Free Will

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

DQ: In reality, neither causes nor effects exist because everything is beginningless and endless. The entire Universe - past, present and future - is really just a single instantaneous event. There's no room for either cause or effect.

A: What precipitates the "single event"?

This is a meaningless question as this "single instantaneous event" necessarily incorporates the entire past. There is no room for any prior preciptation.

You need to stop thinking in terms of past, present and future. They're contrived human categories, nothing more. The present moment and the beginingless past are the same. There is no before.

What is before you right now is literally reality. How can it possibly be created?

-

[analog57]

Analog wrote:

DQ: In reality, neither causes nor effects exist because everything is beginningless and endless. The entire Universe - past, present and future - is really just a single instantaneous event. There's no room for either cause or effect.

A: What precipitates the "single event"?

This is a meaningless question as this "single instantaneous event" necessarily incorporates the entire past. There is no room for any prior preciptation.

Unity[DQ's single instantaneous event] can be infinitely sub-divided, yes. But that means the totality is actually finite[because unity].

From that DQian perspective, the past must contain the future and the past would be the larger set.

The future would then be shrinking and the past would be expanding.

[Leyla Shen]

How is "unity" synonymous with "Totality"?

From that DQian perspective, the past must contain the future and the past would be the larger set.

No. That is not the "DQian" perspective, at all.

[analog57]

How is "unity" synonymous with "Totality"?

Totality is not to-tal-i-ties ...which means there is only one. One is a unit. The totality is a unity.

[Leyla Shen]

So, would there be any difference between the two?

I mean, why have two different words?

Perhaps the difference is emotional?

[analog57]

So, would there be any difference between the two?

I mean, why have two different words?

Perhaps the difference is emotional?

Perhaps.

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

DQ: This is a meaningless question as this "single instantaneous event" necessarily incorporates the entire past. There is no room for any prior preciptation.

A: Unity[DQ's single instantaneous event] can be infinitely sub-divided, yes. But that means the totality is actually finite[because unity].

The Totality is not really a unity - that's yet another dualistic category which needs be abandoned. It's neither a multiplicity, nor a unity; neither finite, nor infinite.

From that DQian perspective, the past must contain the future and the past would be the larger set.

The future would then be shrinking and the past would be expanding.

Again, you need to stop thinking of terms of past, present and future. What you are looking at right now, at this very instant, is the first and last moment of creation. There is nothing else.

-

[Sapius]

David to Analog:

you need to stop thinking of terms of past, present and future. What you are looking at right now, at this very instant, is the first and last moment of creation. There is nothing else.

If one stopped thinking in terms of past, present and future, then the now wouldn't exist. Saying now itself means there are things not-now. The now seems to be nothing more than a cumulative resultant experience of a continuous flow, and without recognizing the connection of the flow, the now would hold no meaning at all. The connected continuity is necessary to even think a single word, let alone a lengthy concept that there is nothing else but now.

[Leyla Shen]

[In a deep, Irish accent]

That'll be 20 Hail Marys & 20 Our Fathers for you, sonny!

And please don't piss in the holy water on your way oot.

Sapius, would that be like The Totality & Not The Totality?

[Blimeeeey]

[Leyla Shen]

What the flip is a lengthy concept?

[Sapius]

That'll be 20 Hail Marys & 20 Our Fathers for you, sonny!

Thankyou ma'am, and God bless you.

And please don't piss in the holy water on your way oot.

Why? I don't see the problem. You could always punish me with Hail Marys and Our Fathres.

Sapius, would that be like The Totality & Not The Totality?

No.

What the flip is a lengthy concept?

It is something like your sentence above. I need to remember the 'what', and the words in-between, which become the past, until I reach the word 'concept', to make any sense of your sentence. If there is nothing else but now, then how long is this now? Can you imagine how many now’s are we speaking of from the word ‘what’ to the word ‘concept’? Does this now happen alphabet by alphabet? word by word? sentence by sentence? or a coherent concept by concept? Is there no experience of cause and effect at all? Can one escape from this experience and yet be able to coherently think, conceptualize or speak about anything at all?

[Leyla Shen]

La-la: Sapius, would that be like The Totality & Not The Totality?

Sapius: No.

That's it? That's all you got for me? All this time, and length, on your hands and you say "no"?

As for the rest, I'll get back to you once I've had more sleeeeep! One good, long concept deserves another, eh?

[Leyla Shen]

It is something like your sentence above. I need to remember the 'what', and the words in-between, which become the past, until I reach the word 'concept', to make any sense of your sentence.

