On mankind's slavery

"What if everything was already decided?"
A publication by Steven Wolf

Italy, 2nd February 2019

Summary

1 – Introduction

  • Let’s become researchers
  • The “scientific” universe
  • To each his roles
  • My theory
  • Warnings
  • How I will proceed

2 – Those brainiacs of our ancestors

  • Ancient wisdom?
  • Logical determinism
  • Mechanistic determinism
  • Against the logical determinism
  • Against the mechanistic determinism
  • Here, all of them
  • Let’s lay the foundations
  • The necessity of a map

3 – Come on: the universe isn’t deterministic!

  • The “libertarians’ land”
  • Replies to the libertarians
  • So what?

4 – Are we divinities?

5 – There is something wrong

  • Let’s summarize
  • The “land of the hierarchical compatibilists”
  • Have we solved the determinism?
  • Other strategies
  • A linguistic problem?

6 – The true problems behind the free will

7 – My dualist perspective

  • From sleeper to awakened
  • An airy-fairy theory?
  • A wrong view
  • Here again the quantum physics
  • Determined by whom?
  • Who is right?
  • Conclusions

 

1 – Introduction

  • Let’s become researchers

Right now you are reading these words in front of a screen. Are you the one choosing to keep reading? Shoo away that banal “Yes” that your mind is almost automatically generating and dig up into the deepness of yourself. Dig deeper and, once arrived at the doors of your unconscious, ask yourself what true power of choice do you have. Everything you have done since you woke up until now, have you done it freely? I don’t mean whether you were forced by someone else or not. I only invite you to question yourself if you are really free in a “strong” sense. Do you have some sort of free will or are you simply a viewer of an already written play? In order to answer these questions, we must ban every intuitive answer that the subconscious generates and wear the clothes of serious and competent “researchers”.
These reflections are anything but original and innovative. There is an immense literature on free will. The question of what we do for our authentic choice is so important that almost every thinker of the past faced it.

  • The “scientific” universe

Science got us used to identify with the name of reality everything that we experiment with our senses and that is calculable and foreseeable. The classic physics show us a mechanistic universe in which everything is perfectly foreseen. Biology shows all the automatisms of our cells. Psychology articulates the particular functioning mechanisms of the human mind. In conclusion, every science seems to suggest us that reality is a big theatre in action. A theatre in which we have no power on the matter. We rigorously follow laws preestablished at a psychological, biological, physical etc. level. Everything seems to have a rational explication and all our “choices” seem predetermined, a pure illusion, a small formality that allows us to maintain our mental sanity. Imagine how would the whole humanity react if it was discovered that everything “is already written”, that anyone action can be foreseen by an enough sophisticated calculator, that freedom is just an empty word, without any “deep” meaning. Personally, I believe that, in case of such a revelation, many people would go through a big trauma. A trauma so great to bring to who knows what mental insanity.

  • To each his roles

Science gives data and experimental results. The interpretation of that data doesn’t belong just to the scientists, but to any Free Thinker. We cannot expect a baker, only for the fact that he bakes bread, to be able to build a food science. The scientist bakes bread, the thinker takes it and, inserting it in a more complete and broad context, builds a food science. Thus, I affirm: stop to this “scientific” view of the world built by the bakers; I hurl an invective to the science that invades the field of other disciplines. I am not referring to any religion, only to the broader conception of the word philosophy. It’s the job of the philosophers to generate a vision of the world coherent to the experimental data. This is my invective: no more scientific dogmatisms; let the imagination reclaim the throne it deserves; let the ideas start flowing freely from every Free Thinker spread all over the world.

  • My theory

In this publication, I state humanity to be split in two: sleepers and awakened. The sleepers don’t have any free will and their life is completely predetermined. In other words, with enough data and an enough powerful calculator, we could foresee any choice of the sleeper. The awakened, instead, have free will and this ability is so incredible to almost confer them the title of “divinity” on Earth.
I’m aware of the strong stance of my statements and I can assure the reader that step by step I will guide him towards my view on the word freedom. I’ll try to show him the reason why do I affirm all of that and the alternatives with which the reader can line up.

