[bensabath]

dear friends,

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...e_free_will%3f

be well, be love.

david

do subatomic particles have free will?

by julie rehmeyerweb edition : friday, august 15th, 2008

if we have free will, so do subatomic particles, mathematicians claim to prove.“if the atoms never swerve so as to originate some new movement that will snap the bonds of fate, the everlasting sequence of cause and effect—what is the source of the free will possessed by living things throughout the earth?”—titus lucretius carus, roman philosopher and poet, 99–55 bc.

human free will might seem like the squishiest of philosophical subjects, way beyond the realm of mathematical demonstration. but two highly regarded princeton mathematicians, john conway and simon kochen, claim to have proven that if humans have even the tiniest amount of free will, then atoms themselves must also behave unpredictably.

the finding won’t give many physicists a moment’s worry, because traditional interpretations of quantum mechanics embrace unpredictability already. the best anyone can hope to do, quantum theory says, is predict the probability that a particle will behave in a certain way.

but physicists all the way back to einstein have been unhappy with this idea. einstein famously grumped, “god does not play dice.” and indeed, ever since the birth of quantum mechanics, some physicists have offered alternate interpretations of its equations that aim to get rid of this indeterminism. the most famous alternative is attributed to the physicist david bohm, who argued in the 1950s that the behavior of subatomic particles is entirely determined by “hidden variables” that cannot be observed.

[ranndomderr]

how does david bohm know about these hidden variables if they cannot be observed?

[markkisil]

if subatomic particles did not have free will, how would anything change?

[Alex]

i would assume that subatomic particles are infused with the design/structure presented to them by their ruling logos, as that is the source of information for the for the formation/infusion of the rules in any chosen area's governing system.

the rules/properties sent forth from the galactic center to the sun/sub-logos, then changed to reflect the design/structure of that particular sun/sub-logos and sent forward once again to interact with all things within its sphere of influence.

continue spiraling ever upwards,
austin

[Mymnnarry]

whom was the first person to come up with the concept of free will was it a biblical concept ? nobody even knows what it means which makes me ask the question how can some one or thing infringe upon free will unless it knows what free will is and how can it infringe upon some one else's or some things free will unless it has the choice.

suppose for a moment that alice and bob’s choice of axis to measure is not a free choice. then nature could be conspiring to prevent them from choosing the axes that will reveal the violation of the rule. unless free will is the ability to remain hidden from those whom it doesn't wish to be known even if some one or thing asks the question or wishes to know it which might mean it has the ability to choose.

and if that is the case then free will is dualistic in nature and would apply only to entities
or things that have the ability to choose for example good or evil hot or cold ect

a computer for example can only make a decision once it has been programmed by some one else but it can not program itself as far as i know , humans are also programmable but most are unaware of this as they are living there program with the inability to change it just like a computer.

maybe free will is the ability to program ones self which would mean you are the program writer which may put a person or thing on equal terms with the creator one would become a creator and a creation at the same time like in the movie matrix.

the ra material is all about polarizing being positive or negative and says the problem with us humans at present is that we wont polarize or choose which would indicate that once some one does choose that you no longer have a choice which would be the end of free will once the decision had been made thats if thats what free will is .

maybe free will is a combination of events first the entities intent to know then the actual choice followed by action

[rxnixoncom]

how about this: subatomic particles have the same will that we do. it "appears" within this reality that we all have free will, excepting in choices like what type of atmosphere we breath. similarly, i think the information coming through david wilcock and so many others provide ample evidence of "will" in the subatomic realm. forgive me for not remembering the exact experiment, but photons shot through slits in a divider seem to choose between being registered as a particle or a wave, and it ain't up to the experimenters what it does. and as well the experiment whereby sand was brought to white-hot sterility and sealed in a sterile environment with some sterile distilled water, and living scum formed on the top after a period of time. free? i don't know, but i know will when it is expressed.

this is a willed universe. and sense to me is that it is one will.

within creation, which is all but appearance anyway, we appear to have free will. "outside" of creation, or then, within the ultimate oneness, in source if you will (pun intended), there is no free will. it is a divisive concept. it requires an other to work upon. there is no other but source. source has no free will. it can only "create" and sustain the creation. source is the imperative, the will behind our freedom, with no will of its own but ours.

what was it aleister crowley said? "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. love is the law. love under will." he was whack, but he was on to something too.

[fount_pirat]

in order to make any choices, free will or not, one needs to be self aware. anything else, reacts to a program, or directive.

regards detlef