The fault in Aquinas' First Way

[Partinobodycula]

There you go again. You are attributing things to the 5 ways that are not there. I never said that Aquinas showed in the 5 ways that God was omniscient and omnipotent. He actually address God’s knowledge in question 14, and His power in question 25.

Actually, as you point out, it wasn’t I who attributed omniscience and omnipotence to God using the Five Ways, it was Aquinas himself. So if I’m in error it’s only because I’m using Aquinas’ own reasoning as a source. Aquinas simply reasons by means of the Fourth Way that because the First Cause is the maximum in every genus, it must be the maximum in intelligence, and the maximum in power. That’s Aquinas’ reasoning not mine. But it sounds reasonable to me, so I’ll go with it. If you have a problem, take it up with Aquinas.

 

[tafan]

Actually, as you point out, it wasn’t I who attributed omniscience and omnipotence to God using the Five Ways, it was Aquinas himself. So if I’m in error it’s only because I’m using Aquinas’ own reasoning as a source. Aquinas simply reasons by means of the Fourth Way that because the First Cause is the maximum in every genus, it must be the maximum in intelligence, and the maximum in power. That’s Aquinas’ reasoning not mine. But it sounds reasonable to me, so I’ll go with it. If you have a problem, take it up with Aquinas.

Maybe we are talking in circles. Here is the fourth way:

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

I do not see where that says that God is all-powerful or all-knowing. It says He is the maximum of these genus. Not all-powerful or all-knowing, just the maximum.
You have to read further to find those claims.

 

[Partinobodycula]

I do not see where that says that God is all-powerful or all-knowing. It says He is the maximum of these genus. Not all-powerful or all-knowing, just the maximum.
You have to read further to find those claims.

Just a friendly piece of advice, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

 

[tafan]

Just a friendly piece of advice, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

I did not realize I was in a hole. I was simply trying to have a dialog and address you initial "fault in the first way: that the unmoved mover does not have to be the creator. Or as you said later: is the unmoved mover and creator one and the same.
And it seems that Aquinas answers this question directly (questions 44 and 45).

I am admittedly an amateur Thomas scholar, but was given an introduction by someone who was an expert. He admonished me to simply never read anything into the Summa arguments that are not explicitly there. That is difficult since the words do not always mean quite the same thing we are used to them meaning.

If I am in a hole, I will just quit now. Have a good day. God bless.

 

[Partinobodycula]

If I am in a hole, I will just quit now. Have a good day. God bless.

There’s no need to quit, we all get in holes. In fact this entire thread may be a hole, and it won’t be long before someone comes and shovels the dirt back in on top of me.

All that you can do is realize your mistake, or my mistake as the case may be, make the appropriate adjustments and carry on. I used to be a professional cyclist. I got my butt kicked so many times it isn’t funny, or perhaps it is. But what you have to learn, is that you’re not getting beaten, you’re getting better.

So every time that things don’t go the way you want them to, remember, that because of this time, things will go better next time.

 

[davidv]

Just a friendly piece of advice, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

I don’t think the other poster is in a hole.

And even if they were, this statement is not helpful since it does not explain why.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I did not realize I was in a hole. I was simply trying to have a dialog and address you initial "fault in the first way: that the unmoved mover does not have to be the creator. Or as you said later: is the unmoved mover and creator one and the same.
And it seems that Aquinas answers this question directly (questions 44 and 45).

I am admittedly an amateur Thomas scholar, but was given an introduction by someone who was an expert. He admonished me to simply never read anything into the Summa arguments that are not explicitly there. That is difficult since the words do not always mean quite the same thing we are used to them meaning.

If I am in a hole, I will just quit now. Have a good day. God bless.

Don’t be intimidated. Everyone’s thoughts are welcome. But it is true that the first way does not necessarily call for God to be a creator. If Thomas is taking his argument directly from Aristotle, then he thinks it sufficeint for cange and local motion to require an efficient cause of motion to establish the existence of a First Unmoved Mover, Who all call God. And I agee, we can reach a knowledge of God’s existence purely from movement and change without knowing whether or not he is also a creator. And that does not require that we stick slavishly to Aristotle’s reasoning. And he would be the last to insist that we do so. Nor would Thomas demand we stick slavishly to his own reasoning.

Other arguments would have to be brought forward to prove the necessity that he be also a creator.

Linus2nd

 

[Partinobodycula]

And even if they were, this statement is not helpful since it does not explain why.

If I was inappropriately rude then I apologize.

