Freedomain Radio

 

1.  n /∞ = 0   and   ∞ / n = ∞

The argument that you exist now but cease to exist in the future requires that at some point infinitely in the future you are perceived as not having existed infinitely into the past.  If you have not existed into the past from some future perspective and do not exist infinitely into the future from your current perspective then you never have and never will exist for all infinity.  Obviously this is a logical paradox that  can only be resolved by saying consciousness is external and infinite in nature.

2.  If you believe in the theory of Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function.  If  consciousness did not exist prior to matter coming into existence, then it is impossible that matter could ever come into existence.  Additionally, this rules out the possibility that consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical processes.  Either consciousness existed before matter or QM is wrong, one or the other is indisputably true.  Regardless, it is a logical paradox to conclude that consciousness is the result of QM processes.

Decoherence as an explanation results in either a many worlds or many minds interpretation.  A many minds interpretation leads to a continuous infinity of minds existing in an infinite number of universes.  This leads to a system that is unable to explain single photon interference patterns in experiments such as the double slit experiment, which clearly means this is not a logical or rational description of this present physical universe.

From wiki on decoherence:

"Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the appearance of wavefunction collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment. That is, components of the wavefunction are decoupled from a coherent system, and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. "...

To quote wiki  on the many worlds interpretation:

"decoherence by itself may not give a complete solution of the measurement problem, since all components of the wave function still exist in a global superposition, which is explicitly acknowledged in the many-worlds interpretation. All decoherence explains, in this view, is why these coherences are no longer available for inspection by local observers. To present a solution to the measurement problem in most interpretations of quantum mechanics, decoherence must be supplied with some nontrivial interpretational considerations (as for example Wojciech Zurek tends to do in his Existential interpretation). However, according to Everett and DeWitt the many-worlds interpretation can be derived from the formalism alone, in which case no extra interpretational layer is required."

Further:

"The many-worlds interpretation should not be confused with the similar many-minds interpretation which defines the split on the level of the observers' minds.The many-worlds interpretation leads to a deterministic view of nature in which there is no special role for the human mind.[71]"

oops, I guess we are back to determinism.

3.  Given that we have established that consciousness is either infinite and external to the brain, QM is wrong, or all processes are deterministic, we know that any attempt to explain consciousness as being local to the brain must do so using only deterministic biochemical processes.  If biochemical processes are truly the source of consciousness, then you have no free will because all chemical processes are deterministic in nature.  If this is the case, then you aren't actually choosing to read this article.  Nature has pre-destined you to read this article.  Your life has no meaning since you don't actually control it.  It's either that or consciousness is infinite, eternal and external to the brain and this physical universe.

4.  Strong emergence, the supposition that new properties can emerge from component systems, is a logical impossibility.  This means that either subatomic particles must be conscious or consciousness must arise from outside the brain.  Given that there is no evidence to suggest subatomic particles are conscious and that attempting to do so by way of QM results in a logical contradiction, it is illogical to conclude consciousness is a product of biochemical processes.

5.  The number of synapses in the brain is not large enough to hold all the memories of the brain.  There is no known mechanism of memory transport in the brain.  There is no center point in the brain that can be observed to initiate conscious thought. Any attempt to explain memory as being local to the brain requires a retention of state.  If matter changes state, information is lost.  This is a fundamental proven law of the universe.  Because we know QM is not logically capable of explaining consciousness and because we know LTP is the only physical mechanism of state retention and because we know there are not enough synapses to account for human memory, it is illogical conclude that all memory is local to the brain.  If consciousness is a product of deterministic biochemical processes, this again violates logic on grounds of emergence as well as invalidating free will.

So here in lies a choice.  You can choose to believe that consciousness is the product of biochemical processes (which is illogical) and that you have no free will, or you can choose to believe that consciousness is eternal and external to the brain which allows for free will.    No matter what, you can not say that consciousness is internal to the brain and that you have free will.  This is not a logical option.

