Evolution of Free Will

The complexity of the circumstances required to implement the freedom of an intentionally uninfluenced 50% probability occurrence, is equivalent to the flip of a coin.

The complexity of the circumstances which God would leave to freedom of occurrence in order to implement free will, would be equivalent to the complexity of our consciousness.

In order to allow freedom of occurrence or randomosity of any scenario, you simply need to allow something to occur without intentionally influencing the outcome. The degree to which you allow circumstances to occur without intentional influence, would be equal to the degree of freedom of occurrence. Scientifically, it may be possible to calculate and intentionally cause the entirety of a set of circumstances and occurrences. Hypothetically, with this capability, in order to allow freedom of occurrence, randomosity, or chance to occur, you would simply need to allow a certain set of circumstances to occur without an intentional influence or cause of outcome.

The method of development of human consciousness (and therein the complexity of circumstances required to allow free will), would be the complexity of our consciousness. The method of development involved with evolution from the initial spark of microorganisms, all the way to human consciousness,,, is pretty complex.

So from Gods perspective, in order to create free will to the complexity of human consciousness, God could allow the circumstances of evolution to occur, without his intentional influence of outcome.

If God allowed the circumstances of evolution to occur without intentional influence of outcome; how could God then alter circumstances within the happening of evolution, which seem necessary and relative to be altered, in order to intentionally cause future circumstances within the lives of humans?

For freedom of occurrence, the only lack of influence on circumstances would need to be: with intention directly relative to the outcome of that which is being left to freedom of occurrence.  Alternate alteration to the same circumstances could be placated, as long as there is that lack of intention for the specific outcome of freedom of occurrence ie. intention to cause human consciousness to function by a specific method.

God likely alters circumstances throughout the modern world which have an influence on the decisions of people who are not willing for God to alter their free will. This is not a reduction of free will, since God is not altering the circumstances with the specific intention of influencing their decisions, but altering the circumstances for another intention, of a potentially unrelated occurrence.

The principle of this concept, would be: as long as the intention is not for that specific outcome, the effects of that alteration of circumstances are still left to freedom of occurrence. This concept can perhaps be relayed to the circumstances of the development of human consciousness, and therein free will. God could potentially alter circumstances which may influence occurrence relative to development of free will, but as long as the intentions are not specifically to influence the specific result of the initial human consciousness, human consciousness would still be left to freedom of occurrence. Ie. Free Will

Influence Implementation

For free will to exist, there needs to be a set of unaltered circumstances. For God to influence current day decisions, does he need to alter the same circumstances, which are necessary to be unaltered for free will to exist?

God influencing conditions from the point of time after initial development of free will and on, without reducing free will seems complicated. If it is understood that; intentionally influencing anyone's decision to any degree, is a reduction of their free will, then it seems difficult to comprehend how God could influence any circumstances at all without reducing someone or another’s free will. Even if someones will is for God to influence their decisions, this may permit the individual to be influenced, but in order to make that influence, God would need to alter circumstances in their past, which are relevant and influential to that decision. This sounds plausible, but considering it is likely that nearly all circumstances which have occurred in someone's life -and therein may play an influential role-, have been relative to someone else's decision, this means God would have to intentionally influence others decisions. If those others also willed God to influence them, there would be no problem, but if their will is not for God to influence them, then it would be a reduction of their free will, if God was to influence them.

So there may be 2 possibilities for God to influence circumstances; 1 would be for God to reduce some people's free will, in order to fulfill his own, in the case where it also aligns with someone else’s will to allow God to alter their will. So, if it is someone’s will for God to influence their decision (or alter exterior conditions, regardless of their decisions), but in order to do so, God must reduce someone’s -or many others- free will, perhaps God does so, relative to the degree of will of the individual who is willing Gods influence. God could potentially implement the alterations regardless of the degree of free will being reduced by others, or perhaps comparatively of the degree of free will being reduced, to will for God to implement alterations of his will.

A 2nd possibility for method of which God alters circumstances in order to influence free will -in the scenario where the individual's will is for God to influence their will-, could be to allow complete free will of all, yet use the decisions which people do make on their own, in the right circumstantial time placement. In the contrary scenario, the mentioned free decisions would occur randomly, and by chance would often not inflict the relevant influence on an alternate individual's decision. But in this theoretical scenario, God would take any free decision (including potentially those non-necessarily-willing) which is effectively influential for the needed circumstance, and cause that free decision to occur in the effectively applicable correct place and time.

It could almost be like cutting and pasting relevant decisions, to position them in an effective placement, like a jigsaw puzzle. In order for God to alter the setting of free decisions, he would need to alter past circumstances, just as he would need to, in order to influence decisions of someone willing for God to do so. The method of implementation would be the same in both situations; of influencing decisions of the willing, and altering the setting and effect of a non-willing decision. The relevance would be that utilizing the non-willing decisions (without reducing free will) would allow a significant increase in potentially useful puzzle pieces.

It seems in any case of God influencing willing decisions or adjusting the setting of circumstances, God needs to alter past circumstances. But for a lot of scenarios of influenced decisions, it can require minimal alteration of past circumstances. Perhaps the ratio of quantity of circumstances required for influence of decisions, to quantity of unaltered circumstances for allowance of free will, is significant and relevant to the answer. As theorised, it takes minimal altered circumstances to influence a lot of willfully influenced decisions, so what quantity of unaltered circumstances are required to allow free will? Perhaps only alteration of circumstances which are relevant to influencing the decision in question, are required to be unaltered. This would mean just as minimal of circumstances as influence a decisions, are required to be unaltered. All other circumstances throughout existence and time, which dont influence any decisions, could be altered.

