Math is an attempt to contain meaning within value. It declares itself ‘meaningless’ in order to maintain the illusion that there is no meaning outside of value - that cannot be positioned in relation to value.

Yes, in order to make use of meaning in the universe we value, we must eventually position it in relation to value - but it doesn’t follow that there is no meaning outside of value. Neither does it follow that we cannot make use of that meaning.

Energy sans something to have energy is incoherent. And there are no real "points." — Terrapin Station

Given that we don’t really know what energy IS (only what it does), I would suggest that it’s only incoherent because our language structure makes it so. I agree that there are no real ‘points’ - there doesn’t need to be.

That part I don't understand. One constraint on the act of choosing, for example, is a time constraint. You'd have to make the choice while you are able to--while it's available, while you're capable of expressing it, while you're alive, etc. — Terrapin Station

This is according to your broad definition of the will, which includes the entire process of thinking about every act, range and option to be chosen.

But when you understand the will to be just those three acts of choosing yes or no, then you realise that it always chooses at each moment of interaction, before time even factors in. Like gates, if you will, that open or close to create causal links. So when determinists look back on the causal flow, they don’t see the gates, they only see the linked chains extending back in time.

The idea is just that some choices are possible, contra the idea that none are. — Terrapin Station

Only one choice is possible, no matter how many possibilities are presented. — god must be atheist

I think we need to be clear about when we use ‘choice’ as:

- the ACT of choosing,

- the VARIETY or range to choose from OR

- the particular OPTION to be chosen,

otherwise this could get messy.

NO FREE WILL, as I understand it, says that there is no act of choosing. Regardless of how many possibilities are presented, you were always going to ‘choose’ the same watch, because this option to be chosen has already been determined. So in fact, what you believe to be the variety or range to choose from is just an illusion.

A standard argument for FREE WILL, as I understand it, says that the act of choosing is indeed yours to make, and regardless of how constrained the variety or range to choose from may be or how much power, influence or control is apparently exerted on you, the notion of ‘free will’ maintains that you are still ‘free’ to choose from at least two options.

My argument is that defining the ‘will’ as the entire thought process behind all the acts of choosing that one makes in life - rather than the basic faculty by which an action is decided and initiated - is what seems to be confusing the issue.

The will, as I understand it, is an underlying faculty that is inherent in every element of matter, but has been permanently constrained to some extent in all but humanity - where it remains entirely unconstrained: FREE.

There are ZERO CONSTRAINTS on the act, the range or the options of choosing whether or not to be aware, to connect or to collaborate - regardless of what your circumstances are. These are the basic, underlying decisions that I believe no-one can take away from you - your will.

The way I see it, it boils down to one assertion: I have and can make a choice. — Terrapin Station

Any choice, always and in every situation?

You can't just focus on the relations or interactions, because there needs to be something relating or having interactions. — Terrapin Station

QM describes quarks as fast-moving points of energy - I’d like to see you try to focus on something else...

I have no idea what that would amount to. It sounds incoherent to me, but maybe you could explain it so that I wouldn't think that. — Terrapin Station

Matter isn't comprised of something that's not matter. It's comprised of elementary particles, in particular dynamic relationships with each other. — Terrapin Station

Matter is comprised of interaction: particles in dynamic relationship with each other. As @tim wood‘s video showed, what we see as matter, mass, is mostly the energy of these relationships, and only a very small percentage is the particles themselves.

So, the way I see it, interaction is at the heart of all matter, more so than the elementary particles. What we know as matter, therefore, is the extension of this interaction.

Does that make more sense or less?

I would say there is, but this is not a thread to discuss that notion in detail. If you like, I can open a thread with the post "is common sense some insight or thought or opinion commonly accepted?" — god must be atheist

Makes no real difference whether I like it or not. But I will say: common to whom?

Thanks, Possibility. This is what I had always thought, until a demand came to two separate posts of mine, to name where the author stated what was my opinion. So if you and I agree on this, many others are not on the same page; therefore I take your encouragement to say that the text of a post of mine was written as my own opinion. — god must be atheist

Don’t get too confident yet.

See, the problem is how you state it. I’m not sure which comments you’re referring to. If you appear to be paraphrasing the author or putting words in his/her mouth (‘the author said X’), then you’re implying that you know exactly what he meant to say, at which point anyone who plans to dispute your interpretation as the ‘true’ intention of the author will undoubtedly ask for a referenced, direct quote from the author, so they can show you why your interpretation is not, or at least not necessarily, the ‘true’ or even an accurate interpretation. They’re entitled to do that, and you, if you intend to stand by your claim, will need to justify your interpretation over theirs.