As a side note, I have found that sometimes when you attempt to explain to people why they’re in a hole, it only leads to them digging it deeper. I hadn’t intended to pursue the issue any further.

But I understand your concern, and it’s duly noted.

Thanks

 

[ynotzap]

tafan, yes your post is a bit redundant, but that’s fine. No problem. As to your being late that’s fine too. I hope that you’ll forgive me for the tardiness in replying to your post, I’m not ignoring you, I just get busy from time to time, and so it can take me a while to respond.

ynotzap, if you’re reading this then I’m once again trying to explain the conundrum more clearly.

Now the premise, that we can know the cause by looking at the effects, has certain rules, for one, the effect can’t exceed the cause, for another the effect can’t possess an attribute not present in the cause, and for a third, causation is the act of moving something from potency to actuality. Based upon these three rules we can determine the nature of the cause by looking at the effects evident in the world around us.
ules of causation in the act of creation, but the very fact that He Created the world means that He caused it. Thus He’s the First Cause. But this is where linguistic sleight-of-hand comes in. You’re using two distinct interpretations of the word cause and then using the similarity in description to prove unity. In the First Cause there’s a direct cause and effect relationship. In the Creator there’s no such relationship. Thus there are two distinct uses of the word cause.

Now I realize that there will be an immediate disagreement as to my understanding of the word “cause”. But basically that’s what this thread is about. Can you show that the Unmoved Mover and the Creator are one and the same?/QUOTE

In created things moving from potency to act is not the same as causation when speaking of God, it is one of the effects of His causation The Uncaused Cause created things that have potency and act as part of their nature. Moving something from potency to act is change, motion is one of the effects of causation So you are making an error in your thinking. God is the Creator of things and their nature, conditions I explained how God is the Creator and the Un-moved Mover, and how the cosmological argument “everything has a cause” underlies all five arguments, it is implicit. In created things we can cause an effect, then the effect becomes the cause of another effect and on and on. But in every case we do not directly create the cause or the effect, we do not bring into existence causes or effects, They in the final analysis are the effects of the final cause, the Uncaused Cause. To cause, or create something is to impart existence(being) to that something. I have shown you how the Uncause Cause is Pure Being, Existence necessarily, the Creator

 

[tafan]

…
Other arguments would have to be brought forward to prove the necessity that he be also a creator.

Linus2nd

That was my point. The OP consider it a flaw in the first way. It is not, it is beyond the scope, if you will, of what Aquinas was trying to show with the first way. But Aquinas did address the issue a littler further on in his Summa. Those other arguments are brought forward in questions 44 and 45.

 

[ynotzap]

Partinobodycula;12728861:

tafan, yes your post is a bit redundant, but that’s fine. No problem. As to your being late that’s fine too. I hope that you’ll forgive me for the tardiness in replying to your post, I’m not ignoring you, I just get busy from time to time, and so it can take me a while to respond.

ynotzap, if you’re reading this then I’m once again trying to explain the conundrum more clearly.

Now the premise, that we can know the cause by looking at the effects, has certain rules, for one, the effect can’t exceed the cause, for another the effect can’t possess an attribute not present in the cause, and for a third, causation is the act of moving something from potency to actuality. Based upon these three rules we can determine the nature of the cause by looking at the effects evident in the world around us.
ules of causation in the act of creation, but the very fact that He Created the world means that He caused it. Thus He’s the First Cause. But this is where linguistic sleight-of-hand comes in. You’re using two distinct interpretations of the word cause and then using the similarity in description to prove unity. In the First Cause there’s a direct cause and effect relationship. In the Creator there’s no such relationship. Thus there are two distinct uses of the word cause.

Now I realize that there will be an immediate disagreement as to my understanding of the word “cause”. But basically that’s what this thread is about. Can you show that the Unmoved Mover and the Creator are one and the same?

If the causation is the act of moving things from potency to act then also causation is the act of moving non-being to being, or to impart existence to things. To cause things to exist. To cause things to exist is to create. So if the Uncaused cause causes things, and things show that potency and act are properties of their nature, then the Uncaused cause is also Creator, which is to give existence to things, and their properties of potency and act. No slight of hand in terminology, just a misunderstanding.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I’ve already answered this question. There are NO words for which I don’t possess the concepts. NONE

No, I don’t have to explain words without concepts, as I said, words are the codification of concepts. Words are ensembles, of varying size, of concepts.