With my initial question of, influential circumstances needing to be the same as unaltered circumstance for free will to be present, those circumstances would need to be the same -except when your will is for the circumstances to be altered. As long as the circumstances were initially unaltered to present free will, the free will could be implemented to then allow alteration of those same initial circumstances.

Relevant Route of Decision Direction

In the scenario where someone's will is for God to allow something which is also of his will, God would need to allow the circumstances where everyone makes the relative decision which is required for the alteration of conditions to occur. There may be 10 people required to make certain decisions, for a certain circumstance to occur. For each of those 10 people to make that decision, there might have been 100 necessary circumstances to occur. For each of those 100 circumstances, there might be 10 other people required to make certain decisions. Its unlikely that it would stop there, but for eg, this would already be 10 x 100 x 10 = 10 000 people required to make a certain decision, in order for 1 circumstance to occur.

But, for 10 people to make those initial certain relevant decisions, there could be 100 people who could potentially take that role. This means there only needs to be 1/10 people to be willing for God to influence their decisions. Now, considering my next estimate of 100 circumstances necessary to make that influence on that decision, it seems plausible that a lot of decisions would only require 1 circumstance for effective influence*. The next 10 people relevant to their decisions causing that circumstance, would be the same as the 1st set of 10 (only needing 1/10 people to will God to influence their decisions). This brings the equation to 10 x 1 x 10 = 100. But out of those 100, only 1/10 need to be willing for God to influence their decisions

*Why should it be assumed that most decisions would only require 1 or few circumstances? A lot of decisions seem like they’re made regardless of most circumstances. Once a set of principles or rules of effective lifestyle are learned in an individual's life, those rules tend to be the relevant influencing circumstances on nearly all decisions. Therefore, for an individual to be influenced to make a specific decision, few circumstances should need to be altered, as it seems nearly all decisions would be made based on the overruling principles of that individual's decision process. That decision process could be tweaked by minimal occurring circumstances.

Considering all individuals whose decisions would be altered -without the reduction of free will- based on their will for God to alter it, would be of a similar lifestyle, they would likely be of a similar set of principles for basis of decisions. Since all decisions seem to be influenced by the same set of circumstances (ie the development of a set of principles to base decisions on) for each person, and all people relevant to alteration of decisions, seem to have a similar set of principles, if all influences of decisions were to be based on that same set of principles, then the required influence would always already have been applicated.

If God's will is for us to gain the principles of his way of life, and to make decisions based on those principles, and the only alterations God makes to influences on human decisions, are to those of people who are willing for God to alter their decisions based on his will, then no alterations to circumstances of your past (which influence your decisions) would be necessary, as the circumstances would always be the same, since the set of principles would be the same.

If everyones will was for Gods will to occur, then all those decisions would be made. If that is not their will, then there’s a chance they might not make that necessary decision. God would have to either alter their decision and reduce their free will, or predict that occurrence, and readjust the initial variable starting setup until they do make the decision.

Intrication

Consider the intricacy of this world, the circumstances which occur -including all causes by any degree of influence on the situation-, the decisions made by every person -also as a result of vast variances of influence-, and the countless relevant circumstances which were necessary to occur in the past, as a lead-up to the present situation. The complexity of relevant variables is virtually immeasurable and incomprehensible.

To include purpose to the equation of this world, certain circumstances are necessary to occur. As I determined in my posts of “Inverted Inevitability”, “Purpose Potential”, “Purpose vs Probability”, “Indeterminism”, and “Conditional Coercion”, there is the possibility of purpose being present in this world, by allowance of uninfluenced results, yet guaranteed occurrence of required circumstances.

The orchestrator of the occurrence of the certain circumstances would no doubt be what we identify as God. If God created the necessary conditions for humans to exists (and therein purpose, via free will), with a vastly complex set of variables to allow the scenario of uninfluenced free choice, then would God continue to implement conditions throughout the world, after humans were already existent with free choice? And if so, how, with the allowance of free will changing all circumstances from that point on, and restraining Gods effect of alteration?

If God has a will (or preferred scenario of occurrence) -as intentional implemented purpose would indicate- beyond the initial allowance of our free will, then it seems necessary that he would indeed continue to implement conditions throughout the world. Even if Gods will is to allow a significant quantity of humanised free will, it would still be potentially necessary to implement conditions.

The only way God could alter or implement intentional conditions while allowing free will, would be for our will to be for God to alter conditions. If God altered conditions relative to the decision of any human, without our will, in the intent of a certain cause, he would have to influence our will, which would be a reduction of our free will.

Since nearly -or perhaps entirely- all occurrences in the modern day world would be relative to someone or another’s decision at some point (or else that occurrence wouldnt pertain in that exact way), it seems that it could be necessary for God to reduce the free will of some, in order to alter conditions (even if the alteration is of the will of someone for God to do so).

But perhaps the method of application for God altering conditions (which require a certain decision from people), could be similar to what was theoretically applied in order to guarantee the minimal necessary circumstances for humans to have existed in the 1st place. The method of allowing vastly complex variables to occur without influence (allowing freedom), yet predicting the occurrence, and in the event of the unacceptable circumstance, readjusting the initial vastly complex variable starting setup.

Is that method of application significantly different from directly influencing circumstances for an intentional outcome? Altering the original starting setup based on knowledge of outcome would in essence, actually be influencing the scenario and reducing freedom possibility and potential.