Chose wisely atheists... oops!  I'm sorry, you don't have a choice.  Deterministic chemical processes already made that decision for you

---

Further supporting evidence: Lancet 2001; 358: 2039-45

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

--

Credit to William Bray for his logical rigor in helping me form these arguments, along with countless other philosophers and physicists.

 

michaelsuede:

1.  n /∞ = 0   and   ∞ / n = ∞
The argument that you exist now but cease to exist in the future requires that at some point infinitely in the future you are perceived as not having existed infinitely into the past.  If you have not existed into the past from some future perspective and do not exist infinitely into the future from your current perspective then you never have and never will exist for all infinity.  Obviously this is a logical paradox that  can only be resolved by saying consciousness is external and infinite in nature.

2.  If you believe in the theory of Einsteinian Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function.  If  consciousness did not exist prior to matter coming into existence, then it is impossible that matter could ever come into existence.  Additionally, this rules out the possibility that consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical processes.  Either consciousness existed before matter or QM is wrong, one or the other is indisputably true.  Regardless, it is a logical paradox to conclude that consciousness is the result of QM processes.

3.  Given that we have established that consciousness is either infinite and external to the brain or QM is wrong, we know that any attempt to explain consciousness as being local to the brain must do so using only deterministic biochemical processes.  If biochemical processes are truly the source of consciousness, then you have no free will because all chemical processes are deterministic in nature.  If this is the case, then you aren't actually choosing to read this article.  Nature has pre-destined you to read this article.  Your life has no meaning since you don't actually control it.  It's either that or consciousness is infinite, eternal and external to the brain and this physical universe.

4.  Strong emergence, the supposition that new properties can emerge from component systems, is a logical impossibility.  This means that either subatomic particles must be conscious or consciousness must arise from outside the brain.  Given that there is no evidence to suggest subatomic particles are conscious, it is illogical to conclude consciousness is a product of biochemical processes.

5.  The number of synapses in the brain is not large enough to hold all the memories of the brain.  There is no known mechanism of memory transport in the brain.  There is no center point in the brain that can be observed to initiate conscious thought.  If consciousness is a product of deterministic biochemical processes, this again violates logic on grounds of emergence as well as invalidating free will.
 
So here in lies a choice.  You can chose to believe that consciousness is product of biochemical processes (which is illogical) and that you have no free will, or you can chose to believe that consciousness is eternal and external to the brain which allows for free will.    No matter what, you can not say that consciousness is internal to the brain and that you have free will.  This is not a logical option.

Chose wisely atheists... oops!  I'm sorry, you don't have a choice.  Deterministic chemical processes already made that decision for you 

--
Credit to William Bray for his logical rigor in helping me form these arguments, along with and countless other philosophers and physicists. 

#1 basically says we don't exist, I'm not sure I follow the argument. If people in the infinite future can't perceive our existence, then we don't exist? The image I'm getting is if I say "See this ball of sand?" then a crush the ball of sand into grains and say "there never was a ball of sand". This is an error, no? Why would the amount of time that has passed change whether the ball of sand existed at one point?

With regards to number 2, if waveforms collapse due to observers, and there is an infinite external consciousness, then all waveforms would collapse and QM would not exist.

michaelsuede:

If you believe in the theory of Einsteinian Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function.

Kawlinz:

michaelsuede:

1.  n /∞ = 0   and   ∞ / n = ∞
The argument that you exist now but cease to exist in the future requires that at some point infinitely in the future you are perceived as not having existed infinitely into the past.  If you have not existed into the past from some future perspective and do not exist infinitely into the future from your current perspective then you never have and never will exist for all infinity.  Obviously this is a logical paradox that  can only be resolved by saying consciousness is external and infinite in nature.

#1 basically says we don't exist, I'm not sure I follow the argument. If people in the infinite future can't perceive our existence, then we don't exist? The image I'm getting is if I say "See this ball of sand?" then a crush the ball of sand into grains and say "there never was a ball of sand". This is an error, no? Why would the amount of time that has passed change whether the ball of sand existed at one point?

Exactly. Existence is not dependent on perception, it is a fact of reality.