A concept is the basic building block with which the mind creates a representation of the world. The word “tree” for example contains a vast number of concepts describing the color, shape, smell, sound, and context, etc. of a “tree”. A squirrel possess the concepts necessary to create a “tree” in its mind, even if it doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “tree”. The meaning of a word is the ensemble of concepts that the word represents. Oddly enough, “words” themselves are a concept. They’re the codification of concepts. I understand the concept of words. The squirrel on the other hand may not.

Now you might ask where in the heck did all of these concepts come from? Where do I get the concepts necessary to create a tree in my mind? The funny thing is that I can ask you the exact same question. Where did you get the concept of a tree? To which you would no doubt reply, by looking at a tree. To which I would ask, where did the tree that you looked at come from? To which you would reply, from the seed of another tree. And of course I could ask you ad infinitum where each preceding tree came from. Eventually we get back to a point where there’s no such thing as a tree, and you have to explain where trees came from. And viola, you and I end up at the same place.

We don’t seem to be getting anywhere, but I’m patient. Hopefully you are too.

Am I patient, you wonder? I am just an aspect of you! If you are material; then I am material; if you are spiritual, then I am spiritual; If you are patient, then I am patient. That is how logic works, isn’t it?

Let’s summarize what we have so far. You have said:

1. Language is the codification of concepts.
2. Concepts are the building blocks with which your mind constructs a representation of its environment.
3. Each word is an ensemble of concepts (Do you mean the codification of many concepts?).
4. The meaning of a word is the ensemble of the concepts that it represents (Look at (3) above: are a word and its meaning the same thing, Partinobodycula?)
5. You have in your mind all the concepts that exist.
6. You have produced all the words that exist.

Based on what you have said, it seems that you don’t know where those concepts came from. Can we say then that you didn’t produce them? Because if you had, you should know how, when, etc. Can we say that those concepts happened to you somehow, or that you and them are the same thing? or what?

You mentioned that “Oddly enough, “words” themselves are a concept”. Yes!, considering what you have said (and you seem to be very convinced of your knowledge) it is very odd, is’t it? And there are other oddities that might surprise you too. For example, you have the concepts that you use to form a tree, and the concepts that you use to form a cat, and the concepts that you use to form a horse, etc. Then, naturally you have produced the corresponding words: “tree”, “cat”, “horse”, which in turn are the ensemble of all those concepts. And as you have produced the word “concept” there must be in your mind an ensemble of concepts that you use to form “the concept” (the concept of the concept). How many concepts are needed to form in your mind the concept of the concept?

Number 2 above seems strange to me too: There are words like “spiritual”, “inmaterial”, “material”, “God”, and many others, that apparently don’t fit into your description. But you must know, of course. You must have in your mind the concepts that assist you in the construction of those… those… how should we call them? Anyway!, you use them as building blocks to represent your surroundings to yourself. Please, tell me how those ensembles of concepts are needed for such a representation of your surroundings.

Then, you have produced this astounding word: “nothingness”. Same as before, you must have the ensemble of concepts that are needed to form it in your mind. How does this process take place in this particular case, Partinobodycula?

Now, from what I have learnt from you, apparently a tree, for example, is not a concept, but an ensemble of concepts: The concept of color, the concept of shape, smell, etc. You must know your building blocks very well, as you use them continuously. Please, let me know the list of those building blocks. It would be fantastic to me!

Regards!
JuanFlorencio

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Everything that you see around you is merely potency actualized. Which may sound like it agrees with Aquinas, and in fact does, but implies that we’re no more material than God is. God is Pure Act. He’s immaterial. We’re act combined with potency. But potency isn’t material either. So we’re a combination of two immaterial things. Logic would therefore conclude, that we’re immaterial.

Thus the ultimate conclusion of Aquinas’ Five Ways is that reality is merely an illusion. There’s nothing material about it at all.

So far NO ONE has ventured an argument against this conclusion, much less attempted to defend that argument. Which is disappointing, and would lead to the conclusion that they simply don’t have a rebuttal to the argument, other than a dogmatic one.

If anyone believes that my logic is faulty, please show me where. Otherwise you’re simply giving it your tacit approval.

Dear Partinobodycula:

Your argument reminds me more of a rule of chemistry than a rule of logic.

Your premises are the following:

1. God is pure act. (Taken from St. Thomas)
2. God is immaterial. (Taken from St. Thomas)
3. Potency is immaterial. (Has to be proven)
4. Man is a combination of act and potency. (Taken from St. Thomas?)

Then, one conclusion (from 1 and 2) that you don’t mention is:

5. There is a pure act that is immaterial.

Instead of this, the conclusion that you implicitly want to obtain is:

5a. Act is immaterial.

which is invalid.

