0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I wrote a book on intention, purpose and choice in the universe. It simply recognizes WE are part of the equation and our technology is part of nature. It seems obvious, but dualism is deeply seated in our consciousness. However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics. In any proper scientific experiment, the whole point is that our human intentions DO NOT interfer with the results.
The idea of ever increasing numbers of alternative universes is very unsatisfactory. It's along the lines of the "Turtles all the way down" explanation used by flat Earth believers. It, literally, opens more doors than it closes so it doesn't help my brain one little bit.
However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics.
And this may be off the topic, but you ever feel that chance and probability only exist to us because we experience time as a constant moving forward? I'm very tired, so apologies if this sounds a bit stupid.
It depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.
Quote from: stevewillie on 14/09/2008 23:03:42 However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics.This is a dodgey area. I think it has been more or less accepted that our choice / decision between options is carried out a fraction of a second before we are aware of it. How or even whether we actually make a decision is probably governed by the same sort of random processes that we observe (in simpler form) in fundamental particle experiments.Our decisions are obviously not all 50 50 but based on a complicated set of weightings but, in the end "shall I go for the red shirt or the green shirt?" results in an arbitrary / random choice which we rationalise and reinforce after the event. This positive feedback mechanism is there to stabilise the system - rather like a Schmidt Trigger is / was used in electronic control systems.Now why did I write that? Creepy ain't it?
QuoteIt depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.Whether or not the future 'exists' in some way 'before' we get to it, doesn't stop it being random. A random sequence of numbers on a page in front of you are still random although you can see the first and last one in the sequence. The definition of a truly random process is one for which the autocorrelation function is a delta function- i.e. the only time the sequence matches itself at all is when it is laid over itself 'in phase'. (Mathematicians - please don't jump on me for that one.)I think it is fascinating how our brains try to make sense of it all by having conversations like the present one. It's a sort of 'bootstrap' situation. Could we ever suss it out completely? I don't think so. It wouldn't be good for us in any case.