The difference would be the degree of influential alteration vs freedom. In the scenario of; altering the beginning state of all matter and elements in the universe to a new random uninfluenced state, in the case of the 1st trial not resulting in human-like consciousness being developed (with perhaps the probability being 2/1 for eg), would be an incredibly small degree of influence and small reduction of freedom of possibility. Some degree of influence is required after all, otherwise nothing would occur in the 1st place, theoretically. So the difference is significant between that influential alteration and direct influence of outcome.

As long as the original starting state of human consciousness was not directly implemented in a certain way -but allowed alternate possibility based on uninfluenced variables-, then free will could exist, and therein potential purpose.

It seems relatively easy for God to have implemented initial free will in this world, based on uninfluenced variables and allowing probability of specific occurrences involving said variables, to cause the necessary steps toward human consciousness and free will.

Conditional Coercion

If purpose exists in this universe -by means of allowance of optional and alternate occurrence-, implemented by the concept of indeterminised random variability, then can the required conditions and relative further progression be guaranteed?

Given the beginning conditions of the universe, of the state of the laws of physics, variety of elements, and quantity of elements, is it possible for the required progressive scenarios (relative to the existence of human beings) to be guaranteed to occur, based on probability alone?
It seems based on solely probability and no interference of intent implemented, there could still be a chance of required progression not occurring.

Even if the probability was 1/100, and there’s 1 trillion random unknown occurrences, there would still be that 1/10 Billion chance that progression does not occur, which is less than guaranteed. If there was purpose, it seems relevant for the scenario of purpose occurring, to be guaranteed.

So, in order for the required purpose scenario to exist -of lack of intentional implementation, by unknown variables-, perhaps the scenario of the universe occurring with those intentionally unknown and unaltered variables, could be predicted -for insurance of the required progressive occurrences. If the required occurrences are predicted for pertinence or not, while leaving the unknown variables up to probability, then on the chance that the necessary happenings do not occur, a reassimilation of the beginning state of the universe would be implemented.

This would be similar to needing a video clip for a movie, of someone rolling 2 dice to show a 6, without placing them intentionally. You could have the person roll the dice as many times as necessary, in order to get the video, then use the video clip where it finally occurs, to then be able to continue the movie.

By this method of conditional coercion, it could be guaranteed for the necessary scenarios to occur, which will allow progression in the universe to the point of human existence.
It would be guaranteed, yet still aspects would be left to probability, randominity, chance, and variability with those numerous allowed occurrences in the universe, of unimplementation and indeterminisation.

Indeterminisation

If purpose, then why probability?

To summarise my theorage on purpose vs probability as an explanation of our existence;

The Probability Theory would be that by method of trial and error, with enough recurrences -as the probability- of randomised scenarios, progression will occur by default.

The Purpose Theory would dispute that plausibility, since there would need to be infinite universes in order for the required number of recurrences to allow the probability of the required beginning conditions of the universe to occur. Counter conditional to the universe being a random occurrence based on probability, the beginning conditions of the universe would need to occur with an intended cause -or purpose.

On this premise, it would insinuate that some occurrences in the universe would have a purpose, or an intentional cause. Considering humans are the most significant thing we know of in the universe, it could be a safe assumption that we are relevant to that purpose, as it seems unlikely we would occur by fluke, when there is an alternate purpose in the universe. With this assumption, it would explain the specific conditions of the beginning state of the universe, which cause all the following circumstances for humans to exist.

This leads me to the question, why does probability and trial and error seem evident in the occurrences since the start of the universe, if everything could occur directly and intentionally?
If the beginning state of the universe was intentional to cause humans (or any similar conscious-like entity) to exist at some point, it could be done using probability -without direct influence- to allow optional possibilities. It could be done using probability by creating the sufficient physical laws, elements, and mass amount of elements, in order to allow the quantity of recurrences of all necessary progressive circumstances, to outnumber the denominator of probability of each required scenario of advantageous progression.

It would likely be done this way rather than direct influence to allow that aspect of optional possibilities of indeterminisation. Alternatively, if the entire universe and every circumstance of all time, to pertain within, was predetermined, calculated, and directly forced, it seems like purpose would be lost, and occurrence would be unnecessary.

This lack of determinism is what could allow for what we call free will. For humans to have a freedom of choice, our decisions need to be not directly caused.

So the concept of probability is what causes intentional occurrence, within a randomised scenario, when combined with the sufficient conditions and quantity of variables for the initial state to procure the necessary number of recurrences to cause trial and error to implement the progressive conditions.

The variability allows purpose by lack of predetermination, while probability allows purpose by inevitable self-occurrence of basic minimal circumstances.

Purpose vs Probability

All function and progress in the universe seems to apply the concept of trial and error. Using this concept, it seems anything -from random circumstantial fluke occurrences, to intellectual coached and analysed positive or negatively reinforced experiments- can make progression.

With a given scenario of significantly numerous repeated trials, even seemingly random happenstances can develop to a more advanced state. As long as within each random occurrence, there is some possibility of the progressive conditions to occur, -by the logic of probability- on average there just needs to be as many repetitions as the denominator of the probability of the beneficial scenario to occur.

Take the formation of solar systems as an example. The probability of a planet forming in orbit around a star, at the precise conditions in which Earth exists -for potential life to begin, as the progressive advancement-, may be perhaps 1/1 trillion. But assuming 1 trillion is the denominator of the probability of the conditions of an Earth-like planet, there theoretically just needs to be 1 trillion occurrences of solar systems forming, for that 1 potential scenario of advancement to take place.