  • Warnings

Whoever feels too intelligent to waste his precious time on a publication that raises reflections on free will is already condemned to perish in his mud of presumption. In the “History of Thought”, one needs humility, rationality and a touch of courage. To whoever has the courage to venture in this maze, I dedicate this publication.

  • How I will proceed

I will proceed for 7 steps. First of all, I will lay the foundations on the topic of free will briefly illustrating the historiography of literature on the matter and defining some concepts that will be later used. With the 3rd chapter, we enter in the universe of quantum physics trying to illustrate some stances on free will that base on it. The 4th chapter is dedicated to a theory as fascinating as daring; we’ll end up examining the borders between humanity and divinity. To the lovers of logic and linguistic, the 5th chapter will be very much appreciated: we’ll deal with John Locke and his linguistic redefinition of the concept of freedom and we’ll show whether this freedom is of any consolation or not. The 6th chapter concerns all the positions addressed from a broader perspective, outlining what are the true problems behind free will and how they can be solved. Finally, to whoever will reach the hearth of the maze, in the 7th chapter I will explain to him my personal theory, showing the evidence that supports it.

2 – Those brainiacs of our ancestors

“Unless you expect the unexpected you will never find truth”

Heraclitus

  • Ancient wisdom?

We don’t really know whether we are the one identifying the “ancients” as wise or if they were effectively way wiser than us. I believe that the past is idealized up to an ideological “crystallization” by mutual agreement. Actually, apart from some scientists that see in the past only ignorance and ingenuity, the majority of people considers the thinkers of the past as great “brainiacs”.
Regarding the problem of free will, already on the Vth and VIth century b.C., they existed two forms of determinism [1]:
• the logical determinism by Diodorus Cronus;
• the physical-mechanistic determinism by Democritus.

  • Logical determinism

In the first case, Diodorus analyzes the temporal statements like, for example, the sentence “John sat down at the desk at the instant T”. Diodorus reflects on the fact that these statements are necessarily false or necessarily right and that we can discover it only once the instant T happens. Indeed, they exist a set of true temporal statements that happen in the past. And what about the temporal statements that happen in the future? Before John sits down on the chair, is it possible to already “foresee” what will happen or not? In other words, is it possible to have a defined value of truth for the future temporal statements the same way as it happens with the past ones? According to Diodorus, the fact of not being able to foresee whether John would sit down or not at the desk at the instant T is only given by some flaws on the data in our possession or by the “roughness” of our brain, since the future is as determined as the past looks like to us. In other words, “in potential” we could foresee any event, since logically the determinism based on linguistic of Diodorus stands.

  • Mechanistic determinism

The determinism by Democritus, instead, is very different and it appears far closer to the Newtonian scientific vision of the universe. According to Democritus, the atoms that compose the reality that surrounds us, place themselves with a very specific order and criterion. In other words, without ever making it fully explicit, Democritus anticipated the scientific conception of “law of nature”.
The analytical philosopher Peter van Inwagen [2] calls this kind of determinism [3], based on the laws of nature, nomic (from “nomos” that in Greek means “law”). For the nomic determinism, then, given the configuration of the universe at a certain instant and given its laws of nature, one can foresee the configuration of the universe in every other past or future instant respect to the given one.

  • Against the logical determinism

Still, already in the past, both the logical and the mechanistic determinism received some counter theories. In particular, the philosopher Carneades [4] answered to the logical determinism affirming that the conditions of truth of the future statements depend on the happening or not of the future events and so, they can’t be predetermined. Therefore, while we can affirm whether the past statements are true or false, for the future ones we can’t do it, not because of a lack of ability, but because the events that describe the future are still uncertain.

  • Against the mechanistic determinism

On the Democritus’ determinism, instead, the Latin poet Lucretius debated with the insertion of the clinamen: a sort of deviation, not very determined, of the atoms’ motion that would be an ambiguous way out from the absolute determinism.

  • Here, all of them

Other then the already mentioned determinists, there are other positions taken from our brainiac ancestors on the free will. I will show here below the principal ones, just to give the overall picture on the importance of the topic of the free will already in the past.

