From:	owner-jcs-online@lists.zynet.co.uk on behalf of Adhanom Andemicael 
<Andemicael@worldnet.att.net>
Sent:	Saturday, July 03, 1999 4:42 AM
To:	jcs-online@sol.zynet.net
Subject:	JCS: Why we will never understand free will

[Peter Lloyd]
...from a dualist or mentalist perspective, there is a possibility that there may simply be no fact of the 
matter whether a given mental event occurs before or after a given physical event. Also, physical and 
mental time may not be isomorphic: the physical correlates P1 and P2 of mental events E1 and E2 may 
not follow in the same sequence. That is, whereas E1may come before E2, P1 may come after P2. 
Finally, and worst of all, if substance dualism or idealism were true, then some mental events may have 
no physical time coordinate.)


[Adhanom Andemicael]
This is precisely the question that I address in my theory (presented at Tucson III and discussed in the 
Quantum-Mind forum). The following excerpts are taken from 
http://home.att.net/~Andemicael/intro.html  These articles address the possibility of self-consistent 
geometric-time travel scenarios.
However, the issue bears directly on the mind/body problem and the question of free will.

***

1) Temporal History Versus Geometric/Physical History

By "*temporal* history" we simply mean: "events which have already occurred." Unfortunately, we also 
apply this same word--"history"--to an altogether different and unrelated concept: the concept of 
"physical, geometric time." When used within this context, the word "history" actually carries no 
*temporal* implications whatsoever. As we know, physical reality exists in its totality, in a block-like 
fashion, with all spacetime points existing in an "all-at-once," *concurrent* manner; there are no 
before/after, earlier/later relations to consider in this context. And the word "history," here, simply 
describes a "frozen" and *concurrent* group of points.

Let us consider the peculiar relation between temporal and physical history.
In principle, a (non-physical) mind (i.e., "a present") can observe a given point in geometric time 
*repeatedly*. Such repeated observations occur, by definition, in *temporal* succession to one another 
(observation #1 occurs first, followed by observation #2, and then by #3, and so on). We recognize, of 
course, that observations (i.e., "events") that "*have occurred*" can no longer be "accessed." Events in 
*temporal history* recede dynamically into an irretrievable *temporal* past.

Certainly, each successive, repeated observation of a given point (or
"slice") of physical/geometric time creates new quantum events at that location in geometric time (and 
at other locations as well). But this circumstance in itself *creates no temporal/logical conflicts*. We 
must remember that it is "*temporal* history," and not "*physical* history" which
"*recedes* dynamically into an inaccessible past." Temporal history--i.e., "the temporal *sequence* of 
occurrences"--must certainly remain *fixed* forever; but physical history itself can certainly be 
manipulated (altered).



2) Geometric Time Travel and Temporal Paradox

Spacetime is a mathematical abstraction which represents the totality of matter, energy, and space 
which exists potentially. It is important to realize that matter, energy and space exist concretely *only* 
while they are "contained" or "embedded" within a "present moment" (i.e., within "conscious 
experience").

Let us suppose that two minds observe the matter and energy associated with a given spacetime point 
or "slice" (let us say the "slice": October 1, 1500 AD). A question immediately arises: *when* do these 
two "observations"/"experiences" *occur* in relation to one another? In other words, what is the 
temporal relation or sequence of these two "events"/"experiences"? The answer of course is that there 
is *no* temporal relation between them. (See my article, "Temporal Passage, Causality, and the 
Mind/Body Problem": http://home.att.net/~Andemicael/mind_body.html)

I have argued in other essays that temporal conflicts or inconsistencies
*cannot* arise between two experiences of reality. I believe this conclusion has implications for time 
travel: it seems to suggest that self-consistent, geometric "time travel" scenarios are possible.


Adhanom Andemicael

Andemicael@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~Andemicael/intro.html






--
List Moderator: Len Maurer <len@maurer.demon.co.uk>

jcs-online is a service of the Journal of Consciousness Studies