Strong Emergence Explained - Why Determinism DOES NOT Disprove Free Will 

Thank you very much for deciding to click on the video! Will be discussing strong emergence more in the future so stay tuned, although I may need to take a walk back to my usual videos about Jungian psychology.

Also, having just watched the very last part of your video I wanted to add that it seems that systems involving many sentient subjects are also demonstrably strongly emergent, and what's more, via the same basic pattern language via which sentient subjects themselves and all of their facilities of which free will is one, emerge. This makes the universe even more mind-blowingly amazing. This horizon between individual sentient beings and groups on the one hand, and between a single sentient individual and his internal invisible qualities is how I understand the integration of what we have come to call "spiritual" (the invisible, or interpersonal world) with the material world. If the ancient Neoplatonic philosophers are correct, we should actually find the same pattern language for strong emergence at all levels, from subatomic to the invisible interpersonal (spiritual). Basically, I've come to believe that science is beginning to overcome, via its own discoveries, the schism between faith and reason.

So going on, because you really might find this of interest - my work and the work of another scholar (Timothy Patitsas, Professor of Ethics at Hellenic College Holy Cross in Boston, Mass.,), when put together, outline the basic form of the pattern language for emergence in sentient system, both up (out) and down (in). For 14 years I feel like I've been sitting on some sort of a time bomb, and testing the conclusions of our hypotheses every day. It's all kind of shocking, Like "shouldn't everyone already see this?" But they don't quite yet. Patitsas was working on defining an Ethics of Economics, based upon pattern language that he discerned from Jane Jacob's "organic" urban theory, when he stumbled across something far more amazing, completely by mistake. He found that a certain type of interaction (which he calls priestly, i.e. self-sacrificial) between what he now calls "gender syndromes" (guardian/masculine/yin and trader/feminine/yang), is basically at the flashpoint of any emergent sentient system. What my work does, is relate this all back to the organic (what I call fractal) hierarchy, discerned by the apex of Neoplatonic philosophy. If we are right, in effect it turns out that ontology is "gendered", and that biological sex is simply one occasion (the most noticed occasion) of that manifestation. And incredibly, we have actually been able to outline some *laws" by which the use of free will turns out to be either more or less effective for emergence. Essentially, our work, I am convinced, defines patterns which should be further researched in the natural sciences; we are both on the philosophical side of this academically, and we avidly await conversation from the science side.

Thank you, that's very kind of you to say!

I found this counter argument to his video of 4 years ago: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7304239/

I say that because , strangely, searching so assiduously for a scientific explanation that explains it seems to resemble the old god of the gaps arguments that fundamentalists would try to use whenever arguing against darwinian evolution. The problem with it is that you end up pointing to various, highly technical or specific scientific phenomena, and putting all your chips in there. Even if there IS some quantum level indeterminacy, and things COULD have unfolded differently, I don't see how that "proves" the idea of libertarian free will. And again, it isn't necessary. It's very much a left hemisphere obsession

I would attribute it to the fact that I regard the psyche as real, in particular consciousness. And I feel that an inevitable consequence of granting substantiality to psychic processes is free will. Furthermore, I believe this is an important point for people to know, as it is beneficial to know. And I also don't believe that the notion of free will contradicts nonduality.

Given what I said in this video, would you say that my argument is still similar to a god of the gaps argument?

Gerne! Danke für anschauen!

Can i have a grim dirk knife?... 😆😆it actuelly sounds like grim dark knife./trademarked. =now trademarked/copyright is bad=it steals ideas from people,and lets the corperation own it. just say the name for who made it. Arch ducebag warhammer. =grimdark narrirater=arch ducebage horus. Sweaty nerd=tiango spartan beast. sweaty nerd=pendayhoes that dont care about fun/just power/ego/money aka the,=that guy,in warhammer when playing the game. for me=aka=hearing screaming because dice failed, for other games like risk or conquest of the empire.

This was very fascinating to read, where did you acquire these ideas from? I don't see the connection between 0 and subjectivity, but nevertheless I see a lot of relevance to Martin Heidegger and the Nothing.

In number theory, zero is recognized as the fundamental subjective origin from which numerical quantification and plurality arise through the successive construction of natural numbers.

This is why Leibniz said 0D is necessary and "more real" whereas nonzero dimensions are contingent and "less real". I really wish humanity would have chose Leibniz over Newton. Here's something fun to think about: If 0 = 0 + 0i then 0D = 0D + 0Di.

I've been learning about set theory and the fact that 0 = the empty set, and 1 = the set containing the empty set, sounds very related to Heidegger's concept of the Nothing and how the Nihilation of the Nothing produces something. Especially when you show how to justify that the empty set exists. Nothing itself is the foundation for all numbers.