Then a complete argument is missing:

6. Every combination of two immaterial things is immaterial (has to be proven)
7. Potency is immaterial (Has to be proven)
8. Act is immaterial (which is an invalid conclusion from the previous argument)
9. Man is a combination of act and potency. (Taken from St. Thomas?)

Therefore

10. Man is immaterial (which is invalid)

Best regards!
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

1. Language is the codification of concepts.
2. Concepts are the building blocks with which your mind constructs a representation of its environment.
3. Each word is an ensemble of concepts (Do you mean the codification of many concepts?).
4. The meaning of a word is the ensemble of the concepts that it represents (Look at (3) above: are a word and its meaning the same thing, Partinobodycula?)
5. You have in your mind all the concepts that exist.
6. You have produced all the words that exist.

1. Concepts are the building blocks with which the mind constructs a representation of its environment
2. The mind contains all the concepts that exist.
3. Language is the codification of those concepts.
4. A word is a discernible representation of an ensemble of concepts.
5. The mind contains all the words that exist.
6. The meaning of a word is the ensemble of concepts represented by the word.
7. The mind creates concepts and words as needed from that which is rationally possible.
8. There’s a minimum level of concepts necessary for consciousness.

Consciousness can’t exist without a requisite reality in which to do so. Otherwise it’s torn apart by cognitive dissonance. Consciousness must have a context in which to rationalize its existence. But if solipsism is correct then consciousness can’t precede reality, and reality can’t precede consciousness. Neither one could precede the other. Therefore the two must arise together.

Consciousness has limitations. It can’t conceive of infinity, and it can’t conceive of something being the cause of itself. Therefore it must exist in a reality in which to explain its existence, in a manner other than by means of itself. And it can never be certain whether that reality exists outside of itself or not. If it could definitively prove that reality exists only within itself, then it would mean that it’s the cause of itself, and that’s irrational. Consciousness would ultimately be torn apart by cognitive dissonance.

Consciousness must have a reality in which to give itself context. Consciousness can never know whether that reality exists outside of itself or not.

Therefore solipsism is rational.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

1. Concepts are the building blocks with which the mind constructs a representation of its environment
2. The mind contains all the concepts that exist.
3. Language is the codification of those concepts.
4. A word is a discernible representation of an ensemble of concepts.
5. The mind contains all the words that exist.
6. The meaning of a word is the ensemble of concepts represented by the word.
7. The mind creates concepts and words as needed from that which is rationally possible.
8. There’s a minimum level of concepts necessary for consciousness.

Consciousness can’t exist without a requisite reality in which to do so. Otherwise it’s torn apart by cognitive dissonance. Consciousness must have a context in which to rationalize its existence. But if solipsism is correct then consciousness can’t precede reality, and reality can’t precede consciousness. Neither one could precede the other. Therefore the two must arise together.

Consciousness has limitations. It can’t conceive of infinity, and it can’t conceive of something being the cause of itself. Therefore it must exist in a reality in which to explain its existence, in a manner other than by means of itself. And it can never be certain whether that reality exists outside of itself or not. If it could definitively prove that reality exists only within itself, then it would mean that it’s the cause of itself, and that’s irrational. Consciousness would ultimately be torn apart by cognitive dissonance.

Consciousness must have a reality in which to give itself context. Consciousness can never know whether that reality exists outside of itself or not.

Therefore solipsism is rational.

Dear Partinobodycula:

Why do you try to convince yourself that solipsism is rational? Were you in doubt?

Please, remember that there are several questions in post # 192 that you have not answered. If solipsism is rational, there must be a rational answer for them, right?

Now, you seem to have re-stated some of your previous propositions without saying that there was a mistake on them.Or if you are just adding other statements to the previous ones and you think that you are being rational, I guess you believe that all of them form a consistent system. On the other hand, if you want to drop some of them you have to acknowledge that they were wrong. In which of them do you feel you made a mistake, Partinobodycula? (don’t try to convince yourself that if there is a mistake, it was not yours, but mine, because I am just an aspect of you. So if you see a mistake it was yours).

You have introduced this new expressions: “The mind”, “Consciousness”, “Rational”. Which ensembles of concepts are forming them?

What do you know about consciousness being “torn apart by cognitive dissonance” and how?

Why does consciousness have to rationalize its existence, and what does it mean?

How do you know that “Consciousness has limitations”? What can possibly be limiting it?

