.
.
12/21/04 by Rubino
In response to a suggestion to 'think outside the box', I said:
Energy is the force of will: will power, if you will. It was the Will of the Creator that provided the Energy that is found in the Universe and that Energy is still subject to the Creator's Will as expressed in the Laws of Nature. Our wills, being similar to that of the Creator's, can tap into, and utilize, that Energy provided we follow those Laws rather than try to defy them. We also create laws of our own by expressing our will(s). It is also possible that the Creation was not a one shot deal, i.e., The Big Bang, but it is an ongoing process in which our wills provide some creative energy so that we actually participate in co-creating the future.
Is that far enough 'outside box'? I haven't looked yet, but I'd be willing to bet that there is a philosopher out there that has postulated a Monism of Will, as the basic substance of Existence, Being, of 'all that is'.
. E-mail.
12/23/04 by Rubino
There were no responses. Perhaps what I said is of interest only to me.
Just out of curiosity I made two additional posts.
12/23/04 by Rubino
A body at rest will remain at rest until it is moved by some force.
Can my desire to move my resting body off the couch produce the necessary will power to gather sufficient energy to direct the forces required to do so? Or, will my body remain unmoved until some random force moves it?
With all the forces in the Universe, why is the force of will, the power of will, not taken into account?
If there were no desire, no will, to observe, there would be no observations. Without observations, what difference would it make whether Shrodinger's cat was alive or not?
Indeed, if you did not observe, what difference would it make whether you are alive or not?
. E-mail.
12/23/04 by Rubino
I also have some difficulty with 'ontological mysteries'.
In a murder mystery, there is a body, and we look for a perp. In an 'ontological' mystery, there may be no body, and we might be looking for a perp. that 'is not'.
How can we find a perp. who 'is not' with no evidence that anything was done?
From: Publius
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004
> With all the forces in the universe, why > is the force of will, the power of will, > not taken into account?
Because it cannot be quantified and correlated with changing states of matter with the precision that, say, gravitation and electromagnetism can be. The "Force of Will" is only a metaphor.
From the point of view of physics, human actions are best regarded as spontaneous state changes in a system, not unlike the decay of an atom or the appearance of a virtual particle.
> In a murder mystery there is a body and > we look for >a perp. In an 'ontological' > mystery, there may be no >body, and we > might be loooking for a perp. that 'is > not'. >How can we find a perp. who 'is not' with > no evidence that anything was done?
Ah, but in some murder mysteries there is no body, and uncertainty about whether there is a perp. There is only a set of circumstances that suggest those possibilities.
From: Anthony G. Rubino
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004
To Publius:
You state the relationship backwards. The "Force of Will" is not a metaphor for gravity or electromagnetism. Gravity and electromagnetism are metaphors for the "Force of Will".
The ability, or inability, to quantify and correlate with changing states of matter do not effect, or cause, those changing states of matter. It is the Will, and the Laws governed by that Will, that cause change. Given all the energy, or all the forces in the Universe, nothing would happen if they were not directed to do something by some Law, some Will.
Just as the law of the kingdom is the expressed will of the king, or,
Just as the law of a household is the expressed will of the head of that household, or,
Just as the laws of any society are the expressed collective will of some , or all, of its members, or
Just as the command of a lover is the wish of the person loved,
So too are the Laws of Nature the expressed Will of the Creator of the Universe.
I don't see how "from the point of view of physics, human actions are best regarded as spontaneous changes in a system." If the changes are "spontaneous" then: Either there are no rules, or the rules that were followed were not the rules expected to be followed. If there are no rules, then it would not be possible to explain anything since explanation requires the discovery and elucidation of the rules that govern any particular behaviour. There must be rules, whether the rulemakers are acknowledged, or not. In the case of human activity, the human will can create new rules, or choose to follow a different set of rules than is expected. That's spontaneous.
Rule 1), if something was done, someone did it
Rule 2), if something is there, someone put it there.
Rules 1) and 2) above also apply to the relationships of murder mysteries, and 'ontological' ones. Given any set of circumstances in an 'ontological' mystery is the equivalent of having a body in a murder mystery. If there was nothing there, nothing could be observed. There would be no mystery. If something that comprises a set of circumstances, or anything observable, is found anywhere, then there is also a perp. and a mystery until it's solved. Who dunnit?
From: Publius
Date: 28 Dec 2004
> You state the relationship backwards. The > "Force of Will" is not a metaphor for > gravity or electromagnetism. Gravity and > electromagnetism are metaphors for the > "Force of Will".
I didn't say that will is a metaphor for electromagnetism or gravitation. I said that describing will as a force is a metaphorical description. Although will (or desire) can be a cause of action, as is electromagnetism, it cannot be quantified and measured as the latter can, or correlated with state changes in a system with near the precision. Furthermore, will seems to be a cause only of human actions. The only system humans can change via will is the state of their own bodies. The changes in the states of their bodies may then effect changes to other bodies -- but at that point the forces of physics come into play, and will vanishes from the picture.
> The ability, or inability, to quantify and > correlate with changing states of matter do > not effect, or cause, those changing states > of matter.
Unless you are adopting a Humean skepticism regarding causation here, then you are mistaken. A is a cause of B IFF 1) A precedes B, 2) B always occurs subsequent to the occurrance of A, and 3) we have identified a mechanism, which we can describe and quantify, relating A to B. With that understanding of causation we can describe and predict the behavior of many natural systems with reasonable accuracy.
