19 Free will (2)
19 Free will (2)
Requirements of free will
There is no free will (Proof)
The upper quantum cannot alter the actions of lower constituent quanta (Proof)
There is no free thinking (Proof)
There is no will (For insurance' sake)
An action which can change its own operating logic on its own doesn't exist
A possibility of changing the operating logic in the matter actions
Actually, there is no free thinking
................
《 Requirements of free will 》
Free will includes thinking.
And, nothingness doesn't exist, and nothing is not embodied by nothingness. Accordingly, thinking also needs to be embodied by something that performs thinking --this can be considered to be the thinking action-- other than nothingness.
Moreover, in order for the thinking action to be activated, an initial input --a seed for thinking-- that causes it is also indispensable.
The thinking action has rough features such as above, and the requirements of free will that includes such thinking action seem to be as follows.
a) Free will can produce a seed for thinking freely. (Self-prepararion of the cause of thinking)
b) The thinking by free will is not fixed. Every time free will starts thinking based on a seed for thinking it prepared, it can on the spot also create instantly a new way of thinking which is not restricted to a particular way. (Freeness also implies being able to think in every way about one seed for thinking). (Instant creation of an unrestricted and diverse way of thinking)
c) Through the way of thinking created on its own, free will can develop thinking and give outcome. (Developing thinking and giving outcome)
d) Free will has physicality, can have a causal relationship with matter, and can physically interact with matter. (This is because bodily movements occur based on free will). (Physicality)
e) Free will, according to the thought it formed, can intentionally control the movements of substances which compose the material body in which it is borne. (Strictly, free will must be able to operate substances of its body. However, even if it's not that much as the operability of free will on substances is required, it's at least indispensable for the realization of free will that a living body can move based on the thought by free will. And, the fact that a living body moves based on the thought means that substances which compose the living body move based on the thought --or, influenced by the thought--). (Intentional control of bodily movements)
《 There is no free will (Proof) 》
In general, thinking requires a seed --cause of thinking-- enough to start operating.
(For some action to fulfill concrete operation, input as an object of the action's operation is inevitably necessary.
For example, let's say that there is an action to fulfill a certain function here. And, let's say the action has started, is on standby, and idle. However, for some outcome to be output from the action, extrinsic input that is the origin of the outcome is indispensable. Meaningful outcome cannot be output from actions without extrinsic input).
And, if free will prepares a seed for thinking by itself according to one of the requirements of free will, before it, the free will needs to have such intention.
However, the intention is a thought in the first place, and another thinking is necessary to form this thought.
Then, a question arises where the seed for this prerequisite thinking came from. And this falls into a vicious circle.
For this reason, it follows that it's impossible for the free will to produce seeds for thinking freely on its own. In a word, the will cannot prepare seeds for thinking on its own.
And it follows that one of the requirements of free will is not satisfied.
Thereby, there is no free will.
(However, this is an argument in a case where the will prepares the seeds for thinking by itself. And, this logic is not applicable to the case where the will doesn't participate in the occurrence of seeds for thinking. However, in that case, it follows that there is fundamentally no free will.
The seeds for thinking is extrinsic. And, the thinking is an action, and its work is always started by an extrinsic cause or trigger.
(Consciousness is a microscopic and big action, and cannot activate itself on its own. Consciousness comes active passively only after receiving an extrinsic initial input. (Being idle --being empty (emptiness) about actions or action outcome-- until some input is given and the action starts to run like this way is one of the essences of consciousness). (This is the same with the fact that, until concrete instructions are given, a CPU or a DSP continues to repeat NOP (No OPeration) instruction, which does nothing, endlessly, on every clock signal))).
Moreover, it also seems to be indispensable that, to think, the thinking action of consciousness is formed from something like a thinking algorithm.
(This is difficult to express. This is because it's surmised that the thinking action of consciousness is physically and automatically formed instantaneously and completed instantaneously. However, still, what constructs the logic of thinking action is necessary. We call it something like a thinking algorithm tentatively).