1. Epicurus: fate and destiny are masters that tend to enslave us; only what “surrounds us” is masterless and grant us moral responsibility;
2. Zeno: “Only the wise is free. Freedom is the power of independent action”, even though “The wise is rarer than the Phoenix”;
3. Epictetus: “God introduced the man into the world as a spectator of him and his works; and indeed, not just as a spectator but as an interpreter of them”;
4. Galenus: the problem of moral responsibility is substituted with that of social dangerousness;
5. Seneca: “Freedom is obeying God”;
6. Aristotelians: freedom comes from the voluntariness of the action and from its deliberation;
7. Plotinus: against the fatalism, he affirms: ”Indeed, it’s needed to give back to us humans what is ours”. He believes that the authenticity of freedom and the autonomy of action don’t imply the possibility of choosing following contingent alternatives since the human is free when he acts according to his more true and rational nature;

In order to make these positions more clear, I will analyse them here below.
1. What’s this “around us”? The form of freedom of which Epicurus speaks is very fragile and it’s comparable to some positions on the conceptual compatibilism that we will later analyse;
2. What’s this independent action? Furthermore, affirming that only such a rare figure such as the wise stoic is free equals saying that 99,9% of the world population doesn’t have a free will;
3. Once again, here it doesn’t exist a free will because of a “divine” determinism;
4. Galenus, as a doctor, doesn’t treat free will explicitly, but he largely comments on a topic connected to the free will: the moral responsibility;
5. Even here, it seems that freedom is simply an accepting our determinism;
6. Very similar position to Locke’s freedom that we will later analyse;
7. Plotinus steps ahead of time both on what is called “agent causation”, that we will later see, and on Locke’s rational determinism. Indeed, Plotinus does nothing but introduce a determinism different than the one we have called “nomic”, in order to redefine the concept of freedom.

  • Let’s lay the foundations

Don’t you think too that all these analyses of our ancestors leave much to be desired? Maybe it’s because today’s society has “evolved” in such a way to make us needy for a “stronger” sense of free will. Before going on, I will introduce another two concepts that will be useful for our journey through this maze:
rational determinism: it affirms that it’s our rationality the one that chooses for us according to what it’s more convenient for us. In this sense, all of our decisions would be determined by this “module” of our mind (if this is how we can define the rationality) and therefore, we wouldn’t have a free will in a “strong” sense;
psychological determinism [5]: every one of our actions would be determined by psychological mechanisms depending on various factors (education, addictions, beliefs etc.; basically, what I call “chains of will”). We would, therefore, be “dominated” by our own brain and the free will would be a mere illusion.
Pay attention not to confuse the determinism with the principle of universal causation that simply affirms that every phenomenon is attributable to some causes.
Who affirms that the determinism is compatible with the free will is defined “compatibilist”; on the contrary, who affirms that determinism and free will exclude one another is defined “incompatibilist”. The determinism with the compatibilism reach a “soft determinism” (a determinism in which we are free), the determinism with the incompatibilism reach a “hard determinism” (a determinism in which we aren’t free).

  • The necessity of a map

Now that we have investigated the different positions of our ancestors and that we possess the basis to enter this maze, we need to find a “map”. The map that I use here is the “classic” argument against the free will[6]. It is summarized like this:
1. if the universe is deterministic and we can’t change the past nor the laws of physics, our every action is unavoidable;
2. the free will presumes the ability to do otherwise;
3. if the premise number 1 is right, then the free will is an illusion;
4. the universe is deterministic;
5. we can’t change the past;
6. we can’t change the laws of physics;
7. therefore the free will is an illusion.
The first premise, in reality, it’s a result of the “Consequence Argument” on the nomic determinism by Van Inwagen [7]. The premise number 3 simply connects the premise number 1 with the free will. Thanks to this argument, it will be easier to know where we are moving through our journey in this maze. This argument will be a true map for our research. In order to affirm the free will, it’s necessary to negate one of these premises. According to which premise it’s negated, one comes to a theory pro-free will.
• The libertarians negate the premise number 4: the universe isn’t deterministic;
• the metaphysical compatibilists negate the premise number 6: the man has the ability to act on the laws of physics;
• the conceptual compatibilists negate the premise number 2: the free will doesn’t presume the ability to do otherwise.
Regarding the negation of the premise number 5 (that proves to be complicated because of the paradoxes of the time travels), Chris King bases himself on the experiments on the existence of retro-causality in order to affirm our free will. [8]

[1] With the word determinism, I’m referring to the conception according to which every phenomenon/event of the present is necessarily determined by a phenomenon/event happened in the past.

