A mental experiment about free will

[Guest]

Please explain this to me. I do not understand what you are saying

Yeah, right, Franko. I have explained this to you loads of times and you understood it perfectly well beforehand anyway.

Atman=Brahman. Type "Hinduism" into google.....

 

[wraith]

Yeah, right, Franko. I have explained this to you loads of times and you understood it perfectly well beforehand anyway.

Atman=Brahman. Type "Hinduism" into google.....

no, thats too much effort.
You can just tell me here

 

[Guest]

Hinduism

BASIC PRINCIPLES

The Upanishads define Brahman as Absolute Reality, Pure Being, Pure Consciousness, Pure Bliss. Brahman is in all things and is all things but Brahman is also beyond all things. Brahman transcends our understanding, our definition, our naming. Brahman is "neti, neti":

"Brahman is not this, not that [neti, neti]. It is incomprehensible, for it is not comprehended. It is indestructible, for it is never destroyed. It is unattached, fo it does not attach itself. It is unfettered. It does not suffer. It is not injured."

And also,

"Brahman encircles all things, radiant and bodiless, unharmed and untouched by evil. All-seeing, all-wise, all-present, self-existent, he has made all things well for ever and ever."

Brahman isn't a god but is above all gods. It is in Brahman that the gods, as all existing things, have their being. Brahman is. Everything else derives its power and essence from Brahman, hence is inferior and less real than Brahman.

The Upanishads introduced a second concept, related to Brahman: Atman, meaning "inner self". Atman is nothing less than Brahman. In other words, Atman is the unchanging, true and infinite self that all persons and things possess. It is different from the apparent self of each creature which changes with time and space, which suffers and dies. The Atman neither dies nor changes because it is Brahman.

 

[wraith]

Oh thats beautiful Elephant

NOW how about explaining to me what you meant by this:

The thing which exerts Free Will IS Infinity.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

I am not talking about +infinity or -infinity. Those are mathematical limits.

If we talk about MWI then we are talking about an Infinite number of possible 'worldlines'.

The set of such Worlds is an infinite set, and the cardinality of that set is +infinity. Specifically, it is aleph-nought, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers.

If we talk about multiverse theory and endless possible configurations of the laws of physics allowing the anthropic principle to select our Universe as the one which supports life then we are talking about a Real Infinity.

No, this is still an infinite set of possibilities, and the cardinality of that set is +infinity. Specifically, it is c, the cardinality of the set of real numbers.

The Real Infinity of which the objective Universe is a subset. That is the Infinity to which I refer. The Absolute. Infinity itself.

I still have no idea what you mean. The two examples you gave both clearly refer to the limit definition of infinity. You need to give a formal definition for what is meant by "Real Infinity".

It sounds like you are vaguely referring to "real infinity" as being an infinite set of things that "really exist", but that doesn't make any sense in the context of the way you have used it with respect to the concept of free-will.

Not really. The thing which exerts Free Will IS Infinity. It isn't an infinite set of worlds - it is Infinity itself - the Source of all things, including individual consciousness and will. This may sound crazy, but if you think about what is spoken about by mystics of all traditions then this is precisely what they say : Atman=Brahman, "Thou art That" - the source of individual consciousness is one and the same as the Source of all things - You would find you are Infinity, if only you could stop being you for a while. I still can't really apply your list of options to this model. It seems like you are trying to squeeze Infinity into a box, and it can't be done.

And here you are clearly trying to define Infinity as being something other than an infinite set. Once again, what you are describing doesn't seem to make any sense. It sounds like you are just using the term "Infinity" as a catch-all for any part of your belief system that you can't logically explain.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Guest]

Stimpson,

However intellectually unsatisfying you may find this answer, only a fool tries to define the Absolute as anything other than "INFINITY". Any further description simply renders it less than Infinity. It isn't a label, it isn't a limit, it isn't anything that you can define, it is Everything That Can Be. No other 'definition' can suffice. And it doesn't care that human beings cannot label it, define it, put it into a box and incorporate it as just another component of their theories - that somebody would even try to do that indicates that they don't understand what is meant by the term. Defining it renders it Not-It.