In the end, the only ‘true’ intention of the author comes from the direct quote itself.

So since the general readership can't immediately separate in my texts what is an opinion of mine, and what is a stated, supported fact, I shall now promise to state "this is an opinion of mine" or something similar when I state such. — god must be atheist

That would certainly help, I think. Thank you. When you fail to do this, you imply that what you write is objective, indisputable fact that everyone automatically knows to be so. What you determine to be ‘common sense’ arguments are still based on your own subjective experiences - which you cannot assume to be commonly agreed upon, unfortunately. There is no such thing as ‘common sense’.

When you write in reference to other authors, unless you offer a direct quote, you are interpreting what they say based on your subjective opinions about what their words mean to you.

Does it mean all matter is conscious (a notion I actually like personally)? — khaled

That depends on what you mean by ‘conscious’. I think all matter starts out (at the BB, for instance) with the capacity to make these three yes/no decisions with each interaction. That’s it at base.

Also what would explain the regularity we see in matter. Throw the same rock the same way a 100 times and it'll do the same thing. It might have will but that doesn't seem too free to me. — khaled

Okay, a rock is not making a decision to be aware here - but each particle/molecule has already made a number of ‘no’ decisions that have limited its capacity to then make yes/no decisions to subsequent interactions, including its ability to connect with its neighbouring rock molecules and respond to forces in relation to them. ‘No’ decisions are irretreivable for the molecule, though, and therefore for anything non-living.

The thing about humans is that the ‘yes’ decisions made by our ancestors have given us a much, much greater capacity to make yes/no decisions than any other species. But within our current set of collaborations are a number of smaller collaborations that have made ‘no’ decisions that limit their awareness, connection and collaboration with other elements of this larger collaboration - if that makes sense. And within those limited collaborations are a number of smaller limited collaborations, and so on.

But because these collaborations are continually changing in a living organism, we are at least capable of making new and revised yes/no decisions with every interaction, down to a certain level.

What you're describing is basically "energy" not "free will". A definition of energy is capacity to do work. But if you're running real fast, sure you can do more work (move things) but I wouldn't say you have more free will. — khaled

Remember that we’re still not entirely sure what energy IS. Capacity to do work in relation to will is more than running real fast, because it doesn’t only include ‘work’ at the level of bodily action, but at thought level, and at the level of electrical impulses. The more yes/no decisions you can make, the more ‘yes’ decisions you can make, and so the more ‘free will’ you have.

So instead of saying ‘move your free will up’, perhaps it would be a matter of saying ‘choose to collaborate more/less’ in relation to a specific set of interactions which have already made it through the first two ‘yes’ decisions, and then work our way backwards.

If consent is not available it should be assumed that it is not given. — khaled

So by this logic, we can do nothing, as everything we do must first require consent. It is wrong for me to pat someone on the back until I obtain consent from him, in case I inadvertently harm him. It is wrong for me to flush the toilet in my house, in case I inadvertently drown a mosquito.

Sorry - I’m trying to understand this, really I am. I get that consent is an important factor here. But I get a sense of infinite regress - in order to gain consent, I must gain consent to ask for consent.... Otherwise I should just assume that no consent is given, and therefore not act.

As I mentioned in another thread about consent, I think it’s more the issue of exercising rights with no regard for responsibility that is causing unwarranted harm. When parents exercise their right (or some sense of misguided obligation) to bring children into the world for whatever reason, they regularly do so without an understanding of the full extent of their responsibility - not just to that child, but to the world at large. Guilt that our children did not turn out as we’d hoped is regularly expressed and then absolved in society. It’s not your fault that your kid is depressed and wishes they’d never been born - there’s something wrong with them. You did what you could, it’s not easy being both a parent and an individual. That’s okay: you look after you. They’re an adult now, they have to be responsible for their own life. I’ve often lamented that people need a license to be a parent, like they do to drive a car...

Space is the extension of matter and the extensional relations of matter. — Terrapin Station

And matter is the extension of interaction.