This could be taken as a potential argument contradicting the reasoning of; the probability of purpose of existence -based on the simple fact that the scenarios have occurred, theoretically implicating that there is purpose, otherwise the scenario would not have occurred. Trial and error might be considered a contradictory argument, since it could be suggested that the advancement and beneficial circumstances for our existence, happened simply based on probability and repeated random circumstances. This seems like a plausible explanation for the specific beneficial circumstances of the Earths delicate conditions, and mmayyybe even evolution allowing development to humanity's current conscious state, as there could have plausibly been enough repeated random scenarios of solar systems forming, as well as life sparking on planets and surviving long enough.

BUT, I dont see how trial and error could explain the original and dominating circumstances, allowing potential progression in the universe. By original circumstances, I’m referring to the laws of physics which reign over, control and permit allowance of all occurrences in the universe from the beginning of time. If you were to consider the probability of trial and error as the explanation for the laws of physics existing in the precise constructs as they do -which is required, from the start of the universe, for all other occurrences (which may reasonably have themselves been trial and error)-, then logically there would need to be significantly numerous repeated scenarios of random occurrences of variations of laws of physics.

The original required dominating circumstances not only includes the laws of physics, but also the massive quantity of elemental material in the universe, necessary to allow for the previously mentioned numerous repeated scenarios of solar systems and life sparking and surviving within the solar systems. Without such an enormous quantity of mass of varying elements, there would have been insufficient repeated random occurrences of solar systems, for probability of trial and error to allow the delicate conditions of Earth to pertain.

To further analyse the required initial circumstances of the universe to allow trial and error to be an effective method of execution, all elements and substances in the universe need to exist as they do. In combination with the laws of physics and the quantity of material, there also needs to be the precise variety of elements and material for the universe to operate as it does, allowing the potential for life to exist.

Considering these 3 (at least) requirements initial to the existence of the universe, for the potential of our existence, it seems unlikely to me that the probability of trial and error is rationalisation for the present scenario of conscious human existence.

Taking the concept of trial and error into theoretical effect, with the beginning state of the universe existing as it does (including the necessary laws of physics, varying elements, and quantity of material), there would need to be as many numerous repeated scenarios of the universe existing, as the denominator of the probability of its initial state. Theoretically, from what we know, the plausible alternate circumstantial states of the universe, would be infinite. Since the alternate possibilities would be the denominator of probability, this would insinuate that the required repeated scenarios of the initial state of the universe would have to also be infinite.

It seems to come down to 2 plausible scenarios of the explanation of our existence in the universe, being either:
-random probability, including infinite universes
-or intentional purpose, including propagation

By my interpretation, analysis, and estimate, I’d say purpose is more probable.

Purpose Potential

What potential is there for purpose of life and the existence of the universe in general?

I theorised that there is the potential for the presence of purpose, despite all occurrences in the universe -including conscious decision- being plausibly technically predetermined and calculated, as of the beginning of the universe. Is it likely that there is purpose? and on the assumption that there is purpose to our existence and the universe, what might that purpose be?

It seems to me likely that there is a purpose, as a logical determination that with a lack of purpose, there would be a lack of existence. At least in this world of humanities conscious decisions, any action is taken to intentionally apply an effect by means of cause. This is what I might consider to be purpose. There is generally a purpose to causing an effect as a result of any decision we make. To make a decision without purpose, would seem careless and disregardful of actions.

Actions can be made without conscious decision, which perhaps seem as though they have no purpose. But I think those actions have a hidden purpose, unaware to you, as the action itself was. Actions lacking conscious and mentally alert consideration, are theoretically subconscious or instinctual actions. The hidden purpose behind subconscious or instinctual actions could be regarded as the purpose to allow that individual to survive and reproduce, as is the purpose of generally any actions of any species of animal, as infused by evolution. So it would seem the default purpose of natural life is virtually to contribute to the continuation and prosperity of its species.

This principle of purpose could theoretically be continued from subconscious animals, and applied to conscious decisions of humans, and that consciousness simply enables us to more effectively persist as a species. But if the purpose is for a species to persist, it begs the question, what is the purpose for species to exist? Most species of animals to have existed would then have failed their purpose, if the final purpose was to persist, since most species of animals have gone extinct. This seems to insinuate that perhaps the purpose of species existing is but a step and a means to another purpose.

A plausible alternate effect caused by the existence and persistence of animals, is the individuals themselves experiencing life. But, considering all animals other than humans (from what we know) live life mentally subconscious -and lacking further conscious awareness-, it seems unlikely that the purpose to their lives is experience. With a relatively simple mental process of an action causing a reaction based on subconscious memory recall of that general occurrence having a negative or positive influential reinforcement, the experience of life seems as though it is duly flirting by for animals.

But as humans have developed a capability of further mental awareness, comprehension, and potential appreciation, the potential for purpose being experience of life seems more plausible for our species specifically -at least to this point in time. Besides this potential purpose being relative to our mental capabilities, evolutionary development of species seems to have led to the result of human consciousness. At this point in time, as far as we know, our species consciousness is theoretically the most significant and relevant development of evolution and therein the existence of all species prior. It would seem, if persistence of prior species was but a step of purpose allowing for a further potential of purpose, then human existence and our relevant and relative conscious awareness, would likely be the next step of purpose.

As purpose implies an intentional effect, the most likely conclusive analysis of effects of all life and existence in this world, would seem to lead to humans being conscious of decisions and life itself. Whether or not that is the final step of purpose potential is another question.

Inverted Inevitability

Is everything inevitable?

My theorised tentative conclusion was that, if consciousness is a precise predictable calculation, then all conscious decisions (along with all occurrences in the universe) are likely inevitable to pertain exactly as they do. If this was so, everything would be 100% pre-determined, and it would be impossible to change the outcome of what is going to occur.