Geoff.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Stimpson,
it is Everything That Can Be.

Hi Geoff.
And, what possible use can this concept have?

 

[Peskanov]

UCE wrote:

--

Yes, Cantor went mad. Godel wasn't far behind him.

--

It seems it's not unusual in great mathematicians, but Godel didn't work on the study of infinities, did him? Just curiosity...


UCE wrote:

--

Not really. The thing which exerts Free Will IS Infinity. It isn't an infinite set of worlds - it is Infinity itself - the Source of all things, including individual consciousness and will. This may sound crazy, but if you think about what is spoken about by mystics of all traditions then this is precisely what they say : Atman=Brahman, "Thou art That" - the source of individual consciousness is one and the same as the Source of all things - You would find you are Infinity, if only you could stop being you for a while. I still can't really apply your list of options to this model. It seems like you are trying to squeeze Infinity into a box, and it can't be done

--

I have read about hinduist concepts, and also your comments on this and other threads. Not very deeply, as you can guess ( I didn't have prior knowledge about hinduist ideas).
However I find both models of free will (hinduist atman and yours) incomplete, lacking fundamental details. I can't discuss these models or integrate them on my experiment unless I have more details.
Your concept "Infinity" is not the concept I see used commonly.
Can we use another name for it, which does not coincide with the mathematical one?
Can you tell me which properties does your Infinity have? It is complex? Can we identify diferent parts (infinite quantity or not) on it?
Free will is defined as the capability to choose, and humans choose in a multitude of different situations. Wondering ideas, moving, working, etc... And all this usually in a coherent fashion. To deal with these facts I must asume that your concept "Infinity" is a complex system and has the capability of not choosing at random (at minimum sometimes).
Do we agree on something? I hope yes, because I see the thread is sinking fast

 

[Guest]

Peskanov :

--

Yes, Cantor went mad. Godel wasn't far behind him.

--

It seems it's not unusual in great mathematicians, but Godel didn't work on the study of infinities, did him? Just curiosity...

Godels "Incompleteness theorem" is intricately linked with infinity.

http://www.faragher.freeserve.co.uk/godeldef2.htm

…The fact that the first incompleteness proof can be formalized in S allows one to derive Godel's second incompleteness theorem as a corollary. This theorem states that the consistency of a formal system of arithmetic cannot be proved by means formalizable within that system. This result was damaging to the prospects of completing Hilbert's programme for the foundations of mathematics, for Hilbert had hoped to justify the use, in calculus for example, of the notion of infinity by showing that a formal system governing its use could be shown to be consistent using only finitistic methods. This would have demonstrated that the notion could be regarded merely as a calculating device whose use was legitimate, in that it would never lead one astray, and justified in terms of economy of labour. But the finitistic methods envisaged are formalizable with a formal system of arithmetic and were thus shown to be inadequate to Hilbert's task.

...thus infinity is more than a calculating device, and no finite explanation of existence can ever be complete.

Your concept "Infinity" is not the concept I see used commonly.
Can we use another name for it, which does not coincide with the mathematical one?

That is why I use the term "Infinity" instead of "+infinity" or "-infinity". Call it 'The Infinite' if you like.

Can you tell me which properties does your Infinity have? It is complex? Can we identify diferent parts (infinite quantity or not) on it?

No it has no seperate parts. I am struggling to be able to give it any characteristics than its Infiniteness. Characteristics belong to finite entities, not Infinite ones. Hindus call it "Neti, neti, neti..." which means "Not this, not that,....."

Free will is defined as the capability to choose, and humans choose in a multitude of different situations. Wondering ideas, moving, working, etc... And all this usually in a coherent fashion. To deal with these facts I must asume that your concept "Infinity" is a complex system and has the capability of not choosing at random (at minimum sometimes).

