(December, 2003)

Noel Huntley, Ph.D.

We are not interested in discussing hackneyed theories and philosophies of free will but to introduce a fresh viewpoint with the intent of clarifying this abstruse and confused subject. Simple analogies will be used to simplify the ideas and make them accessible to the layman. In addition, we shall see that ultimately fractals are a product of the same mechanism or analysis as free will---but note these will be internal nonlinear fractals (see article: Source of Fractals).

The more one tangles with the subject of free will the more one will arrive at the conclusion that it is in fact very complex. A mathematical analysis would require infinite nonlinear variables superimposed. Although the basis of our approach is a belief in free will, the reader who does not accept that there truly is free will can use this mechanism or analytical approach to provide the necessary complexity which that reader will require for a satisfactory argument against free will. Ironically though, such opposing viewpoints when taken to extremes, actually merge, that is, converge. A little like imagining developing a robot to a phenomenal degree; this ultimate extreme, using natural materials could not only be indistinguishable from, say, a human life form but could be the same (we are not eliminating the idea of a Source here). Let us, however, not become too side tracked other than to promote a little flexibility of thought.

Fractals have set (similar) patterns or orders at different dimensional levels but within each of these levels there is randomness---within which exists the potential for free will. The greater the potential unpredictability, the greater the potential for free will.

If we select a twig on a branch, this is a two-fractal system. Each of these represents a set fractal---a property of some basic blueprint or DNA. However, the twig could vary by many probabilities---variations in size or shape. Similarly for the branch. Thus at each fractal level, which is predictable, there is the apparent observation of randomness---many probabilities, which in the general case where consciousness enters (not twigs or branches), is a region for choice, free will. How can we apply such a fractal observation to consciousness and its inherent implication of free will?

The first analogy is a simple 2-state one. Imagine taking a dog for a walk. The leash linking together the human and the dog is quite long. The human decides where they go, that is, this higher order level (of control) of the human determines the overall path, direction, the dog takes, but the dog has choice and free will within this restriction. The dog can even get into mischief; it has freedom to move around, governed by the length of the leash (we should not disallow the human to, additionally, pull on the leash if need be, even within the leash-length limitation). Thus the dog can represent the human lower consciousness; an extension from the higher, or soul consciousness represented by the human with the leash. (Note this higher level also operates within still higher restrictions.) We see that the human's freewill is superimposed on the dog's freewill, and can, broadly speaking override it. There is a nonlinear relationship between these two variables.

We might also wish to note that the lower human consciousness represented by the dog could be programmed to not recognise that there was any limitation governed by the leash. This means the perception beyond the leash length would also be out of bounds---nothing would be detectable beyond this limitation with this supposed programming. Thus the 'dog' would think, in fact, it has complete free will---the illusion many people have today. We see from our standpoint that freedom is within a set framework. This framework might be considered to be a fractal level of consciousness. There is free will relative to a given framework, such as this 3D reality.

So far we have given a 2-state description of free will corresponding to two fractal levels of consciousness. This could be modelled in computer programming using a 2-dimensional array, or a loop within a loop. Let us now increase the number of fractal levels to four. This is a simple analogy utilising the mechanics of the human arm joints. There are four main variables for motion: fingers, wrist, elbow, shoulder. These joints work in a similar manner to the dog/human analogy. In coordinated movements, such as at a keyboard, the fingers operate in the context of the wrist, the wrist in the context of the elbow, the elbow in the context of the shoulder. The wrist motion can override the fingers and determine where the fingers are 'stationed'. The elbow motion can override the wrist and finger motion; and the shoulder, or whole arm movement can override all the others. As an analogy we can consider these four arm joints as four levels of consciousness each within one another from fingers to shoulder. These joint relations are certainly fractal levels.

We can see that the fingers can move up and down, and from side to side; they have a certain degree of freedom from the other joint motions. We see that each joint gives a certain degree of freedom, in motion, but is limited by boundary conditions. The shoulder joint gives the greater freedom for itself and all the other joints.

This number of levels, that is, four (joints) for the whole arm, is sufficient to serve the analogous purpose of illustrating interacting nonlinear levels of consciousness. For example, in the New-Age movement (using this expression loosely), 1) human ego level, 2) soul, 3) oversoul, 4) avatar, etc., which are levels of consciousness. We might make an impulsive prediction here that the science of fractals and the unified field of quantum physics will convince Darwinists that an infinitely more intelligent and sophisticated model is required to describe evolution, which will be a combination of design and genetics, plus evolution.

We have illustrated a 2-state and 4-state free will or fractal system. These fixed states, such as the joints of the arm are not the only valid states. A joint could exist, for example, between the wrist and the elbow, or in the dog/human example the leash could be shorter.

Therefore a fundamental condition without any preferential selection of fractal levels would be to envisage, say, the arm as containing an infinite number of joints (mathematically speaking), or simply consider the prehensile tail of a monkey---assuming every incremental section of the tail is controllable independently.

We have now extrapolated the nonlinear aspect of free will along an infinite gradient. The dog can act for itself but superimposed on its thinking (not necessarily all the time) is the human free will. One has to imagine the leash as short as possible, then have a string of such short leashes and leash holders---a cumbersome picture, but it illustrates the principle. Thus with countless levels (shortest leashes, countless joints, or just a prehensile structure) we would have potentially countless control points or nonlinear variables, which superimpose, that is, the upper ones on the lower ones. This would be a continuous fractal gradient, a background for selected specific fractals, such as arm joints, or tree branches, or a planet, star, galaxy, etc.

With regard to consciousness, these levels give a 'thickness', or inner-nested levels (of contexts within contexts) but the higher the context (for example, the elbow is a higher context than the wrist) the more dimensional span it has. However, only discrete fractal levels may be selected for a reality of consciousness and its higher states (selves), or a planet, star, galaxy, universe hierarchy. These fractal hierarchies extend to the limit of one whole (quantum state).

The fractal levels provide the boundary conditions for free will---a finger relative to its own joints can't move as freely as, say, the shoulder joint would allow the finger to change position. In effect, fractals form closed systems of standing-wave structures. This would include fixating the mind through programming and brainwashing.

Free will is always relative to a framework or context. Maximum free will would exist at the greatest whole, God, or the Infinite. This level would provide maximum probabilities for selection at the lower (fractal) levels. Note that these lower levels, although limited in the above-described manner, could select probabilities outside their fractal-level boundaries, providing the subsequent ramifications of this selection is in full alignment with the corresponding higher purpose or greatest good---the dog is allowed to (choose to) go over the fence, providing this is within the possible purposes (paths) of the human.

 Return to Home Page