To obey shows there is choice involved. I am constrained by the laws of physics!

Do I have a choice ?

I do not accept the current theory of time as being a digital sequence moving forward. I believe time is fluid, measured in moments, moves in cycles and waves, and that the future, past, and present overlap at certain moments. I refuse to be a digital approximation of an analog phenomenon.

I try, but it's SOOOO hard!! Sometimes I'm just walking down the street, and it's a nice day, and I'll start to float off the sidewalk a bit -- I know it's wrong, I know gravity is the LAW, but it just feels so GOOD! Other times I just get tired when I'm at work... to go to the kitchen I have to take a left, then another left, then a right, then another right -- because of the walls and so forth. So I get lazy and just walk straight through the walls. Again, I know it's a violation... but I've gotten away with it for so long that now it doesn't seem wrong anymore! Am I a bad person?

yes except when I am in an Escher drawing.

1) "An important point is that the brain esoteric as it might seem, is well and truly a part of this world and must obey the laws of physics just as surely as rolling balls and moving blocks. It is worthwhile to consider whether the present framework of physics can give rise to a theory of intelligence and free will." "Einstein’s Theory of Relativity cannot be paralleled in the simplicity of its assumptions and the extent of its predictions. It is close to perfect. By contrast Quantum Mechanics does not have much of this beauty or aesthetic justification. But it works (and how!!?) In any real system it is impossible to specify the initial state precisely. And the initial impreciseness increases as time passes by and very soon the state of the system is as good as unknown, thus the evolution of the system though determined by the laws of physics is not computational." "Clearly we shall need changes in the fundamental laws of physics before we can come up with any theory of intelligence. We will need a theory that unifies these laws and manages to bring about a compromise between the randomness and determinism of various laws. It should be able to incorporate a certain sort of feedback through which a system can determine it's own evolution. Such a grand unified theory would possibly require a truly quantum jump in concepts; an absolutely new way of thinking about how the universe functions and how we ourselves are a part of it." Source and further information: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r10/bombay/news2/story4.htm 2) "Atoms are consistent with the laws of physics. A person is made of atoms. A person is consistent with the laws of physics. This adds up nicely. It makes sense. It also breaks your insanity. Whose Insanity? How are your semantic word games evidence of “free will”? It doesn't tell a person what they have to do. It only limits their possible actions. What EXACTLY do you mean when you say TLOP [(The Laws of Physics)] isn’t telling people what to do? Aren’t “YOU” (“the people”) just your physical brain(s)? … and isn’t your physical brain simply made of atoms (chemicals) obeying the same laws that ALL chemicals obey? How are the chemicals in your brain making “decisions” or “choices” beyond those made by any other chemicals? Are you claiming that the carbon atoms in your physical body obey a different set of rules from those obeyed by other carbon atoms? What evidence or logical reason do you have for believing that these “choices” are real? Isn’t it a fact, that your “choices” are simple an illusion like the colors red, green, and blue, when the real reality is oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light? Isn’t your “free will” similarly an illusion while the real reality is that you are a puppet completely under the control of Almighty TLOP (The Laws of Physics)???" "Obey has two distinct possible meanings when applied to humans and only one reasonable meaning when applied to atoms." "When the word "obey" is used in the phrase, "obeys the laws of physics", what is more accurately meant is the phrase, "is consistent with the known laws of physics, or our understanding of physics." "The common use of the word obey can only be applied to objects that have at least some intelligence and can choose to follow an order, direction, or law. In fact, in common usage, the word obey can only properly be applied to entities that possess free will. Atom, particles, and all non intelligent entities obey the laws of physics only in the sense that the laws of physics are what we know to be possible physically. The antinym of the word obey is disobey. Disobey is deciding not to do what has been instructed." "Do we "obey the laws of physics"? In the sense that we are consistent with what is allowable in the universe, absolutely.... otherwise we would be supernatural by defintion. In the sense that we follow TLOPs commands/orders? No, it issues none to follow. Furthermore, in the common usage of the term obey (which by now you should begin to realize is an unfortunate term to use in relationship to science) requires also that the order/rule/direction come from a sentient, thinking entity as well. "The laws of physics" are not that. They are just our understanding of the way the universe it put together. They do not issue any commands for someone to drive their car off a bridge, but they describe what will happen when someone decides to try it." Source: http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-2105.html