It is the individual ego and mind which is complex and supplis the context for the decision to be made. All that comes from the Infinite source is the Will itself.

Do we agree on something? I hope yes, because I see the thread is sinking fast

I think it might be difficult for me to specify the characteristics of Infinity well enough for your thought experiment to work. I don't see how I can avoid this - specifying characteristics for Infinity render it less than Infinity which is why anyone who tries to do it eventually goes mad.....



Luci

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Stimpson,
it is Everything That Can Be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And, what possible use can this concept have?

If you are an idealist then it is the root of all things. It is the root of existence. It is Everything.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

If you are an idealist then it is the root of all things. It is the root of existence. It is Everything.

And also if you are a materialist, physicalist or whatever. The way the concept is defined implies it.

 

[c4ts]

Why do you assume the influence of the soul must be external?

 

[Peskanov]

Hi, c4ts

--

Why do you assume the influence of the soul must be external?

--

Because the purpose of the experiment was to show that an external system couldn't help in the problem that presents the concept "free will" as an absolute.
I am not saying there is an external "free will". I am creating an scenario which has it, to show it's shortcomings.
Most people say that a true "free will" can't be subjected to any rules or restrictions, and therefore they negate the posibility of "free will" creation in our common physic models. Then, they sugest an external system.
My intention was to show that any external system presents the same problem that the physic model: It has to be subjected to restriction in some degree, or the result would end in incoherent random decisions...
My conclusion from the experiment: an external system is unneeded, and free will has restrictions. It would rest a case of debating if there is some space for randomness or not, which in my opinion wouldn't make any important diference.

I think that pretty covers it...

 

[Peskanov]

UCE, talking about godel:

--
quote:
...thus infinity is more than a calculating device, and no finite explanation of existence can ever be complete.
--

Beware of confusing ideas with realities! It seems to me that you talk here of infinite like something more that a concept. The whole quote you posted talks about formal systems and the paper of infinity on them, that is, it talks about pure mental artifacts and buildings.


--
quote:
That is why I use the term "Infinity" instead of "+infinity" or "-infinity". Call it 'The Infinite' if you like.
--


Ok. Although I don't see why a mathematical infinity must have sign. In the set of natural numbers there is also place for infinity, not?


--
quote:
No it has no seperate parts. I am struggling to be able to give it any characteristics than its Infiniteness. Characteristics belong to finite entities, not Infinite ones. Hindus call it "Neti, neti, neti..." which means "Not this, not that,....."
--

Well, you already gave me one characteristic. We can't distinguish parts on it, like for example, in the physical concept "energy". We are getting closer.


--
quote:
It is the individual ego and mind which is complex and supplis the context for the decision to be made. All that comes from the Infinite source is the Will itself.
--

Ok, that's more info about your model. "The Infinite" is a simple entity (as it's simple I will try to avoid the word system): it can't recognize events or object, it can't feel emotions, it can't learn, it can't doubt...But it can and must be present in all these actions of a system (like the human brain), in a similar same sense that energy it is present.
I am assuming it is ubiquitous, which would be another characteristic of it. Or it's influence is limited to subsets of the world (for example a living being)?
Am I right about this, is it ubiquitous?

 

[hammegk]

And also if you are a materialist, physicalist or whatever. The way the concept is defined implies it.

Not so.... Monastic Idealism actually does cover all eventualities, although not the way Stimpy wants which would be(scientific) closure to "what-is".

 

[Guest]

Hi Peskanov

UCE, talking about godel:

--
quote:
...thus infinity is more than a calculating device, and no finite explanation of existence can ever be complete.
--

Beware of confusing ideas with realities! It seems to me that you talk here of infinite like something more that a concept. The whole quote you posted talks about formal systems and the paper of infinity on them, that is, it talks about pure mental artifacts and buildings.