[2] To deepen the topic, see Van Inwagen “An Essay on Free Will”, 1983, ISBN 978-0-19-824924-5.

[3] Be careful with no confusing the determinism with the fatalism. According to the latter conception, in fact, an effect can be reached through numerous causes. For the determinism, instead, every effect is determined only by a cause. In this publication I won’t talk about fatalism.

[4] In reality, Carneades moves this argument against the Stoics and, in particular, against Chrysippus; but, being this a counter-argument to the logical determinism too, I inserted it in this context.

[5] To deepen the topic, see Balaguer. 2010. “Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem”.

[6] To discover the debate on free will in the field of contemporary analytical philosophy, see http://dspace.unive.it/bitstream/handle/10579/6540/955903-1165730.pdf;sequence=2

[7] Actually, in the proposed argument is even inserted the rule of inference that I won’t comment here since it has been affirmed as right more than once (with the right clarifications of Johnson and Mckay).

[8] To deepen the topic of the experiments on the retro-causality, see Dean Radin, Dick Bierman, Helmut Schmidt, Leonard Leibovici, Robert Jahm, Brenda Dunne e Luigi Fantappiè. This last one results interesting for the formulation of an alternative to a deterministic model: the cybernetic structure in which the phenomena are determined from the future and from the past through single choices that we make in the present.

3 – Come on: the universe isn’t deterministic!

  • The “libertarians’ land”

The first land on the map to be faced is the “libertarians’ land”, a place in which the wise scientists seem to base on the quantum physics to affirm the existence, in humans, of the free will. Indeed, from the Uncertainty principle formulated by Heisenberg, it has come to discover that the microcosm follows laws anything but deterministic. Indeed, of a particle, we can’t know “everything” [1], but we must choose what to know. The really strange thing here is that the fact of not being able to know “everything” doesn’t depend on our abilities, on instruments etc., but it’s exactly intrinsic in the nature of the particle! In fact, it answers to the uncertainties that can be described by a probability, but that can’t be fully defined in nature [2]. So, while in the macrocosm we can perfectly and simultaneously know everything we need about an object, for the microcosm that’s an impossible feat. The discovery of a law that makes the microcosmic uncertainty coherent with the macrocosmic determinism would bring to the so-called “theory of everything”.
And it’s exactly on this uncertainty of the microscopic world that the libertarians leverage on. Actually, why should we accept the nomic determinism when quantum physics tell us that the whole reality is based on the probabilistic uncertainty? The problem with the libertarians’ argument lies in the fact that only the microcosm seems to be affected by the uncertainty, while the world we experience every day is completely based on determined and foreseeable laws [3].

  • Replies to the libertarians

The libertarians could reply to this with two strategies:
• affirming that many little differences in the microcosm bring to great differences in the macrocosm. But in this case, how could we generate this accumulation of differences in the microcosm?
• claiming that our brain has the ability to somehow amplify the uncertainty of the microcosm so much to bring it to the macrocosm and here take a decision determined by our will. Reply that introduces a very “powerful” ability to our brain, but that is somehow able to affirm the free will.

  • So what?

There is then someone who affirms that for the free will to exist, the world must necessarily be deterministic. Indeed, if it was uncertain (at a macroscopic level), we couldn’t in any way act on the uncertainty and the free will would fade away anyway [4]. Thomas Reid, in order to remedy this critic, affirmed that while the entire world that surrounds us is based on deterministic laws caused by what he calls “event causation”, the human mind would have particular liberty based on the so-called “agent causation”. So, if the “machine” of the world takes an uncertain decision, we have the freedom to choose whether to “turn on” the machine or not, so we have the freedom to choose (even though the choice is not determined by us) or not choose. I consider the concept of the agent causation very “obscure and gloomy”, a way too fragile and futile freedom to define us as free will holders.
Unless one affirms the “paranormal” abilities of the human brain, the libertarians’ land seems very unstable. At a macroscopic level, the universe is deterministic. If it wasn’t, then we would have never been able to send the first man on the Moon as well as foresee with such precision phenomena like the solar eclipses and so on.

