This draft-state article explores the implications of pilot-wave theory (see) on the "big questions" in life, assuming that pilot-wave theory is indeed adequate and that the universe is deterministic on a physical level.

Pilot-wave theory is simply chaos theory taking to the particle level: the deterministic laws of nature are not out of force, but "everything interacts with everything else", so we can't see them in action because it's all a mess …

Note that pilot-wave theory requires a universe with infinite resolution for the amplitude of the pilot wave function, and potentially also infinite resolution on the time scale, as else all the observed "randomness" cannot be explained.

It might be a good imagery to thing of the universe as a three-dimensional pulsating field of energy, with mass particles being nothing but reasonably stable artifacts of energy, like the droplets in those pilot-wave droplet experiments. In the end, mass is just energy, and can be converted back to energy (even elementary particles, by combining with their antimatter particles). That energy then leads to higher local pulsing of the energy field, creating "splashes" that then again become reasonably stable artifacts of energy (particles). Not all energy is bound in particles though (see "dark energy").

Maybe Planck's constant h can be interpreted as the basic "frequency" that is applied to the energy of the universe, in analogy to the frequency to apply to the silicone oil bath in pilot-wave droplet experiments to enable stable droplets? Because h indeed influences the masses of all elementary particles that can exist. But if that's the case, who applies or applied this frequency to the universe's energy? God?

Also, if the universe is deterministic, there cannot have been a "Big Bang" causes by a random quantum fluctuation of nothing. There has to be a reason for the universe instead. That's why putting the pilot-wave theory to the test and finding out if it is true is so important.

Another interesting implication of pilot-waave theory is that the universe is deterministic, but non-predictable at the same time. Assuming that the energy field (or whatever carries the wave function of the universe) is objective reality that exists independently from God, and that God "only" implemented matter in a certain configuration with this energy on creation, it would imply that not even God can predict the course of the universe. This (somewhat silly) nothing would follow form the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: "The positions and momenta of the particles are considered to be the hidden variables. However, the observer not only doesn't know the precise value of these variables, but more importantly, cannot know them precisely because any measurement disturbs them – as stipulated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle." [source].

Assuming pilot-wave theory, the whole course of actions in the universe would be determined by the initial positions and momenta of particles. Or rather, of wave functions, as there can be empty wave functions [source]. The initial phase space of the wave functions would encode the whole history of the universe, then including the abiogenesis of life. In total, the initial states in the phase space could be randomly distributed, according to the quantum equilibrium hypothesis [source]. What is relevant is not  the distribution of phase states, but instead each individual phase state at each individual point of space. These, taken together, would be the variables that deterministically define the whole history of the universe at particle level. Or taken the other way round, by choosing a proper configuration of these (if you were God you could), you could choose any (or at least one of many different) history of the world that is possible within the laws of nature. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle would not be a limiting factor, as it just prohibits you from measuring the phase space values in action, not from setting them in the first place. But, such a clockwork universe would be a boring one … now free will!

Both pilot-wave theory and orthodox Copenhagen interpretation quantum theory are interpretations for the exact same experiment measurements. So for predicting results and for engineering, both are just as good, and preference would be a matter of style. The real difference is however the question if the universe is deterministic, or not. But even that has not too huge metaphysical interpretations, as we show below that free will is initially incompatible with both interpretations.

Can there be "free will" in a deterministic universe?

The naive notion of free will is of no use, and makes no sense. It assumes a monadic, atomic source of high-level decisions / goals, coming out of that source "out of free will" (which for an observer is equivalent to saying "for no reason", "guided by pure randomness"). Such a source, if existing, would be no useful notion of free will at all, as (1) randomness or unreasonableness that the "self" cannot influence cannot be a justification to judge the self for ethical / unethical behavior and more importantly (2) decisions are always complex results of complex processes, so you need a system to make them, not a transcendent atomic "source" that can, if anything, output a binary value.