How is it possible that you have the word “infinity” (which according to you must be the representation of an ensemble of concepts), and naturally the corresponding ensemble of concepts in your mind (because they precede the word), but still you cannot conceive infinity. Does it seem very rational to you?

You say “But if solipsism is correct…”. Why do you use the conditional form? Again, are you in doubt?

Best regards!
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

Please, remember that there are several questions in post # 192 that you have not answered.

If I neglected to answer all of your questions it’s because you asked too many. I’m limited on time, therefore I answer the ones of my own choosing. If you want me to be specific, ask fewer questions. Fewer questions will hopefully mean better questions.

Many of the questions can be figured out on your own if you try. They ain’t rocket science, or even chemistry.

It’s always possible that I’ve made a mistake or two, I’m just God, I ain’t perfect. (That’s a joke)

 

[JuanFlorencio]

If I neglected to answer all of your questions it’s because you asked too many. I’m limited on time, therefore I answer the ones of my own choosing. If you want me to be specific, ask fewer questions. Fewer questions will hopefully mean better questions.

Many of the questions can be figured out on your own if you try. They ain’t rocket science, or even chemistry.

It’s always possible that I’ve made a mistake or two, I’m just God, I ain’t perfect. (That’s a joke)

It was a good joke. But I think that you have to meditate carefully on how is it possible that, being you the only existing mind and so closely connected to your “context”, you can make mistakes.

I don’t have any problem if you take your time to answer the questions; but you did not address any of them. I just saw new topics coming. On the other hand, if I were you -and not only an aspect of you, as I am-, I wouldn’t know how to answer them. So, you have to show how they can be responded in a definitive and simple way, given the fact that they are minutiae to you (nevertheless, I wonder how can it be that being those questions so simple, their answers demand too much time from you. Is it the snow in your driveway? (It is a Joke))

As you are the only existing mind, you are the one that has control on this monologue (because it has to be a monologue: It’s only you, isn’t it?). This is the right way: Proceed rationally; respond to every question stating the principles and showing how the responses necessarily derive from them. Never introduce new topics without immediate relation to previous statements. Then, I can assure you, you will see just a few questions (how good they will be, depends only on you, because it’s only you here; remember that, Partinobodycula?).

Kind regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

Please, remember that there are several questions in post # 192 that you have not answered. If solipsism is rational, there must be a rational answer for them, right?

Hopefully you’re still here. Just testing your patience.

Perhaps I can clear up a few things by addressing what I believe are the main factors in why the world looks the way it does, if it’s only in my mind. People seem to have the idea that if solipsism is true, then the solipsist should somehow be able to control what the world looks like. But that’s just not the case, for two main reasons.

The first reason is cause and effect. Consciousness simply can’t violate cause and effect no matter how much it wants to. Because without cause and effect consciousness itself simply couldn’t arise. And as I’ve pointed out before, consciousness also can’t arise without an accompanying reality in which to give itself context. The two, consciousness and context, are basically one and the same. In order to be self-aware, one must have a “self” to be aware of. And it’s in this attempt to create the “self”, that consciousness creates everything around it. But you can’t create a coherent reality without the concept of past, present, and future. And you can’t create these without cause and effect. So consciousness can’t violate cause and effect because it’s the basic building block of reality itself. Violate that and the whole illusion collapses.

The second reason that consciousness can’t control what the world looks like is rationality. The world looks the way I expect it to look, not the way I want it to look. This includes the fact that I expect the world to be unpredictable. This means that not only will the world do what I expect it to do, but oddly enough, it’ll do what I don’t expect it to do. What I do expect is that I’m not God. It’s simply not rational that I could’ve created myself. So part of the need of the “self”, is the need for a rational explanation of where it came from. The end result is that the world is a reflection of the “self”, in which the “self” is neither the best nor the worst in anything. Because it can always conceive of something greater than itself, and something worse than itself.

Driven by these two things, cause and effect, and rationality, consciousness creates what’s both possible to create, and rational to create.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Hopefully you’re still here. Just testing your patience.

Perhaps I can clear up a few things by addressing what I believe are the main factors in why the world looks the way it does, if it’s only in my mind. People seem to have the idea that if solipsism is true, then the solipsist should somehow be able to control what the world looks like. But that’s just not the case, for two main reasons.