No, it's more than a concept. I gave two examples already, but did not bother challenging Stimpsons attempt to rebutt them. MWI and multiverse theory are two attempts (one at the atomic level and one at the cosmic level) to explain some very hard questions in physics. Both resort to infinity to solve the respective problems. In QM we have an apparent problem that an entity is a wave - it follows all possible routes - until measured/observed, at which point the "wavefunction collapses" and it becomes a particle. MWI states that there is no collapse, and that all outcomes occur in an ever increasing number of potentially infinite parallel Universes. In cosmology we have a set of fundamental constants which have to be the way they are for atoms to be stable, for stars to burn, for carbon to join in long strings. To escape the appearance of 'engineering' cosmologists have posited that our Universe is just one of a infinite set of possible Universes, all with different configurations of laws of physics - and then they turn to the anthropic principle to say that we just happen to be in the one with the right conditions for life. In both these theories you can argue that infinity appears as an 'idea', but both of these theories also refer to the real world we live in. If we are going to posit MWI as a solution to the schroedingers cat paradox, and if we are going to posit multiverse theory to avoid the creationist 'argument from cosmic design' then we have to accept that we are literally embedded in a physical Infinity. There are actually an infinite set of paralell MWI worldlines - there are actually an infinite set of cosmoses with different laws of physics. So in this respect The Infinite actually exists.

--
quote:
That is why I use the term "Infinity" instead of "+infinity" or "-infinity". Call it 'The Infinite' if you like.
--

Ok. Although I don't see why a mathematical infinity must have sign. In the set of natural numbers there is also place for infinity, not?

It is important to distinguish between the Infinite to which I refer and the mathematical concepts of +infinity and -infinity. For a start people have tried adding 1 to +infinity and claiming it is something more than +infinity. You cannot do that to The Infinite itself because it is already Everything that is. You cannot add anything to it. You can only take things away.

--
quote:
It is the individual ego and mind which is complex and supplis the context for the decision to be made. All that comes from the Infinite source is the Will itself.
--

Ok, that's more info about your model. "The Infinite" is a simple entity (as it's simple I will try to avoid the word system): it can't recognize events or object, it can't feel emotions, it can't learn, it can't doubt...

But it can and must be present in all these actions of a system (like the human brain), in a similar same sense that energy it is present.

This is all correct.

I am assuming it is ubiquitous, which would be another characteristic of it. Or it's influence is limited to subsets of the world (for example a living being)?
Am I right about this, is it ubiquitous?

It is ubiquitous, but not always present in the same way. It is directly present as the source of consciousness - it is the thing each of us refers to as "I". It is only indirectly present in the physical world, as its ultimate source. The question boils down to "are inanimate objects minimally conscious?', and we can discuss this if you like, but it may be taking the thread off-course.

 

[Peskanov]

--
quote:
There are actually an infinite set of paralell MWI worldlines - there are actually an infinite set of cosmoses with different laws of physics. So in this respect The Infinite actually exists .
--

Of course; actually exists in THESE models!
I'm aware of these theories, I was just pointing that all concepts are our creations; our mental creations and models, whichcould have or not an equivalent in the world. Of course Plato thinked otherwise
Anyway I think I am getting closer to understand your model of free will, I think it's just your language that confuses me; also English is not my native tongue, which helps my confusion

About infiny; yes I agree some operations with infinities must be different than operating with finite values.
However, take in acount this situation:
Imagine a long string, with waves moving along it. You cant see any end of the string, so you don't know it it's finite or not.
No matter of it's lentgh, you can distinguish parts in it (the waves) and measure it to get the frequency or amplitude.
In other words, sometimes we still can operate, with restrictions, in objects with properties of infinite value. I can't discard operating with your model yet.

--
quote:
It is ubiquitous, but not always present in the same way. It is directly present as the source of consciousness - it is the thing each of us refers to as "I". It is only indirectly present in the physical world, as its ultimate source. The question boils down to "are inanimate objects minimally conscious?', and we can discuss this if you like, but it may be taking the thread off-course.
--

No thanks, it would be clearly off-topic. What I would like to find out is if there is any conceivable model of free will generation which can escape the bounds of my experiment.