Matter hasn't been transmitted but that isn't the only physical reaction possible. You type, my eyes detect the words. They send electrical signals to my brain. The electrical signals act in deterministic (or random) ways in my brain. The result is that it makes me type something else. Maybe you missed my entire point but my point was that this "transmittion of ideas" can only happen through physical means. And to influence those physical means you'd need a physical cause. Free will is not a physical cause as we have yet to find a free will force. If you find it please tell me — khaled

This is what I’ve spent some time trying to reach: what it is about our will that is unconstrained, when every movement by law must be determined by a physical cause? I don’t believe it is something supernatural or externally ‘gifted’ to humans, but neither am I willing to dismiss awareness of it just because I have insufficient information to answer the questions through scientific means.

My theory is that the will - the basic faculty by which any action is decidedly initiated - is fundamental to all matter, and that the diversity of the universe is determined as much by these three ‘decisions’ made at the point of each interaction across spacetime as by ‘randomness’.

Of course, it’s all speculation at this point (and my own ability to integrate information is limited), but I find that much of current theorising across physics, biochemistry, neuroscience, philosophy and even theology - particularly in areas we admit we don’t fully understand (eg. dark matter, abiogenesis, consciousness, altruism, etc) - suggests to me that this theory is worthwhile pursuing.

I may be entirely or at least partly misguided, but I’m willing to find out either way, and make adjustments.

Awareness is inherent in the brain/will, a part of its nature. The will may or may not attend much further to what it is aware of, although it is difficult not to; we see an apple and then think what to do with a bit.

I have to guess at 'connect', but preclude it being with people since that is covered in the next item. Consciousness connects in unity the result of the will/brain doings, and also connects it seamlessly to what it had previously. This would seem to be automatic.

'Collaborate' seems optional, but again I have nothing further to go on about its meaning here. — PoeticUniverse

Awareness is a decision that is made before we ‘see an apple’. A decision is made to be aware of sense data - to seek information from our senses - and then to connect that sense data to related information in the brain that we find points to there being ‘an apple’ in that sense data. The collaboration occurs when another decision is made to integrate these related sources of information into the thought of ‘seeing an apple’.

This may sound ridiculously trivial and ‘automatic’ in relation to seeing an apple, but consider the same process with a different example.

Let’s say that someone is blindfolded as part of a game, but when they open their eyes they can see a little bit below the bottom of that blindfold. The sensory system is geared to ‘automatically’ be aware of visual sense data - we’ve given that decision over to subconscious operations - but because of the nature of the game, this person becomes conscious of (paying attention to) the fact that they can still see, and that this not supposed to happen in the game. That person must decide to continue to be aware of this sense data or not. They could adjust the blindfold so that they can no longer see; they could close their eyes beneath the blindfold; they could warn someone in the game that they can still see; or they could choose to stay silent and be aware of this visual sense data as well as their other senses, at any time they feel it’s ‘necessary’.

While they wrestle with this decision, they’ve nevertheless ‘automatically’ become aware of certain visual sense data. They then have to decide whether or not to dismiss that data (because that’s the rules of the game), or to connect it to related information in the brain which helps them determine what it could be. Now, they may have a curious nature or be particularly reliant on visual data, and so be unwilling to dismiss such data - even though it’s against the rules of the game - without first connecting it to information in the brain, just in case. They may rationalise that it’s not their fault the blindfold wasn’t on properly to start with, or any number of rationalisation that might give them moral permission to connect the data they ‘inadvertently’ have.

So they’ve decided to make the connections, and determine that they see a familiar plant in the garden. If they decide to collaborate at this point, to integrate this information with the rest of the information they have from listening to their surroundings, feeling the breeze on their face, etc. then they will be more informed than if they had chosen not to collaborate.

'Free will' sounds like a good thing to have, yet references to it without definition are meaningless.

One, trivial, but common definition is that the will is free/able to operate normally in the absence of. coercion. — PoeticUniverse

As I see it, the will - the ‘faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action’ - consists of these three assertions, and as such, is naturally unconstrained. — Possibility

Free = unconstrained

I think we make more of ‘the will’ than it needs to be. We like to think that our will is this complicated process of taking all available information into account and then making an informed decision on what to do, but the initial decision to initiate action, that leads to each step in the process itself, is much simpler. It’s a yes or no to these three assertions. If we say no, then we constrain our own action in that respect, and whatever we do subsequently in relation to thought, words or actions will be constrained by that limitation.

No because planning your kid's inheritance is IMPROVING someone's state of affairs and you don't have to do it. First off, I am lucky my parent's investment in my money panned out. I have a pretty good life. So assuming I forgive them the initial discretion of having me in the first place, no I would not say this situation is the same as having children. Why? Because my parents do not HAVE to give me inheritance. That is a way to IMPROVE my life status. They don't HAVE to give me inheritance in the same way you don't HAVE to donate to charity. So if they suddenly become unable I wouldn't hold it against them just like if I was a beggar and someone didn't give me money I wouldn't automatically hate them.