So, as I read the sentence I wrote (used in your example here) the word "what" is not there its in the past because I'm not looking at it, right?

I disagree that that is an example of a lengthy concept -- I can measure no length at all. A lengthy sentence, perhaps.

[Sapius]

Leyla,

I disagree that that is an example of a lengthy concept -- I can measure no length at all. A lengthy sentence, perhaps.

hehehe...... OK, if that was not lengthy enough, allow me to give you a lengthier one ------ now.

[analog57]

The Totality is not really a unity

Your ad-lib ad-hoc philosophising is amusing DQ. There can be only one totality of "everything that exists". If two separate totalities existed then their combined relation would be ONE relation, the single TRUE totality.

Therefore the totality is a unity ...much to the chagrin of DQ.

Remember, the law of identity holds for the totality, in accordance with DQ's wishes.

[David Quinn]

There is only one Totality, yes. But to say it is a unity is to imply that it is an entity of some kind, which is false.

There is no ad-libbing going on here. I am deliberately and specifically pointing to the non-dualistic nature of the Totality. If you want to understand the Totality's core nature, then you need to stop draping it in dualistic clothing.

-

[Beingof1]

David:

this "single instantaneous event" necessarily incorporates the entire past.

So true, it is a tautology and self evident. This "single instantaneous event" necessarily incorporates everything that can be. There is no more that was or is to be.
The past leaves footprints in the sand but because of our remarkable recall including at times smells and taste fused with emotional attachment to previous experience mankind will strive to exaustion for this immortal phantom.
To have a past means the struggle with the reality of what is in plain sight. Blinding and leashing most as Don Quixote to the windmills. If we keep looking to the past or future we will miss what is right before us - all of creation exploring the reaches of potential. What a rush.
The past is gone and the future is not yet - get over it already.
There is only the breath taking unfolding of the new birth of each moment. It is as if all reality has been destroyed and reborn in each moment.
And to quote David "God caused me to say this".

[joel knoll]

The Totality is not really a unity - that's yet another dualistic category which needs be abandoned. It's neither a multiplicity, nor a unity; neither finite, nor infinite.

help my misunderstanding, dq. how is "unity" a dualistic category? how can anything be neither a multiplicity nor a unity, and neither finite nor infinite? kant was correct in stating that one of all possible contradictory predicates must be true of any given object. sometimes it seems like you just string shibboleths together to put everybody on. if you intend to say anything more substantial than "blah, blah, blah" then come out and say it already... there is reason to believe that actual thoughts are flitting behind your smokescreen of verbiage, so share them with me and tell me what the "dualistic categories" are and precisely why they should be abandoned, and finally, what you think they ought to be replaced with.

[sevens]

Eh!

You guys got it all wrong:

(!? - !/? = :)

Unity is experienced in the Now - using, It, as - your Mind.

No need for an Entity.

Unless...

(All faculties of the brain, are programmed for Unity)

[Kitoak]

something is either finite or infinite, it can not be both. Nothing can be defined using totallity without involving time of some sort. If you claim it is now, you have nothing because now is gone and now you have another, therefore it must always be past, present and future. Also if we are talking about freewill vs. determism, it can't be talked about unless you talk about the events that lead up to now. (to show determinsitic values in any one event)

[joel knoll]

kitoak, you are correct! but it seems that the question of free will and determinism is absolutely unanswerable because anything can be called determined or undetermined ex post facto. after it happens, how can we say that it could or could not have happened otherwise? also, anything can be called determined or undetermined ex prior facto. obviously, we can always imagine that things might be or have been otherwise than they actually are; but does that mean that that is possible? it seems that there is no other reason for matters to stand as they do, than that it is impossible for them to stand otherwise; also, that there is no other reason for matters not to stand otherwise than they do, than that it is impossible that they should so stand.

[Kitoak]

The only way to prove determism is to be able to predict certain events. These events are not predictable because the laws of nature are not yet set. Now this is not saying, we don't have laws of nature, but simply they have not all been agreed upon. But the world does show and does have determisntistic qualities, which we must acknowledge. To me you can not proof a pure deterministic world until we can predict the weather with 100% accuracy and are able to control it. (not that I think controlling the weather would be a good idea) But it to me would show the world can be defined by determism and its values. Last, I think, that the concept of determism and free will, is alot of hot air because the determismtic ideas depends on a persons view adn definition of freewill, is simplier terms, free will was redefine by them to show it doesn't really exist, yet they do go so far as to say, we do have choices but those choices are made do to past experinces, that it doesn't limit creativity or the way you would live your life. I'm not sure if I agree with that because its out of the box thinking that develops our most ingenous inventions. (the ones that don't always follow the rules) Yet, deternism states that if freewill does exist then the person using freewill would be or is insane, because they would have no bases for their decsion, I contend that through out history many people who first brought up ideas out of the norm were thought to be insane, but they were correct. So in the end, I'm not sold on determism but leave it and open book at this time.