And, the same can be said also about the formation of something like a thinking algorithm as the seed for thinking. This is because something like a thinking algorithm must also be brought by a prerequisite seed for thinking, something like a thinking algorithm, and prerequisite thinking. And this also falls into a vicious circle.
Then, it follows that, as to something like a thinking algorithm, one of the requirements of free will will not be satisfied.
Therefore, there is no free will.
(However, this is an argument in a case where the will forms something like a thinking algorithm by itself. And, this logic is not applicable to the case where the will doesn't participate in the formation. However, also in that case, it follows that there is fundamentally no free will).
《 The upper quantum cannot alter the actions of lower constituent quanta (Proof) 》
An upper quantum is formed from lower constituent quanta.
Here we assume that the upper quantum can alter the actions of lower constituent quanta. That is to say, we assume that such an action is also implemented in the upper quantum. (The true nature of a quantum (matter) is matter actions, and altering a quantum means to alter the matter actions inherent in the quantum).
By the way, for example, it may be good to imagine a water molecule and its constituent hydrogen and oxygen atoms as quanta.
However, as soon as the upper quantum begins to alter the matter actions of lower quanta, the action of the upper quantum comes to an emergency stop immediately. This is because, if the upper quantum begins to alter the actions of lower quanta, its own actions also change on the spot, resulting in an inconsistency of the actions.
This is a bug in the action of a quantum and is by no means acceptable. This is because, if such a thing is permissible, it follows that every matter of this universe will immediately stop urgently, and this universe becomes not to exist in the first place. This is because, the fundamental interactions are also compelled to halt.
For this reason, if this universe exists, the upper quantum cannot in the first place alter the actions of lower constituent quanta.
And, because consciousness is a great quantum, it means that consciousness also cannot alter the action of substances that form itself. Hence there is no free will.
This is because, being able to alter the logic of thinking equipped in its own self arbitrarily is one of the requirements of free will. And, this is because, in order to alter its own logic of thinking, consciousness must alter the lower quanta. For this reason, if altering is impossible, it follows that there is no free will as a matter of course.
However, even though consciousness doesn't directly alter the actions of constituent substances --in the first place, consciousness doesn't have material operability because of being microscopic entity which deals with ideas only--, a possibility that it can indirectly influence the movement of substances in some way or other still remains. For instance, it's a possibility that some information --for example, a course or guidance about the movement of substances. By the way, information is an idea and static stuff (so to speak, scalar)-- is transmitted to substances from consciousness and the information indirectly participates in (has an effect on) the movement of substances.
《 There is no free thinking (Proof) 》
First of all, nothingness doesn't exist. And it's impossible that nothingness thinks. Then, even if there is the thinking action in this universe, it follows that it can only be embodied by something other than nothingness. That is to say, in this universe, the thinking action is fulfilled by something other than nothingness.
And, things other than nothingness are matter, including the space formed by Higgs bosons. And, (it is said that the morphological true nature of matter is a particle, but), the real true nature of matter is the matter actions inherent in matter. (Particles we recognize are nothing but morphological traces --(static physical properties, scalars-- gained (left) by observation. There are no solid particles themselves in this universe). Since the actions inherent in matter continue to work always, matter can be matter. (It is said that matter is equivalent to energy. Energy is the foundation of this universe. And energy embodies actions of matter directly). That is to say, in this universe, the thinking action is embodied and carried out by matter actions.
Moreover, these things can be said about consciousness.
And, among the matter actions, there is the fundamental computation which is ideological. This is what fulfills ideological computation processing and can be called a thinking action in a figurative sense. It operates spontaneously, independently, and actively in matter (quantum).
And, when matter evolves into a living thing's cell, in the macroscopic cell, the fundamental computations of the innumerable constituent matter form a comprehensive thinking action of the consciousness of the cell by the physical order forming effect originating from the generation of heat and entropy, discharging of them to the outside, and the reduction of entropy production rate.