More importantly, he seems to be substituting the mathematical concept of infinity with the reality of incomprehensibly large numbers.

 

michaelsuede:

1.  n /∞ = 0   and   ∞ / n = ∞
The argument that you exist now but cease to exist in the future requires that at some point infinitely in the future you are perceived as not having existed infinitely into the past.  If you have not existed into the past from some future perspective and do not exist infinitely into the future from your current perspective then you never have and never will exist for all infinity.  Obviously this is a logical paradox that  can only be resolved by saying consciousness is external and infinite in nature.

This is not a paradox, it is a non-sequitur.

"perceived as not having existed" != Having never existed.

Existence is not dependent on observation. "I think, therefore I am" was how Decartes confirmed his existence, not created it.

michaelsuede:

2. If you believe in the theory of Einsteinian Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function.

I don't think you understand what that means, or how QM works. QM is a mathematical model for calculating the probability of multiple possible outcomes for a given quantum state. The reason there are multiple outcomes, instead of one certain outcome, is because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Because the wave function describes a range of possibilities, observation confirms some and eliminates others. That is what is meant by the "collapsing" of a wave function due to observation. It does not state that conscious observation is necessary for creation ex nihilo.

michaelsuede:

If consciousness did not exist prior to matter coming into existence, then it is impossible that matter could ever come into existence.  Additionally, this rules out the possibility that consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical processes.  Either consciousness existed before matter or QM is wrong, one or the other is indisputably true.  Regardless, it is a logical paradox to conclude that consciousness is the result of QM processes.

Again, not a paradox, but a non-sequitur. To quote Ayn Rand, "When faced with a contradiction, check your premises. One of them is wrong."

michaelsuede:

3.  Given that we have established that consciousness is either infinite and external to the brain or QM is wrong...

Which we haven't, so I'm going to skip the rest, as well as #4 since it is dependent on this flawed premise.

michaelsuede:

5.  The number of synapses in the brain is not large enough to hold all the memories of the brain. 

The building is not large enough to hold all of the contents of the building. This is a nonsensical statement. Besides, memories fade and degrade over time. The brain doesn't perfectly store memories of every moment of experience. Furthermore, considering that neurologists don't yet know exactly how memories are stored, much less recalled, the entire proclamation is pure conjecture.

michaelsuede:

There is no known mechanism of memory transport in the brain.

And attempting to argue that this supports any other conclusion is an Argument From Ignorance.
 

michaelsuede:

There is no center point in the brain that can be observed to initiate conscious thought. 

Just as there is no center point of the universe, wherein the universe can be said to have begun, because that is a 3-dimensional concept and this universe occupies many more dimesions than that.
 

michaelsuede:

If consciousness is a product of deterministic biochemical processes,

Fortunately, consciousness is none of those things. It is a byproduct of chemical and electrical processes which, thanks to the impossibility of perfectly measuring both the position AND velocity of any given particle, let alone trillions, they are most certainly not deterministic in a manner that could ever be modeled and predicted.
 

michaelsuede:

this again violates logic on grounds of emergence as well as invalidating free will.

Even if that were the case, determinism would not invalidate Free Will from our perspective. We do not possess the level of computing power to model and predict the countless incoming stimuli and their resulting influence on the innumerable chemical and electrical changes that result in thought and action. You're talking individual bits of information numbering in the trillions to the power of trillions. There literally isn't enough time or energy in our grasp to build a computer capable of processing all of that data correctly. So even if all of our decisions, actions and life events were predetermined at the beginning of Time, it still could not be understood or predicted on any level that is useful to us.

Ergo, Determinism != No Free Will

Unless of course, you presume the a-priori existence of a supernatural, omniscient consciousness capable of processing and accounting for the infinite variables, which would be begging the question to say the least.

michaelsuede:

So here in lies a choice.  You can chose to believe that consciousness is product of biochemical processes (which is illogical) and that you have no free will, or you can chose to believe that consciousness is eternal and external to the brain which allows for free will. No matter what, you can not say that consciousness is internal to the brain and that you have free will.  This is not a logical option.