What happened here was: A potentially better state of affairs was denied from me.
What happens in birth is: A definitely worse state of affairs was risked for me without my consent.
They are not the same situation — khaled

Ok, but the thing is, in this analogy your anti-natalist position is identifying with the potential $1m, not with the kid who lost their inheritance.

It simply tells you not to go on and invest SOMEONE ELSE'S money in the same business without their permission. You yourself called it audacious. So don't repeat it. — khaled

It’s the potential that I keep wondering about in your analogy. One assumes you have alternate plans for this money - this is where the real offence is here. But you’re saying: ‘Don’t take my money to invest on my behalf - I plan to flush it down the toilet instead, and you’ve robbed me of that opportunity, which would be a definitely better state of affairs’.

I’m not looking for justification for bringing children into the world - we chose to do so because we felt we had something to give the world that was so much more valuable than our DNA. We understood the risks and we’ve worked hard to minimise them, as well as to ensure their existence is most likely to have a positive net effect on the world. That’s part of our responsibility as parents, and I didn’t want kids unless I felt I was capable of that.

I also know that most parents don’t take that responsibility seriously. I think some people do believe that bringing a child into the world is their right simply because they have the capacity (plus everyone else gets to do it), and the extent of their responsibility is to fulfil society’s expectations, making sure the kid is fed and watered occasionally and kept out of immediate danger until they’re capable of exercising their own right to populate the world unnecessarily. In my opinion, this is what needs to be addressed.

Well, you can't retroactively make a choice, so if you are saying that all choice moves forward in time, ok. I'm not sure how that is relevant. — Pantagruel

I hear that. The first statement was for the benefit of those who continue to insist that we didn’t consent to existence, and therefore are hard done by, but also those who point to circumstances as constraints to the will.

There are constraints on our current existence which affect what we have been aware of up to this point, and therefore our connections to the universe and how we’ve been able to work together. But they do not constrain our capacity to be aware from this point onwards. You can say ‘I didn’t know she was under-age!’, but the truth is more likely that the thought had crossed your mind, but you chose to not be aware of the truth.

If you treat free will as a catch-phrase instead of an a priori conception qualified by a transcendental idea.....

........you might be a metaphysical redneck.

Rhetorically speaking. — Mww

OR.......

...........Perhaps I’m just trying to fit something onto a T shirt.

“If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.” - Albert Einstein

I guess you would commit suicide? — Pantagruel

I figured you’d say that. You still haven’t chosen not to exist in the initial situation - you’ve chosen to take steps to not continue to live from that point onwards.

Technically, you will still ‘exist’ even if you commit suicide - just in a different sense. You exist in the past as a person who was once alive, in relation to who and what you leave behind. But that’s perhaps another discussion.

I’m always fascinated with anti-natalism discussions, because in many ways the perspective on life seem diametrically opposite to my own, and yet in other ways I cannot help but agree with your arguments.

I want to start by saying that what you choose to do with this life you have and your capacity to bring children into the world or not is entirely up to you. Personally I have two beautiful teenagers - they bring so much joy and fear, challenges and rewards to my life, and as far as I can tell they value the opportunity to make something of their own life, regardless of how it pans out.

Having said that, I recognise that suffering is a fundamental part of life, and that our tendency to work so hard at avoiding experiences of suffering for ourselves and for others has in fact contributed much more suffering to the world as a result. Being aware of how you potentially contribute to the suffering of others, and taking what steps you can in your own lives to reduce your contribution to suffering has to be seen as admirable in my book.

Keyword: CAN grant a good life. It is not guaranteed. If there was some way to measure with absolute certainty that your child will find life worthwhile I'd say procreation is ethical. But with a risk it is something else entirely. Imagine someone stealing your bank account to invest all of your life saving in a company that CAN succeed. Would you permit that? I highly doubt it. Now imagine if they used the excuse: I tried to call you but you weren't available at the time so I proceeded to invest without asking you. Would that be moral? Especially if you've never met this person before and you have no idea how their values and risk assessments differ from yours? I'm hoping you're catching onto the analogy — khaled

This analogy is interesting, but I’m not sure it’s all that effective in getting your point across. To be honest, I would be furious that someone distrusted my capacity to choose what to do with my own life savings. You’ve called it ‘stealing’ - I’m assuming the investment was made in MY name, not their own? Despite the audacity of the act, I would nevertheless have a vested interest in that company from that point on.