However, there is room for a meaningful notion of "free will" even in a deterministic universe. As follows:

  • Like atoms etc. are reasonable stable energy wave patterns in the pilot wave world, memes (thought systems, visions etc.) are reasonably stable artifacts of brains. This is esp. true for "conscience", the emergent condition of "knowing, processing and understanding" enough about the world as to be able to be aware of ones own existence as part of the world, ones own options to interact with the world, and their potential outcomes.
  • Given conscience, ethical behavior is possible and can be expected as an emergence of conscience (namely as "feedfront": anticipated learning by feedback). But unethical behavior is also possible.
  • Now what causes the difference between ethical and unethical behavior in people, and is it justified to judge them / punish them based on this difference?
  • The hypothesis is here: choosing between ethical and unethical behavior is guided by "identity", a concept encompassing everything a person is. So it can be influenced by everything, including (occasionally) variations in bain chemistry that are caused by energy wave events outside of the person. However, the component that is justified to judge is the part of a person's identity that is in "thoughtspace". Namely, values, their vision of the world how they want it to be etc.. These "thoughtspace artifacts" develop slowly, over time: they are reasonably stable, isolating them from being destroyed by small external events. The hypothesis here is that "thoughtspace" is non-deterministic, because it consists of reasonably stable artifacts (thoughts etc.) that interact with other rules than the deterministic matter with which they are implemented. Means: they interact with the rules of information, which are "spiritual".
  • This above hypothesis that people "choose" to be good or bad over time is of course refuted by history: everyone chooses to be bad, to some degree. From a Christian viewpoint, people can only choose / accept to be redeemed, not to be good. But that would again be an act of "free will": the outcome depends on the person (their aggregate identity), not on any single cause that can be determined, and not based on rules that can be determined. There are patterns, but we can't explain all the variations of why this or that individual person has decided this or that way. This is largely because every case is unique, and there is no way to "repeat a life", or to simulate it so that all conditions that make it unique are incorporated. So in the end, nobody knows (also not God) how a person will decide, as there is no calculation capacity (no "parallel universe") to simulate the pilot wave conditions in for predicting the outcome. All of the universe is needed to calculate it, there's no space capacity.
  • Or even simpler: There is free will because there is conscience. Conscience implies that a person understands the world she is in, and the potential consequences of her actions, and hen acts a certain way. So to the degree that a person knew the consequences before, and could process the outcome, judging the behavior afterwards is justified. However, perfectly knowing the consequences and being able to process options perfectly would always result in perfect behavior (right?), which means that there is no justification for judging non-perfect behavior. But that logic might exactly be the logic of grace: God does not want to judge anyone for being and acting bad, as all the people were missing the light to be better … . So if God does in the end still judge people, it must mean that these people had the option to decide better (the only instance being, to accept Christ as savior). But then, how could they decide better, in a deterministic universe? Only if in "thoughtspace", there is an entity ("spirit", "heart", "moral conscience" etc.) which is self-referential and able to choose and thereby influence its own moral quality. Means, people who are evil (esp. by not accepting Christ against better knowledge) are so knowingly, and continuously, while still being able to be different.
  • The hypothesis that thoughtspace artifacts can enable non-deterministic behavior in a deterministic world can be tested by trying to create a software implementation of a conscience and trying to observe non-deterministic behavior even though letting the software start from completely identical input and adding no extra input over time and also not giving the software access to randomness. If multiple runs of that sofware lead to different results (like in reasoning, developing a vision for the world etc.), then thoughtspace is non-deterministic. It requires however (maybe) a level of intelligence on par with humans, including extensive training to understand the world. However, without random influence it is logically impossible that runs from the same starting conditions on a deterministic machine lead to non-deterministic results. So we need randomness. If both instances receive the same input as randomness, they would again lead to the same results. Which means, now results depend on the random input, not on the algorithm. And randomness cannot be called "free will". So even if quantum theory is correct and the world is fuzzy and random, there could still be no free will??