This initially seems contradictory to there being any potential purpose to anything occurring, as it would indicate that a conscious entity causing an intentional action, will create no different effect on the inevitable outcome. Everyone would be bound to make every single decision of their life exactly as they do.

Digging deeper, maybe it is possible that there is a purpose to existence, despite its inevitability. Perhaps all plausible decisions in the lives of every decision capable entity to ever have lived, and which will ever live, are absolutely determined at this point, and the point they occur, and at every point in time, except the instant which the universe began. Before (taking that term lightly) the universe began, when (also, lightly…) time was at a stand still, maybe at that moment (diddo) there was varying plausible outcomes to the universe, and every action and reaction within it. Perhaps in that instance, all decisions ever to pertain, made a relevant difference with their uncertainty and indefinite potential.

All decisions -as well as of course all unconscious, physical reactions of all material in the universe, ever- would then be predetermined to an exact science and mathematical calculation, from that point on, of the universe spawning into existence, and time ticking its initial millisecond (or infinite division of a millisecond...). But, if before that instance, all occurrences were allowed the liberty of uncertainty and plausible alterations, then decisions could theoretically make a difference. With decisions having the potential to have a relevant impact on the outcome of the choice being made, this could allow for potential purpose to life, and the universe in itself.

So in theory, any decision you make, may be inevitable at this point in time, but it still makes a difference, as it was not inevitable at one point. Its almost as if, you making a certain decision, dictates how every molecule and atom in the universe was arranged as it permeated into existence. In the scenario where you were to make a different decision than actually occurs, the molecules would have been arranged differently, in some miniscule way, as the universe began, as well as every molecules’ interaction throughout all of history, which was connected to the chain of reaction to allow the perfect circumstances for you to make that precise decision.

The liberty of allowance, prior to the universe's procurement, of what is to occur in the future, could theoretically be what enables the plausibility of alternate outcomes of the universe, and consecutively, every decision you make.

Decision Drive

Why did I just type this? Why did you just read that? Why did I end up writing a sentence about why I'm writing a sentence? Why do I ask so many questions? Why does action take place? Why does anyone make any certain decision? How does a theoretically intelligent, self-aware, existence-conscious being make choices?

Are choices made by conscious reasoning of logic, or subconscious impressions of past experiences?

Perhaps more likely, a combination of both, depending on the individuals genetic and adapted intellectual capabilities. Are there any additional variables, besides genetic intellect, past experiences influencing subconsciousness, and current circumstances? If not, theoretically, there could be a formula to calculate every decision, action and reaction of any person, with those 3 variables known.

Could super computers in the future, potentially link with the human brain, upload all previous data to calculate those 2 variables, from all past influencing experiences, and processing operations of a human brain? Once those 2 variables are known, the computer would just have to analyse the current circumstance variable -which itself, consists of many variables, but seems plausible for future computers to be capable of calculating. The computer could theoretically link with a human brain once, upload the data, then predict precisely the decisions of that person, in any circumstance.

If there is no more to a conscious decision, then even if someone was to intentionally attempt to spew off thousands of random (or what they might believe is random) numbers or letters or words, it could be predicted exactly as it occurs. There would be no defying the predictability.

If all actions of a conscious being are predictable down to a scientific calculation, does that mean we have no free will? If the particular electronic reaction within your brain is as calculated as a chemistry reaction of 1 element combined with another, then perhaps every action you ever take is predetermined, and there is no possible alternate outcome.
If there is no other possible outcome, is there a point to taking any intentional action? If you try to take an intentional action, that will be the predetermined outcome, if you don’t take that action, then that was actually the predetermined outcome. It seems like if 100% of the universe is predetermined, there is no point in taking any action, since no matter what you do, that was the outcome, and it is not possible to make any difference.

This is all sort of a baffling concept! But it seems to me that, if choices are meaningless, and intentional actions make no difference, then there would be literally no point or purpose to the universe. If there was no reason for the universe to exist, then it would not exist.
Therefore, by deductive reasoning, since the universe exists, it must not be 100% predetermined. If it’s not completely predetermined because there is potential for alternate occurrences, it seems likely –based on current potential observations and available data- that conscious decision is the means of potential alternate outcomes in the universe.
How can the brain create an incalculable scenario of varying potential outcomes?
That seems to be my next question.

Distribution Devisal

Would an artificial intelligent program delete its replica to gain priority status? 

Would aliens attack humans for our resources rather than offering trade?

Would Jesus shove someone out of line to get a taco quicker?
Would a wolf hide a dead moose for itself, from its starving pack?

There is a common distribution rationalization between the scenarios, which would suggest the occurrence to be unlikely. An entity (be it the individual itself, or an efficiency output system of trial and error, such as natural selection) capable of effective rationalisation would likely come to the same conclusion of general logic application, from analysis of efficient dividend distribution.

A general applicable rule based on deductive rationalization; all undefined units should be considered of equivalent value for distribution of alterations in possession quantity. From this it can be derived, all units should acquire equivalent additives to keep the units equal, or alternatively reduction in quantity of posessions should be distributed evenly between units. This would be relevant in the scenario where 1 unit gains additives or negatives. The alteration in possession quantity should be applied universally, or evenly distributed to the remaining units in order to retain overall equality and efficiency of the group of units as a whole. Also derived and relative to this rule, is the occurrence where a change to the total sum is intended, where the alteration to all units –whether positive or negative- should be evenly spread.