Moreover, the thinking action is equipped with the logic of thinking. Thinking, namely, an ideological computing action cannot be fulfilled without logic. The outcome of thinking by matter is produced by the work of the the logic of thinking.
Furthermore, the output from a certain seed for thinking, viz., the outcome of thinking, is uniquely determined by the logic of thinking. In a word, the thinking action is a function.
However, still, if the seeds for thinking differ, different results of thinking are output. This means that the thinking process and the results of thinking fluctuate easily. And, this seems to be the basic cause of the fact that consciousness feels the impression of free thinking.
Furthermore, the fundamental computation of matter is also given a priori to matter. This is also the case for the thinking action of a living body. And, the upper quantum cannot intervene in the work of lower constituent quanta. For this reason, neither matter nor a living body can change the logic of the action given to them a priori, on their own.
In other words, the computing (thinking) logic of matter or a living body is not only a function but also cannot rewrite itself with a new one on its own. In short, the logic of thinking of matter is in principle fixed.
Therefore, there is no free thinking. And, there is no free will either.
By the way, although there is no free thinking, it's conceivable that the thinking action (logic) may be subject to suffer changes caused by external factors.
《 There is no will (For insurance' sake) 》
Nothingness doesn't exist. And, in this universe, things other than nothingness are matter, including Higgs bosons which form space and bring mass to matter. For this reason, anything that occurs in the flow of time in this universe is, at the root, embodied by matter. Then, even if some actions exist in this universe, it follows that they are also embodied by matter.
Now, let's think about will. It is, by convention, thought to be something which performs corporeal actions as well as mental actions. (Corporeal actions are also included here because being able to move its corporeal body by its intention is also a requirement of will). However, in this universe, no matter what they are, actions fundamentally need to be embodied by matter. For this reason, the actions (thinking and corporeal actions, etc.) which are considered to be performed by will are also actually embodied and carried out by matter. In other words, will itself doesn't carry out its own actions.
Then, that cannot be will. This is because, as to both mental and corporeal actions required of will as essential requirements, will doesn't fulfill them, but they are carried out by matter --the place where will is supposed to occur--. Hence there is no will. There is no will in a strict sense.
Moreover, the assertion that there is no will in a strict sense doesn't exist means that there is no active will. For this reason, there is also no free will.
Matter is the true nature of will. In the underlying part where the actions, which, in general, are supposed to be fulfilled by will, are actually fulfilled, inanimate matter just moves.
It is conjectured that what we think to be will is like a passive shadow which arises from the physical movement --for example, physical activity in the brain cells-- which occurs at matter which is the place where our will emerge.
《 An action which can change its own operating logic on its own doesn't exist 》
This is like nonsense, but is an additional explanation about whether or not there is free will (free thinking).
First of all, no substance can touch itself. So, an action which can touch itself doesn't exist. For example, assume that an action to touch is equipped in the tip of an earthworm. However, no matter how it makes the body twist, the tip can by no means touch itself. This may be obvious.
Then, it follows that an action which can change its own operating mechanism or algorithm on its own more than touch itself doesn't exist. There are no ways to change because it cannot touch to begin with.
Then, it follows that, even though there is a thinking action in this universe, the action also cannot change itself. Then, it follows that, in this framework --a framework to change itself by itself--, there is no free thinking. This is because it's not able to change its own way of thinking (logic of thinking) on its own.
It can also be said that a self-operating logic changing action --an action which keeps on changing its own operating logic endlessly-- can never exist.
It's fraudulent, but it's also able to think linguistically. A thinking action is one which do thinking as the name indicates. If a self-operating logic changing action is also equipped in the thinking action, it becomes a compound action. And, it must be called a thinking and self-operating logic changing action. Thereby, seeing also from the linguistic viewpoint, a self-operating logic changing action is not equipped in the thinking action, and free thinking is impossible.
Substance cannot touch itself. And, whatever the action is, the action cannot change its own operating logic on its own. This is the case of simple and single actions. And, as to the single actions, the following can alco be said. (There are repetions partly).