  • However, then again "being creative" is clearly an effect of free will. From that we see that, if free will should be a reasonable concept at all, it has to include both aspects of randomness (the input and inspirations that creatives seek) and reasoning (the thoughtspace activity that creates something meaningful out of the random input). This is however only the perspective of the individual: if there is no real randomness (as in pilot wave theory), then the behavior is still predetermined.
  • It seems necessary to understand the role that information plays for agency ("free will"). Human beings cannot emerge by chance, they have been created. That act of creating them changed the world. The big question is, did it change the world in a deterministic or non-deterministic manner?
  • Another approach: The question if there is free will is not relevant because God and also we ourselves would not stop judging and punishing actions even if that would not be justified. We would do it because we don't like these action and don't want them to spread. Like putting sexual offenders in jail. Or like a holy God not wanting to have community with sinners. It's against his character. Thus ultimately, judging behavior is an expression of a conflict, and does not need free will or agency. Like we pull up weeds: not because they have free will and deserve to be judged for wrongdoing, but because we don't want them to grow where they grow. From this obviously follows that there would not be any active punishment ("torture") of sinners for their wrongdoing, just being removed from God's presence. And to be fair, it would have to be annihilation, or at least a bearabe mixture of good and bad as on earth. Also, this approach makes the ultimate question not about free will, but about why the world did not stay holy as God wanted it to be. The question is about the origin of evil then! (And really, who needs "real" free will, if we can be creative and have fun doing so.) Without free will, the world could indeed be seen as a war of evil against good, each side having seemly limited (or self-limited?) options in that war, and trying to win it. Both good and evil would be "contagious".
  • So, what about the origin of evil? The Bible does not really give an answer, since the story of the Fall of Satan is very figurative and could mean something else (it talks about a certain historic king in the first place, anyway). Potentially, Satan ("evil") is eternal just as God ("good") is. Or potentially, the origin of evil is the only non-deterministic event that ever happened, and is a mystery even to God …
  • But anyway, interpreting judging and punishment as war (without free will) rather than moral act (for an act of free will) does not help either, as war in a deterministic (rather: materialistic) world is not a meaningful concept: there would not be a will to war, just the ticking of a clockwork …
  • Another way of introducing free will into the Copenhagen interpretation quantum theory is (perhaps) to claim that the mind acts like
  • Of course, materialists will always argue that there is still no free will because its thought processes are implemented deterministically, or with randomness elements at best. Perhaps this is true in the sense that it allows to refute the idea that the free will we observe in ourself could ever have appeared via evolution: there has to be free will at the start to continue having free will. (But if so, how do we explain that newly conceived human beings obviously acquire their free will at some point?)
  • So the big question is, after all: does matter drive the mind, or does mind drive matter? From neurological studies (effects of drugs etc.) it is apparent that matter drives the mind at least in part. But also on the overall, highest level of "consciousness"? Because apparently, I can move a finger when I want it … means, mind drive matter, right? To reconcile this intuitive notion of free will with physics (in whatever interpretation of quantum theory) it could be argued that the mind becomes gradually independent from matter, and being able to drive matter rather than the other way round, by learning more about matter. That is, by understanding the world around you. With an operationally complete understanding of the world, the word has a full (or sufficiently full) representation in the mind, which allows detailed simulations in thoughtspace (though processes, decision making etc.) before then implementing them in the real world. This capacity to reason about the world, including both creativity and repeated self-feedback of results, would be the way how "free will" is implemented. It can be considered free even if individual thought processes are deterministic, since humans tend to think something over multiple times, each time starting from a slightly different starting point (even if the variation is just more or less hunger etc.) and to come up with different results accordingly. And then, to valuate these results, and that is where the freedom comes in. Because the decision for one of the alternative options is not based on randomness or simple determinism, but on an understanding of the different options. Understanding is a spiritual activity, in thoughtspace, even though implemented in matter. The algorithm for it is non-deterministical as it includes feedback: "try to understand until you understand".
  • Possibly, relativistic effects (what is considered instantaneous from which point of view) introduce non-determinism without randomness, and thus the opportunity for free will, into a pilot-wave theory universe?

