Questions on the Physics of Personal Choice

Ok, i'll try to explain my thinking as best I can...

The choice of conscious beings is obviously an enormous driving force on the universe, and existence in general. Yet viewed in the many worlds, or multiple universe interpretation, the idea of personal choice becomes muddied. Let us assume that an infinite number of universes exist, where every choice that could be made occurs in a separate universe.

A blue and red ball sit in front of me, and i have the choice to pick either up. Let's eliminate as many choices as we can from the scenario, as in, i'm strapped to a chair and can't move, there's nothing else in the room, etc. Now I can choose blue, red, or wait longer to choose. Here are my initial questions. I also have to choose once a ten second timer decreases, just to eliminate choosing the same ball at different times.


Given an infinite number of universes, could, or is there, a relative percentage of universes where the exact same choice is made?


I happen to like the color blue so we can assume that I may be more likely to choose this color. Could one presume that in ~60% of the universes I choose the blue ball, and in 40% I choose red. This would mean, from my perspective, that many of the separate universes contain the same information.

I tend to visualize that all of the universes are still contained within the same framework. So there could be a buildup of energy, attention, focus, or frequency for the blue and red choices, which leads me to the next question.


Is there a part of my mind, consciousness, or soul which can detect the frequency, strength, or distribution of future choices?


I would say I believe that everything which has, is, and to my perspective, has yet to, occur, is, already has, and will occur. I am merely observing everything from a limited perspective, which I call life. Yet, is there a way for my mind to directly or indirectly sense these choices? Perhaps the general feeling of making a choice, even when no reason seems apparent, is influenced by a higher version of self able to interpret the whole of existence in a tiny way.

The ball example was mostly influenced by the preference of color, which to me, amounted to some sort of order. I like the way certain colors or shapes look because they please me. I also know that symmetry and order are pleasing to me, and that these two are related. Without personal preference or opinion, the choice would be based on a random grab (we'll assume).

The random grab idea feels like the concept of entropy, or disorder. In that if no input or energy is applied, the system will generally move to a state of disorder. I could end up choosing blue 9 times out of 10, but with nothing to tip the scales, the probably should equal itself out over time.


Is the personal choice of consciousness the primary universal force moving against, or balancing entropy?



If I feel something pulling me towards a choice that I don't have a reason to make, i.e. i'm not really sure why I keep wanting to pick blue, but I will, would it be more likely moving towards a state of disorder, or away from it?


What if my total self (which I will say is the sum of my existence in every universe and form) is feeding information to my physical self? There is a ton of information being filtered through our brains that does not make it to our active consciousness. Our brain also adds a lot of information, filling in holes where it likes, that is independent of external physical sensory information. Perhaps the trick is to realize what information comes from where, and what the general feelings mean.

It would seem that this all comes back to trusting yourself, and leading a generally simple life. By simple I mean not over-thinking, not relying on the inner monologue, not applying other people's beliefs or worrying about what they think. Only by completely clearing our mind and listening to the information we hear, could we even begin to look at the base level, uninfluenced information. I suspect if there is any extra-universal or conscious inflow of energy or info, we could only sense it in this general state. From there it would seem that we only needed to 'follow our instinct' and the rest of the cliche advice (which I believe is great advice if you understand and know how to follow it). And then, that's it... it doesn't appear that the average man could get much further. I'm not sure that we'd need to.

This is somewhat basic, but I feel there is a larger thought or concept in there. Hopefully some of you will have some more thoughts on it, thanks for reading.

Damn, I totally knew this wouldn't get any replies but at least I tried... sigh

Originally posted by Parabol
Damn, I totally knew this wouldn't get any replies but at least I tried... sigh

Patience. Be at peace and know replies will come as sure as the sun comes after the rain.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Ha, yeah I know, I just always end up thinking of stuff like this that doesn't lend itself to an easy reply I guess. My ex used to feel weird because I'd go off on something like this and she wouldn't know what to say, other than 'oh cool, yeah, it could be like that.' Really you can't prove or disprove any of it, and if you haven't thought about it before it's kinda odd. So sometimes there really isn't much to say back, but the writing helps me get through the thought process. Thanks for the encouragement And I live in Texas... what is this rain thing you speak of?

Originally posted by Parabol
It would seem that this all comes back to trusting yourself, and leading a generally simple life. By simple I mean not over-thinking, not relying on the inner monologue, not applying other people's beliefs or worrying about what they think. Only by completely clearing our mind and listening to the information we hear, could we even begin to look at the base level, uninfluenced information. I suspect if there is any extra-universal or conscious inflow of energy or info, we could only sense it in this general state. From there it would seem that we only needed to 'follow our instinct' and the rest of the cliche advice (which I believe is great advice if you understand and know how to follow it). And then, that's it... it doesn't appear that the average man could get much further. I'm not sure that we'd need to.

