Georgius wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 11:19 am There is a saying which Albert Einstein related to Arthur Schopenhauer:

I can do what I want,
but I cannot want what I want.

This says almost everything about this topic to me.

Here an original recording of Einstein speaking this words (in German): https://youtu.be/69AHJCjrlNA

Einstein is my physicist too. He came up in a discussion about consciousness between Roger Penrose and Federico Faggin. I hope both are familiar although neither talks about astrology. But both are relevant. Faggin, (I have yet to read his book) suggests that consciousness and freewill are postulates, directly observed by all of us, the starting points not the end points of understanding quantum effects. The Sapolski et al insistence on determinism, no free will, just does not hold up for me, Or Faggin.

There is an argument that freewiill is essential for Agency and that consciousness is pointless without free will. That may be circular but since we all bear witness to consciousness and the place of agency in history, there is an evolutionary point there.

And so to astrology. If there is an experiential field into which our brains are plunged, then that field should be universal (rather like Sheldrake's ideas) and that lets astrology in together with many experiences which sit unexplained by determinism except as aberations of rationality.

My point is that physics is actually getting closer to being forced to admit a new field, usually an information field, but maybe it is the consciousness field and maybe the function is to steer agency. I wrote this under the action of freewill, but I was influenced!

And still you cannot want what you want.

The very fact that you can ask yourself, “Do I have free will and choice?” is, in itself, proof of its existence.

Then my question “Is there a gruntspouter?“ would prove its existenc? Strange logic which I cannot follow.

There are only two options: determinism or indeterminism of the world.
If you lean towards the logic of determinism, you must also understand its consequences.

If our physical reality does not exist, then all the laws that define it are meaningless—because this would be a scenario where some supreme being has predetermined the entire path for every atom.

In both scenarios (with God or without), there exists some kind of initial reality.
And here we can apply a simple probability theory: what is more likely?
1. A reality that constantly fluctuates in space and time on its own.
2. A God who is this initial reality but, for some reason, possesses consciousness similar to that of a human and perhaps also wonders, “Who am I? What am I?” Moreover, this God would need to have incredible computational power to simulate all the laws of existence.

xeno wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 9:53 am There are only two options: determinism or indeterminism of the world.

That's wrong.

Fidibus wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 11:31 am

xeno wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 9:53 am There are only two options: determinism or indeterminism of the world.

That's wrong.

Any arguments

xeno wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:52 am The very fact that you can ask yourself, “Do I have free will and choice?” is, in itself, proof of its existence.

Maybe you're just predetermined to ask yourself that. It proves nothing.

stargeezer wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:27 pm

xeno wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:52 am The very fact that you can ask yourself, “Do I have free will and choice?” is, in itself, proof of its existence.

Maybe you're just predetermined to ask yourself that. It proves nothing.

What I meant is that all our experience points to the unpredictability of reality. We observe unpredictable wave function collapse and Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, which states that there are things that cannot be computed mathematically in principle, even with infinite computational power.

Thinking that everything is pre-written is nothing more than an abstract religious idea.

But personally, I enjoy such discussions—though I believe it’s important to agree on some ground rules. Responding to every argument with “it was all predetermined” reduces the value of the entire topic to zero.

xeno wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 2:29 pm

Fidibus wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 11:31 am

xeno wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 9:53 am There are only two options: determinism or indeterminism of the world.

That's wrong.

Any arguments

causality is an illusion

xeno wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:35 am ...
Thinking that everything is pre-written is nothing more than an abstract religious idea.
...

That doesn't mean it can't be true. I'm not saying it is, mind you, but it may be, I think it's best not to worry about it and just go on and live our lives as best we can, and try not to get into too much trouble. Worrying about things that aren't provable will just drive you crazy.

Fidibus wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2025 6:28 pm causality is an illusion

In my mind it’s a very useful concept. I remember Schopenhauer’s “The World as Will and Representation” where he ideated very nicely how this unconscious sense of cause and effect creates objects for perception. It’s a book which is very good to read, understandable speech and not that hard to follow. Maybe a little wordy for today’s taste but this helps to absorb his ideas. Recommendation for people that are interested in this theme.