I would like to show you an brutally oversimplified example of free will in action which I think it could fit your multiverse model. Please correct me where needed:

A person is pondering about to eat meat or vegetables. It's brain parlamient is so balanced that in a moment we can put the whole weight of the decision in the state of one electron.
As the universe splits, 2 new worlds born. In one, the electron contibuted to choose meat, in the other vegetables.
If you study a frozen multiverse over time, and choose a single branch over the tree, you see that nobody in this "selected" universe could predict the result of the decision.

I understand that this is a discreet example, when your model would be continous. Still, between all the infinite worlds, you could find infinite worlds with the guy eating meat, and infinite worlds with the guy eating vegetables. Also I acknowledge that putting a complex decision in the weight of just 1 electron is too unlikely, I made it for the sake of understanding.

How am I doing? If this model fits with yours, I think I can integrate it in the experiment.

 

[LW]

I don't follow you. If the machine is making choices according to some probability distribution, then that is random.

In theoretical computer science there are a number of different models for computation. The simplest one is a deterministic state machine where the state of the system on time step I+1 is a deterministic function of its state in step I and the input it receives then.

A finite state machine acts as a recognizer for some language: it takes a word as its input and then either accepts or rejects it depending on whether the computation ends in an accepting or in a rejecting state.

A nondeterministic finite state machine has potentially more than one possible successor state for each state/input combination. Thus, there may be more than one possible computation for each input word. Such a machine accepts a word if at least one of the computations lead to an accepting state. So, even if 999 possible computations fail and only 1 succeeds, then the word is always accepted. So, intuitively, the machine always guesses the "right" transition to make so that the end state is reached.

Of course, it is not possible (at least according to current understanding) to construct a machine that is nondeterministic in the above sense. This is unfortunate because nondeterministic machines are usually much easier to design than deterministic ones. However, one of the most surprising theorems in tcs is that everything that can be done using a nondeterministic finite state machine can be done with a deterministic one; there is a systematic way of determinising an automaton. The intuition behind the conversion is that all possible nondeterministic computations are encoded into states of the deterministic machine.

A random finite state machine is otherwise similar to the nondeterministic machine, but instead of always guessing the right choice (if such exists), it chooses the next state based on a probability distribution. So, if there are 1000 equally probable computations where only 1 is accepting, then the machine accepts the input with the probability of 0.001, while a similarly constructed nondeterministic one would accept it always.

In conclusion, in this context (theoretical computer science) the words random and nondeterministic have different meanings. Of course, physical world and free will are not subjects of computer science so this terminological difference doesn't necessarily apply. It was just that my inner pedant woke up.and forced me to post.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

LW,

In theoretical computer science there are a number of different models for computation. The simplest one is a deterministic state machine where the state of the system on time step I+1 is a deterministic function of its state in step I and the input it receives then.

I see what you are getting at. What you are talking about is causality, which is a specific type of determinism.

You are correct that acausality is not necessarily equivalent to randomness. For example, consider a digital filter that takes one signal, x, and produces another, y.

The signal y is completely determined by signal x, so the filter is deterministic. But the filter can be acausal, or causal. A causal filter is one in which the value of y at any given time is completely determined by the value of x at previous times. An acausal filter is one where the value of y also depends on x at future times.

This also goes to the heart of the whole hidden quantum variable thing. The fact that there are no hidden local variables implies that QM is not causal. It could still be deterministic, though, which is what the nonlocal hidden variable hypothesis claims.

It is clear that by "nondeterministic and nonrandom" UCE is not referring to acausal determinism, though, because his arguments for why his conception of free-will are not compatible with causal determinism are equally applicable to acausal determinism.