[1] In particular, we can’t simultaneously know its position and its speed.

[2] With a technical language: it’s not epistemic uncertainty, but metaphysical uncertainty.

[3] How Robert Kane well affirms (2003).

[4] This is a topic that it has been reported many times over on the magazine “Mind”, and that’s why it’s known under the name of “Mind argument”.

Exclusive video of an example of agent causation

“Does it look like a free action to you?”

4 – Are we divinities?

After affirming the determinism of the macrocosm (the physicists can breathe a sigh of relief), we must leave the libertarians’ land to enter even deeper into this intricate maze. It has now come the time to walk through the door of the compatibilists; in particular, we are about to cover the “land of the metaphysical compatibilists”.
In this land, we find very particular characters like David Lewis [1] and Kadri Vihvelin [2] that question the fact that we can’t intervene in the laws of nature [3]. Actually, the hypothesis that our mind would have such a power able to intervene on the laws of nature seems to be based on the observer effect discovered by quantum physics. I will come back to this point when I will express my theory on free will in the 7th chapter. Since there is nothing more to say on the theory that affirms that we have a sort of “divine power” in our mind we will immediately pass to the way more delicate “land of the hierarchical compatibilists”.

5 – Something is wrong

  • Let’s summarize

Up to now, we tried to question the nomic determinism starting from the quantum uncertainty of the microcosm and noting how this isn’t carried to the macrocosm (excluding a possible non-linear dynamic); we have now come to the conclusion that the determinism doesn’t seem questionable. Then we tried to give humans “superpowers” so that they could bypass the determinism, discovering that this strategy works, but that makes a very strong supposition on our abilities [1]. But what if the solution to the free will was much easier? What if we were simply starting from the wrong concept of freedom? That’s exactly what we’ll investigate in the “land of the hierarchical compatibilists”.

  • The “land of the hierarchical compatibilists”

According to the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt [2] (that works on the matter of Locke), a subject S acts freely to perform the action A if and only if:
1. S does A because he wants to perform A;
2. if S wouldn’t have wanted to perform A he wouldn’t have done it;
3. S would have desired that its volition V would produce the action A.

  • Have we solved the determinism?

This elegant conditional analysis of the concept of freedom doesn’t mention in any way the ability to do otherwise and this sure will be appreciated by many readers since it resolves the problem of free will with a redefinition of the concept of freedom. Still, it must be noticed that this argument doesn’t elude the rational determinism [3]. So, even though we aren’t “slaves” of the laws of nature we would be slaves of our own rationality.

  • Other strategies

Others, like the already mentioned Lewis, try to solve the “will to do otherwise” with the analysis of the true meanings of the word “will”. In particular, according to Lewis, the free will would imply the will to do otherwise only in a weak sense of the will. In this case, the nomic determinism would be partially substituted by a series of factors that Lewis calls “relevant facts”. So we have partially resolved the problem of the nomic determinism settling for a weak sense of “will”. Furthermore, Frankfurt tries to affirm that the free will doesn’t imply the will to do otherwise introducing the concept of the “guidance control”, still I consider Vihvelin to have excellently refuted Frankfurt’s argument and that’s why I won’t analyse in detail this point [4].

  • A linguistic problem?

Personally, I’m not satisfied with resolving the problem of the free will simply by “playing” with linguistic redefinitions. I believe freedom to be something very “deep” and so it can’t be treated simply like a word to be interpreted in the most advantageous way. Even the land of the hierarchical compatibilists seems to leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
What to do then?

[1] For example, one could ask himself why, if we have such a power, we still haven’t noticed it scientifically. Other would affirm that the observer effect is a scientific proof on the matter. We’ll come back to this in the 7th chapter.

[2] Frankfurt implements to Locke’s argument the 3rd premise to contrast the counterattacks based on the so-called “pathologies of will”. See Frankfurt, “Necessity, Volition, and Love”, 1999.

[3] Go back to the definition of rational determinism in the paragraph “Let’s lay the foundations” in the 2nd chapter.

[4] To deepen the topic, see the counterexample to the principle of the alternative possibilities made by Frankfurt in his already mentioned publication.