With enough statistical evidence an entity might rationally deduce that it has greater value than some alternate units –based on practical capabilities etc.-, but it would likely only be to a small degree, assuming the unit is generally similar. It may actually be self-valuing in some scenarios to a small degree, but only in relation to distinctly differing attributes, and the occasion where resources are important enough to distribute disproportionately (as potentially causing risk of conflict).

Now, what in the frick am I talking about? I may sound like some sort of hippy calculator program, and maybe I am in some way –what’s wrong with that?) This is my method of describing something in the most generic form I can envision it, to reduce any biases, mindsets or preconceptions related to the topic which might be in place with a more specific example. So now that the unbiased description has been worked out, I’ll apply it to more specific examples.

An AI program would likely distinguish that a replica of itself (unit) is theoretically of equivalent value as far as its capable of deducing. If the Ai has any sort of achievement target, -with appropriate analysis capabilities- it would evaluate such that additional equivalent units to itself would increase probability of achieving its target in cooperation.

A similarly developed -to humans- alien race would likely realise that attacking humans would result in large net loss, where trading benefits all units with additional value in quantity of possessions.

Jesus would empathise that the guy –for all comprehensive awareness- deserves that taco as quickly as he does (assuming the perspective of an equivalent human), in relativity to time of entering the lineup for tacos. Time as a quantity of possession, should be considered equally distributable between units.

The wolf could keep the dead moose for himself as a long term source of food, but as natural selection would have deduced by long term trial and error of wolves behaviour, sharing the moose with the rest of the starving pack allows them to survive as well, allowing them to work together in the near future to much more effectively catch more prey.

When it comes to devising distribution, the most potentially effective and efficient method seems to be even application of variable acquirements, to all units of perceived equal value. Evenly spread distribution tends to keep the group balanced, and achieve net positive for the lump sum.

Cynical Cinematic Sample of Society

1 potential perspective of analysis of deduced and derived reasonality of why,

everyone is stupid.

Starting with # 1. As a very general reason, causing global warming seems selfish even beyond what I would have thought natural instinct would provide, as for preserving the very race that we are of humans. We still regularly and daily do what we know causes global warming, which we know could likely kill millions of people and species of animals -if not every of those both.

People keep driving their vehicles, which they know is a major part of causing the murder of this planet, just because mainly, well it makes you look better.. More cool and of better status to be driving, combined with being just damn lazy makes most of it. No bother to even mention that 99% of us could easily be using a much much less polluting method of transportation. As theoretically the best, but only one of many possibilities of that option of reduced pollution contribution, biking of course has several additional obvious benefits. But! I guess some people on the road that you will never see again might think you are weird, or possibly even not cool :o Let’s consider that reason 1.1.

1.2 could be perhaps using so damn much more of that -miracle of a convenience that we never really consider- being electricity, than we need at all. Probably 50% of that waste, only because we use so much of it otherwise, would be leaving lights on. If your looking for a lack of logic then here you found it. We keep so many lights on over every night to well, what they say prevent criminal activity, like burglary. Ok so they keep all these lights on every night for the whole night because it might possibly prevent someone from stealing from the place, or as streets go prevent what? Rape in the middle of the street because its lit up? Well hell ya that might stop a couple criminals from commencing they’re ideas, but at the price of causing pollution from the idiotic plants that create the extra electricity needed, and therefore causing the planet to heat up overall and obviously totally fucking up ever ecosystem trying to sustain itself and then killing uncountable living organisms.

Up to reason 1.3 now. How about simply landscaping. I tend to wonder if I’m the only person that’s actually put any thought towards what the actual point of it is (let alone pretty much everything else, ever). Anyway… people pay much many dollars to have some company or perhaps themselves, use up quite much time and effort to what? Make their property “look good”. Ok so somehow using up plenty of gas powered equipment which itself pollutes as well as much quantities of money which goes without saying could be put to better use, to make the surroundings of our house look better in order to impress… who? You don’t really know, but it is all worth it! Well of course not anywhere near it, but as if anyone would actually put any thought towards that.

No, being very mindset by everything we have been taught growing up and by society is a damn good excuse to do otherwise. And well I suppose landscaping is just a very good example of many other thoughtless things we do otherwise in everyday life to well, make us look better.

Speaking of which, simply spending money on extra stuff, since you have extra of it, shall be 1.4. Well who could possibly account for all the things people spend money on most oftenly as heard of before, to make them appear better off to others, or feel as of a better status. It seems anyone making a lot of money, because they were lucky enough to land a nice -do-shit-all get-paid-all- job, cant possibly think of anything better to do with their so awardingly earned money than to spend it on oh maybe a nice decoration for the front hall that, oh a couple people ever in history might notice and think oh nice this person must… I guess have a lot of money? So therefore they are awesome.

Yes pretty much anyone who has made it out of debt seems to forget how lovely it is to need that money and how incredibly better off and more usefully that money could be spent. 

Intellect Incorporated

I think humans’ brains are still at least partially in the state of animals with mostly basic natural instincts and not developed enough past that state. Humans have not evolved enough to properly apply: thinking, comprehension, understanding, problem solving, and seeing problems/situations as they are at that time and how they work and function.

Just as animals don’t comprehend things or understand. They only act because their brain is only developed enough for instincts and drive to survive from evolution. Animals are incapable of thinking why, or that there should be a reason for something to happen or to do something itself. That part of humans cannot comprehend that things happen for a reason to cause something else to happen and make a result, and that they should do things for a reason, for the outcome/ result. They cannot consider and analyze what an outcome will be (Cause and effect), or analyze what the possible outcomes are, and decide which outcome is best and most beneficial. Like animals, humans don’t realise that the results matter and they can decide what to do to cause a certain result.

