Free will ~ A product of imagination

Quantum Quack

Quantum Quack

Life's a tease...
Valued Senior Member
Intro:
An extension to another similar thread, a possible way though the historically intractability of the question as to whether freewill is actual or an illusion of appearance.
Pre-amble:
It appears that the primary contention by those who believe free will is an illusion of appearance, is due to the belief that all choices and decisions are determined by the laws of physics, that the causal chain of cause and effect can not be avoided in a way that allows freedom of choice for the entity making a self determination. That for freewill to be a reality it must exist in defiance of those laws.
I believe this can be refuted.
The following list of stated propositions, are test statements with a brief & informal explanation, and I invite discussion and refutation in the hope to evolve a potential "secular" solution to this intractable issue.

[1]The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics.

This is to say that the product or out put of the imagination is not determined by the laws of physics nor causal chains, and this claim is supported by works of fiction, historically, that demonstrate quite clearly the independence of those laws.
Examples:
Alice's adventures to wonderland
Men in black etc.
and all other creative fiction, whether that be in the arts, culture, sciences and in every day human behavior.
The choices we make using our imagination are total fiction, a mere fantasy of choice and decisions yet to be enacted.
The laws of physics only become deterministic upon enacting decisions or choices, and not before and in most cases "oppresses" that inner freedom in the process.
The above does not suggest that the freewill is not in some instances seriously oppressed by beliefs in those laws, where upon those beliefs may indeed strongly influence the product of the imagination. [psychology 101]
[video=youtube;cRdxXPV9GNQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRdxXPV9GNQ[/video]

[2] The product of the imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.


The imagination does not need to defy any laws but the imaginer is quite capable of making use of them as per whim. Or the imaginer can render them as irrelevant to his creative pursuits.
What this means is that when making a decision or choice the imaginer can either make use of those laws or not and can easily in most cases demonstrate freedom to make those laws irrelevant to his creations.
Example: the idea or concept of "Superman" or "the supposed hoax "Philadelphia experiment." etc.

[3] The criteria that for freewill to be real it must defy the laws of physics has *therefore* been refuted.

The imagination does not need to defy anything....for it to fantasize about decisions or choices.
A book writer may imagine millions of choices and decisions as a part of his fictional work, none of which may ever become employed as actions in the real world yet some of which he maybe include into his life's journey.

I wonder how the above can be refuted as being highly suggestive that free will is not an illusion but more a fiction waiting to be published into this world.

Care to discuss...
 
Last edited:
To prove free will is real one must show that dreams, fantasies, the human psyche and the imagination are real.
 
Spellbound said:
To prove free will is real one must show that dreams, fantasies, the human psyche and the imagination are real.
Click to expand...
why?
To sustain item #3 we only have to show that choices can be decided upon in a way that is NOT dependent on the laws of physics.
However enacting those choices may be dependent on the laws of physics.

How many times have you decided to do something then found physical reality forbids you from doing so? [thus "oppressing" but not "determining" the result of your choices IMO]

Example: You decide to take the 10 am train at location A to get to location B before 11 am. You arrive at the station and the train has been cancelled. Next train arrives at location A at 11.30am
The causal chain has oppressed the enactment of your decisions [to catch a train that will never arrive] but certainly did not prohibit you from making them.
 
Spellbound said:
Of course they are. For those of you with further questions see this.
Click to expand...
How so?
How is writing a book of fiction full of choices and decisions dependent on the laws of physics?
[You don't even need a physical pen or paper to write it in your head...]
 
Quantum Quack said:
How so?
How is writing a book of fiction full of choices and decisions dependent on the laws of physics?
[You don't even need a physical pen or paper to write it in your head...]
Click to expand...

You did not ask if writing a book of fiction full of choices and decisions depend on the laws of Physics, which they do. You asked if choices and decisions can be decided upon in a way that is not dependent on the laws of Physics. Which they cannot be.

It's really simple to understand that nothing in reality, including thought, can defy the laws of Physics.
 
Spellbound said:
You did not ask if writing a book of fiction full of choices and decisions depend on the laws of Physics, which they do. You asked if choices and decisions can be decided upon in a way that is not dependent on the laws of Physics. Which they cannot be.

It's really simple to understand that nothing in reality, including thought, can defy the laws of Physics.
Click to expand...
how so?
It is not good enough to simply say.." you are wrong" with out being able to explain why?
How do the laws of physics determine the product of our imaginations, which includes decisions and choices?
If it is really simple then by all means lay it out here, in your own words, for every one to read...
 