Since all of this is dependent on flawed reasoning and misunderstandings that I already addressed, I'll leave you with one more point:
If consciousness is external, then why do our memories degrade at all? Why do we forget things and why do our mental capabilities diminish in a manner that directly correlates with the long-term decay of brain tissue? Why is our personality so susceptible to brain damage?

michaelsuede:

Chose wisely atheists... oops!  I'm sorry, you don't have a choice.  Deterministic chemical processes already made that decision for you 

--
Credit to William Bray for his logical rigor in helping me form these arguments, along with and countless other philosophers and physicists. 

Learn about Chaos Theory my friend, and if you have time, look up the Lawrence Krauss lecture, "A Universe From Nothing." One of the most important points he makes is that there is no such thing as "empty space" in this universe. Space itself has mass, and there has been observed in labs a continuous phenomenon of particles popping in and out of existence in an instant, at random. That phenomenon alone would negate any deterministic model of the universe.

 

fromkentucky:

Kawlinz:

michaelsuede:

1.  n /∞ = 0   and   ∞ / n = ∞
The argument that you exist now but cease to exist in the future requires that at some point infinitely in the future you are perceived as not having existed infinitely into the past.  If you have not existed into the past from some future perspective and do not exist infinitely into the future from your current perspective then you never have and never will exist for all infinity.  Obviously this is a logical paradox that  can only be resolved by saying consciousness is external and infinite in nature.

#1 basically says we don't exist, I'm not sure I follow the argument. If people in the infinite future can't perceive our existence, then we don't exist? The image I'm getting is if I say "See this ball of sand?" then a crush the ball of sand into grains and say "there never was a ball of sand". This is an error, no? Why would the amount of time that has passed change whether the ball of sand existed at one point?

Exactly. Existence is not dependent on perception, it is a fact of reality.

More importantly, he seems to be substituting the mathematical concept of infinity with the reality of incomprehensibly large numbers.

 

Your argument supports my supposition that consciousness is infinite in nature.  If it was not, then we would not exist.  Any good math text will explain why infinity is not the same as "really large numbers."  Infinity always results in zero in division or infinity would not be infinity.  You can argue that time will not continue forward into infinity or you can argue that consciousness is infinite in nature, but you can not argue that we exist today and consicousness is not infinite whie time goes on into infinity without running into a logical contradiction.  This logical contradiction is the entire point of my arguement.  You are simply dismissing it.

 

 

 

fromkentucky:

I don't think you understand what that means, or how QM works.

Allow me to quote wiki for you:

"In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several different possible eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single one of those states after interaction with an observer. In simplified terms, it is the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer. It is one of two processes by which quantum systems evolve in time, according to the laws of quantum mechanics as presented by John von Neumann.^[1] "

The observer is consciousness.  In order for physical matter to take form, QM stipulates that it must be consciously observed.  This is fundamental to standard QM theory.

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about so you need to learn more before dismissing my arguments.  Quoting Rand is an appeal to authority.

 

fromkentucky:

The building is not large enough to hold all of the contents of the building. This is a nonsensical statement. Besides, memories fade and degrade over time. The brain doesn't perfectly store memories of every moment of experience. Furthermore, considering that neurologists don't yet know exactly how memories are stored, much less recalled, the entire proclamation is pure conjecture.

There aren't enough synapses to account for human memory.  This has been determined through scientific rigor.

http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/01/24/the-origins-and-nature-of-consciousness-near-death-experiences-and-religion/

Further, because we know that there is no state retention in the brain other than LTP, and since we know QM is unable to explain consciousness without running into a logical contradiction, we know that it is impossible for all memory to be local to the brain.  Memory requires state retention.  To claim that memory does not require state rention is to invoke magic, as such a theory violates the known physical properties of the universe.