‘Would you permit that?’ - this is the wrong question to ask. The deed is done. I can yell and scream and jump up and down at them, try to have them jailed (even though they’ve made no profit themselves from the act). I get that what they did was wrong, but now I have a choice: pull the investment (at whatever cost), or ride it out. A lot would depend on how the investment faired in the short term, but from this point on, control of the money is back in MY hands. Perhaps I would do what I could to ensure my investment in this company had the best chance of success. Perhaps I could embark on a mission to prevent this from ever happening to someone else again.

I’m not sure this is quite the same as bringing a child into the world, though. Can I try a different analogy?

Let’s say that your mother calls you and tells you that the money she planned to build up for your inheritance has been decimated in a financial downturn. She’d hoped to have a million dollars by now, but all that’s left is $150,000, and because of the way it was invested it might take a lengthy court case to even get hold of that. Would you wish she’d never intended to give you any money at all? Would you accuse her of an immoral act? Would you spread the word that it’s a bad idea to plan for your kids’ inheritance?

Not necessarily. Pool is a two dimensional game played in four dimensions, hence the need for a three dimensional ‘vessel’ to contain the play. Change, on the other hand, is a 4D event. It only requires a 3D vessel if you’re trying to portray it in only two dimensions.
— Possibility

Time has a start implies something physical must have changed when time started which implies time is a physical thing. — Devans99

I don’t see how your statement relates to what you quoted from me. I have never agreed that time has a start. It appears to have a start when measuring changes in a 3D world from within a 4D universe, when we assume that time is structured, sequential. Physical refers to what is perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; what is tangible and concrete. If you’re looking for time as something physical, then all you will find is evidence of change.

But when we look at the 4D cosmos from an eternal 5D perspective: when we recognise that the 4D block universe is structured not by time but by value, then the question becomes: a ‘start’ in relation to what?

It would be very neat, but can time really emerge from timeless thermodynamic phenomena? If entropy increases causes time to flow, we would expect time to flow faster where entropy is increasing faster. Has this ever been observed? — Devans99

Entropy does not cause time to flow. The growth of entropy is time’s arrow, not its speed.

Carlo Rovelli, again:

“...if I could take into account all the details of the exact, microscopic state of the world, would the characteristic aspects of the flowing of time disappear? Yes. If I observe the microscopic state of things, then the difference between past and future vanishes.”

“Just as with the movement of the Earth, the evidence is overwhelming: all the phenomena that characterise the flowing of time are reduced to a ‘particular’ state of the world’s past, the ‘particularity’ of which may be attributed to the blurring of our perspective.”

Guys, many of us know that believing in something doesn't necessarily make it true and that still acting as if it were true is not very honest. Although there are those who are unwilling or unable to learn and therefore aren't reachable (doomed to fixed ideas), not everyone has that kind of learning disability. — PoeticUniverse

I’m happy to discuss whether or not we have free will if you want to dispute the validity of these assertions, for instance. If, however, you’ve already decided how you’re going to live, and see no point in any discussion, then I’m not going to waste my time on a discussion about whether or not we should even discuss whether or not we have free will.

If you believe you have free will and you do not, you could not have believed otherwise.

If you believe you do not have free will and you do, then that is just tragic.

So I live my life as if I have free will. — Arne

So according to you, there is no need for a discussion on whether or not we have free will.

I agree.

an either or command. — Arne

A command implies that I have some control over what you do - consider it a suggestion. Of course, you could choose to ignore it.

:smile:

Fine. Helmet’s on - have at it.

But don’t expect me to respond to you venting your frustrations.

Either engage meaningfully in the discussion, or find something useful to do elsewhere.

As I see it, the will - the ‘faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action’ - consists of these three assertions, and as such, is naturally unconstrained. I’m trying not to complicate it unnecessarily.

Learning/experience only occurs when the choice is made to be aware. So, too, any discovery of truth.

I don't understand why I cannot choose consciously to exist in this situation? — Pantagruel

Ok, I’m intrigued: How can you choose to not exist in this situation?

This is where the main confusion with consciousness lies: because we say that a sleeping person is unconscious yet doesn’t lack consciousness, we’re defining consciousness in two different ways.