In the end, it is obvious that we don't know anything …

The most interesting idea from this discourse is the brazen (because logically impossible) hypothesis that conscious information systems (human brains) could derive non-deterministic results from deterministic input and with deterministic means. If we can prove that experimentally, it is for certain that history even in a deterministic pilot-theory universe is not boring at all 🙂 Because people could enact these non-deterministic results of their thoughspace processes, introducing non-determinism into the physical space. However, this question if deterministic brains can produce non-deterministic results is well-known in philosoph aready, and still debated [source].

The other interesting finding here is that both orthodox quantum theory (with real randomness) and pilot-theory (with full determinism) have no obvious or non-obvious but proven space for free will. If you want to uphold free will (or the idea of spirit, relationships, contact to God etc.) you have to dive into physics and find the blind spot.

In your twenties, you were a visionary. You wanted to learn it all, and fix it all. All the world.

Ever realized that you cannot do everything that is meaningful in your life? When you dedicate your life to help people with HIV, you can't go find a cure for HIV. Or find the quantum gravity model. Or develop sustainable government. Or find out and teach us all about the Transcendental and God (if you find there is God). Or clean up all the landmines. Or the ocean plastic. Or invent a fair-for-all mode for economic exchange. Or this. That.

Because your lifetime is limited.

And then you realize, it would be great to at least achieve one of these. And then you focus on that one.

And then you realize, you have neither time or money for even one of these meaningful contributions (… contributions to what, actually?). Because your parents might be old, needing your help. Or you made children, just like everyone else, and now have to care for them. Or you got fired from your job, the bank took your house, and now you're living in a tent. That you found in that garbage can. It's just a tarp actually. Or you get medical conditions, so you can be happy to make it through the day.

Because your lifetime is limited.

And then you realize, your life will pass and end as meaningless as everyone else's life. And life, what is life? It then seems like a meaningless aggregates of matter to you. You, yourself, just a bunch of atoms, with your conscience an unnecessary (and unpleasant) emergence of it.

And you start to enjoy that your lifetime is limited, not your limited lifetime.

Stop that.

Now, come back to your visions.

Just change one thing: it should be no longer your vision, now it's ours. Humanity's. We are all in our twenties again.

Everyone who has given up on seeking, and expecting to see, the abolition of greed, poverty and evil, and the introduction of immortality and freedom for all, has given up living while alive. Seek, and expect, again. Because now we seek, and expect, together. You were frustrated by your powerlessness as an individual. Now marvel at what seven billion can do. And what God will do, if there is a God, and seven billion seek him.

Yes, you should expect and seek God, because there might be God after all. But do not forget all the rest of what is good. Physical immortality. Good governance structures. Unextinction of animals. Desert forests. The Theory of Everything. Space colonization. So much before us!

Now what? It's all about how we organize. If your grandma cooks a simple healthy meal for scientists working on quantum gravity, she contributes. If you read news about political quarrels, visit touristic spots from your hard-earned surplus money, engage in any avoidable consumption, you do not.

Wake up, all of us!

The pieces are coming together already. Take note, organize yourselves, contribute. Some inspirations? Here you go:

And of course: Are we alone in the universe? What does it all mean? Are we sure about this? Why? Re-asking the big questions is probably one of our biggest challenged. Us modern folks got so used to the scientific storied of Big Bang, cosmic evolution, and biologic evolution. And now, scientific evolution comes along and puts to question the very concept of space-time. And with it, the existing notion of Big Bang.

Now, what?

screenshot of the "Passage" video game

Somehow I managed to miss this weird artful open source little computer game Passage since 2007; but I got a tip to it today (thanks, Jasmine!). Let me propose you to watch this 5 minute full walkthrough of Passage. Or even better, install the game and play it yourself. It will take 5 minutes, too. (Don't read ahead in the post … we only have something to talk here if we talk after you know the game 😉 )

You can also watch this on YouTube: "PASSAGE: the sweetest game I've ever played.." by sparrowmella.

