Levels: What we

• know: consciousness;

• intuit deeply: meaning, purpose, moral responsibility;

• live our lives as though exists but are not intellectually sure it does: true free will.

................................................

What we know not just believe or speculate:

• the brain is the most spohisticated structure we know of in the universe

• consciousness is the most fundamental phenomenon and it exists associated to the human brain;

• the universe exists, and presumably either always existed or exists only a finite time - either way it is in some sense 'uncaused'.

• The quantum measurement problem

• the human brain is capable of speculating about the universe as a whole and its emergence into existence and even to make verifiable prediciton (re the big bang, inflation etc)

We'll discuss these and then offer speculations based on the above knowns, regarding that which we intuit rather than know, mainly regarding:

1.  free will, and re acausal or self-causative-type mechanisms or phenomena which may exist within the universe or as part of its 'natural' processes.

2. meaning, purpose, moral repsonbiibility, human significance.

........................

I can say "I can imagine a universe devoid of consciousness", but of course it is I a conscious being imagining it, so it is not that the universe wihtout consciousness can exist on its own, it can exist as a concept in the moind of a consciousn being. And it is only my feeling that "I can imagine it" but that says not much, basically it is equivalent to the statment "my brain/mind is in the state of feeling that it is imagining a universe without consciousness" - certainly that is not a proof that it could indeed exist.

The truth is that it is difficult for me to truly understand even what it would mean that something exists if there is no conscious awareness of that entity's existence or perhaps of the ramifications of its existence.

So it is consciousness which 'gives existence' to all non-conscious entities/phenomena. Conciousness is also that which quintessentially 'knows itself' (literally self-referential) and this means therefore that it is in some sense self-causing or self-existent.

We'll soon examine another aspect or phenomenon related to consciousness, or a property of consciousness - free will - which is quintessentially a vehicle for 'self-causation' in the sense that it chooses options wihtout the choice being cause by prior events in the usual way.

...

A question arises as to the origin of consciousness: if humans evolved, then we must suppose that concious­ness evolved. However, how could matter give rise via a physical mechanism such as evolution to a qualitatively different pheno­menon[6][6]?  

One answer would be that consciousness was inherent in the universe at its origin and this enabled the human brain to attain consciousness at some point in its evolution (for example, perhaps when the brain achieved a certain complexity it connected to the consciousness inherent in the universe). Another answer would suppose that consciouness was not present always, but rather it somehow 'emerged', somehow arose without precedent, basically in a non-causal manner, just as the universe itself exists acausally. 

Can science and logic truly model our reality? Despite the physical absurdity of a Platonic-Ideal type of absolute Morality, there is some indication that our reality is not fundamentally describable by logic and physics. Consciousness incontrovertibly exists, and it is self-evidently non-physical (except to materialists, perhaps since they do not possess conscious awareness), and so it is quite clear that physical theory cannot account for the most fundamental aspect of existence. And the same for the ‘flow of time’ we experience - it is not accounted for by physics, not even by the pre-eminent theory of spacetime, Einstein’s theory of general relativity. And perhaps we should add to the list of indications of the inadequacy of natural law to account for reality the fact that we observe only one actuality rather than the multiplicity - superposition states - predicted by quantum physics.

Acausality’s inescapability: Would it be correct to say that the universe did not always exist? Somehow such phrasing seems to imply that there was a time when it didn't exist, which is of course not true scientifically in that in the scientific context time does not exist separately from that of the universe. Can one say that the universe 'emerged into existence'? Again this phraseology can be problematic if it is taken as implying that there was time 'before' the universe, since emergence implies a process which is not instantaneous, and even 'instantaneous' can imply the existence of time.  The only scientifically rigorous statement is more like "the universe exists only a finite amount of time". Nevertheless we wish to go beyond this and postulate that in some sense there is something 'acausal' in the very fact of the existence of an entity which is not eternal. And as a result we will indeed refer to the universe's 'emergence into existence' . 

Acausality’s possible reflection in our minds: Physics has shown in several remarkable ways that our brains - small organs operating on the surface of a seemingly obscure planet in a random corner of some nondescript galaxy - can intuit and deduce laws applicable to the universe as a whole. Indeed the development of the universe from its original state is relatively well-understood now. However, the very emergence of the universe into existence seems rather mysterious given the obvious limitations in applying the concept of cause and effect in this context. Thus there is something of a conundrum involved - without cause and effect there would seem to be no law and no science, and yet we can intuit why the emergence of the universe itself involves an acausality.