UCE,

No, it's more than a concept. I gave two examples already, but did not bother challenging Stimpsons attempt to rebutt them. MWI and multiverse theory are two attempts (one at the atomic level and one at the cosmic level) to explain some very hard questions in physics. Both resort to infinity to solve the respective problems. In QM we have an apparent problem that an entity is a wave - it follows all possible routes - until measured/observed, at which point the "wavefunction collapses" and it becomes a particle. MWI states that there is no collapse, and that all outcomes occur in an ever increasing number of potentially infinite parallel Universes. In cosmology we have a set of fundamental constants which have to be the way they are for atoms to be stable, for stars to burn, for carbon to join in long strings. To escape the appearance of 'engineering' cosmologists have posited that our Universe is just one of a infinite set of possible Universes, all with different configurations of laws of physics - and then they turn to the anthropic principle to say that we just happen to be in the one with the right conditions for life. In both these theories you can argue that infinity appears as an 'idea', but both of these theories also refer to the real world we live in. If we are going to posit MWI as a solution to the schroedingers cat paradox, and if we are going to posit multiverse theory to avoid the creationist 'argument from cosmic design' then we have to accept that we are literally embedded in a physical Infinity.

But as I already explained, that is nothing more than saying that Reality contains infinite sets. "infinity" is still defined as a mathematical limit. Your above argument doesn't make Infinity something that physically exists, an more than the fact that I have two eyes makes the number Two something that physically exists.

There are actually an infinite set of paralell MWI worldlines - there are actually an infinite set of cosmoses with different laws of physics. So in this respect The Infinite actually exists.

That may be, and it may not. But the fact remains that this would only imply that Reality contains an infinite number of things. It does not in any way establish Infinity as anything more than a cardinality of sets. And it certainly doesn't explain how you can claim that infinity is the source of anything.

It is important to distinguish between the Infinite to which I refer and the mathematical concepts of +infinity and -infinity.

Good idea. Maybe you should do so by describing what "Infinity" is. Your MWI and Multiverse examples are clearly referring to the mathematical concept of +infinity.

For a start people have tried adding 1 to +infinity and claiming it is something more than +infinity.

Only people who don't understand mathematics.

You cannot do that to The Infinite itself because it is already Everything that is. You cannot add anything to it. You can only take things away.

So the Infinite is "everything that is"? How does that constitute a source for anything? That is contradictory. And how does "everything that is" make Libertarian free-will noncontradictory?

It is ubiquitous, but not always present in the same way. It is directly present as the source of consciousness - it is the thing each of us refers to as "I". It is only indirectly present in the physical world, as its ultimate source. The question boils down to "are inanimate objects minimally conscious?', and we can discuss this if you like, but it may be taking the thread off-course.

This doesn't make any sense. How can "everything that is" be the source of consciousness? Certainly consciousness is something that "is"?

And what does it mean to say that "everything that is" is the thing that each of us refers to as "I".

And how can it be only indirectly present in the physical world? You have defined it such that the physical world is a part of it.

And what does any of this have to do with consciousness?

What you are saying simply doesn't make any sense. It is an incoherent stream of intuitive concepts with no logical connection between them, or at least, none that you seem to be able to express.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Guest]

Stimpson

[QUPOTE]
But as I already explained, that is nothing more than saying that Reality contains infinite sets. "infinity" is still defined as a mathematical limit. Your above argument doesn't make Infinity something that physically exists, an more than the fact that I have two eyes makes the number Two something that physically exists.
[/QUOTE]

Infinity isn't a number. MWI and multiverse theory both imply that Existence is Infinite. If an infinite number of cosmoses exist and an infinite number of paralell worldlines exist then Existence IS Infinite. Your argument would only work if infinity was a number. It isn't. It is INFINITY. If all possible cosmoses exist it is no use just saying that the number of universe which exist is +infinity. The totality of existence is Infinite. Infinity exists. Aristotle was wrong. (Again).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are actually an infinite set of paralell MWI worldlines - there are actually an infinite set of cosmoses with different laws of physics. So in this respect The Infinite actually exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That may be, and it may not.