It’s common to restrict the definition of consciousness only to those who are self-conscious, but if this is really what consciousness is, then I wonder: why have the distinct term ‘self-consciousness’ In the first place?

The body’s systems are aware of and interact with each other to a certain extent below the level of waking consciousness, and continue much of this interaction regardless of whether we are awake, asleep, heavily drugged or knocked unconscious. But I (the self) am only aware of these interactions when I am awake-conscious AND also paying attention to them specifically. This is self-consciousness as an advanced level awareness, employing self-consciousness as a capacity.

Certain animals have a capacity for self-consciousness, which they employ only in certain situations, and typically at a low level of awareness. This capacity can be developed further in animals by associating or containing the value of self-aware attention within what this animal already values.

I can be conscious of something, having some qualitative experience and at the same time not being aware of my conscious experience, therefore i don't realize, know or show persception of my conscious activities ..
I am not aware but i experience - this being said, the "I" lose it's meaning.
It's like experiencing something without realization of experiencing and without realization of oneself identity. — Basko

I’m not sure what you’re trying to describe here. I imagine it’s like being affected by an experience, without being aware of what it was within the experience that affected you...?

Now imagine someone with a severe case of ADHD - i am not that familiar with ADHD, i use it bcs it's a well known focus disorder -, as his parents begun to realize the case of their son, they sent him to a very special school for him to learn about human knowledge despite his difficulties. The kid has grown up and now he is 20yo, he learned in school his situation and so many stuff that you can easily say he is fully aware of his identity and his experience. He is a smart guy and can think deeply but only if the subject is exciting enough so he can pay full attention on the subject. Despite his great knowledge - which offer him a great awareness - he struggle with attention and most of the time he can't control his focus. — Basko

We pay attention to things and events that matter to us. When everything matters equally - when dopamine levels are unreliable as an indicator of value - it can be difficult to determine where our attention should be. I’ve heard that white noise stimulates dopamine production, enabling ADHD sufferers to focus for long periods.

In my view, awareness operates on a number of different dimensional levels. We can be aware of an unusual event that captures our attention on the side of the road as we drive. When we focus our attention back to the road ahead, we retain awareness of that event, and can recall that awareness as our attention shifts from driving to our knowledge of the event or any relevant realisation, perception or previously held knowledge, and back again. We can shift our attention to awareness of the car’s speed, the pressure of our foot on the accelerator, the direction and proximity of tyres screeching, the changing distance to the car ahead, etc. But our body can be aware of and interact with elements of our experience such as foot pressure, relative speed and the need to slow down, even when our attention is on knowledge of this past event or others - in the same way that we breath in and out and digest our food. Consciousness, in my opinion, consists of all these levels of awareness as well as our capacity to shift our attention between them.

Self-consciousness refers only to our awareness of internal events - it doesn’t include awareness of the event on the side of the road, but it does include awareness of how information from that event interacts with internal events, whether or not we are paying attention to them at the time.

Change may need a vessel. Playing pool without a pool table is difficult. — Devans99

Not necessarily. Pool is a two dimensional game played in four dimensions, hence the need for a three dimensional ‘vessel’ to contain the play. Change, on the other hand, is a 4D event. It only requires a 3D vessel if you’re trying to portray it in only two dimensions.

I always thought it was more like "appease" than "negotiate" — khaled

‘Appease’ suggests a lack of agency, as if you don’t have any choice. This is what I meant by being a slave to systems. If you’re unaware of what would happen if you don’t meet these demands, then how do you know it’s not better for you in the long run? Do you trust that the system knows what’s best for you, or only what’s best for the system?

I don't understand what any of those 3 means could you please elaborate? Connection to what or who? Awareness of what? Collaboration with what? Are you referring to the systems you were mentioning? — khaled

Let’s look at sex as an example: a relationship between two self-conscious entities, each also negotiating relationships with their respective sensory and limbic systems, as well as family, cultural and other social and ideological systems. If it’s a matter of ‘appeasing’ a system, then which system is calling the shots? Which one is your partner appeasing, and how would you know? Is an interpretation of ‘failure’ based on the demands of your system, or your partner’s?

So when you’re looking at self control in relation to sex, it’s a little more complicated than a high investment, low time activity. Responding to whichever system demands are strongest or most urgent is not self control, despite your calculation of time vs investment.

For sex to be mutually rewarding on all levels, it involves a negotiation of relationships, not a political struggle. It requires you to be aware of all interested parties, to connect with each system/relationship (not dismiss or oppress), and collaborate towards mutual success. This is what ‘self control’ looks like.