What irony that cause and effect, which underlies all aspects of the universe’s operation, must be violated in order for the universe to emerge into existence. Can it be that our universe has no vestige of this acauasality? Or perhaps some element of cause-effect violation – what I here am terming ‘acausality’ – does indeed exist somewhere in the universe?

..

What is here proposed is that some of this very acausality is associated to that small organ which has formulated these conceptions of causality, of laws of nature. An organ whose neural inter-conectedness confers on it a complexity perhaps greater than that of any known entity in the physical universe, including large structures such as galaxies and galactic clusters, and therefore perhaps uniquely appropriate as bearer of this distinctive feature.

Indeed it has been proposed that our mind (our awareness or consciousness) is the bridge between the universe as it is described by the mathematics of theoretical quantum physics – a superposition of many states, including multiple simultaneous states of our brain - and the reality that our minds perceive, a specific unique state of brain and mind. We also know that our very fundamental awareness of the passage of time is not encompassed in the understanding if the universe as described in theoretical physics – where general (and special) relativity present a universe of spacetime as a whole, without the passage of time being involved. And so it is our minds rather than our brains which are involved. Our minds, our awareness, is somehow associated to the small organ mentioned earlier, and this is somewhat mysterious as Descartes pointed out. And it is our minds rather than our brain which is the root of all the mysteries we mentioned – of time-passage, of the collapse of the multiplicity of states into one.

Acausality & Free Will

1) Big bang theory proposes that the universe's age is finite, and if it did not always exist one imagines the universe as having somehow "emerged into being", however such an emergence from "non-existence of anything" is necessarily 'acausal'. If indeed the universe's very existence relies on 'acausality', we propose that such acausality is actually a fundamental feature in the universe's continued existence and its operation, so that causality is NOT the dominant paradigm. 

Speculation based on what we know: This inherent acausality may provide the essential ingredient for 'true free will' (which under the causality paradigm is logically and physically impossible).  

2) Speculation based on what we know: This inherent acausality may enable a resolution of quantum physics' measurement problem. The "measurement-problem' is only a problem for conscious observers,and it is fitting that some consciousness-related higher-level phenomenon provide the resolution, and indeed free will is the quintessential 'choice' mechanism, and is exactly fitting as the consciousness-based quantum-transcendent phenomenon which could 'choose' between possibilities. 

3) The very fact that consciousness exists affects the argument for the possible existence of free will. The main argument against free will is that it is impossible as considered logically. Consciousness is not material and is the most fundamental aspect of reality. It is therefore not convincing to use logic and laws of nature designed form and for the material universe to argue against possibilities which seem intuitive to consciousness. 

Also, consciousness though the most fundamental aspect of reality can have no effect on the material universe - which is only a collection of sensations in consciousness - and this is a conundrum to those who possess consciousness, and is part of the core of the mind-body problem as pointed out by Descartes, and so it is natural to conceive of free will, which provides exactly this missing element.

4) For many of us, our deepest conviction is not causality or laws of nature, but rather the ethical imperative, the existence of an 'ought', the notion of 'morality'. For this notion to have its full meaning, there needs to be free will. For many people, the degree to which this is compelling overules the degree to which they are convinced by the arguments presented earlier against free will.

Einstein believed in a cosmic Mind of sorts, but also believed so deeply in determinism, and in fairness, that he felt it was impossible for there to be a God who judged beings it created since those beings' actions are determined not free. This indicates the depth of his belief that the notion of 'fairness' or 'morality' is not merely rooted in a human brain, a matter of evolutionary sociobiology, but rather is a Truth, a cosmic principle, which enables one to rule out other cosmological aspects which contradict it. For many people, this very notion of fairness and morality implies also the existence of a free will which makes it possible to have 'moral responsibility' for one's actions. 

[One can of course speculate that Einstein might have reconsidered his attitude to free will had he become fully comfortable with the non-deterministic implications of quantum physics (which was after all partly his own creation).]

Despite the apparent illogicality of a true free will and the physical absurdity of a Platonic-Ideal type of absolute Morality, there is some indication that our reality is not fundamentally describable by logic and physics. 

Measurent problem: solution is free will

, and of the acausality underlying free will.

Our minds – but perhaps not our brains, though these somehow support the mind - have thus an element of the acausality required to support freedom of choice, and we perceive events in a time-order of past leading to present, so that we can actively choose the actualization of the future through our choices, rather than having all of space and time presented as a fait accompli as described in the physics appropriate to – and originated by - our brains. Our deep conviction of the existence of moral responsibility, and therefore of our minds’ ability to choose, our deep intuition that indeed we posses a free will, is thus also a pointer to fundamental aspects of our physical and cosmological reality.

...

Perhaps one can incorporate into a physical-type philosophical cosmology model a lesson from a fundamental flaw in the 'argument form design'  supposed proof of the existence of God, plus insight gained from an actual mathematical-cosmological model.

The alleged proof of God supposes that a universe as complex as ours, or even with simple ordinary objects (which actually exist only due to very sophisticated laws of nature) could not arise by chance and requires a designer-creator. However, the flaw in this logic is that the designer/creator is far more complex than the created entity (the universe) and so how did it emerge into existence? The answer usually given is that this creator can exist without a cause due to its special characteristics, however one has thereby simply replaced the problem of how a complex entity (the universe) emerges/exists on its own with a yet tougher question of how an even-more complex entity (the designer/creator) can exist without a cause - and if a being that complex could exist for some reason without being caused, then why not simply ascribe that property to the universe itself, thus 'cutting out the middleman' and satisfying Occam?. 

Research with a colleague (see "Hedgehog" paper) led to our being able to show mathematically how a universe could emerge despite an energy barrier without quantum tunneling, by exploiting the features of a unique source-type which if present in the initial stage changed the space-time characteristics in the requisite manner to allow for a transition to full existence. Perhaps one can provide a philosophical model for the universe's emergence into existence - or to answer the question "why does something exist rather than nothing" - by ... one can similarly incorporate  based on complexity.....a self-causing universe inherently maximizing complexity and sophistication.

When analyzed from within, where time passes, it has characteristics that are 'teleological', but actually the essential algorithmic guidance is a law of "maximizing complexity & sophisticaiton'. 

Wheeler's provocative diagram:   .... Similarly, here we propose that whatever can in theory exist at least for an instant does so in some proto-level, and all quantum possiblities are expressed at a semi-existent level of potentia, and only one is selected out to fully exist, with the algorithmic ingredient/requirment being that it possessses at some time in the future maximal(/sufficient?) complexity/sophistication.

The features which enable existence are also manifest in the existent universe, in other words the universe contains self-causative phenomena and maximally-sophisticated/complex one, perhaps intertwined...

insert my writings re sophistication

Therefore the universe which exists will have within it consciousness, which is that which enables something to be considered existent in the philosophical sense of mind as that which knows of something's existence, and consciousness knows itself giving itself existence, so it is self-causative, and is the agent enabling a universe to exist wihtout a cause. And the universe will be the one which manifests maximal sophistication and complexity, leading for example to the choice of a universe with laws of nature leading naturally to the emergence of yet-more complex structures, such as occurs in various processes including of course the emergence of 'living entities', and of the most complexly-interconnected entities so far known in our universe, the human brain, which then associates to the pre-existent 'consciousness'. This consciousness then perhaps operates in an intelligent self-causative manner, ie with "incompatibilist libertarian free will with agent-causation".    

In any case, evolution is somewhat directed in the sens ethat the eventual possibility of highly complex organizsms, and indeed of a brian associated to consciousnes, itself selcts out this develomental path, actuaitng it, so that would be the reason why evoution can result in such sophisticaiton without any seeming guigin hand.

What we know not just believe or speculate:

• the brain is the most spohisticated structure we know of in the universe

• consciousness is the most fundamental phenomenon and it exists associated to the human brain

• the human brain is capable of speculating about the universe a sa whoiole and its wemergence into existence and even to make verifiable prediciton (re the big bang, inflation etc)

the above are what we KNOW.

So we need not feel constarined to minimize the role of consciousness....

The next level: If our depeest intuitions are regarding free will, meaning, purpose, moral responsibility, though of course these are not known only intuitied, there is nevetheless ample reason to at least take them seriously enough to endeavor to fit them in to some sort of overall model....not just keeping it all separate...albeit itwas never fruitful to mix too much, but it is different  if we stik to what we KNOW (ie not fw and menaing, but yes consciousness and sophisticaiton/complexity).

Free will

TOC

•    Several tracks leading to free will;

•   What the existence and nature of moral responsibility can reveal about the existence and nature of our universe 

• The a-causality at the core of the type of free will implied by ‘true moral responsibility’

• Can science and logic truly model our reality?

Summary: Several tracks leading to free will

Free will is impossible according to logic and causality and therefore certainly contrary to ordinary conceptions of "the laws of nature". There is no way one can imagine proving it exists since one can not imagine proving that one "could have acted otherwise" (which involves 'contrafactuality', and as pointed out eg by Nobel-prize winning physicist Percy Bridgeman).

And there is no (compelling) indication in nature that it exists.

We'll offer several directions to respond to these objections, and then propose a physical and cosmological role for free will. 

The first two are philosophy of physics-based, the last two are philosophy-metaphysics based.

The acausality underlying true free will: We’ll concentrate first on the issue of free will, and later on the idea of moral responsibility.

In order that a true free will exist it must be that:

1) more than one option exists at a decision point, as in quantum physics as opposed to determinism;

2) an option can be selected "freely", ie

a) not randomly, as in quantum physics;

b) not deterministically as implied by the rationality of a truly free choice.

The conundrum is: On the one hand, requirement #1 has been shown possible by quan­tum physics, while on the other hand #2 is contradicted by quantum physics which states that options are ‘selected’ at random. Furthermore, choice must be rational to be free, and rational implies deterministic (The idea of a truly free non-random choice implies a choice made after careful deliberation rather than by caprice. To be rational, a choice must be based on reasoning, which is a chain of logic, or at least a determi­nistic chain of thought. This deterministic chain leads eventually to one's genetic complement and environment and so forth.) Therefore free choice seems self-contradictory.

Another question arises as to the origin of free-will (a free-willed consciousness): if humans evolved, then we must suppose that free-willed  conscious­ness evolved. However, how could matter ruled by pro­babilistic-determined-randomness (PDR) give rise via evolution to an acausal process?

One answer would be that free will was inherent in the universe and at a certain point in the evolution of the human brain, free will existed where it had "previously" not existed. When the brain achieved a certain complexity it connected to the free will inherent in the universe. Or, as an acausal phenomenon it needed no direct preceding "cause" and could thus arise even as the product of PDR processes.

When the quantum processes underlying the universe’s operation were first understood, quantum physics was correctly seen as breaking the theoretical stranglehold of the clockwork cause-and-effect scheme of deterministic classical physics. This was however erroneously at first thought to have implications allowing for the type of free will so absolutely essential to the concept of moral responsibility espoused in the bible. However as it was later realized, the fact that there is - as implied by quantum physics - more than just one ‘option’ for every decision, is insufficient for this purpose; ie quantum physics is not compatible with free will because the ‘decision’ is taken according to an overall pattern of probabilistically-determined randomness. In contrast, the type of freedom underlying a true free will necessarily involves an acausality going beyond determinism and randomness - and therefore a transcendence of quantum physics. And so within the perspective granting that there is indeed a true free will, our minds operate according to a principle qualitatively analogous to that which underlies the emergence into existence of the universe.

...

What the existence and nature of moral responsibility can reveal about the existence and nature of our universe 

The a-causality at the core of the type of free will implied by ‘true moral responsibility’

.......

Table of Contents:

·         The a-causality at the core of the type of free will implied by ‘true moral responsibility’

·         The limitation of science and logic due to their incompatible with acausality & free will  

·         A conundrum underlying quantum physics' relationship with free will

·         Why the 'True Free Will' we are speaking of is a unique phenomenon, but controversial

·         Self-conflict of the intuition regarding free will 

·         Acausality’s inescapability in our universe, and its possible reflection in our minds 

·        a Rationale for - and ramifications of -  the acausality of Free Will: 

·         The Relationship of Free Will and consciousness

·        A Prescription for Further Research:   Free will as a resolution of quantum physics' measurement problem (collapse of the wave function)

............

Belief in free will involves a rejection of the universality of quantum physics and of the seemingly logical demands of causality, but not a rejection not of quantum physics itself – it is a rejection of the assumption that mental activity in the human mind are restricted to PDR processes of the type described by quantum physics, not of quantum physics as an explanation for non-mental events. As opposed to quantum-based neuro-science, this model assumes that mental events can over-ride causality. However, here is no scientific evidence that true free will exists, and so there would have to be compelling reason to assume that there really is such free will. In the absence of such, it would certainly seem incumbent on reasonable people to accept the notions of cause and effect so capably utilized in science.

Materialists believe that humans are purely physical beings, that consciousness is a physical pheno­menon as any other, and that there is not a true free will (‘the mechanistic assumption’). As has often been pointed out - compatibilist casuistry not-withstanding - this is incompatible with our most firmly held beliefs, our deepest intuitions, and even with our intuitive logic. Indeed, in the choice between deterministic and materialistic science or moral responsibility, non-materialists choose the latter.

‘True moral responsibility’ requires an objectively-existent or "transcendent-based" Morality, and this certainly is very counter to the materialist view of the universe; indeed it seems almost absurd when one internalizes the incredible success of the big bang and evolutionary theories.

True moral responsibility also requires a ‘true free will’, so that there is acausal mental activity associated to decision making processes in the brain/mind. This would necessitate the existence of some radically new type of interaction "transcending" both the determinism of classical physics and the probabilistically-determined randomness (PDR) of quantum physics.  In addition, one must find a new approach to the logic of causality. Quantum physics implies the existence of a new type of logical structure: quantum logic. However even the causality of quantum logic could not encompass true free will. Nevertheless, if we take seriously our intuition regarding the existence of true free will then one must find a new approach to the logic of causality and the causality of logic.

In addition, we live our lives – and are willing to sacrifice it – against all ‘logic’, due to instinct, and also to emotion; we live, kill and die for love, for idealistic beliefs, for aesthetics etc. Even when we passionately pursue intellectual studies and research, we do so because we are imbued with a passion. We utilize logic and science to help us best attain our goals, however the goals themselves – or the motivation driving us towards these goals - are not set by logic and science.

This does mean that we can therefore ignore logic and science, and it does not mean that free will therefore exists, or that it exists because we feel it does, nor that Morality exists because we live our lives as though it exists. However given the fact that science cannot account for reality as we know it, and that consciousness is the most fundamental feature of existence, and that our consciousness is so imbued with the notion of free will and morality, at least there is reason not to reject these out of hand – certainly not because of some objection from logic and physical science.

...

'True Free Will' is Unique, and Controversial:  We can see that a ‘true free will' necessitates the existence of a radical type of interaction "transcending" both the determinism of classical physics and the probabilistic determinism of quantum physics. In addition, one must find a new approach to the logic of causality. If we take seriously our intuition regarding the existence of true free will then perhaps we can benefit by trying to extend quantum physics in such a way that we can incorporate the requirement of free will that mental choices need not be, random but can be‘deliberate’ . Perhaps using quantum­-transcendent free will one can construct a new "free logic".

Of course this seems intuitively impos­sible and/or absurd to us now, but so would the probabilistic determinism of quantum physics have appeared to the pre­-quantum physics community.

Self-conflict of the intuition regarding free will:  Though our intensely-felt intuition about the existence of a true morality relies logically on the assumption that our free will is real, neverthleless unless there would be some experimental proof that true free will exists, physics would rightly exclude it[5][5]. Our deepest intuitions point to the existence of free will and Morality, however our intuitive conception of logic makes the same true free will counter-intuitive. We rely on logic to state that a true free will is required to give meaning to true morality, but on the other hand we seem to be claiming that we are rejecting the limitations of logic.

....

The Acausality of Free Will: a Rationale and Ramifications

 There is another justification besides our intuition for assuming the possibility of acausal (non-causal) pro­cesses, and it perhaps points the way to the physical origin of the type of radically-acausal phenomenon such as free will.

The greatest mystery of all is the origin of the universe. A universe which exists is in itself a result of acausality for it exists without real cause: cause implies temporal order, yet time originated with the uni­verse and thus no cause could "precede" the existence of the universe. And if it is instead an eternal universe, it certainly is beyond cause. Thus it is clear that at its most fundamental level, existence implies acausality.

It is perhaps not so out-of-character for a universe whose very existence implies acausal­ity, to exhibit free ­will-type acausality. [We will elsewhere argue that if such processes exist,  a likely place for them to manifest is where consciousness is involved.]

  [Indeed, there is perhaps a very close connection between the onset of free-willed consciousness and the origin of the universe. See Wheeler's speculations about the onset of consciousness being a catalyst - even retroactively - for the emergence of the physical universe into existence.

It is perhaps not so out-of-character for a universe which originates via acausal­ity, and whose most fundamental feature is consciousness, to exhibit a free will type of acausality where consciousness is involved. Perhaps for there to be existence there must be awareness of something that exists, ie there must be consciousness, and for there to be existence, as we said earlier there is necessarily acausality. Putting these together, existence requires acausal consciousness, and so free will is not an anomaly.

 ....

It is perhaps not so out-of-character for a universe in which consciousness is present from the beginning to exhibit mind-like properties such as free will, and even more-so for a universe in which consciousness 'emerges' acausally.

...

The Relationship of Free Will and Consciousness: Free will is possible only as a property of a consciousness - an "I" that wills. (This can be seen upon some reflection.) On the other hand, consciousness is possible without an accompanying free will (So free will requires consciousness but consciousness does not require an accompanying free will.) However, consciousness alone would be powerless to affect events in the absence of free will – it would be a prisoner of its ‘host body’- and everything occurs as it would without the existence of consciousness.

Thus if we wish to consider human consciousness to be a phenomenon which can interact with the universe and affect it, then we must consider this consciousness to be free-willed.

Free will is the only phenomenon which involves processes not bound to the pro­babilistic constraints of quantum physics. Free will can even be considered as the gen­eral phenomenon, and quantum probabilism merely a special limited case of it – ie the case where many options exist for how an event will occur but it occurs in a probabilistic way rather than freely.

Thus it can almost be expected that free will "transcend" quantum processes in some way. Since consciousness is our only means of knowing of all physical events - they exist (to us) only inasmuch as they are reported by our consciousness - it can almost be expected that consciousness might play an important physical role in the actualization of events. ( Eg see “Free Will and the Collapse of the Wave Function” below)

Free will as a resolution of Quantum Physics' Measurement Problem (Collapse of the Wave Function)

Free will can cause events which would not have occurred in a purely determined or quantum universe. It transcends quantum physics. It is in its essence a choice­-making phenomenon, choosing which reality it wishes to create. Thus a free­-willed consciousness is a unique pheno­menon and perhaps is uniquely qualified to "collapse the quantum wave function".

The effective ingredient in quantum measurement has been attributed by some to human consciousness, however from the perspective developed here this is useless because if con­ciousness is governed at its most funda­mental level by quantum processes then the argument is circular. Instead we propose that the operative element is free will, and as a result we can understand why the measurement of a free-willed consciousness is qualitatively different. And different in precisely the required way. 

1) This would have important ramifications for the issue of contrafactual definiteness, Bell's inequal­ity and so forth. (See d'Espagnat.) In addition, based on the idea postulated by Wheeler, perhaps only a free-willed consciousness can bring reality – retroactively - to the universe, (See Wheeler.)

2) Quantum physics implies the existence of a new type of logical structure: quantum logic. The causality of ordinary logic implies that free will is impossible. Perhaps using quantum­ transcendent free will one can construct a new "free logic".

3) In addition, based on the idea postulated by Wheeler, perhaps only a free-willed consciousness can bring reality-retroactively-to the universe, (See Wheeler.) [7][7]

Some additional introductory explanation: Every event is "recorded" automatically as it occurs by virtue of its effect on the universe-however, this type of recording is not sufficient to "collapse the wave function". All measuring devices including the human brain are natural products of the nat­ural universe. If their actions result from random/determined processes, then these actions are likewise random/deter­mined, and thus their actions are natural events qualitatively no different than any other natural event in the physical uni­verse. How then can it be that mea­surement can “collapse the wave function”?