What you think, readers?

It makes me think a lot … . How this cute girl (sparrow) in the above walkthrough has no idea what this game is all about, but finds out while playing and even is happy enough to find "her friend". And how it all does not matter in the end, with just the two tumbstones and a score remaining. There's not even a scoreboard that would keep track of this for surpassing it in the next round … . So it does not matter either that sparrow did not really find out how to make scores in the game.

Passage is the Memento mori art form in computer games. Let me quote some words from the explanatory Creator's Statement of Jason Rohrer:

"Yes, you could spend your five minutes trying to accumulate as many points as possible, but in the end, death is still coming for you. Your score looks pretty meaningless hovering there above your little tombstone. […] Passage is a game in which you die only once, at the very end, and you are powerless to stave off this inevitable loss." [Jason Rohrer: "What I was trying to do with Passage"].

And ohh … the emotions. sparrow's walkthrough is really authentic about that, from "Yay, I have a friend!" to losing the friend at the end … and I had to snuff myself then. This seems to be quite common with this game "There have been a number of people who have written stuff about this being the first videogame to make them cry, says [the game’s author] Mr. Rohrer." [source]. Why is that? In my humble opinion, because the game reminds us of a truth that we like to hide, ridicule, forget or ignore. That everything good here is going to be lost, and will not count anyway. That we are all going to die and are powerless to avoid it.

"“Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher; “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” What does man gain from all his labor in which he labors under the sun? One generation goes, and another generation comes; but the earth remains forever." [The Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:2-4]

So now that we’ve grown up, and started to work for money, we finally start to ask ourselves: Wherefore should we live then? We see most people choose to live for children, and some choose to live for themselves instead. The former have children and no money, the latter have money to spend and no children.

Now, these both ways to live life could not stop the deterioration of Western societies, which started in (say) the mid 1990’s and is in good full swing as of 2011. It’s not the technichal challenges of more scarce resources that we face, or the dangers of unregulated greed (in the financial markets and at home). The real, real problem is that in a land of Cockaigne like this, parents can never succeed to transfer their builder mindset (of postponed consumption, investment, hope, betterment) to their children and grandchildren. These will find out that near everything can be had without work, and will get too comfortable to even be interested, to desire to learn, and to be creative. It’s bad with the children and worse with the grandchildren. Call it decadence.

Now what? Let’s doubt that taking part in decadence is never a life lived for what’s adequate, whether you have children more decadent than you, or no children, being decadent yourself. Instead, there has to be a life to be lived against decadence. Successfully. What do we need for that?

The new, new frontier. The US could only start to become decadent where the frontier for settlement had passed, leaving civilization, but without vision and without tasks. Of course, people found something to improve and to do during some of the following generations, but finally even that faded. There was something like a last try to remedy this by calling the race for the moon the “new frontier”. Nice try, but itself influenced by decadence: Is space travelling really the first thing that comes to mind when you think of “task” and “vision”?

What we need is the new, new frontiere. And then the new, new, new one. And so on. We need eternal pioneering. Look around and see that the world is in nearly no place as it should be. Sahara is a desert, the Congo struck by malaria, all of Africa by Aids, and much of the world by wrong belief systems. Just for the start. And we Westerners dare to say we see no tasks at hand, when questioning ourselves how to recreate vision and zeal in our society, or when questioning ourselves what to do with the >20% jobless in southern Europe? And then people dare to get on the idea that adding another child or two or three to already 7 000 000 000 people on Earth is a proper reason to live for, even though its more-than-apparent that even more people will even intensify the problems and resource conflicts on this planet?

Let’s get practical: we know how to do military operations, with respect to human resources. People get “deployed” in groups of several hundreds to some battlefield overseas, for some 6-8 months maybe. Then they are exchanged by a new group, and themselves go back to their home country to refresh and prepare again for their next deployment in another 6-8 months. Let’s take this over to all kinds of development aid. Because this is attributing the right role to civilization and homes: a place of refreshment and preparation for your “mission”.