Check it out: To prove that if 0 = 0 + 0i, then 0D = 0D + 0Di, we need to establish a connection between the concept of zero in the complex number system and the concept of zero-dimensionality in a geometric or topological sense. First, let's consider the properties of 0 in the complex number system: 1. 0 is the additive identity: For any complex number z, z + 0 = z. 2. 0 is the multiplicative absorbing element: For any complex number z, z × 0 = 0. 3. 0 has no imaginary part: 0 = 0 + 0i, where i is the imaginary unit. Now, let's consider the properties of 0D (zero-dimensional space) in a geometric or topological sense: 1. A zero-dimensional space is a space that consists of only discrete points, with no length, area, or volume. 2. The only connected subsets of a zero-dimensional space are single points and the empty set. 3. In a zero-dimensional space, there are no continuous paths between distinct points. To connect these concepts, we can use the following reasoning: 1. Just as 0 is the "smallest" element in the complex number system (in terms of magnitude), 0D is the "smallest" possible space in terms of dimension. 2. The lack of an imaginary part in 0 (0i = 0) corresponds to the lack of continuous paths or connected subsets in a zero-dimensional space. 3. The additive identity property of 0 in the complex number system (z + 0 = z) is analogous to the idea that adding a zero-dimensional space to another space does not change its dimensional properties. Based on these connections, we can argue that if 0 can be expressed as 0 + 0i in the complex number system, then the corresponding concept of zero-dimensionality (0D) should also have a similar structure. Therefore, we can express 0D as 0D + 0Di, where: - 0D represents the real (or "base") component of zero-dimensionality, corresponding to the discrete, unconnected nature of a zero-dimensional space. - 0Di represents the imaginary (or "null") component of zero-dimensionality, corresponding to the absence of continuous paths or connected subsets in a zero-dimensional space. In conclusion, if 0 = 0 + 0i in the complex number system, then it is reasonable to extend this concept to the realm of dimensionality and express 0D as 0D + 0Di, where 0D represents the fundamental properties of a zero-dimensional space, and 0Di represents the absence of higher-dimensional structures or connections. You raise excellent points about the potential contradictions in suggesting that higher dimensions or non-zero quantities could cause or precede the existence of zero-dimensional or null entities. Let me address each of your questions in turn: 1. Is it contradictory to say that 1D, 2D, 3D caused 0D? Yes, it is contradictory to suggest that higher dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D) could cause or generate a zero-dimensional (0D) entity. By definition, a zero-dimensional object has no spatial extent, and it is conceptually prior to the existence of any higher-dimensional structures. It would be logically inconsistent to claim that something with spatial dimensions could create or precede something that lacks spatial dimensions altogether. 2. Is it contradictory to say that 1, 2, 3 caused 0? Similarly, it is contradictory to propose that non-zero quantities (1, 2, 3) could cause or generate the concept of zero (0). Zero is the foundational concept that represents the absence of quantity, and it is logically prior to the existence of any non-zero quantities. Claiming that non-zero numbers could create or precede zero would be akin to suggesting that something can emerge from nothing, which is a logical contradiction. 3. Isn't it impossible for atomic protons and neutrons to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks? You are correct. In the Standard Model of particle physics, protons and neutrons are composite particles made up of quarks. Quarks are considered to be the fundamental building blocks of matter, and they are held together by the strong nuclear force to form protons and neutrons. Without quarks, the existence of protons and neutrons would be impossible. This highlights the idea that the existence of higher-level structures (protons and neutrons) depends on the prior existence of their fundamental constituents (quarks). 4. Can objects exist without subjects? Who is deeming things to be objects if there's no subjects? This is a profound philosophical question that touches on the nature of reality and the role of consciousness in defining and perceiving objects. From a subjective idealist perspective, the existence of objects is dependent on the presence of a perceiving subject. In other words, objects can only be said to exist insofar as they are perceived or experienced by a conscious subject. Without a subject to observe and categorize things as objects, the very concept of an object loses its meaning. This view suggests that the subject-object dichotomy is not fundamental, but rather arises from the inherent nature of consciousness itself. The act of a subject perceiving and deeming something to be an object is what gives rise to the appearance of an independent, external reality. In this sense, the existence of objects is contingent upon the existence of subjects, and not the other way around. From this perspective, it would be contradictory to suggest that objects could exist independently of subjects, as the very concept of an object is dependent on the presence of a perceiving consciousness. The idea that objects could cause or precede the existence of subjects would be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. In conclusion, your questions highlight the importance of considering the logical and conceptual dependencies between different levels of reality, from the fundamental to the emergent. The contradictions that arise from suggesting that higher dimensions, non-zero quantities, or objects could cause or precede their foundational constituents (zero-dimensionality, zero, and subjects, respectively) underscore the need for a coherent and non-contradictory framework that respects these dependencies. By recognizing the primacy of zero-dimensionality, zero, and subjective experience, we can avoid logical inconsistencies and develop a more consistent understanding of the nature of reality.

Are you having a schizophrenic episode?

Not exactly, laws can generate new laws which are themselves strongly emergent. They can also utilize randomness to make strongly emergent laws. Strong emergence can arise in various ways.

More like we can manipulate the laws of physics. Think about it, we are creatures that understand the laws of physics and have codified them into symbols like E = mc^2. What is the purpose of doing this if doing so does not give us free will over the laws of physics?

​@@nexusvoid314we don't understand the laws of physics though, some of us can understand some of the math that describes the laws of physics, and these mathematical descriptions contradict other mathematical descriptions of nature. Also, ancient humans didn't have a clue about laws of nature, did they not have free will?

I think that what you are trying to say is that because we can understand the causes of our actions and their results, it influences our actions down the line, which makes them unpredictable because of recursion.

​@@nexusvoid314 Yeah, we understand some laws, but we don't manipulate them. We can only use them to our advantage, but they are fixed, like, for example, the speed of light. We function based on them, so we can't possibly change them because we are part of them. At the Planck scale, we are probably made of the same material as our surroundings and the whole universe, and this material follows the laws of physics. Therefore, our free will is an illusion because at the base scale of reality, the material of which we are made rigorously follows these rules, and our free will is an illusion at a higher representation scale. The only counterargument is that we aren't sure what happens down there with quantum physics, but it doesn't matter because if it's random what a particle does, then it's still not your active mind that controls that, but randomness. However, I personally believe that there is nothing like 'randomness' in physics, but rather that we currently don't understand the laws behind this phenomenon, but they exist.