 

michaelsuede:

fromkentucky:

Kawlinz:

michaelsuede:

1.  n /∞ = 0   and   ∞ / n = ∞
The argument that you exist now but cease to exist in the future requires that at some point infinitely in the future you are perceived as not having existed infinitely into the past.  If you have not existed into the past from some future perspective and do not exist infinitely into the future from your current perspective then you never have and never will exist for all infinity.  Obviously this is a logical paradox that  can only be resolved by saying consciousness is external and infinite in nature.

#1 basically says we don't exist, I'm not sure I follow the argument. If people in the infinite future can't perceive our existence, then we don't exist? The image I'm getting is if I say "See this ball of sand?" then a crush the ball of sand into grains and say "there never was a ball of sand". This is an error, no? Why would the amount of time that has passed change whether the ball of sand existed at one point?

Exactly. Existence is not dependent on perception, it is a fact of reality.

More importantly, he seems to be substituting the mathematical concept of infinity with the reality of incomprehensibly large numbers.

 

Your argument supports my supposition that consciousness is infinite in nature.  If it was not, then we would not exist.  Any good math text will explain why infinity is not the same as "really large numbers."  Infinity always results in zero in division or infinity would not be infinity.  You can argue that time will not continue forward into infinity or you can argue that consciousness is infinite in nature, but you can not argue that we exist today and consicousness is not infinite whie time goes on into infinity without running into a logical contradiction.  This logical contradiction is the entire point of my arguement.  You are simply dismissing it.

By this argument, the ball of sand exists either infinitely or it never existed at all. Which is it?

Kawlinz:

By this argument, the ball of sand exists either infinitely or it never existed at all. Which is it?

If we go by QM, then the ball of sand exists until there are no conscious observers left in the universe or the sand is transmuted into some other form of matter by some physical energetic processes.  However, this does not explain how the ball of sand came to be in the first place if there were no concious observers in the begining.

 

michaelsuede:

Kawlinz:

By this argument, the ball of sand exists either infinitely or it never existed at all. Which is it?

If we go by QM, then the ball of sand exists until there are no conscious observers left in the universe or the sand is transmuted into some other form of matter by some physical energetic processes.  However, this does not explain how the ball of sand came to be in the first place if there were no concious observers in the begining.

 

Doesn't that again violate your second principle? If there is an infinite consiousness, then the entire universe is always being observed, waveforms would always collapse, and QM wouldn't exist?

michaelsuede:

1.  n /∞ = 0   and   ∞ / n = ∞

Both 'n' and '∞' are undefined numbers.  These equations given can not be simplified and cannot be solved.  Only equations involving real numbers can be solved.  This is a limit of mathematics, not a grand revelation of the properties of the universe.

michaelsuede:

The argument that you exist now but cease to exist in the future requires that at some point infinitely in the future you are perceived as not having existed infinitely into the past.  If you have not existed into the past from some future perspective and do not exist infinitely into the future from your current perspective then you never have and never will exist for all infinity.  Obviously this is a logical paradox that  can only be resolved by saying consciousness is external and infinite in nature.

The range of numbers [2012 to infinity] has no upper limit but does have a definite lower limit.  A number within this range may be infinitely high but it may not be less than 2012.  An infinite amount of time may pass after I die, but for each later point in time a definite period will have elapsed since my death.  Just because a thing has ceased to be does not mean that it never was.

michaelsuede:

2.  If you believe in the theory of Einsteinian Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function.  If  consciousness did not exist prior to matter coming into existence, then it is impossible that matter could ever come into existence.  Additionally, this rules out the possibility that consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical processes.  Either consciousness existed before matter or QM is wrong, one or the other is indisputably true.  Regardless, it is a logical paradox to conclude that consciousness is the result of QM processes.

This seems to be a variation of the old question "If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is around to hear it; does it make any noise when it falls".  Just because wave functions collapse when we interact with them does not exclude the possibility that they also collapse when other things interact with them.  So far as I understand this; Interactions cause the wave function to collapse.  These do not need to be conscious interactions.

michaelsuede:

3.  Given that we have established that consciousness is either infinite and external to the brain or QM is wrong, we know that any attempt to explain consciousness as being local to the brain must do so using only deterministic biochemical processes.  If biochemical processes are truly the source of consciousness, then you have no free will because all chemical processes are deterministic in nature.  If this is the case, then you aren't actually choosing to read this article.  Nature has pre-destined you to read this article.  Your life has no meaning since you don't actually control it.  It's either that or consciousness is infinite, eternal and external to the brain and this physical universe.

