O.k., just to be clear, are you suggesting that things that current scientific understanding would suggest are physically impossible can actually happen?enigma wrote:Yeah, God doesn't have boundaries....so much....really.snowheight wrote:Complete?enigma wrote:There's a complete absence of boundaries around what 'could happen' next.
While you are partially correct in that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM studiously avoids the concept of choice or volition or will or any other such idea, it is clearly implied. If there COULD be multiple outcomes to a scenario but there is ONLY ONE, what can we conclude? There is the idea of an infinite number of parallel Universes but even that only MIGHT solve the problem completely and we have no evidence of such an interpretation.enigma wrote:Nowhere in this is a determining force, or a controller, or a planner, or a chooser. Choices are a delusional overlay onto what is happening with or without the choosing.
The implication of quantum mechanics is that reality is a product of consciousness. It says nothing about choice or volition. There is no paradox.snowheight wrote: How then do you account for the observer? (if anyone answers, please use the context of the next paragraph) 300+ years of study by the brightest minds in human history result in the conclusion that the Observer is the only thing that is "real". Observation, as it is defined in quantum mechanics, is the mechanism of choice.
Little-me is a phantom and as such has no "will" or anything else. The antiquated notions of God as a watchmaker seem to fail the test of non-duality ... but the rejection of a pre-determined future implies consequences based on the road not taken. Call these consequences "imaginary" if you will, that won't make the whole question go away.
It seems that we are confronted once again with a paradox -- without choice there is only a superposition of potential states but there is noone to make these choices. Perhaps this is one of those limitations which will always remain outside of our conceptual capabilities, perhaps not.
.enigma wrote:IOW, what's actually happening is irrelevant? What does the probability of a given thought have to do with volition?snowheight wrote:In a strict sense that is true but an individual can often find him or herself in a life-situation in which the probability of the content of the next thought is so high that the strict sense is a defeated bit of meaninglessness.enigma wrote:You cannot know your next thought until it has already occurred and can be observed. As such, how can you determine the content of your choices?
It is only tangentially related to fact or fallacy of free will in that it is simply a challenge to that one point (which is actually a tautology): that one "cannot know their next thought until it has already occurred and can be observed". For example, if you are counting to 10 for some reason, it is very possible that you will be interrupted or all of a sudden decide to stop, but it is more likely that one number will follow the next. A more complex example would be if you decided to solve an equation or write some code. Less virtuous examples come to mind but I'll leave those out for now .
This idea could form a building block of the argument in favor of volition on the part of sham ego, to which I do not subscribe. I think rather that there is something which transcends the tension between an acceptance that there is noone (or even noONE) making choices but choices are made and whatever that transcendent answer, it is currently outside of our ken.