Culture is the summarization of history. It is never completely accurate and so it always has to be changed and re-establish itself. History may be learned by the individual but it is not feasible for the whole community to have a perfect knowledge of history—this is where culture fills the gaps.
By learning history we can learn the nuances of the past. We realize that everyone else is almost always wrong about at least one thing and no one has life all figured out. Many people have different puzzle pieces. Some pieces may not even be from the same puzzle. No one has all the puzzle pieces because that would not humanly possible nor desirable.
Through the acquisition of knowledge we increase the diversity of responses that we can make to a given situation—though only up to a certain point. Try as we might there is a human capacity for knowledge. When the genius tries to learn more eventually the genius will forget many other things that were learned before. The important thing is that there is an upper and lower limit to the human response in situation. A person with similar knowledge and personality will yield similar response.
Both deterministic and indeterministic physical laws are not strongly compatible with control by genuine (non-illusory) free will. The brain may be an arena of exotic, non-standard physics. This might be why freewill (and, in general, consciousness) cannot be recreated by standard artificial intelligence.
How do we arrive at the conclusion of sacred or profane? We require micro and macro context to determine the sorting of motion vectors into this relative construct. The arrangement of nuclear reactants determine the output of amplitude and distribution. For example, nuclear power is both sacred and profane.
We recognize that the separation of sacred and profane is merely a social construction but we must also realize that the construction is founded upon our perception. Perception is not wholly created from imagination. Perception requires input.
We usually think about perception as a general filter but we can also choose what we perceive by placing ourselves into experiences. By choosing where to live or where to go on vacation we expose ourselves to different situations. All situations change how we perceive in the future.
I think there is also a difference between conscious and non-conscious freewill. It is very possible that our non-conscious mind has more freewill than our conscious mind.
It's not simple to say whether or not humans have free will and it's not simple to know if our free will (if it exists at all) has been manipulated. There is a possibility that there are beings or objects which exist outside of our universe (whether or not our universe is a simulated one does not matter). If so, there is no way for us to know if they have access to our universe. Even if they have only read access to our universe it's inevitably possible that by reading our universe that they have manipulated it.
I would guess that some interaction plane exists or could be created between the universe and the external and if so then the beings outside of the universe would have full control of this universe in a way that no object or being could have from within this universe.
If all matter is following a process from an initial event ("the big bang") then all that has happened since then is a consequence of those initial motion vectors. An object outside of our universe inherits ancestors of motion vectors which are not from our big bang. Thus the interaction between these children of two different parents is potentially more genuine (more chaotic, not conforming to the laws of classical physics) than the interaction of everyday objects within our universe.
It might not be obvious but a lack of determinism doesn’t automatically imply freewill.
The following relationship holds:
(A) If determinism is true, libertarian freewill is false.
The complement of this relationship is:
(B) If libertarian freewill is true, determinism is false.
The fallacy lies in the fact that people confuse (B), with the following relationship:
(C) If determinism is false, libertarian freewill is true.
It is entirely possible that determinism is false, but that freewill is false as well. The fact that quantum mechanics disproves determinism doesn't mean that freewill is true in any way.
It is very possible that humanity, or any creature after us, will never be able to know whether or not freewill exists.
The Fatum Project was born as an attempt to research unknown spaces outside predetermined probability-tunnels of the holistic world and has become a fully functional reality-tunnel creating machine that digs rabbit holes to wonderland. We are utilizing [a quantum random location generator] to generate random coordinates to travel the multiverse.
While I don’t want to distribute occultist / pseudoscience / confirmation-bias stories that some of the Randonaut (Random Explorer) community surrounds itself with. Right now the Fatum Project is mostly centered on confirming the magical powers of quantum randomness or something like that—but the reality is strange things exist everywhere. You just have to be conscious and look deeply everywhere.
I wouldn’t be sharing this if I thought the Fatum project / Randonaut community will never evolve from this stage. I think there is huge potential here. It’s getting people to go outside of their normal path and explore the world around them. Like Pokemon Go but even better because it requires you to see (though at this stage people are still missing the bigger picture / seeing connections which don’t actually exist: reification, confirmation bias, or spiritualizing quantum randomness).
…sometimes there are weird coincidences and cool artwork. At other times, you might be directed to a supermarket, but hey, you might not have picked that lunch otherwise.
“It’s small things like that,” he said. “Learning to appreciate what you’ve got [is] the root of a lot of religious or spiritual quests. Sometimes, a painting of a mermaid at the bottom of your road is cool.” He added, “Even if it is completely random, maybe that shows that the world is slightly more exciting than it first looks, you know?”
Something that struck me about the entire experience was how closely it skirted aspects of cognitive behavioral therapy, in which therapists encourage you to challenge your thoughts, your perceptions, and your default modes of thinking. In my experience, most of all they will encourage a sense of presence.
Whatever you think of the validity of hacking reality or the nature of our possibly deterministic universe, my time randonauting pushed me to pay closer attention to my environment, to stop and notice things, like artwork, signs, symbols, nature, and objects, that I might have otherwise filtered out by default.
Randonauts don’t need to create a mythology. They shouldn’t over-analyze situations or encounters. The important thing is that through exploration you experience situations that you never would have experienced—however mundane those situations are. It shifts your perspective. Perspective is built upon the mundane but if you look too closely and establish false causation then your perspective can wildly become mis-aligned with reality. Discovery of new information is essential to gaining knowledge but if you make up information to satisfy a short-term dilemma then the knowledge you gain won’t be as useful. Exploration is useful by itself. Randonauts shouldn’t establish an official methodology because that would limit how useful it could be.
From an epistemic viewpoint, individual quantum events are in general irreducibly random. But this epistemic quantum randomness does neither imply ontic randomness nor that determinism has been refuted by quantum theory.
My perspective is that it doesn’t really matter whether we have free will or not because we will end up in the same position either way. People should explore the world outside of their established pattern. People should try to see things from other people’s perspective. These activities give us greater freewill because we can adjust our perspective to fit the needs of situational context—we make better decisions by listening to the world outside of ourselves.