Could this be what is meant by "following God's will", "the will of the Divine"? Following "God's will" is being intune with "God".

When one understands that one is God, not in an egotistical way, it makes sense. Spiritually, humanity still is on a path to En-light-enment.
Heh heh even after Jesus said he was the Light and that each of us should not hide our Light, many people still don't consider themselves Divine, but that is in direct contradiction to what Jesus said!

Originally posted by Parabol
It would seem that this all comes back to trusting yourself, and leading a generally simple life. By simple I mean not over-thinking, not relying on the inner monologue, not applying other people's beliefs or worrying about what they think. Only by completely clearing our mind and listening to the information we hear, could we even begin to look at the base level, uninfluenced information.

I was thinking that this is similar to the 'action without thought' philosophy of many martial arts. Also, a little Zen -- that the conscious mind is not the source of wisdom.

But I'm not sure I agree, 100% -- is the 'inner monologue', conscious thought and consideration, deliberation, etc., all just 'static'? Stuff that gets in the way of the accurate perception of 'uninfluenced information'? In other words, is 'true' and reliable intuition always subconscious?

reply to post by Ian McLean


You might also turn the idea on its head and consider that everything that happens here in 3D land is determined by what happens in 4D land, and so on up the dimensional ladder. Since you've already granted a sort of predetermination, might it not be possible to interpret the choices we make here in 3D land to be more a function of geometry than free will?

What is the nature of our identity in higher dimensions? If even our understanding of the tumbling of molecules around our brain matter is of a limited, 3D perspective, how can higher-order reality ever be disclosed to us?

If it cannot be intellectually apprehended, how can we even discuss the meaning of a higher implicate order apart from our perception of time, which is just one damn thing after another?

Sorry I only have more questions and no good answers.

reply to post by applebiter


I had to give that a little thought. If I understand what you're saying, you're saying that, if we ignore QED and the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, the future is 'predetermined': at some future point, the instantaneous state of the 3D world will achieve a certain configuration, and that's that -- everything can be summed up, in result, in that configuration.

That configuration is very complex 3-dimensional pattern, yet it is only a very thin 'cross-section' of a more complex pattern in 4-dimensional space (spacetime). The state of the world now could also be considered such a thin cross-section.

These thin 'slices' of spacetime act in a manner similar to the ribs in an aircraft wing -- 2D slices that define the cross-sectional shape of the airfoil at a particular location along the length. The fabric stretched over the ribs gives the airfoil its 3D form.

In a similar manner, extending the dimensionality, the 3D 'slices' of world-state at a particular point in 4D spacetime are the 'ribs' which form the shape of the intervening events: all between unfolds as a necessity of constrained geometry. In considering this 'necessity', I'm reminded of the principle of least time.

You then extend such a consequent pattern to even higher dimensions, the pattern of 4D spacetime is thus a single cross-section of a 5D space, which could be filled 'geometrically' in a similar manner. This could extend on and on -- turtles all the way up?


I was going to continue, pointing out what I see as the holes in this viewpoint, but I won't -- I'm interested to hear more about what others think. The philosophical implications of the principle of least time are extremely interesting. Also, what is the 'time-frame' of the function of the mind?

Cool! I gotta think about all this stuff. What an age we live in!
Philosophically, new information/ideas should lead humanity to a better self.

We all live in infinate universes....our own ONE, and the infinite possibility of others.

A higher percentage choosing either colour is irrelevant unless the experiment was repeated for ALL universes. (pwew, that's a lot of balls!).

A 50/50% choice would be rare, but not impossible.

The sum of the totals would also sometimes be less than 100% because you must factor in the "I just can't choose" character or the "sudden" heart attack victim! .....maybe even the odd "both, I like brown"

Can't see what it's got to do with "God" either unless god is your reason for infinity... (yeah I know..."in the beginning...."...paradox....)

You see, it's not a choice between just two colours is it? It also must take into account the subjects mood, the lighting, the floor colour, the influance of those around, the possible consequence of the choice, the questioner, and are you free to choose, or like poor mr "O.P.", are you tied to a chair

etc, etc, etc.....Impossible to predict any choice by an individual except with prior information.

Everything is as big as everything else, each is unique, and each has infinate possibility, and possibility is a constantly changing thing. Just like absolutely everything else. Me thinks you'd need a very big blackboard. lol.

The future only exists as a concept...the past, as a memory....and they both constantly change, have you ever had exactly the same thought twice?. If you have then I'm afraid to say "come in Nexus 6-145 your time is up!".

With all the future to come, and all the past that's been, we cling to the smallest dot at the point where they meet called present.

With the infinate possibilities of 1 human alone and the choices they could make based on their faculties, the only true question that needs asking is to ourselves....do we trust that persons answer?

So the same impossible equasion rears it's head and we start again.

Personally, I believe that we all answer our own questions in having the choice to "file" and "process" the information as we each see fit.