Animals brains are built to make the owner only exist. The brain is set and pre-programmed by instinct/evolution and only works that one way, to do specific things certain ways, as it is already set. Not to realise it has a choice and can question and decide which route to take based on where it leads to.

We have been able to develop tech which has greatly accelerated and passed and left behind (in time as a race) the human brain capability. Humans are still acting from instinct as dumb animals without analysing why to do something to get what result. But humans now have technology advancing, which is a great powerful and dangerous, unstable weapon that should only be used by an intellect with comprehension. The ability to think independently, and forecast that there will be a result of actions taken would theoretically be a requirement for safe authority over technology, so that the controller would decide how to cause a certain positive, intentional result wielding the extended capabilities of technology and manufacturing.

Currently, people often act on natural instincts or individually temporarily developed mind-sets. But is seems we are close to passing the point of brain development to understand making an intentional decision to cause the desired effect based on analysis. Selfishness, carelessness, and ignorance are the common attributes of human intellect, which seems to be part of long term intellect development, but maybe in the early stages on route to true intelligence.

Perhaps we are on the very brink of crossing the boundary to acquire intellect beyond subconscious mindsets and instinctual actions of common animals. I believe some have passed that boundary (though, I suppose its likely faded and indistinct like most things in life), perhaps including me, and there should be many others. Though it is likely a small % of all of humanity, when considered on the larger scale.

Maybe tech has let us skip past brain development in evolution. Maybe our brains are now evolving to be able to think individually, and need to do so quickly to catch up to technology which we use. If humans acquire intelligent, logical sense and rationality, they could potentially reduce, stop and perhaps counteract the careless damage being done by side effects of tech. 

There may be a point where we have done too much damage to counteract, and don’t have enough time, with what is already set in motion. Maybe all evolution leads to this and other species of aliens have to pass this point. Maybe some make it and some don’t. Or maybe minds usually do develop 1^st, before the weapon of tech is acquired.
But then why did we get it in the wrong order?

Colossal Collateral

There are a couple 5 yr old spoiled bratty unsupervised kids walking home from school down a forest trail during autumn dry season. They have been bored all day at school and are feasting on candy, that the one boys’ rich, disregardful parents left him in his lunch, so they are hyped up and eager for excitement. They see something shiny and intriguing, 15 feet off the path, by a tree, and go to check it out. It’s a blow torch! (some idiot left it there for some reason, and it happens to be light weight and very simple to operate…)

These kids..; are the human race.

Before the rapid spur of development of technology (which is unfortunately, for the current circumstances, fundamentally virtually exponential), there wasn’t any significant risk of widespread (let alone, planetary) damage or effect from the careless and recklessness of any species on the planet. But now that capabilities, potential, and power have increased so much with the overpowering and reigning controlling species of the Earth, we have found that blowtorch! We are at a dangerous, universally life threatening point, in which we have too much unintended effect and impact on fundamental elements of the entire planets ecosystem, causing what could be considered collateral damage.

As humans (a very high percentage would be my guess) in general, are still mainly determined to take action specifically only to benefit themselves as an individual, all the while oblivious to any logical consequences that may result from their actions and decisions, the world is in a very dangerous stage as of now. It is human nature to be selfish and ignorant, just as it is with nearly all animals, as that has proven to be self-species beneficial up to this point. 

But, there is a difference, in that humans have the capability and potential to overcome, overpower, and overrule this selfishness. Humans have been given the gift of awareness and comprehension. We are aware and very capable of being conscious of general existence, as well as cause and effect, which is a significant differential from all other “dumb” animals on the planet. But the selfishness and lack of consideration of any situation (aka ignorance), still has a strong remaining presence in most humans typical brain processes. Selfishness and ignorance are still mostly overwhelming for the majority of humans and -if you believe in evolution- this makes sense, as we are still developing as a species from the less capable species we may have come from.

There is almost always collateral damage, but we may be at a point where we cause too much from our capabilities, as a result of lack of effective, controlled, and maintained use of such capabilities. Lack of control is caused by a lack of development of thinking, understanding, and comprehending or general use of the brain, which of course humans are only beginning to experience.

Rather than the historically typical minuscule collateral, we are in an age of Colossal Collateral!

Conscious Collateral

Animals are dumb, unaware, and theoretically meaningless, but globablly harmless. Humans are “intelligent”, conscious, and therein more purposeful, but globally destructive. So referring to intellectual method of thinking, which is the better?

Universally, generally for the world it seems that the lesser intellect, using the sub-conscious brain processing of the brain might be most beneficial. It seems to be proven by understandable history, that this is the safe, consistent surviving method. Considering, the almost instant (in grand time scale) destruction caused by the sole beings of this planet that have been granted the gift (in common opinion at least) of consciousness and awareness, it seems like this unique aspect of intelligence is detrimental to the world, and things might be better off without it. But, then where would the purpose and meaning in life be with a bunch of dumb animals inhabiting the planet?

It’s my opinion that this prospect, of conscious aware intellect being a negative attribute is an inaccurate, misunderstood depiction of intelligence and consciousness. Humans in general may have a substantially high degree of intellect (as the word I’ll use for conscious awareness in thinking processes) in comparison to other animals, but they also still often use that same subconscious functioning of the brain, that makes other animals seem so dumb. I think its this aspect of brain functioning within humans, that causes the considerable destruction, threatening to overwhelm the planet. The comparison of animals to humans, in terms of intelligence, isn’t really subconscious to conscious. It’s more like comparing subconscious to subconscious -with a degree of interceding conscious thinking.

