[notime] Early posts/discussions regarding 'No Time/No Motion'

[Robert Vaessen]

All -

As I mentioned in an early post to this list - I’m planning to re-post some of my previous ‘No Time’ conversations in the ‘Akinetochronism’ forum.  Here’s one of the earliest discussions I engaged in with a correspondent. Your opinions are valuable - Please feel free to disagree with my ‘No Time / No Motion’ ideas, but lets keep the conversation civil.

In this particular discussion/conversation Harri and I discuss the ‘self’ or ‘I’, predestination and free will.

Hopefully your mail reader/email client allows you to see the ‘quoting’ levels in these two posts. In my email client, the levels of quotes result in different colors for the quotes of the correspondents (myself and Harri).

- Robert







Initial post:

> On Jun 22, 2003, at 15:23, Harri Laukkanen wrote:
> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
> I found your interesting theory in the Internet, and I think it's very similar to what I have been thinking about lately quite a lot. After reading your web page http://www.robsworld.org/notime.html perhaps not slowly enough, I made two observations compared to my thoughts:
> 
> 1) In this context I'm not sure if one can talk about "I" existing. The consciousness travelling the probability path just creates an illusion of someone possessing that consciousness. Or should I say that the continuity of the consciousness is understood as "I", but that's not "I", that's just continuity of the consciousness.
> 
> 2) There's no free will either. There is an illusion of free will in selecting the branches of the probability tree. In fact, there's no selection at all. Every branch is selected, but just one at a "time" is observed. This second point also follows from the first point. When there's no-one implementing the free will, there's no sense in claiming that free will exists.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Harri

My reply:


> On Jun 23, 2003, at 07:51, Robert L. Vaessen <robert at robsworld.org> wrote:
> 
> Harri -
> 
> Thanks for visiting Rob's World! I hope you found your stay enjoyable. Perhaps you'll check out some of the other articles/features at the site.
> 
> On Sunday, Jun 22, 2003, at 15:23 America/Denver, Harri Laukkanen wrote:
> 
>> Hi Robert,
>> 
>> I found your interesting theory in the Internet, and I think it's very similar to what I have been thinking about lately quite a lot. After reading your web page http://www.robsworld.org/notime.html perhaps not slowly enough, I made two observations compared to my thoughts:
>> 
>> 1) In this context I'm not sure if one can talk about "I" existing. The consciousness travelling the probability path just creates an illusion of someone possessing that consciousness. Or should I say that the continuity of the consciousness is understood as "I", but that's not "I", that's just continuity of the consciousness.
> 
> I agree with you. The way I see it; "I" (or self-consciousness) is continuity of consciousness from node to node within the matrix.
> 
>> 2) There's no free will either. There is an illusion of free will in selecting the branches of the probability tree. In fact, there's no selection at all. Every branch is selected, but just one at a "time" is observed. This second point also follows from the first point. When there's no-one implementing the free will, there's no sense in claiming that free will exists.
> 
> I'd have to disagree with you here. I agree that all nodal branch selections are made simultaneously. In a timeless model, that's the only way they could be. I do not agree that the selections are made without choice. The choice in selection is free will. Choice is free will, regardless of whether all choices are made simultaneously (universe with no time), or in a manner more consistent with a traditional model (universe with time).  Another way to think of it...
> 
> All nodal choices/connections within the probability matrix have already been made, and the results mapped (As you observed). "I" (self-consciousness) decide which nodes/choices to experience/process. This constitutes the free will portion of the equation, which in effect creates the "I" or self-consciousness. Only by selecting a series of nodes to process, a path so to speak, is self-consciousness realized. Until a path through the matrix is chosen, the self does not exist. Self comes into being once a path has been chosen.
> 
> If you are arguing that someone else (god) chooses the path, then you have come to the conclusion that "your" destiny has been pre-ordained, you are simply an observer. A side effect of path processing. You are destined to visit/experience/process each node in a pre-determined sequence. Each 'supposed' free action that you take has been mapped out ahead of time (so to speak). For example; if you decide at this moment to exercise free will by deleting this email, your choice to do so, including the supposed belief that it is by your free will, is all mapped out ahead of time.
> 
> I would argue that we do have free will. That the self is responsible for the nodal selection/processing (free will), that it is through nodal selection (mapping of our path through the probability matrix) that we realize free will, which in fact constitutes the self (the "I" in your terms). We experience the nodal selections in a sequential manner, which is construed as the passage of time. The nodal selections are in fact instantaneous, but we do not experience them in that way. Selection of the/a path through the probability matrix constitutes the self.
> 
> Stay with me in the timeless model. In a traditional (time wise) sense, I've described selection as being progenitor of 'self'. In a timeless model they occur simultaneously. One is the other, they are the same. Self is selection. Perhaps you are thinking in a traditional (time wise) sense. If selection begets (comes before) self, then someone else, some other "I" has selected the path which begets self. This may explain your conclusion/belief that there is no free will.
> 
> If choice begets self, then there is choice before self. Thus no free will.
> If choice equal self, then they occur simultaneously. There is free will.
> 
> A line from a great movie, the Island of Dr. Moreau.
> 
> "Who makes the rules? Someone else!"
> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Harri
> 
> Thanks for stimulating more thought on this matter. I hoe you were able to follow my ramblings on the subject of choice and free will.
> 
> If you don't mind, I'd like to publish our correspondence (On my web site). I would protect your identity if you want, or I can give you credit by including your name and email address (any email address would be represented as a graphic image to prevent harvesting by spam-bots).
> 
> - Robert