Specifically, I propose to create settlements of ca. 4000 people, who travel to overseas development assistance deployments in groups of 1000. As this is no military operation, this can and should include the whole families (children can get schooled underway). The people at home would work to support them, from logistics to medical care etc.. As in military deployments, there will have to be like 4-5 (minimum) immediate support people behind everybody on a mission, and even more so working for money for these missions. But in any case, everybody’s goal should be to go on deployment (and if only for 6 in 36 months), being the reward for year-long support work.

Some ideas for specific missions:

  • Re-afforest the whole of Sahara. Yea, we had that above. Just plant the trees, it’s good for the planet 🙂
  • Build some big islands, or enlarge others. Having more land in nice climate is always a good thing. Why, for heaven’s sake, would people want to live in Siberia while there’s an island waiting for them?
  • Eradicate AIDS.
  • Eradicate malaria.
  • Eradicate hemorrhagic fevers. And all those other infection sicknesses.
  • We want the rain forest back where it was!
  • We want whales back, and the Indian elephant in big numbers, and all these other lovely creatures. Isn’t it somewhat … heavily self-conceited, that we allow 7 billion humans on Earth and reduced many of the other  creatures to just some thousands per species?
  • Yea and finally, once we repaired and tidied up the Earth, there are other planets to travel to. Yet, first things first!

Remember what the Lord God said after the deluge: spread and multiply and fill the Earth. But Josephus says, the people wanted to stay together in one location, building Babylon and its towever as their central collection point. Yet God wanted them to go and colonize the Earth, he wanted them to pioneer – maybe because of the danger of rapid decadence, should they stay together in all their civilization? So he had to mix up their language …

Pioneering never ends. It must not end, as it’s a crucial ingredient for human mental health.

So what makes life interesting? The answer is ludicrously simple: emotions. Mainly the positive ones. But not exclusively, because people maiinly want to be entertained by emotion to lead an interesting life, and just on top of that want a good life (and both interests sometimes even conflict). This desire for emotions is behind much of people’s activity to make their own life interesting:

  • starting a romantic relationship
  • starting a romantic relationship with somebody else
  • “involuntarily” creating relationship drama in ones life, with mixed joy and sadness
  • watching movies
  • reading novels; this allows to experience deep emotions (deeper and more faceted than in movies), without the danger and effort of undergoing these experiences in real life
  • extreme sports
  • meditation, prayer, church going: for many, this is just for the sake of the emotions experienced therein
  • listening to and creating music
  • travelling, which triggers emotions of surprise and curiosity etc.
  • scientific research, which feeds curiosity
  • dealing with and marveling at beautiful objects, plants, animals and people
  • engaging in flirting and courting, including dancing etc.
  • engaging in erotic and sexual activity
  • behavior and accomplishments that feed ones pride and self-esteem

The new (at least, new for me) aspect in the above rationale is: people do not do something, in the first instance, because they are motivated by emotion; instead, they are motivated by the desire to experience emotion. That is a hypothesis that has to be checked by psychological experiments of course, but let’s go a step further and for the rest of this article just assume that it is proven correct already …

From a Christian perspective, one can even argue that emotions have been created by God in order to make life interesting for us. At least we can say, God did not create human beings in a way that enables them to easily undergo emotional boredness for any non-trivial amount of time; such an experience is always a time of suffering for a human being.

To master life, everybody has to develop tools and techniques to trigger emotions which let one experience “interestingness of life”. Because, in many cases such emotions are not triggered by ones current circumstances of life on their own. In a modern world, people’s circumstances of life are mostly just plain boring, esp. for poor and otherwise restricted people.