The first reason is cause and effect. Consciousness simply can’t violate cause and effect no matter how much it wants to. Because without cause and effect consciousness itself simply couldn’t arise. And as I’ve pointed out before, consciousness also can’t arise without an accompanying reality in which to give itself context. The two, consciousness and context, are basically one and the same. In order to be self-aware, one must have a “self” to be aware of. And it’s in this attempt to create the “self”, that consciousness creates everything around it. But you can’t create a coherent reality without the concept of past, present, and future. And you can’t create these without cause and effect. So consciousness can’t violate cause and effect because it’s the basic building block of reality itself. Violate that and the whole illusion collapses.

The second reason that consciousness can’t control what the world looks like is rationality. The world looks the way I expect it to look, not the way I want it to look. This includes the fact that I expect the world to be unpredictable. This means that not only will the world do what I expect it to do, but oddly enough, it’ll do what I don’t expect it to do. What I do expect is that I’m not God. It’s simply not rational that I could’ve created myself. So part of the need of the “self”, is the need for a rational explanation of where it came from. The end result is that the world is a reflection of the “self”, in which the “self” is neither the best nor the worst in anything. Because it can always conceive of something greater than itself, and something worse than itself.

Driven by these two things, cause and effect, and rationality, consciousness creates what’s both possible to create, and rational to create.

Dear Partinobodycula:

I will need to come back to this post several times. My first question is this: what is the extension of your causality principle? You say that you are caused. Do you cause something? That was not clear to me. Is there any causality in your surroundings? Do you cause your thoughts? Are they caused by your surroundings? Are they caused by another being not in your surroundings?

Please clarify.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

Dear Partinobodycula:

I will need to come back to this post several times. My first question is this: what is the extension of your causality principle? You say that you are caused. Do you cause something?

Actually it isn’t clear to me either, whether I’m in any way the cause of the world around me, or whether my consciousness is merely an effect like everything else. Is consciousness simply an emergent phenomenon and I can take the “rationality” part of my previous post and throw it out the window. Is reality completely deterministic? Or am I living in what some theorists refer to as an observer created reality, in which I do have some influence? Do I have at least some free will? How can I tell?

In what seems to be a spooky coincidence scientists in just the last couple of days have reported the outcome of an experiment that seems to show that the future affects the past.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150209083011.htm

Now there had already been indications that this was true, from the “Delayed choice quantum eraser” experiments. But this experiment seems to quantify the effect. In a nutshell, if I understand the experiment correctly, in predicting the outcome of a system, you have to consider both its evolution forward through time, and its evolution backward through time. In other words the future affects the past. By considering the system’s evolution in both directions you can increase the odds of making an accurate prediction from 50%, to 90%. The question then becomes, what accounts for that other 10%.

But what does this mean for my understanding that the world is the product of a solipsistic consciousness? One which is created by a combination of cause and effect, and rationality. Well it seems to support it very, very well. The reason that reality makes sense, and the reason that I can create new words and languages seemingly out of nowhwere, is precisely because the future affects the past. When I encounter a new situation, say like someone speaking a language that I’ve never heard before, my consciousness creates every possible way of filling in the gaps in my knowledge. It creates every conceivable form of this new language, completely on the fly. But many of these new languages would be absolutely untenable. They would make no logical sense. They’d be gibberish. But this is where the influence of the future comes in. The future weeds out all the possible languages that aren’t tenable, because they ultimately lead to paradoxes or contradictions. In other words, what my consciousness creates now, must not only be consistent with what it has created in the past, but it must also be consistent with what it will create in the future. Because cause and effect works in both directions. In this manner consciousness creates a reality that seems to make absolutely perfect sense. Because any realities that don’t make sense get weeded out by the influence of the future.

But this is still basically cause and effect. All that we’ve done is added the effect that the future has on the now, to the effect that the past has on the now. However, as the experiment indicates, this only accounts for 90% of the outcomes. What then accounts for the other 10%? I would submit that the other 10% is me. Cause and effect determines 90% of what is, and I determine the other 10%. I have free will.

But this still doesn’t answer the ultimate question, what caused me? What was the first cause? As a solipsist it’s this one unanswerable question that makes the world look the way it does. Consciousness is attempting to explain its existence, and it’s using God, and religion, and science and any other possible means to do so. Yet it can’t do it. Not now, and not in the future. So the world that I see around me is merely a reflection of the struggle that’s going on within my own consciousness. The world is a reflection of me. My consciousness is tormented by a question that it can’t resolve, and the world that I see around me is the result.

That’s the solipsistic perspective, the world is the way it is, because of me.

But now there’s a more intriguing question. Was the timing of this experiment showing the influence of the future on the past, merely a coincidence, or is it a further example of my own consciousness creating answers as needed. Is it part of the 90%, or part of the 10%?