It IS, unless you reject both MWI and multiverse theory, and rejecting multiverse theory leaves you open to the theist argument from cosmic design, re-introducing Infinity in the form of God.

But the fact remains that this would only imply that Reality contains an infinite number of things.

An Infinite number of cosmoses each containing an infinite number of MWI worldlines.

It does not in any way establish Infinity as anything more than a cardinality of sets.

It does unless you want to claim that the physical Universe is a number......the Universe actually exists, Stimp - and therefore so do all the other worldlines and cosmoses. They aren't just numbers - they are an infinite set of Universes.

Good idea. Maybe you should do so by describing what "Infinity" is.

It cannot be described. Describing it renders it no longer Infinity. It is beyond description.

Your MWI and Multiverse examples are clearly referring to the mathematical concept of +infinity.

Do we inhabit a mathematical concept?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a start people have tried adding 1 to +infinity and claiming it is something more than +infinity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only people who don't understand mathematics.

Some mathematics professors do this, Stimp.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot do that to The Infinite itself because it is already Everything that is. You cannot add anything to it. You can only take things away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the Infinite is "everything that is"? How does that constitute a source for anything? That is contradictory.

Infinity is the one place where a paradox exists. It is the paradox at the end of Reality. It is where Nothing=Everything, where Zero=Infinity, where "I"="ALL", it is the No-Thing which is the source of all things, The Abyss. Infinity is a paradox. The above can only be comprehended intuitively. The analytical mind has trouble coping with an actual Infinity because the analytical mind is itself finite.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is ubiquitous, but not always present in the same way. It is directly present as the source of consciousness - it is the thing each of us refers to as "I". It is only indirectly present in the physical world, as its ultimate source. The question boils down to "are inanimate objects minimally conscious?', and we can discuss this if you like, but it may be taking the thread off-course.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn't make any sense. How can "everything that is" be the source of consciousness? Certainly consciousness is something that "is"?

It can be if you are a mental monist. Remember I consider the physical Universe to be a mathematical construct derivable from the empty set, which itself is analagous to Zero, which can also be considered to be Infinity. Then we have the celebrated 'Hard Problem' which is based on the observation that although we can account for the whole content of consciousness via materialism we cannot account for the awareness of the content. For an idealist the content is just a mathematical construct anyway - and if everything which exists is numerical/mathematical where is there for the awareness to come from? Well there is only one thing in existence apart from the numbers and that is the Zero/Infinity that gave rise to the numbers - so it seems only parsimonious to assume that the awareness comes from the Zero/Infinity. By this scheme the relationship between "I" and the perceived world is simply the relationship between Infinity/Zero and finite mathematical constructs which it turns into an experience of a physical world.

For me this model is very compelling because I came to my own conclusions regarding maths and Infinity, and later discovered that the Hindu concept of Atman(personal inner self)=Brahman (source of everything) was in fact direclty analagous to my own model.

And what does it mean to say that "everything that is" is the thing that each of us refers to as "I".

This is what led Schroedinger to declare "I am God Almighty". I wouldn't claim such a thing. Schroedinger did, and I have explained above why he did. He also considered himself a philsophical Hindu (see book : "What is Life?").

And how can it be only indirectly present in the physical world? You have defined it such that the physical world is a part of it.

The physical world is derived from it.

What you are saying simply doesn't make any sense. It is an incoherent stream of intuitive concepts with no logical connection between them, or at least, none that you seem to be able to express.

It does make sense, but only if you turn your materialists model of reality outside-in and downside-up and get the Ouroborous to swallow its tail.

 

[Peskanov]

Hello Hammegk;
just tell you that when copy-pasting "Monastic Idealism" from your post into google search, you can obtain some really fancy pages.
BTW, once I looked for "monistic" instead of "monastic" I got few hits, is monistic idealism an obscure idea or is it just unrepresented on internet?