First off, I would say simplified and general are the same thing so I'm not sure what you mean there. Secondly, as I said, I am looking if there is some framework with concepts you can put a number on that can account for what self control is and how to maximize it. — khaled

First off, ‘general’ also means true for all or most cases, which is not the same as simplified, hence my clarification. Secondly, at some point you’re going to have to recognise that value isn’t just about quantification. Maximising self control involves navigating the five (possibly six) dimensional landscape of human experience. I admire your initial attempt, but how good is your maths?

You can view time from the 4d block universe perspective, but it is still sequentially organised - all time-like or space-like dimensions can be represented on a graph by an axis - so they are fundamentally sequentially organised - which means the time dimension has to stretch back forever (impossible - infinite regress) or start at some point (what is the reason why it started?). — Devans99

“The absence of time does not mean, therefore, that everything is frozen and unmoving. It means that the incessant happening that wearied the world is not ordered along a timeline, is not measured by a gigantic tick-tocking. It does not even form a four-dimensional geometry. It is a boundless and disorderly network of quantum events. The world is more like Naples than Singapore.

If by ‘time’ we mean nothing more than happening, then everything is time. There is only that which exists in time.”
- Carlo Rovelli, “The Order of Time”

There is no ‘4D block universe perspective’ - you are either looking for time from within the 4D block universe (in which case ‘everything is time’), OR you are looking at the 4D block universe from beyond time (in which case the world is a ‘network of quantum events’ organised not sequentially, but by value relative to the observer).

Processism, such as in Buddhism, is a dance without dancers, a process without agents acting. These so-called process-only occurrents cannot make it as relata. (not sure how I arrived at this). — PoeticUniverse

Are you suggesting here that two discrete events cannot relate to each other? That if we accept that all is process, then there is no relata?

Another excerpt from Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’:
“For a long time, we have tried to understand the world in terms of some primary substance. Perhaps physics, more than any other discipline, has pursued this primary substance. But the more we have studied it, the less the world seems comprehensible in terms of something that is. It seems to be a lot more intelligible in terms of relations between events.”

The problem with the 4D block universe view of the universe is that all is static and eternal, as in a still picture (when viewed from a 4D perspective). — Devans99

No, this is when viewed from a 5D perspective - when we do the maths and relate events outside of our own 4D perspective (ie. our physical existence).

This seems contradictory to me. "It's not about ignoring demand or frustrating their efforts" "It's about working with or around them so that they don't destroy your sense of control". Isn't that just following the demands in different ways? Do you mean that self control is just finding better ways to suit these demands? — khaled

Not contradictory, it’s just a different perspective. Instead of looking at it as demands made on your time, see it as a relationship that you negotiate. It helps to be aware of what you’re dealing with, how to interact, what the system needs (not necessarily what it demands) and what results if this doesn’t happen, among other things.

In my view, control is essentially an illusion - everything we do is a result of awareness, connection and collaboration.

This is awefully presumptuous but ok. I never said I lack self control, I'm just trying to understand how self control WORKS. Why can some people control their urges while others can't. — khaled

My apologies - I read your OP wrong, then.

I really don't get what "taking responsibility for my actions" has to do with anything — khaled

That’s kind of what ‘self control’ is at base: taking responsibility for your urges, for the systems that make demands on your time, and making an informed decision whether to meet those demands, bear the consequences of refusing those demands, or negotiate an alternative relationship.

I believe a person is literally JUST his systems. Nothing more nothing less. That's the philosophy bit of this discussion. Do you think there is more to a person than the systems that make demand on their time? — khaled

I think a person is the sum of their relationships: both those that appear to make demands on their time, and those through which they have greater potential to achieve. It’s a matter of perspective.

Yea probably. I'm just a single pea brain. If you have an alternative please tell me. — khaled

That’s a strange interpretation. You said your framework was a more general version of mine. I said I thought it was a simplified, more narrowly-focused version. This was not a judgement on you, or the size of your brain.

Reducing the concept of self control to a measurement based on time vs investment fails to take into account the role of awareness, connection and collaboration in relation to motivation and energy levels over time. Not everything that requires self control can be reduced to time vs investment. Take sex, for instance.

I think my framework is just a more general form of that. You satisfy some systems at the expense of others. — khaled

I actually think your framework is a very narrowly-focused, simplified form.

So the part of you making demands you play video games can only be frustrated for so long. What determines how long it can be held back is how much quota you have. — khaled

There is a part of you making demands you play video games? You might want to explore exactly which part of you is making these demands, and why.

The systems I was talking about are:

Your bodily systems: how nutrition, kilojoules and sleep affect your health, energy and concentration levels.

Your financial support system: are you earning your own way, or are others supplementing your income or providing support that would otherwise cost you money? If so, how are you assisting them so that they can/will continue to do this?

It’s not a matter of ignoring demands or frustrating their efforts until their demands are overwhelming - it’s about understanding and working with or around them, so that they no longer make demands that destroy your sense of control.

You goal should be to make sure you are continuously gaining quota not spending it. It is sort of like income. You can't just "not spend" so you have to make sure you keep making money — khaled

If this is how you see income, then it’s no wonder you struggle with a lack of self control. You have given away all your ‘control’ and don’t even realise it. You appear to be a slave to systems, lacking awareness of how they pull your strings to make you dance, of how you simply allow them to dictate what you ‘have to do’ because you don’t seem to know how to take responsibility for your actions.

Video games create a world of rights with no responsibilities, and much of the ‘real’ world perpetuates this illusion, portraying this sense of privilege as something to aspire to. Don’t fall for it - you’ll only be disappointed. Achievement requires genuine connection, awareness and collaboration.

What caused potential to go from a non-aware situation to an aware situation? Or was the potential ‘always’ aware in some way? — Devans99

Potential is timeless - it doesn’t make sense to say that it goes from one situation to another. There was never a time when potential wasn’t aware.

The thing about a linear history of the universe is that time doesn’t work like that. We’ve sequentially ordered it all the way back to the BB from an imagined perspective of observers who experience ‘time’ in a particular way.

But not every observer experiences time the same way that humans do. Apparently dogs can smell events, getting an olfactory map of your day as you walk in the door. Of course, you’d have to ask a dog if these events are sequentially or spatially ordered - or perhaps they’re ordered by value...but I digress.

What is the nature of time in your model? Do you have it as one of your 5 dimensions so that it has permanent existence? Or is it created 'subsequently'? Or does time start when observers first appear? If (proto-)time exists permanently in the 5D environment, is that not introducing a sequential ordering of events into the timeless environment? - Once there is any form of sequential ordering, the need for a ‘start’ is introduced (or else an impossible infinite regress). — Devans99

Time is the fourth dimension: it is a relative aspect of our awareness of the universe, just like the others. Time appears to have ‘started’ from our perspective 13.8 billion years ago, because that’s the point back to which we can trace our broadest perspective of the universe in time. Once we begin to explore the 5D ‘universe’, it’s no longer relevant when this 4D cosmological event ‘started’, because there is no time outside of it.

Awareness of the 5D universe is not an environment - that’s too limiting as a description. Think of it as a broader ‘experience’: space, time and value. It’s how you feel intuitively in relation to events that orients you in the 5D universe, not when that event occurs, or where.

I was trying to think of a timeless environment for which there would be no starting event and I could not come up with anything similar to spacetime - that is fundamentally sequentially ordered. So I though of the concepts of an unordered set of events or a graph of nodes. Both are abstract, but both do not have a starting point - so they can represent unordered, timeless existence. — Devans99

It seems to me that you’re struggling to grasp the concept of multiple dimensions. Movies and fiction books tend to give the impression that alternate dimensions are a different place - as if the fifth dimension has its own space, completely different to our own. This is a misguided view, based on a poor understanding of time as a dimension of awareness.

The 5D universe includes our 4D cosmos. Like time, it is a relative aspect of our awareness of the universe. Humans have already been developing their capacity for 5D awareness for thousands of years. We understand the 5D universe in terms of abstraction and hierarchies of value: numbers, mathematics, measurements and morals, logic and rational thought. It enables us to relate to events in terms of value over and above where or when they occur in spacetime: like the mathematics that gets us to the moon and back. It enables us to consider and evaluate events outside our physical 4D existence: such as the extinction of dinosaurs, the creation of a black hole, or the implications of destroying the earth’s ecosystem.

We just haven’t considered it as a dimension, because for most of us, it is everything we value: all that we know and all that we don’t. It is the Infinite.

Sounds good.

I think that people, whether they recognise it or not, are driven to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. This is what leads to the greatest sense of purpose in our lives - regardless of our personal happiness, suffering or survival. In my opinion, it encompasses our pursuit of ‘truth’ as well as the expression of an artist, a parents’ risk to save their child, etc.