6 – The true problems behind the free will

“I was thinking about freedom, great invention

There are no free men

There are no free women

Only the will exists

And the will elegantly dresses itself of victory or defeat”

Axos

So, it seems that the strategies to make the nomic determinism compatible with the free will are more or less unsatisfying. Actually, once the nomic determinism is affirmed, then it’s a direct consequence that we are simply some highly sophisticated machines that, because of the complexity of the system, delude ourselves in having a sort of power that we call “free will”. So it seems that we have sadly reduced ourselves to a completely mechanistic Sphex wasp [1]. The true problems behind the free will aren’t the compatibility with the nomic determinism, but the nomic determinism in itself, the laws of nature (deterministic or otherwise) and the incompatibility with the scientific-nomocratic picture that we have of the world respect to our “internal” vision as agents that make choices. But why does this incompatibility exist? Why does our vision of the world appear so far away from our everyday experience? What’s the problem: a bad interpretation of the everyday-life or our scientific vision of the world? Why do the deterministic model and the actual laws of nature, that we know, work so well in the prevision of some physical phenomena, but are at the same time a great threat to our freedom? It seems like we have a great fundamental problem that none has ever noticed.

[1] See the 10th chapter on my recent publication: https://www.brancobianco.eu/on-the-monopoly-of-emotions-and-the-chains-of-will/?lang=en

7 – My dualist perspective

If you arrived up to this point, you will have understood very well how complicated the problem of free will is and you will have gotten yourself an idea on how much philosophical literature exists on the matter. Probably you’ll have embraced one of the solutions that I have shown, still, I remain highly unsatisfied. That’s why I will now show my theory based on years of researches other than personal experiences.
How I have already stated in the introduction, in this publication I affirm that humanity is split in two: the sleepers and the awakened. The sleepers don’t have any free will and their life is completely predetermined. In other words, with enough data and an enough powerful calculator, we could foresee any choice of a sleeper. The awakened, instead, have free will and this ability is so incredible to almost confer them the title of “divinity” on Earth.

  • From sleeper to awakened

The sleepers depend completely on the rational determinism stated by Locke. Just look around for a moment to notice how many “human machines” surround us. To form the basis of rational determinism there are those which I call “Chains of Will” stated in my already mentioned previous publication. Even us, if we don’t force us to watch ourselves from the outside while we take a decision, we are more or less guided by a rational determinism. Every awakened has been a sleeper in the past. So, for every sleeper, there is a possibility to become an awakened. One just need to follow the following path:
1. inform yourself: culture and knowledge are the first steps to instill the doubt, this is in its turn what brings us to the evolution and to freedom.
2. observe yourself: detach yourself more and more from the identification with your body and your personality, observing yourself from the outside, starting at first from an observation while meditating to later arrive at an observation in the meantime of any daily activity. This technique will allow you to detach yourself from your mind rediscovering your essential Self and becoming aware of the limits imposed by your personality;
3. know yourself: this can happen through different techniques, the important thing is to recognise the chains we have;
4. get rid of the chains: act at first on the visible chains and then on the invisible ones through neuro-linguistic self-deprogramming techniques [1] (I suggest starting from the zazen);
5. defend yourself: remain vigilant on the new chains that could form;
6. be discreet: maintain discretion on the path taken to avoid suffering from more or less aware psychological attacks;
7. gain knowledge at a high level: at this point, one should pass from a didactic culture to a more specialized and professional one. I suggest the study of serious scientific-philosophical topics and the practice of advanced techniques;
8. model reality: start, with awareness and always high moral values, expressing your own potential of “divinity”.

  • An airy-fairy theory?