There is no graph for the human race that could be used in the "ball" scenario, no pie charts or scribblings on a blackboard. We're not a line or an angle or a tone or a coordinate.

Just little squishy "blobs" swarming around a little ball of dirt, spinning around a big light that is swirling into a "plughole" while going nowhere fast in one of those (so-far) infinate universes. (the deluxe model).

I think I'd be wondering who's balls they were instead of what colour to choose and what horrible torture made one of them cold and the other one so hot?

Nobody KNOWS what's coming, but it's possible to assume. Rightly or wrongly!

Great thread Parabol, star & flag. I love the BIG stuff wot makes my head hurt.

[edit on 30/6/2008 by nerbot]

reply to post by nerbot

A higher percentage choosing either colour is irrelevant unless the experiment was repeated for ALL universes. (pwew, that's a lot of balls!).

A 50/50% choice would be rare, but not impossible.

The sum of the totals would also sometimes be less than 100% because you must factor in the "I just can't choose" character or the "sudden" heart attack victim! .....maybe even the odd "both, I like brown"

You see, it's not a choice between just two colours is it? It also must take into account the subjects mood, the lighting, the floor colour, the influance of those around, the possible consequence of the choice, the questioner, and are you free to choose, or like poor mr "O.P.", are you tied to a chair

I get what your saying, but in my 'experiment' I wanted there to be a control of only two choices. It is unlikely and near impossible. I also pictured it an a completely white, empty room, not really important, just what was in my head. If you account for those other things you could never discover much, the variables are too many to account for and would not give good data. Or even with all of that, if i picked blue in 16% and red in 10%, with the remaining 74% being heart attacks and indecision (i also supposed I'd die of starvation if I never chose ).

i have noticed that the "i" that i feel when i talk about things is generally not aware of the thoughts in my mind before they are thought/heard. that is to say, there is no conscious process in my mind that chooses what to think about next. generally it is subconscious. i hear/see/feel/smell/taste something, my mind associates it with something similar, and out pops a thought. i have come to see that i only see the thought come out after it has been created and completed, and am not actually in conscious of the creating process most of the time. i think true choice can only come out of a state of no mind and rather being. being aware and focusing on the moment, that moment of choice. which way?

i guess i feel that most of the time my life is led by my subconscious self, which is not the "self" that "i" generally refer to when talking about my self. when "i" talk about my self, this is the mind-self, just a voice in the head. it sounds just like my voice.

only when i "wake up" to reality and focus do i consider my self making a conscious choice. exercising my "will."

but, if all this is true through and through, then conscious or unconscious, choosing or not choosing, it doesn't matter, because its all me and you any way all the way forever...

Originally posted by nerbot
We all live in infinate universes....our own ONE, and the infinite possibility of others.

Yes, I like this idea. Hmmmm, I think that might be along the lines of what I have thought, that we all "play in each others karma". Yet, we're in our own infinite universe/possibility.

I've had to give up Wittgenstein's coat, because every system of signs is a closed system and I no longer feel "clever" anymore when I make a good "move". Free will is both a playground and a burden to me, and in order to resolve the issue I have begun plotting the assassination of my person. Twice, already, I thought I had finally killed the bastard, but he keeps resurrecting. I reckon if I can kill my person, then all that is left of me will be pure experience and pure action. Then it wouldn't really matter to me whether "free will" was a myth, because I would be too busy surfing the absolute bow-wave of consciousness to bother myself with the question.

While to a certain extent i like to believe in free will.... there are certain things in science that have me completely baffeled. For instance the fact that if i were to get the urge (the feeling of me WANTing) to slap the mosquito that just landed on my arm, 7 seconds before that mosquito even landed on my arm, my brain was saying you are going to get the urge to slap that bloody mosquito that is going to land on your arm in 7 seconds. This is a full 7 seconds before you even notice the mosquito land on your arm, that your brain is teeling you what your going to do.

That is a scientific test confirmed. That is #1.

Now for number #2, we have a scientific test done where participants are hooked up to a brain scanners again. They are given picture cards, one at a time. When a picture card is drawn that has a violent graphic disturbing image thier brain reacts differently than it does if it sees a picture of an empty box, or a number or a letter, etc. These peoples brains were reacting differently to these graphic pictures at least 3 seconds before they had even been shown the graphic picture. Humans can subconsciously see the future.


So humans can see the future and our brains can tell us to do something before we even know we are going to do it, or even wanting to get the urge to do it. Seems like free will sorta goes bye-bye.

But then again what if i subconsciously knew the future and was telling my brain to start reacting so i would preform that action in the near future.

But then i think. If our brains can see the future and prepare us to do something before we even think about wanting to do something, then why do we get run over by cars, or something, etc ;-P Why do we step in that peiece of dog poo? Why why Why? :-p

But then again string theory has everything down to realities, dimensions, and everything being energy and connected in all spaces and times and dimensions, etc... Soooo its just damn confusing ;-P