of eclipses in the future is determined now. Now let us extrapolate. If planets follow physical laws, and hence their behaviour can be determined, then so do snooker or pool balls, even if we cannot in practice calculate all that will happen on a given break. Let us take this further. Heat is merely random kinetic energy, but is it truly random? It seems that way, but the laws of motion…

View original post 653 more words

12 Responses to “Free Will Is A Construction”

  1. ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

    Great post! Yes, the free will thing is the biggest question for humans, and the most oblique and cloudy to understand. Maybe it has to do with quantum threads that live on the edge of chaos. Just as a pseudo random number generator falls short of randomness, so does the typical view of free will fall short of accomodating our perception of how much of that (free will) we really have.

    So, random choices that are not really random look like free will. I think that idea also falls short of the goal of defining human choice-reasons, unfortunately. So, for now, the answer remains a secret.

    I think we are less spread out than our connections. I think we are awash in connections (those being between quantum objects), but with increasing distance between quantum-endpoints, total interaction decreases, such that we are mostly affected by our immediate surroundings and our inner selves (where both or all quantum endpoints are “homed” within ourselves, and only a few are extended.

    This is forutunate, or we’d be ruling each other’s lives on a more overt level. If everything comes from the aether – even energy manifested as moving bumps within it, and then matter also as closed circular self-perpetuating bumps within it, then the universe is made of a single elemental clay.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Ronald! And let’s also thank Ian…

      Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ronald: As I was reading your comment, it dawned anew on me that Quantum Physics itself can be used both as a paradigm and analogy. Ideas themselves, when they try to form, can be viewed in analogy with Quantum Waves… For the good reason that they may INDEED be so! But whether they exactly are, as new neural networks click together… that click being a Quantum click… They can be considered in analogy: when the idea finally coalesce in a finite statement of PARTICULAR significance, we have the analogy of a PARTICLE… Analogy or real identification with…

      Like

      • ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

        Entanglement is not so much about what is there, but what is not there: interference. So, any old laser beam (or for that matter, ceiling light) might entangle things with their rays, if it were not for the fact of interference. Any construct that eliminates the interference will enable entanglement. What eliminates interference? Bessel vortex beams, 1D lattice crystals, strong magnetic fields, etc.

        So how much we are “connected” to other spheres of influence, by “quantum” (really aether) entanglement is entirely dependent on the level of interference. Since it is normally very strong (the interference, that is) – we do not connect with much outside of our own quantum system. I recently posted about this idea on my blog, so fresh in my mind …

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Ronald: I basically agree, entanglement is very complicated, and, probably it is entanglement which causes the localization of large masses, as you describe.
          This is all becoming very practical, because of the Quantum Computer, which harness delocalization, hence entanglement. Basically the QC has to make the entanglement last as long as possible. It has long been clear that it could be as simple as 300 double slits superposed (I think that was published with very positive results, a few weeks ago).
          I will try to go to your site, but to call me “busy” would be an understatement… 😉

          Liked by 1 person

          • ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

            Hi Patrice,

            Regarding the quantum computer, the trick is to present a low interaction level per unit time such that the measurement is not affected. I think they use strong magnetic fields to help with this. It’s not an “all or nothing” proposition, as it’s possible to pick off a scent of the signal without overturning the apple cart. In addition, they use low temperatures to reduce unwanted interactions, and lengthen the decay curve to (decoherence). IIRC, a german university perfected a technique for this.

            Like

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            The Quantum Computer science has become an enormous jungle. Its theoretical basis is far from clear, except that this is how nature happens.
            For example, there is the (controversial) question of “WEAK MEASUREMENTS”. Can one make them, or not? Some experimenters use them crucially.

            My own theory, SQPR, authorizes them, by describing a (sort of) weak measurement at the level of the individual Quantum Process. It is fascinating that the Schrodinger equation is just a heat equation with imaginary time. This tells me there is a hidden thermodynamics of the single particle (that’s epsilon from the vacuum described in QFT). I used to be an enemy of imaginary time (it’s used to make computations in QFT). But now I discovered it’s showing up in Quantum Tunneling computations, so I am reconsidering my old opposition.

            Did you ever consider Einstein’s interdiction of SUPERLUMINAL signaling?

            Like

          • ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

            It seems in his correspondence with Wein on the issue he was confused. Wein wasn’t convinced of any prohibition. I think Einstein just believed it, because he chose to believe it.

            In an aether, superluminal is a given if transverse=luminal, due to the longitudinal.

            Honeycomb membranes (Si3N4) can connect two light beams (they become entangled). This just screams aether. Einstein needed to believe more in aether, then would see superlumial

            Like

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Einstein did a specific mistake in the foundational 1907 paper. That’s fine: he tried a sleight of hands, most scientists and mathematicians do this, they have to.
            What’s not fine is that he was parroted ever since.
            Einstein himself said there was an “aether” (circe 1920)… whatever he meant by that.
            Can you explain your example?

            Like

  2. Ian Miller Says:

    ianmillerblog
    on February 1, 2021 at 8:53 pm said:
    Quantum Field theory is interesting in that somewhere it encompasses some truths, but for me it cannot be correct unless they can find a way of explaining why the vacuum energy has no inertial effect. When you try to use it to calculate the cosmological constant, the error is about 120 orders of magnitude. At the risk of sounding like Douglas Adams, that is a little disturbing, especially since they make a lot of fuss by saying QFT alone is consistent with Einstein’s relativity, so they have an internal contradiction.

    As for free will, if I were predestined to disagree with QFT, so be it. However, since all the societal “forces” that have impinged on my life and career suggest I should have ignored QFT, my feeling is that my perverse nature made the voluntary decision to ignore those forces. If we assume determinism, then there has to be a stronger force, which is what? I elect free will. Also, I have felt free to ignore the NY Times, but I suppose that is a poor example.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      As far as QFT is concerned, the valid part of it does not really depend upon having a serious theory of the vacuum. It just assumes the vacuum behaves like a harmonic oscillator at each point… Other parts of Quantum Physics assume different vacuums… The whole thing is massively unfinished…
      The cosmological constant computation has to do with pressure which contributes to the energy-momentum tensor in GR. All these computations assume lots of things…

      My point on free will is that it has inertia… And even pressure, in analogy with GR.
      The NYT clearly has only one will: to please its owner… The freedom of a barnacle…

      Like

  3. Ian Miller Says:

    ianmillerblog on February 4, 2021 at 1:55 am said:

    Patrice, the issue of the cosmological constant is that if, to use your words, “It just assumes the vacuum behaves like a harmonic oscillator at each point” is that a harmonic oscillator assumes energy, the so-called zero point energy (and Feynman gave a statement of how much energy there was in some simple volume) and if Einstein’s GR is correct, that energy must have an inertial and gravitational effect – which is what is used to “calculate: (or erroneously calculate) the cosmological constant.

    Like

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: