Отдолу ще постна една много забавна дискусия, която се получи в една яху група. Темата беше изборът и детерминизмът- и двете взаимно-изключващи понятия ли са. Само да предупредя, групата е малко мета-физична, затова на места малко се отнасяме, но май повечето участници се придържаха към науката (но не и аз :) )

 За съжаление всичко е на английски, но се надявам това да не откаже заинтересованите да се напънат. Аз се радвам, че го направих, защото дискусията се получи много весела. Особено последното ми творение (което ще го познаете по абсолютната несериозност и бедният речник :) )
Мисля да си го преведа и да си го сложа на сайта, защото много ме кефи.

I do think the concept of divination is our ability to tap into energies that underlay all of creation.  The operative question is, what are we accessing? The
contemporary philosopher Dennet wrote an interesting book called
Freedom Evolves. In that work he deals with the subject of
determinism and its vicissitudes. I would really enjoy getting into
a broader discussion of this entire subject. Determinism implies
that it has all happened and at some point choices are made that
move us in a particular direction. It is assumed the directions have
already been predetermined and are out there in the universe
somewhere waiting to happen, and they have already happened. You get
that one? It is all determined; because, it has already happened.
Dennet thinks we have choices. The good professor tries to show this
with models and pre-mathematical theories. (I don't think the math
has been invented YET, to calculate variable determinism. ) The key
word in all this is CHOICE. But as a mystic, I see the entire
concept conflicting with Gurdjieff's 4th Way. When one self observes
for a while, it becomes apparent that most of our activities are
subject to influences beyond our control. Man is a machine bantered
about by the pull of his loins, the rumble in his stomach, or
the need for shelter. We don't even drive a car. We go somewhere
that is predetermined by events we think we influenced but were
created by other events. We are not in the drivers seat. We have
opinions and argue points we clearly don't understand. If you think
man is a wise and intelligent animal look at how we are managing our
environment. Michael Crichton points to Yellowstone National
Park as the prime example of a species totally out of control. (And
asleep.) We are all familiar with the idea of killing the wolves to
spare the sheep and losing the forest to Beavers, etc. Most of the
time we stumble blindly through life screwing up and wondering what
happened. Everything happens with us.
=================================================
Denitsa
On the other question-the determinism:

I believe in determinism. I think choice is simply a euphemism for
lack of perspective. What do I mean? Well, I'm a physicist, so I'll
give you such example. We all have seen a diagram of the trajectory
of something. Say a plane. In the simplest case, it's just a line on
the paper. We see it in its wholeness, and we know where the plane
was in any moment. If you are flying the plane, you'll think you have
the choice, but from the position of time, you already did what you
did.
Thus, if we accept we have souls that are outside our perception of
time, then our choices were never real. Because in the absence of
time, the idea of choice make no sense. (I guess what I said is
probably close to what that book you quoted said, but i don't know )

From another perspective: if, in any situation, you have the full
knowledge to judge on a choice to make, you'll see you have one
maximal constructive and one maximal destructive way to act. It's
natural to choose the constructive one, though not necessarily. So,
if you could see the events in their wholeness, you wouldn't have a
choice, because the universal principle is that we all do what is
best for us in the moment.
Now, there is the question if the path is pre-determined or post-
determined, but if we're outside the time, that question makes no
sense.
And choice is just a by-product of the idea of linear time.

And I don't want to say our choices are useless-they are what they
are, parts of our life. I think we're here not to win a game, but to
enjoy it.
But from personal point of view, I wouldn't say we're puppets of the
circumstances neither. We decide what to make of something and how to
react to it. We have a great deal of power to change our reality.
It's a matter of awareness as we all know.

Maybe in the end there is not real distinction- choice/destiny, it's
all due to the Relativity-our personal perception of time/choice vs.
the Universal reality in the lack of time. It's all matter of
perspective.
We choose what to admit in our life now, but we have already decided
that thing would (or should?) be in our life before we were born. Is
the choice real? It is for us now, though in the long run, maybe it
was the only option we had.
Yeah, we probably don't set every detail in our life from before, but
I'm absolutely sure, we do set the major events and the paths leading
to them.

It's funny, cuz people claim that the idea of Destiny robs them
of their free will, when we may even not know what exactly the will
is. In the most of the time our life is just a movie we watch or
sleep trough. What choice has a person watching a movie- either to
stay until the end and have some moral or to leave the room.
===========================================================
Time is a conceptual construct for which there has been much philosophical
speculation. There are many different models, and any conclusions drawn
based on any one model of time must be considered tentative. The commonsense
view of a linear uni-directional flow of time is probably very off-base. As
a physicist, you are trained in mathematical models that seemingly presume a
past and future, but these are presumptions about those models inherited
from the commonsense view, rather than required by the models. The
phenomenon of non-locality demonstrated by quantum coupling ("entanglement" )
applies to time as well as space. This implies that the past is constantly
modified by the present, the present is modified by the past, the future is
modified by the present, the past is modified by the future, and the present
is also modified by the future. The arrow of time is not uni-directional. I
have serious doubts that our current conceptions of time are fully taking
into account the implications of this. Any point in relative time relates to
other points in relative time, but the causal connection is not necessarily
as straight forward (no pun intended) as the traditional billiard ball style
conception. Choice requires causality, and causality requires time, so of
course eliminating time (by flattening a causality chain) is going to
eliminate choice, but this is only within a frame of reference external to
time (more on that later), which says nothing of the frame of reference
internal or inclusive of time. If you retain time in the model (view it from
the internal reference point) and assert that a causal chain in a linear
forward-only sequence of points of time A-B-C, as seen from the point of C,
implies that A was pre-determined, you are clearly using a number of
questionable premises. If time is omni-directional, and causality is
omni-directional, then the scope of the implications of choice expands, and
a "sequence" of A-B-C is not necessarily a sequence, but a dynamic
relationship of relative interactions. Then, your conclusion will not
follow.

Determinism only implies that the capacity for choice is constrained by the
nature of the one making the choice. I can choose anything I want, but my
actual choice will be constrained by my state (meaning, my nature, or all
the ways my unique "being" can be described). That is, I can choose anything
for which I am capable of choosing. There is no primary constraint upon
choice; the constraint upon choice is secondary to the fact that I am the
one making it, and my capacities are constrained by my knowledge and
inclinations. My inclinations can be chosen (to some extent), but those
choices are in turn constrained by my inclinations, and so on. This means
that from an internal perspective, I am as free as my present state allows
me to be, and can obtain greater freedom (if so inclined) by work upon my
self-knowledge and inclinations to decrease the degree of robotic behavior,
and increase the degree of conscious behavior. Even to the extent that I can
achieve highly conscious behavior, it is still constrained by my state at
any particular moment. From a subjective point of view, this isn't a
significant limitation. I am constrained by I, which is hardly the same as
being "pre-determined. " The pre-determination part comes from an external
perspective, when I see that you are determined by your current state. From
an external point of view, you could in theory be modeled by a computer
program that would make the exact same choices (leaving aside possible
random factors that aren't important to this point) and demonstrate your
machine like nature. But internal to that program, if it had subjective
awareness, choice would be very real. It isn't an illusion; it is simply a
matter of whether it is being examined from an internal or external
perspective.

Determinism and time are concepts that are frequently involved in paradoxes.
In my experience, a paradox always arises from a scenario that has been
framed with skewed premises, usually involving implicit semantic denotations
that are unwarranted. It usually provides insight to employ critical
linguistic analysis, multi-model thinking (which requires one to identify
and break out of one's dominant paradigms) and thereby and thereafter
examine multiple reference points.
==========================================
Denitsa
>
> Time is a conceptual construct for which there has been much
philosophical
> speculation. There are many different models, and any conclusions drawn
> based on any one model of time must be considered tentative.
-----------
Erm, that goes for anything in our Universe, actually. Models are
always based on some assumptions that are not always easily or doably
checked. Sometimes I think scientists really prefer that case :)
Reality is too dull for some :)
-----------
> As a physicist, you are trained in mathematical models that
seemingly presume a past and future, but these are presumptions about
those models inherited from the commonsense view, rather than required
by the models.
------------ -
The reason we rarely question the idea of time is that we know so
little of it. I always wonder for example why in the string theories
the additional dimensions are always spatial. What happens if we have
two time dimensions for example? Two parallel universes depending on
which time is running...or what? I can't even imagine what happens in
the two times run together-sound like physical schizophrenia to me.

You know, one of the reasons I got into physics is exactly to learn
more about time. But so far, all I know about is totally unphysical.
------------ -
> The phenomenon of non-locality demonstrated by quantum coupling
("entanglement" )
> applies to time as well as space
...
The arrow of time is not uni-directional. Any point in relative time
relates to other points in relative time, but the causal connection is
not necessarily as straight forward.Choice requires causality, and
causality requires time, so of course eliminating time (by flattening
a causality chain) is going to eliminate choice, but this is only
within a frame of reference external to time (more on that later),
which says nothing of the frame of reference internal or inclusive of
time.
------------ -------
Yeah, that was my point too. Time and choice exist only in the
observer frame.
------------ -------
>If you retain time in the model (view it from
the internal reference point) and assert that a causal chain in a linear
> forward-only sequence of points of time A-B-C, as seen from the
point of C,
> implies that A was pre-determined, you are clearly using a number of
> questionable premises. If time is omni-directional, and causality is
> omni-directional, then the scope of the implications of choice
expands, and
> a "sequence" of A-B-C is not necessarily a sequence, but a dynamic
> relationship of relative interactions. Then, your conclusion will not
> follow.
------------ ------
Now, the question here is from what point are we discussing the
choice-of an insider or of an outsider and whether it's possible for
the insider to gain the point of view of an outsider without actually
dying. Because, that time can travel in all direction doesn't mean it
excludes pre-determinism, because we as observers can't perceive it in
all direction and it won't affect our "choices". It barely means that
our Universe is much more dynamical than what we'd like to believe.

If time is omnidirectional, then there is not a present moment and the
only thing that relates us to our position in the time is our
Awareness. Which many people claim to be true. And if that's true,
then we're back on the lack of choice. If we're nothing but a reader
of the story of the Universe and we simply choose where to join the
fun while everything is already existing, then our choice is limited
to the place we choose to experience. But everything is already on the
table.
Another question is whether everything is already existing or we're
creating it and whether it's limited in some way. I'd say it is
limited, because in physical reality options are not that much...i
mean...yeah, there are many many, but could for example landing on the
Moon happen in the middle age? Probably, if bunch of looser kidnap
alien space-ship and manage to crash it into the Moon, but does all
those unlikely scenarios exist in our Universe or they are so unlikely
that the whole Universe shifts to another...and those universes are
endless?
-----------

> Determinism only implies that the capacity for choice is constrained
by the
> nature of the one making the choice. I can choose anything I want,
but my
> actual choice will be constrained by my state (meaning, my nature,
or all
> the ways my unique "being" can be described). That is, I can choose
anything
> for which I am capable of choosing.
------------ --------- -
Well, I don't see how that relates to the Nature of choice, I mean
what we can choose to is internal to the observer and thus, can't
speak of the nature of choice itself.It speaks only of the present
skills of the observer. Which sounds kind of irrelevant for the
Universe to me.
------------ --------- ---
............ .........
> that from an internal perspective, I am as free as my present state
>allows me to be
------------ --------- ---

Yes, but you inner state is entirely "customizable" . Meaning, that we
don't know how to do something doesn't mean that thing cannot be done.
It simply means we lack the imagination or the drive to find a way to
do it.
------------ --------- ---
>I am constrained by I, which is hardly the same as being
"pre-determined. "
-------

I never claimed the I is pre-determined, just that the major moments
in life are. But the I is not real anyway, as we all know. Because no
matter of the I, situations present to us no matter how we feel about
them in the moment. Meaning, the I is as real to us as we want it to be.
I'm still not clear enough on that, but as far as my empathy goes, my
I looks no different than any other's I, the only difference is in our
memories and skills. But the I, the experiencer (???) is always the
same. The very awareness appears to me to be the same (or just One),
the difference comes from our past experiences and the deductions we
made from them at some point and the attitude we want to manifest.
Like our personalities are nothing but gloves we put on.

------------ --------
> The pre-determination part comes from an external
> perspective, when I see that you are determined by your current state.

--------
yep, the question is do we exist on all the levels in the same time,
or just on one.
--------

> From
> an external point of view, you could in theory be modeled by a computer
> program that would make the exact same choices (leaving aside possible
> random factors that aren't important to this point) and demonstrate your
> machine like nature. But internal to that program, if it had subjective
> awareness, choice would be very real. It isn't an illusion; it is
simply a
> matter of whether it is being examined from an internal or external
> perspective.

------------ -----
I never claimed choices are not real to us, as they affect our
immediate environment and life-path (in our frame). I just said that
it's all set already anyway. It's like one of those books, I don't
know if you have seen them, but I did read them 10 years ago-"a book
in which the hero is you"- there is a plot, with one or two non-lethal
endings (most often one) and in all the rest you die and have to start
all over. So what you do is read, when you have to choose you choose
and just remember your page so if the choice is lethal you just come
back. I think this is more or less what we do in life- there is one or
two plots to which all the non-lethal choices lead and the Universe
and our Higher Self usually makes sure we won't choose the lethal ones
too soon. At least until playing make sense.
------------ -----
>
> Determinism and time are concepts that are frequently involved in
paradoxes.
> In my experience, a paradox always arises from a scenario that has been
> framed with skewed premises, usually involving implicit semantic
denotations
> that are unwarranted. It usually provides insight to employ critical
> linguistic analysis, multi-model thinking (which requires one to
identify
> and break out of one's dominant paradigms) and thereby and thereafter
> examine multiple reference points.
>
> -David
-----------
As Ayn Rand said "Nature doesn't accept paradoxes, if you meet one,
check your premises". So, yeah, I agree, if something looks too weird
to fit in, it's usually due to the lack of perspective.

So if you ask me, it's just a matter of taste. Whether you prefer to
be the hero or the happy viewer. Maybe it's useful to have both
attitudes in your life.

And I'd really like to know if one can be aware of all the levels in
the same time. Or at least to be able to move swiftly up and down (and
remember it). Now that would be fun. Though it will take off some of
the drama. Yeah, maybe it won't be so fun after all.
But who knows...we do travel, this is somewhat distance-jumping, then
we could time-jump or level-jump. Ah, well, I wonder how a
time-jumping would modify the society if it could survive it at all.
Cuz random level-jumping (or maybe random time-jumping too) we know
doesn't cause too much chaos, though if it gets popular, i don't
know...Eh. :)

But it's kind of useless to discuss the issue with scientific terms since science
prefer to stay away of it. And to be clear-I agree time should be
omnidirectional, but it's simply non-relevant to the question of
choice since the choice could exist and don't exist equally well in
every case. The same goes for Destiny or pre-determinism. I think the
solution to the argument lies in the question-do we decide our start
and end point in advance /thus our choices will be very constrained
and our life will be more or less determined/ or do we set only the
lessons to learn /wider possibilities/ or we just wander around /and
end whatever the night finds us/-in which case there is no
determinism, just a very very big universe.

You know, one more thing occurs to me. If for example we have many
Universes that are lined up on the quality "probability" or "relevance
to the pre-determined qualities of that Universe" ( meaning, we have
one Universe where people consider time like us, other where people do
time-jumping and so on), then what happens if we live in totally
undetermined Universe and someone choose the weirdest option available
thus going outside the quality of that particular Universe. Does the
awareness of that person leaves for another Universe where that thing
is ok and his/hers place is taken by someone from the other Universe
that made equally weird choices or the very Universe changes?

Ok, I know I got wild here, so I'll be off.

To everyone that read it to the end-congratulations :) Unfortunately
there's no cake.(eh,Portal)

Too those that find my non-seriousness annoying, sorry again. I always
found it fun to discuss issues that are so distant-like the death of
massive stars I'm dealing with. Well,our theories are so off, I can't
understand why people take them so seriously. We're doing what we can
to get as close to the Reality as we can, but the truth is-before we
do create a Nova or a black whole intentionally, we're just having fun
while someone's paying us. Which's not to say science is useless (or
easy), just that there is a long way to go (or hopefully not so long)
before we find the use :)
All best,
Denitsa

Та, без торта, но какво мислите? Много ми е интересна темата и събирам всякакви мнения :)