[Matt Gregory]

The determinism/free will "debate" is like the sun-revolves-around-the-earth/rotating-earth "debate".

From the viewpoint of someone standing on the surface of the earth, the sun looks like it revolves around the earth. It's only when we look from the larger perspective of the solar system that we see that the earth is rotating.

It's the same with free will and determinism. From the point of view of someone trying to live and interact with the world, it appears that we have free will and determinism is false. But when we look at things from the larger perspective of Truth and realize that no thing can possibly exist without a cause, then we can be certain that free will is impossible and determinism is true.

[David Quinn]

Joel KNoll wrote:

DQ: The Totality is not really a unity - that's yet another dualistic category which needs be abandoned. It's neither a multiplicity, nor a unity; neither finite, nor infinite.

JK: help my misunderstanding, dq. how is "unity" a dualistic category?

It only has meaning in contrast to its opposite - namely, multiplicity.

how can anything be neither a multiplicity nor a unity, and neither finite nor infinite?

The non-duality of Nature itself demands it.

One can only begin to understand this point by giving up the idea that Nature has an objective existence of some kind. In reality, there isn't a three-dimensional universe "out there" which is fixed and solid. That is an illusion. All there is, in each moment, is a continual flux which cannot be grasped. Nothing really exists at all, apart from what appears to exist at any given moment.

If you can grasp this point, which admittedly is very profound and subtle, only then will you be in a position to understand the way in which Nature is formless and beyond all dualities.

kant was correct in stating that one of all possible contradictory predicates must be true of any given object.

That's true of everything, except Nature itself.

sometimes it seems like you just string shibboleths together to put everybody on. if you intend to say anything more substantial than "blah, blah, blah" then come out and say it already...

The points I am making here are very specific and pointed. I realize they are difficult to grasp, especially if you are unfamiliar with this kind of thinking, but I assure you they are tremendously important as far as one's philosophical development is concerned.

there is reason to believe that actual thoughts are flitting behind your smokescreen of verbiage, so share them with me and tell me what the "dualistic categories" are and precisely why they should be abandoned, and finally, what you think they ought to be replaced with.

They should be replaced by truthful thinking, which is both a skill and an art.

It's a skill which involves knowing how to approach the non-duality of Nature with one's dualistic thoughts. All thoughts are dualistic by nature, so I don't mean that one has to learn how to produce non-dualistic thoughts. Rather, I mean that one has to learn how to avoid shackling Nature into dualistic categories - such as "existence" or "non-existence", "finite" or "infinite", "objective" or "subjective", "unity" or "multiplicity", "eternal" or "temporary", and so on. Only when you discover the knack of not subjecting Nature to this straightjacketing, will you finally be able to understand its fundamental identity.

In my experience, the best way of achieving this outcome is by utilizing a multi-pronged intellectual attack:

- Thoroughly understanding the concept of cause and effect and religiously applying it to utterly everything in your life, in every moment of your existence.

- Thoroughly understanding the concept of the Totality and perceiving its essential formlessness. Understanding that the Totality cannot be a thing with form, distinguishable from other things with form.

- Thoroughly understanding the truth that all experience is within the mind, that all things are manifestations of consciousness, that existence and consciousness are one.

If you can master each of these avenues of thought (which can take years, as they are all massive issues) and if you can fuse them together to form an even deeper understanding, you will be getting very close to enlightenment.

-

[David Quinn]

Kitoak wrote:

The only way to prove determism is to be able to predict certain events. These events are not predictable because the laws of nature are not yet set. Now this is not saying, we don't have laws of nature, but simply they have not all been agreed upon. But the world does show and does have determisntistic qualities, which we must acknowledge. To me you can not proof a pure deterministic world until we can predict the weather with 100% accuracy and are able to control it.

The problem with this is that if a fully deterministic system is too complex for us to measure, then we will still not be able to make accurate, fail-safe predictions. In other words, the mere fact of things being unpredictable doesn't, of itself, negate the theory that all things are caused.

In the end, causality cannot be proven or disproven by scientific methods. Only pure logic has this power. The truth of causality is proven by demonstrating that it is impossible for anything to exist without causes.

Check out these writings for futher details.


-