1) A self-operating logic changing action --an action which keeps on changing its own operating logic endlessly-- can never exist.
2) In general, an action which is equipped with a single action cannot change its own operating logic on its own.
3) Linguistically, an action which is equipped with some single action is not an action to change its own operating logic. (A single action which changes its own operating logic cannot exist).
4) Assume that the design of the new operationg logic or the very logic as a substitute has already been equipped. However, a substituting action is necessary to substitute with them. And, this becomes a compound action. And what is more, to prepare them limitlessly is impossible. For these reasons, the case that substitutes are already equipped is not acceptable. It's not able to change its own operating logic on its own through the method that substitutes are prepared beforehand.
5) Assume that the design of a new operationg logic or the very logic as a substitute is contrived or produced on the spot. This also becomes a compound action. And, moreover, to contrive something new (*) is almost impossible in the first place. So, also in this case, it's not able to change its own operating logic on its own.
(*) The question about the emergence of newness or novelty seems difficult. Still, it seems that, regardless of the distinction between static ones, dynamic ones, macroscopic ones, and microscopic ones, it seems that the newness is brought by the physical order forming effect fundamentally. The physical order forming effect simply tries to form order according to the present physical situation, and doesn't try to form new order deliberately. Still, if the order formed --including pure idea, intuition, or artistic idea, etc.-- is one which has never before emerged, as a result, it may become the emergence of newness. But, there are no criteria for judging whether new or not, and it is only interpreted by humankind. Furthermore, it is subtle whether or not things gained by combining existing things are regarded as new ones.
6) Assume that it's able to change incoherently without designs, substitutes, or new contrivance. (However, this is also NG practically because of being a compound action). However, this is nothing but destruction.
Then, if it is some compound action --for example, like matter actions--, it may be possible that the operating logic of an action is changed by some other action. This possibility cannot be denied.
《 A possibility of changing the operating logic in the matter actions 》
Here, let's look into the matter actions. Because there is a possibility if it's a compound action, it may be possible that the operating logic of the fundamental computation can be changed by the fundamental operation. However, this possibility is denied by the following thing.
a) The fundamental computation of substance (quantum) is an action to compute the next state of the whole of the substance, and is not an action to compute the computed result (idea) which requests that its own operating logic is changed. For this reason, a request (idea) to change the operating logic of the fundamental computation is not notified to the fundamental operation, and the algorithm will never be changed.
b) By the way, the matter actions are actions which are equipped a priori. Whichever action it is, it doesn't know the details of implementation of them, and doesn't know the method to change the operating logic of them. (Moreover, it doesn't have the ability to design a new operating logic). Furthermore, the fundamental operation is an action which changes the state of the matter concerned to the new state which is computed by the fundamental computation, and is not an action to change the operating logic of the fundamental computation. For these reasons, whichever action it is, it will not be changed by the fundamental operation.
《 Actually, there is no free thinking 》
From the foregoing things, it is surmised that, at such a primordial living body as microorganism, single-celled organism, cell, etc., an outcome of thinking which requests to change its own operating logic is not computed by the thinking action --big fundamental computation--. Moreover, even if such a outcome of thinking was computed, the method to change the thinking logic directly according to the request doesn't exist. This is because the thinking action (logic) is formed a priori and continuously every moment following completely the present situation and physical properties of constituent substances, in the constructive and productive direction of forming (or, sustaining, updating) the physical order of the living body concerned. Nothing can intervene in this formation.
For these reasons, it seems that the thinking action (logic) doesn't wear arbitrariness, and direct free thinking doesn't exist.
This is a repetition, but, in short, physically, on the fundamental level of living things such as microorganisms or cells, the way of thinking (thinking logic) is formed a priori and physically according to the present situation and physical properties of constituent substances, and the thinking motion or the outcome of thinking cannot participate in the formation. For this reason, there is no direct free thinking provided the level is the fundamental level of living things.