Spellbound said:
It is but a reference for any discerning reader to back up my claim. No more than that.
Click to expand...
it is a link to an unknown authors theorizing of unaccredited gibberish.

If that is the best you can do then that is the best you can do...thank you for your contribution...
 
If I am not mistaken , CTMU theorizes that the universe is merely a perception, that freewill is non-existent because the human mind is somehow locked into a grid of causality, That the universe is a creation of our imaginations which are in turn totally dependent on that which our imaginations have created. [ the laws of physics being one such beast.]

However where CTMU fails is that it does not accommodate how the imagination creates fiction that chooses to make use of the laws of physics or not. To fly to the moon on the back of a pink elephant wearing a G-string or to take on an Apollo mission, it is all a matter of choice.
If what I have written is true then the CTMU theory is therefore refuted. Uhmm sorry about that...
 
Spellbound said:
It's really simple. Thoughts are real.
Click to expand...
yep, and they produce fiction.... so?
"'twas a dark and stormy night on the planet Xeno out on the rim of the galaxy; Phobia. 1025/89?>..."

see fiction... ain't hard to do...it's really simple...
 
Quantum Quack, a series of yes/no questions, if you don't mind:
Do you think a television set defies the laws of physics?
Do you think a video camera defies the laws of physics?
Do you think projecting the image from the video camera onto the television defies the laws of physics?
Now imagine you film a soccer match from the stands.
Do you think that the image on the screen, of the entire football pitch in miniature, defies the laws of physics?
After all, you are looking at something which, if real (I.e. if people were rally that small) it would indeed defy the laws of physics.

I'm going to assume that you will say "No" to all four of those questions.
Yet you seem to think that if the image in our heads, our thoughts, show images that appear to defy the laws of physics that this proves the laws of physics can be defied.
The analogy is that the process of producing our thoughts adheres to the laws of physics.
The concepts we arrive at and project as thoughts are mere extrapolations of existing notions, observations, albeit rearranged, exaggerated etc. a distorted sense of reality, just as the television picture is a distorted sense of what is being filmed.

So your argument falls over at the first hurdle: the product of imagination does NOT defy the laws of physics, although the subject of the imagination might often appear to.
Thoughts are illusions.
The thought itself is real (I.e. A pattern of activity within our brain, activity that is wholly adherent to the laws of physics) but the image/subject is not.
Can something not real appear to defy the laws of physics?
Yes.

But then you do think that standing up defies the laws of gravity, rather than merely overcoming gravitational forces with other forces.
 
Baldeee said:
Yet you seem to think that if the image in our heads, our thoughts, show images that appear to defy the laws of physics that this proves the laws of physics can be defied.
Click to expand...
I do not... I am saying:

From the OP:
[2] The imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.
Click to expand...
I even went on to explain with:
The imagination does not need to defy any laws but the imaginer is quite capable of making use of them as per whim. Or the imaginer can render them as irrelevant to his creative pursuits.
What this means is that when making a decision or choice the imaginer can either make use of those laws or not and can easily in most cases demonstrate freedom to make those laws irrelevant to his creations.
Example: the idea or concept of "Superman" or "the supposed hoax "Philadelphia experiment." etc.
Click to expand...
so I am not sure why you have it so confused...
 
Perhaps I should add the word product so that it is clearer and requires less call on context. [for those that are contextually challenged]

[2] The product of imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.
In fact I shall amend the OP now... if allowed to.
 
Quantum Quack, a series of yes/no questions, if you don't mind:
Do you think a television set defies the laws of physics?
Do you think a video camera defies the laws of physics?
Do you think projecting the image from the video camera onto the television defies the laws of physics?
Now imagine you film a soccer match from the stands.
Do you think that the image on the screen, of the entire football pitch in miniature, defies the laws of physics?
After all, you are looking at something which, if real (I.e. if people were rally that small) it would indeed defy the laws of physics.

I'm going to assume that you will say "No" to all four of those questions.
Click to expand...
and you would be correct in that assumption.
 
Quantum Quack said:
I do not... I am saying:
Click to expand...
Indeed you did say that.
And unless I am mistaken, "does not need to" implies "can".
So if you say "the imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics..." then you are saying that the imagination can defy the laws of physics.
I even went on to explain with:

so I am not sure why you have it so confused...
Click to expand...
I do not.
If, as you have stated, the imaginer can choose whether to make use of the laws or not, you are again stating that the laws of physics can be defied through the act of imagining (including the selection of which laws to make irrelevant and/or defy).

So perhaps further clarification is in order from you to explain how you apparently get to claim that the product of imagination can defy the laws of physics, yet then claim that this is not what you said?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top