I do not believe that you have succeeded in establishing that QM is incorrect or that consciousness is infinite.  I have no reason to believe that consciousness is anything other than a process that occurs within the brain.

michaelsuede:

4.  Strong emergence, the supposition that new properties can emerge from component systems, is a logical impossibility.  This means that either subatomic particles must be conscious or consciousness must arise from outside the brain.  Given that there is no evidence to suggest subatomic particles are conscious, it is illogical to conclude consciousness is a product of biochemical processes.

Photosynthesis is a biochemical process.  Subatomic particles do not photosynthesise individually; the effect emerges out of their interactions.  I do not believe that you have succeeded in establishing that consciousness does not emerge out of biochemical processes in the brain in the same way that photosynthesis emerges out of biochemical interactions within the leaves of plants.

michaelsuede:

5.  The number of synapses in the brain is not large enough to hold all the memories of the brain.  There is no known mechanism of memory transport in the brain.  There is no center point in the brain that can be observed to initiate conscious thought.  If consciousness is a product of deterministic biochemical processes, this again violates logic on grounds of emergence as well as invalidating free will.

Just because we do not know how the brain works does not mean that the brain doesn't work.

michaelsuede:

So here in lies a choice.  You can chose to believe that consciousness is product of biochemical processes (which is illogical) and that you have no free will, or you can chose to believe that consciousness is eternal and external to the brain which allows for free will.    No matter what, you can not say that consciousness is internal to the brain and that you have free will.  This is not a logical option.

Chose wisely atheists... oops!  I'm sorry, you don't have a choice.  Deterministic chemical processes already made that decision for you 

--
Credit to William Bray for his logical rigor in helping me form these arguments, along with and countless other philosophers and physicists. 

Free Will is one of the most significant problems of philosophy.  The problem of how a person chooses between various options is not resolved by presupposing that consciousness is magical in nature.  This only moves the arena in which the process of choice occurs into a rationally unexaminable realm.  This is an extraordinary claim and should require extraordinary proof.  If you wish to claim that a magical, non-physical, realm of pure consciousness exists, please show proof of the existence of this realm.

Kawlinz:

michaelsuede:

Kawlinz:

By this argument, the ball of sand exists either infinitely or it never existed at all. Which is it?

If we go by QM, then the ball of sand exists until there are no conscious observers left in the universe or the sand is transmuted into some other form of matter by some physical energetic processes.  However, this does not explain how the ball of sand came to be in the first place if there were no concious observers in the begining.

 

Doesn't that again violate your second principle? If there is an infinite consiousness, then the entire universe is always being observed, waveforms would always collapse, and QM wouldn't exist?

Waveforms always do collapse because there always must be a conscious observer to measure them.  There is no such thing as measuring an uncollapsed waveform.

 

BrianMankin:

michaelsuede:

1.  n /∞ = 0   and   ∞ / n = ∞

Both 'n' and '∞' are undefined numbers.  These equations given can not be simplified and cannot be solved.  Only equations involving real numbers can be solved.  This is a limit of mathematics, not a grand revelation of the properties of the universe.

Nope.  N represents the human lifetime in common time.

 

BrianMankin:

This seems to be a variation of the old question "If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is around to hear it; does it make any noise when it falls".  Just because wave functions collapse when we interact with them does not exclude the possibility that they also collapse when other things interact with them.  So far as I understand this; Interactions cause the wave function to collapse.  These do not need to be conscious interactions.

Then you believe QM is wrong.  Which is fine.  I don't particularly subscribe to it myself.  However, such a belief rules out the possiblity that QM processes causes consciousness.  Which means you either believe consciousness is an infinite fundamental property of the universe or you believe in determinisim.  I reject determinism.