> It is the Will, and the Laws governed by > that Will, that cause change. Given all > the energy, or all the forces in the > Universe, nothing would happen if they > were not directed to do something by some > Law, some Will.
Are you offering the above as an empirical generalization, or as some sort of metaphysical posit? If the former, it is surely false. The only cases of will and its exercise we can observe is the exercise of human will. Yet changes occur constantly in the universe independently of any human will (as far as we can establish). If I see you throw a baseball through a window, I can correlate that change (the breaking of the window) with the exercise of will. If a meteorite crashes through the same window, I have no grounds for postulating the involvement of any will, since no person seems to have been involved in setting the orbit of that meteor.
But no doubt you are offering a metaphysical posit. That is, you are assuming a priori that all changes in a system must be the result of acts of will. But that is an unwarranted generalization, given the absence of evidence of willful agent being involved in most of those changes. That is, it seems to be a rather bad argument for the existence of God.
> Just as the law of the kingdom is the > expressed will of the king, or, [. . .] > So too are the Laws of Nature the expressed > Will of the Creator of the Universe.
The laws in question belong to entirely different orders of animals. As the logician Quine once pointed out, there are two kind of rules: rules that fit, and rules that guide. They are distinct things. Natural laws are rules that "fit" -- they are only statements of observed regularities. Thus we may say, "As a rule, when the temperature is below X and the humidity is above Y, it will snow." That is a rule that fits our observations, but it has no role in determining the weather.
A statute, or a royal edict, is offered as a rule to guide. "Every person who erects a structure intended for human occupancy in this county shall obtain a building permit." Rules that guide presuppose a rule-giver. Rules that merely fit do not. (And rules meant to guide rarely fit very well).
> I don't see how "from the point of view of > physics, human actions are best regarded > as spontaneous changes in a system." If > the changes are "spontaneous" then: Either > there are no rules, or the rules that were > followed were not the rules expected to be > followed.
You are correct there. We should regard human actions as spontaneous (from the point of view of physics) because we know of no rules that accurately explain or predict their behavior, except (sometimes) statistically. We can predict the decay of a radioactive element statistically also. But we cannot predict which atom will fission next, or when it will fission.
> If there are no rules, then it would not > be possible to explain anything since > explanation requires the discovery and > elucidation of the rules that govern any > particular behaviour. There must be rules, > whether the rulemakers are acknowledged, >or not.
But not all rules require a rule-giver. See above.
From: Anthony G. Rubino
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004
To Publius, who, among other things, said:
> I didn't say that will is a metaphor for > electromagnetism or gravitation. I said > that describing will as a force is a > metaphorical description. Although will > (or desire) can be a cause of action, as > is electromagnetism, it cannot be > quantified and measured as the latter can, > or correlated with state changes in a > system with near the precision.You acknowledge that "will (or desire) can be a cause of action." That's as good a starting point as any. A will that could not act would be useless, meaningless, -- not a will at all. If a will could not "desire", it would have no reason to act. When a human will begins its existence, it either has no desires, or it has only the desire to act. In either case, it must act, because that is its nature, and its primary purpose is to satisfy its nature. That first purpose is imposed on it by its creation. At that point it has no desires, or purpose, of its own.> Furthermore, will seems to be a cause only > of human actions. The only systems humans > can change via will is the state of their > own bodies. The changes in the states of > their bodies may then effect changes to > other bodies -- but at that point the > forces of physics come into play, and will > vanishes from the picture.
Poor thing!
It can act, but cannot direct its actions. It can only act at random until it creates a desire to choose; i.e., a preference for some actions over others. How it might do that is a discussion for another time, but clearly it does learn enough from its random actions to create desires, which become goals and purposes: but, that's not enough. If that's all it could do, it would have been better not to have been born.
It must also have the ability to create, or to direct, the necessary energy, or forces, to satisfy desires, to achieve its goals and purposes. A will that could not do that would be useless, meaningless, -- not a will at all. Again, how it might do that is a discussion for another time, but, clearly it can do it: e.g., I have the desire to respond to your comments and the ability to control the necessary energy, or forces, that enable me to do so.
It is also quite clear that I, (i.e., that my will), did not create all of the energy and forces that enable me to communicate with you. It is equally clear that I do have the ability to direct the existing energy and forces that enable me to do so.
The best, and the simplest, analogy, or metaphor, to explain this somewhat miraculous ability is to consider a similarity between my will and the Will of the Creator which enables me to associate my will with the Energy, or Forces, He created sufficiently to be able to direct those existing forces of nature for my purpose.
All knowledge can be considered a metaphor for 'what is'. All our knowledge of energy and forces, such as gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear, or mental forces, are analogies, or metaphors, for the realities they represent regardless of what perspective is used to consider them, (e.g., common sense, semantic, physical, metaphysical, ontological, etc.).
You presented a number of other interesting considerations that will be difficult to discuss in this context if you do not understand, and accept, what I have presented so far. I will therefore conclude at this time by re-iterating my view that are looking at the relationship of metaphor and Reality backwards. 'What is' precedes knowledge of 'what is': Will precedes will. Since they are similar, one can be used as a metaphor for the other. I can understand your perspective, Can you understand mine? Which perspective is more comprehensive?
Tony, philosopher