Try
The laws of physics do not apply to the product of the imagination, and can be considered as irrelevant except as inspiration.
Free will ~ A product of imagination
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Try
The laws of physics do not apply to the product of the imagination, and can be considered as irrelevant except as inspiration.
"I sat upon the back of my pig with wings and jumped over the moon twice"
ok.. a product of imagination ...
How do the laws of physics determine it?
How do the laws of physics inspire it?
How can laws that are inapplicable be defied?
claim:
The laws of physics do not apply....to the product of the imagination...
Or
"Do I catch the train to heaven at 10 am or 11 am tomorrow...hmmm... I will catch it at 11am and get there before lunch."
choice made and decision made... no laws of physics in site...
ok.. a product of imagination ...
How do the laws of physics determine it?
How do the laws of physics inspire it?
How can laws that are inapplicable be defied?
claim:
The laws of physics do not apply....to the product of the imagination...
Or
"Do I catch the train to heaven at 10 am or 11 am tomorrow...hmmm... I will catch it at 11am and get there before lunch."
choice made and decision made... no laws of physics in site...
But you agreed that the laws of physics apply to a television.
Yet they show people very small indeed (you can fit an entire crowd into the space of your screen!).
People that, if they existed as they did in the television, would defy the laws of physics.
So what is the difference?
difference between what?
The laws of physics are in operation in the interaction of your synapses, cells, other bodily functions.
These give rise to "imagination".
The subject of the imagination is irrelevant, as they do not exist other than as a pattern of activity in your head.
You are limiting your argument to merely the subject of the imagination, not what the imagination actually is (I.e. A pattern of activity in your head).
As such you are not addressing the notion of defying anything, as the realm in which you claim defiance does not exist.
The physics is in the way your brain operates.
Synapses function according to the laws of physics.
Blood flows similarly.
You are again focussing on the unreal aspect/subject of thought.
You are just saying that in an unreal realm (the subject of our imagination, our thoughts) the laws of physics need not apply.
This is trivial and also irrelevant to the topic in hand, as it does not address what the process of imagination is but instead judges by the end-product, and in doing so gives an unwarranted reality to that end-product.
Perhaps you are saying that freewill is only part of an unreal realm?
Ah the difference between real and fiction perhaps?
Between the product of our imagination defying the laws of physics, and the product of a camera feeding to a television which you agree does not defy it, even though if the product of what we see on television was made real (I.e. 70,000 tiny people packed into something the size of your television) it would defy the laws of physics.
Your argument is appears inconsistent.
Please explain why one is able to defy the laws of physics and yet the other does not.
Nope.
70,000 people tiny people in a tiny stadium in huge space of my television would also be fiction.
What are the odds of the Golden Gate Bridge, spontaneously appearing, using only natural laws, but which do not include humans? The odds are almost zero for us to wake up and see only nature build this bridge. Say we calculate the odds of two similar bridge, one next to the other. What are the natural odds now, if don't include human choice and human will power?
The litmus test is not that both use the same laws of nature, but one needs to compare the odds of human versus nature for the many things human choose to make. This all starts in the imagination ,before the foundation is laid. The imagination can also act as a pitfall for those who deny free will.
Free will is an acquired talent that takes practice. If one does not believe it can be done, they will not practice, and they may lack free will. Free will is not innate in the DNA, just like large bridge building takes years of practice and knowledge of how it works. If you think this can't be built you will not practice to make it happen.
The litmus test is not that both use the same laws of nature, but one needs to compare the odds of human versus nature for the many things human choose to make. This all starts in the imagination ,before the foundation is laid. The imagination can also act as a pitfall for those who deny free will.
Free will is an acquired talent that takes practice. If one does not believe it can be done, they will not practice, and they may lack free will. Free will is not innate in the DNA, just like large bridge building takes years of practice and knowledge of how it works. If you think this can't be built you will not practice to make it happen.
deleted as unecessary
but of course... so? you prove my point quite well...because right now you are imagining 70,000 people and a stadium being physically inside your tv set... are you defying the laws of physics to imagine so?
Do they apply to your fantasy ?
I can imagine an entire universe inside your tv set and I don't even have to be near it to do it ... do the laws apply.. nope!
hey I am doing it now... turn it on, station #7.5 the view is fantastic...
One of the key philosophical/moral/ethical points to come out of the movie "Minority Report" for me at least, was that choices and decisions are totally fiction until enacted.
Have you seen this movie?
Have you seen this movie?
No.
I am not defying the laws of physics to imagine so.
Further, you are now stating the opposite of what you previously did when you agreed with my assumption of your answer.
So, which is it?
Does the television defy the laws of physics when it shows 70,000 tiny people inside my television?
My fantasy is not real.
It need not apply to something that is not real.
So again you are confirming that you are saying the laws of physics need not apply to something that is not real.
And how is this not trivial and irrelevant, other than if somehow assuming freewill is also unreal (such that the laws of physics need not apply)?
Why do you consider fiction to be unreal is really the question?
QED is fiction. QM is fiction. General relativity is fiction... so are your plans for the Easter period... fiction...
men in black is fiction
and so on....
The laws of physics not needing to apply to something that is not real, as you have demonstrably argued, certainly is trivial.
And in respect of something real (such as you think freewill to be) your argument is also irrelevant.
it depends, is it a flat screen or ,..... sorry I couldn't resist...
you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it may appear to me...
but I would love to know:
Why you consider fiction to be unreal is really the question?
QED is fiction. QM is fiction. General relativity is fiction... so are your plans for the Easter period... fiction...
men in black is fiction
this visual web page is fiction
and so on....
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
100%. Once upon a time there was a massive dense object in space. And then some time elapsed and the Golden Gate Bridge existed. There were no humans, and then there were. There were no bridges, and then there were. Common denominator? Time. Time created the bridge.
Because the very definition of fiction starts with the notion of it being "unreal".
To quote wiki: "Fiction is the form of any work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not real, but rather, imaginary and theoretical -..."
Note the part about "not real"?
In terms of theories and th ilk, reality is what happens, what is manifest.
The fiction is what people think caused it, or other ideas surrounding the reality.
Hopefully such scientific fiction will not seek to defy the laws of physics within their explanations.
And it may even get accepted as being the best descriptor of reality that we have (and become considered a law).
But the fiction is not itself real.
It may merely (but not necessarily) attempt to describe reality.
As such, you are merely saying that fiction need not adhere to the laws of physics.
Trivial and irrelevant.