I think if humans were completely, or at least majoratively significantly conscious decision makers, then there would be a distinctively relevant amount less of destruction and harm coming to the overall health of the planets ecosystem. The potentially small, but evidently profoundly impactful amount of distinguishing intellect which humans have acquired (by whatever means you may believe), gives humans the capability of grand destruction, but the remaining, retaining, and quite potentially restraining instinctual and unaware, subconscious thinking methods are what cause these potentially harmful capabilities to come into action. The conscious aspect allows the individual to prosper significantly, but the subconscious causes them to only consider individual prosperity, rather than acting based on what is most universally commonly beneficial, which would be comprehended from conscious mindful consideration.

           As far as collateral damage being inflicted as a result of human consciousness, it seems the dangerous aspect is the minimal degree of consciousness in combination with sub-consciousness, while in this stage of intellect. Subconscious may really be the culprit, with consciousness just unlocking a cache of dangerous weapons before advancing enough to learn to use those weapons safely. 

Is Pain in Vain?

After distinguishing what pain is, and my theory of its purpose, from a technical perspective it seems like pain –whether emotional or physical- is a tool used to avoid a scenario where harm will come to you. From this point of view, pain is beneficial and helpful when in its intended context.

Most typical natural occurrences would be in the context of pains intended function. For example, a broken foot causes pain as a function to cause the individual to refrain from using it until it’s healed. Or the pain from food poisoning causes you to not eat that substance again, since it is harmful to your health. Emotional pain from being away from somebody you care for causes you to be more likely to stay together, which is typically beneficial. These are examples of the theoretically intended context, where pain should be beneficial to the individual, based on evolution. These basic functions of pain would apply to only basic humans, with a lack of extensive consciousness and therefore a lack of extensive scenarios where emotional pain becomes potential throughout life. As humans have evolved after the point of conscious awareness, natural selection no longer has a very strong effect.

Artificial selection –from conscious choice of human reproduction, as well as artificial sustenance of life- causes an adaptation of conscious awareness to be sensitively influenced, therein, causing a whole new variety of potential scenarios for emotional pain to become a theoretically unnatural side effect. In these unnaturally intended circumstances caused by artificial selection, emotional pain theoretically becomes applicable to a much wider variety of scenarios, since comprehension of concepts grows –and therefore potential for comprehension of a negative aspect. As emotional pain has developed to occur from knowledge of a negative aspect of an occurrence, the pain will then occur for the comprehension of most negative aspects, which people develop the capability to be aware of. This potential for emotional pain would likely inherently be a developmental stage of intellectual progression -given the initial existence of emotional pain-, but would likely not persist in the case of continued typical natural selection.

Therefore, emotional pain beyond any minimal practically beneficial scenario is likely an unintended side effect, resulting from human choice. The practical benefits of pain would apply only to typical, naturally occurring circumstances in life, without any drastic factor applied to a scenario by conscious choice. With the added potential for conscious intervention and therein an intended extremity of a variable being applied (by said conscious choice), comes the additional potential circumstance for irregular and unnecessary pain, regardless of side effects from artificial selection. This potential unnecessary pain –caused by conscious decision- is not beneficial, but only a result of choice.

So, is pain in vain? It seems the only types of pain in existence, which are non-beneficial (or in vain) are not inherently intended, but a result of free will and human choice. 

Purpose of Pain

What is the purpose of pain?

The first step in attempting to understand this significant question, might be to analyze the factors. One factor being pain, the question arises, what is pain? Pain is basically, technically negative signals going to the brain to warn that something harmful is occurring to the body. On the very basic and simple level of physical pain, which we share with the rest of animals, pain is a necessary requirement to warn from further damage. This type of pain is therefore arguably a beneficial concept.

Theoretically, the next type of pain would be emotional pain. Emotional pain is caused by the knowledge of something, and that knowledge causing a negative trigger in the brain, telling the owner something negative is occurring. In the case of animals, this negative trigger would most commonly be caused by separation from a typically necessary co-animal. By the theory of evolution, it would be beneficial for a lot of species of animals to live in co-operating with other animals of their own species in order to survive. Examples might be young animals being near their mother to be provided food and care, or the mother being near its offspring, in order to sustain their species population, or pack animals being with a pack to gain advantage on acquiring food, or defending. Since these relationships between animals would be beneficial, they would develop a negative trigger when separation occurs. This negative trigger would happen based on the knowledge of a scenario and could be considered the basic of emotional pain, rather than a direct physiological negative trigger such as hunger or a wound, being physical pain.

With such limited capable knowledge, animals would only have the small window for emotional pain based on the limited scenarios where they have developed the capability to have that negative trigger for their species typical benefit.

Humans on the other hand, have a profoundly vaster expanse of capable knowledge. With the development of conscious awareness in general, humans expanded the potential for knowledge almost infinitely. With the infinite scenarios and combinations of variables in this world, comes an unending possibility of knowledge. With all the potential for knowledge, comes the potential for the negative trigger based on knowledge of a negative circumstance. Therefore humans have a drastically increased potential for emotional pain.

Since it is based on knowledge, any emotional pain is therefore relative to the individuals’ comprehension and analysis of the knowledge. Emotional pain should be relative to the amount of knowledge (of which may be considered a negative occurrence), as well as that individuals interpretation of the knowledge, and comprehension to the degree of negativity of the knowledge. If someone comprehended nothing as negative to their perspective and understanding, they would therein feel no emotional pain. With the capabilities of analysis, processing, comprehension, and understanding, humans theoretically have the potential ability to determine –based on their perspective-, that any given circumstance is not a negative occurrence, and therefore intentionally avoid emotional pain.