So, I consider Frankfurt and Locke with the rational determinism to be completely right for what concerns the sleepers. The awakened, instead, having abandoned the chains of will, have that power of intervening on the laws of nature that Lewis and Vihvelin mentioned. The suppositions exposed aren’t figments of my fanciful imagination but are based on serious scientific discoveries.
The researcher Riccardo Tuis affirms: “The searches of epigenetics by Bruce Lipton proves that our perception (the filter with which we observe our environment and ourselves) has the power to mutate our gene pool by activating and deactivating whatever active or inactive gene. The biologist Garajev and his colleagues came to the conclusion that the gene pool follows all the rules of the human languages. One just needs to know the right frequency with the right language to obtain the reprogramming of the DNA. In Garajev’s searches, it was discovered that the DNA is able to disturb our environment up to straying in the so-called observer effect of quantum physics. Other searches, made by researchers like Radin, Targ, Dunne etc., have shown that the observer effect is able to modify the environment itself, not just the subatomic world, and even influence people cognitive processes.” [2]
The awareness power of the awakened allows him, therefore, to act on his own DNA bypassing the rational determinism. In reality, I don’t believe that an awakened has the ability to break the laws of nature, I rather think that the actual conception of laws of nature is rather limited. The laws of nature don’t allow us to interact with them, but even we, as observers, are a necessary and determining factor for these laws.

  • A wrong view

“If the idea that we have the ability to modify the reality is rather unlikely for our actual paradigm, let’s think on how we would react to the idea that Earth goes around the fixed Sun if we were in the Middle Ages. In five hundred years, our great-grandkids will observe our obscurantist historical period as the “Middle Ages of the XXIst century”, speechless for our dogma and undisputed truths. Consequently, to the extent to which we are able to doubt our actual systems of beliefs, we have the yardstick with which measure our growth as individual” [3].
Our actual mechanist vision of the world is therefore wrong and survives only because we have an enormous fear of abandoning the dogma of the determinism to embrace the discoveries of quantum physics. Once become awakened, let’s become “divinities” able to act on the laws of nature, no more unaware and no more basing ourselves on the chains of will, but with full awareness and will. All of this is given to us thanks to the power that we have with the collapse of the wave function. Actually, when the philosopher Reid affirms that the laws of nature don’t cover the human behaviour, he has got a point. The deterministic laws don’t cover the behaviour of the awakened. For all the others, the determinism, although illusory, remains an insurmountable problem.

  • Here again the quantum physics

For those who aren’t familiar with the collapse of the wave function, I mention Tuis again “When one makes a measurement, the particle is found only in a specific point, but if it’s postulated that the wave function gives a complete and literal description of a quantum system, this means that in between a measurement and another one, the particle disappears in an overlapping of probability waves and it is potentially present in many different places at the same time. Only when the observation is made, the wave function collapses in the physical reality and the particle can be observed in a specific point. So the wave function in the quantum mechanics represents a physical state of the quantum system correlated to some spatial and temporal coordinates in which the wideness of probability signs the points where the virtual particle will appear in the human reality. Its framework module represents the probability of density of the state on the position of the Matrix 1 space-time. In the quantum mechanics, the wave function it’s needed to determine the probability of space-time position of a virtual particle that will be found in a point instead of another one. The observer effect of the human thought generates a cascade effect of wave functions that shape the probability where people, things, places and event will be positioned in the space-time of reality that the observer will go instigate. The cascade wave function can be foreseen in advance, if we know the unconscious programmes of a person, his expectations and convictions that form his system of beliefs, we will know the models used by the neural processors of thought, then which thoughts the subject will emit and which reality he will go shape. And a person won’t change his thought from ordinary to extraordinary if his neural processors will remain inside the rut of an ordinary reality instead of instigating an extraordinary reality full of new potentials. Luckily, the human being has many variables contained in that gift that we can call will and this is the greatest force of the man to get rid of the predefined thought that imprisons him in the Matrix 1″.
So, the more chains of will you have, the more your mindset is predictable and the more the reality that surrounds you will be based on the nomic determinism. Then, the determinism is not something that comes to us from outside and that condemn us to be machines without the possibility of “authentic” choice, it comes from “inside us” and it reflects on the reality that surrounds us. We are the modellers of reality and the free will depends on nothing but us.

  • Determined by whom?

Tuis comments again: “Victims don’t exist in Matrix 1, but there rather exist people that accept the pre-established reality without really searching for anything else. This state of tediousness given by a heavy mental conditioning, by an absence of will and a push to the self-improvement, brings the person to the condition in which he doesn’t allow himself to have the tools to reawaken and be free; he will believe himself already free and won’t search for any freedom… this is the great trap. The current concept of freedom is very restricted and this limits the possibilities of choice of people and, as a consequence, the potentialities of Matrix 1. To expand the idea of freedom it’s necessary reflecting on this concept and observe our conditioned answers, understanding which and how many are the sources that condition us. The observation of our selves and our interaction with reality reveal us, a little at a time, how many limits and ways of being are imposed to us and how our free will is constantly put under strain”.