Yesterday, I discussed with a friend how God does help this world.
The alternatives were these:

  1. That God helps “only” from eternal condemnation. With respect to our life in this world this would only be a theoretical concept, as condemnation happens after this life. Christian people would just know that people are infinitely bad, which would keep them from getting disappointed again by others or themselves. But there would be no way to change this in this world.
  2. God would, at times, let good things happen in the outside world. Or they might happen because God kept the outside world from deteriorationg completely, so that a remains of glory is still in it. In any case, people should be grateful if this happens, and not think that it is their “right” to experience such good and rightful events. Because after all, we live in a fallen world.
  3. God would, probably in addition to the prior alternative, help people to deal with their defects of personality, by helping them overcome, manage or work around these on a case-by-case basis. This would keep people from thinking that they “finally learned something”, and thus keep them from pride. They would know that they cannot handle their defects in the future without the immediate help of God. This constant dependency would be a positive thing, though: experiencing God’s help frequently would be something that keeps the relationship to God warm and active.
  4. Like before, but God would mainly try to educate his children to permanently overcome their character defects, by acquiring better character. This would be in parallel to how parents educate their children and teach them new qualifications, and are happy when they get it and finally can live on their own. As children of great character, these would however also be thankful and not proud, knowing that they did not teach themselves, and could never have done so (because as evildoers, they did not want to!).

We agreed that alternative 2 is true, and discussed whether the rest is rather like 3 or 4. The difference of opinion probably is rooted in different images of humanity. If you think that you will always need God’s supernatural power to do good, you think that some supernatural part went missing in the Fall, rendering people unable to even learn  to be good again. (The supernatural part might also be thought as a male sex-linked genetic disease, as it was not present in Jesus who was born from Mary and the Holy Spirit, so not including a man …) If you, however, think that original sin is rather something like the fall of our collective mind, by learning from bad example, to a state where self-education towards the good is impossible for us humans: then you can agree with alternative 4 and think that God can teach us to be good (in principle, but not coming to an end in our lifetime).

If you agree with alternative 4, you might think that “spirit” is another word for “mind” or “brain program”, and that “receiving the Holy Spirit” is a term for the influence of God’s mind (which does not depend in matter implementation in a brain) on our mind. Which not necessarily involves changing our brain content (that would be a miracle in the physical world each time). Because, there might already be an interface prepared for the Holy Spirit, where it can connect to and add “external mind power” (motivation, love etc.) to our brain; like pushing it to an altered, higher state, not unlike the way soem drugs do it. (Note that, then, there might also be an interface for demons …).

These are some philosophical, speculative ramblings about how the human spirit works and how the Holy Spirit interacts with it.

Knowing ones ability to do evil (like murdering someone) is not doing evil. And suffering the temptation to do evil (like murdering someone as the seemingly easiest solution) is not doing evil either. One could argue that knowing ones ability to do evil, combined with logical thinking, is a specific kind of temptation; because sometimes, an evil act seems desirable to the logical mind.

The problem is, resisting temptation needs a mental effort of “good will”, and the human abilitiy to be successful here is simply limited. Temptation consumes “positive moral energy”, and if all is used up, man starts to do evil acts. That’s why people are seen to be “good” under normal conditions, but start to be evil when under stress. See also Mk 7:20-21.

So what man needs is a constant, super-human source of positive moral energy. Jesus can be said to have possessed this source: he was tempted for 40 days under extreme physical stress, and did not give in; that’s clearly super-human.
I assume that the Holy Spirit is this external, super-human source of positive moral energy. When “having” the Holy Spirit, it should probably happen that a “good thought” pops up in ones mind without one having produced it with from ones own good will. That is, such a though would pop up without consuming good will (“positive moral energy”).

Further, we should assume that such a thought has the same physical appearance in the bran as a though created by ones own good will; because it “feels” no different. This does however not mean that a miracle is implied here that contradicts the natural laws. It’s supernatural, but the law of conservation of energy is probably intact. Because, brain activity is a statistical process, including much random activity. So to create a thought in our mind, the Holy Spirit coordinates the quantum probabilities of neurons so that this thought emerges, where otherwise would have been just noise.