Of course the conundrum arises only when we measure, so it is an issue of human measurement, measurement that we are aware if. One could postulate that it is only human measurement which can cause this 'collapse', however why would human measurement be qualitatively different from the automatic recording of an event by machine or by other events? 

Attributing the difference to the awareness thereof – ie to human consciousness - is useless because if con­ciousness is governed at its most funda­mental level by quantum processes then the argument is circular. However if the operative element is free will, then we can understand why the measurement of a free-willed consciousness is qualitatively different. And different in precisely the required way. Free will can cause events which would not have occurred in a purely quantum universe. It transcends quantum physics. It is in its essence a choice­-making phenomenon, choosing which reality it wishes to create. Thus a free­-willed consciousness is a unique pheno­menon and perhaps is uniquely qualified to "collapse the quantum wave function". 

 After this article, continue to: 

1. "QUANTUM METAPHYSICS", 

2. STRUCTURES WHICH ARE LOGICAL TO EXPECT IN A MIND-BASED UNIVERSE"

3. "THE INEFFABILITY OF FREE WILL"

4. ...

Levels:

• What we know: consciousness

• what we intuit deeply: meaning, purpose, moral responsibility

• what we may believe: spiritual or religious claims or truths, free will

• what we think might be (or might not): aliens, highly-advanced alien civilizations, telepathy

• what we accept is possible, though we might not be convinced it is true (solipsism, simulation/the matrix etc) or accept as possible but are not convinced that it exists: Cosmic Mind, synchronicity, some sort of continuation of our consciousness after death, etc.

• what was believed in the past that we now feel is impossible: the old pagan notion of many gods, fairies and witches, flat earth and a small limited universe with a geograpophically located heaven and hell, etc

• what we know does not exist: is this possible?

...

The Free Will needed for a meaningful sense of moral responsibility: contrasting two paradigms:

i. genesis scenario

ii.determinism/randomness+reductionism (rather than true emergent wholism)

To what degree do m/non-m consider the paradigms plausible, not impossible, nonsensical, provably wrong? 

Materialists (presumably also atheists) will consider i.entirely ludicrous, and therefore not useful in defining a meaningful sense of "freedom" whereas non-materialists will consider ii.ludicrously incompatible with moral responsibility . 

Are both approaches ‘equally nonsensical’?

ii.  is nonsensical within its own paradigm since it is inconsistent, ii. is nonsense if one believes it is completely disprovable, as perhaps atheists will claim, so each side may feel its claim is less nonsensical than the other’s.

...

Cosmological implications of the existence of meaning, purpose, moral responsibility

A deterministic universe containing a conscious entity experiencing pain or joy is qualitatively different than a mechanistic universe without conscious experience. The consciousness may have a sense of meaning and purpose, despite the lack of a ‘transcendent realm’ (eg no creator, no life after death etc). If they feel m&p thn it exists. But we would not exactly say the same about an  'ought’ & moral responsibility, it would be only an illusion unless …what? Beyond true free will, what would there have to be cosmologically? In other words what would we learn by implication about the universe if it is true that there is indeed an ‘ought’ and moral responsibility as we intuit it.

As an example,in the Biblical paradigm there of course is a creator etc etc but that is perhaps the maximalist scenario - what is the minimal content which would provide for the existence of true moral responsibility?  

..

Free will & prediciton/falsification

if I tell what the predicted decison is, then it is not complete becuse I did not include in the calculation the act of giving the prediciton.

ie I calculate upto time 10 minutes and tlell the entity at time 5 minutes what it actions at 10 minutes will be.

But now it will act bsd on the receit of this informaiotnas an input, whether to do it or or refute it is ntt he issue the issue is th tin my claculation of its future state I left out thi important input, it hearing of the prediction.

Can I include it? Only if I first calculate its future state at 10 minutes, then insert in the \5 minute input this prediciotn, and now the 10 minute state is entirey different and so my prediced 10 minute state is not releant, so it would never have hapened that I would give the prediciotn in the first place.

I can limit the prediciotn to a yes no, and make two calculaitons, one were at 5 minutes I give them a yes and the other where I give th eo.

But actualy I dont ned to predct ayhting,  can jus tpretend I am predicintg it is just s good. as long as the peson believes it is correct. but tis is a psych experment, nothing to do with prediciotns....

so this type of prediciton is not possible?!