  • Who is right?

All the treated positions, thus, seem to be right in their own way. The nomic determinism exists for all those scientific minds that need a mechanistic dogma of which make calculations. At the same time, the quantum uncertainty exists and, through the non-linear dynamics of the collapse of the wave function, this uncertainty can be transported to the macrocosm to support our will. In this sense, even the libertarians are right. At the same time, only an awakened consciously intervenes on the laws of nature. Even the metaphysical compatibilists are right, then. Furthermore, for all those that acted on some chain of will (but not all of them), it exists a weaker sense of freedom, whose weakness is directly proportional to the number of remaining chains. A high number of chains brings to a rational determinism. Even in this sense, the conceptual compatibilists are right.

  • Conclusions

I suggested a dualist theory that seems to be compatible not only with the everyday experience, but even with the modern scientific researches on quantum physics, other than the theories exposed on the free will. If you accept my vision, you found out you are a slave; but a slave that came to this publication for some reason and that, by reading this, has already made the first step towards his own awakening. Now you know which are the necessary steps for the redemption of your free will. You know how to become a Free Thinker.

And you, what are your ideas on free will? Do you agree or not with my theory?
Leave a comment. I will be proud to answer and look for a confrontation.
I have nothing left but wishing you a good journey, with the hope that you will be able to take back your free will, which belongs to you.

Stephen Wolf

[1] Genetic engineering based on the informational frequencies.

[2] See “Zenix” (2014).

[3] Ibidem

“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.”

Henri Bergson

Coming soon from Steven Wolf

"On Mankind's Slavery"
Leaf through the footprints

On mankind’s slavery

Does free will exist? If it does, what is its range? To all these questions, countless Free Thinkers searched for an answer, but it seems they reached no solution. Here it is, in this publication, a revolutionary theory that could mark a turning point on the problem of free will. Are you ready to face this journey through the maze?

On déjà-vu and the prescience phenomenon

Recent researches have brought to light that 60% of the world’s population has had a déjà-vu at least once in their lives. But what lies behind this strange phenomenon? For the first time in Italy, here it is a complete and exhaustive research about it. Will you be ready to face this path to the “Truth”?

Burning Flame

As a child, you are so carefree that you are able to express yourself in such a free and authentic way as never again. Here is a drawing of my childhood that retraces the memories of the past by illustrating the flame that shines inside each of us!

The thought from the road

A reflection on the nature of evil

On the monopoly of emotions and the chains of will

We are at war. An invisible war for the control of our emotions. Our authentic personality is unconsciously chained every day by our selves. The first defence weapon is conscience. Here it is, enclosed in a synthetic Italian research, everything you need to know on how to avoid staying machines before it’s too late.

Jesus: the first modern coach in the history of mankind

The figure of the coach seems to have become a trend, but where does it arise from? What are the parallelisms with the Socratic method? And again: is there any connection between Socrates and Jesus? Did the last one really exist?

Are Chinese all the same?

But do “Chinese” all really look the same? Is there any scientific study at the base of this stereotype?
Which social phenomena can be at the base of the homogenization of beauty standards? Let’s discover it together!

I think

I feel that our soul is something so marvelously complex.
Beware of the attempt to understand it, it can be a complex and exciting voyage already on its own. Love and hate, black and white that coexist in the entity of the man.

Untitled poetry for unrequited love

Love sometimes tears the title even to a poem. And it remains there, inert, hoping to be brought back to life by an unknown reader. Discover the emotion and resurrect the lost love.

The day in which the man contradicted himself

Our perception is based on duality: something is or isn’t. Aristotle named this logical principle “principle of non-contradiction” and we humans have put it as the foundation for our building of knowledge. We shiver, then, because the duality, as we logically conceive it, has come to its extinction. A short juvenile essay written for a contest of the Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa that gives a sparkle of light on a scientific theory on the concept of “soul”.

>
error: Attenzione: Il contenuto è protetto da copyright!