 |
| Photo courtesy of the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library. |
In contrast I seek to awaken a fair and good interpretation of the "I AM" as the intellect and, and about our choices. How we make them, and how we can be mindful of them. So here in lies my understanding that, one's intellect must be in charge to refer to the one as sitting in a position not egotistically centered, but the ego in the "I am," egotistically centered.:) It can be Illusive as to pinpoint "the center." So God then, is Symmetry, and Symmetry has been broken?
BEHOLDING beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities, for he has hold not of an image but of a reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may. Would that be an ignoble life? PLATO
It is never easy to understand the full scope of the question of, by belief alone. So I sought here to try and give this Free Will some foundation.
Whether a particular thing happens, says Aristotle, may depend on a series of causes that
"goes back to some starting-point, which does not go back to something else. This, therefore, will be the starting-point of the fortuitous, and nothing else is the cause of its generation." Metaphysics Book VI 1027b12-14) See: The Cogito Model
The direct action, according to my understanding is that one has "gained from experience." So experience, is in a way "a value system" which I may use in order to understand those choices, as well as, to use that "information" to make decisions. In this way, I have set the causal affect for the future as to a determination with which causal chains must be linked back too, this original position??
Pierre Curie (1894): “Asymmetry is what creates a phenomenon.”
So with a place in mind, as the intellect, we see what transpires as we "project into the future." So then, as to set the course of action dependent upon, the theory behind the ability of Free Will. This becomes a determinant feature in the link as a causal that is no longer left too, happen stance.
I suspect that will, qualia, meaning and intentionality will turn out to be understood to be aspects of nature. But I suspect that by the time we have achieved this our understanding of nature will be quite different. That is, I suspect that we will only succeed in reducing minds to atoms when we have revolutionized our understanding of atoms in some way presently inconceivable.
I only have an intuition about the first step in this process, which is to bring time and the present moment-the now-into science and make it central to physics and prior to law. By embracing presentism and the openness of the future we radically recast the context for understanding what it means for anything-rock or atom or mind-to be part of nature. Lee Smolin
If we trace back this idea of Indeterminacy, what do we find? And how shall we find such an exchange as getting to the heart of the problem as to say, " it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. " Einstein goes on to say that it is the theory that decides what it is that we can observe.
"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe. You must appreciate that observation is a very complicated process. The phenomenon under observation produces certain events in our measuring apparatus. As a result, further processes take place in the apparatus, which eventually and by complicated paths produce sense impressions and help us to fix the effects in our consciousness. Along this whole path - from the phenomenon to its fixation in our consciousness — we must be able to tell how nature functions, must know the natural laws at least in practical terms, before we can claim to have observed anything at all. Only theory, that is, knowledge of natural laws, enables us to deduce the underlying phenomena from our sense impressions. When we claim that we can observe something new, we ought really to be saying that, although we are about to formulate new natural laws that do not agree with the old ones, we nevertheless assume that the existing laws — covering the whole path from the phenomenon to our consciousness—function in such a way that we can rely upon them and hence speak of'observations'...Physics and Beyond (pg67)(bold added by me for emphasis)
In truest sensibility of the individual then is to seek some relation as to what by nature allows such observance in consciousness, so as to be able too, make decisions. Then, as too, "covering the whole path from the phenomenon to our consciousness—function in such a way that we can rely upon them and hence speak of 'observations'. " Any new theory then has to have had a foundation(causal chains) with which it can move forward and built upon that experience. While I truly speak to the process of science so as to demonstrate Einstein's wording and ways, I am also speaking to the consciousness that uses this same information.
