update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

Obviously it is testable, but it's not neccessarily the case that it would lead to a different result as GR. The paper said the equations of GR are obtained from applying Newtonian gravity in an anticipatory way, so that GR is inherent to Newtonian gravity. The difference as mentioned three times already is probably that a probalistic aspect of GR is converted into freedom of the system.So throwing heads or tails probalisticly leads to 50/50 observation of heads or tails, the observer being the scientist, but in anticapatory terms the coin flipping system observes itself, it decides it's own state, but the result is basically the same.So the difference would be that according to anticipatory theory the planet orbits even without scientists observing / deciding it. Light does not do this, light needs a decider to determine it's trajectory, and otherwise it remains in a state of alternatives.

Syamsu, So how is it testable? So how is it testable?As far as I can see you are proposing something that is exactly the same as existing physical laws.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

It is testable if or not the planet behaves the same way as light, particle wave duality etc. It doesn't as far as I know.

What rule are you talking about?
Science can certainly aid our understanding of these things even if it might not directly be able to help us experience them. As I have repeatedly argued my objection to anticipation theory and freedom as you have described them are due to the fact that the logical consequences of the theory obviously contradict the observed evidence. The theory leads to the insane conclusion that paper bags, planets, feather dusters, electrons (and all other inanimate objects) are "deciding" to act as if they obey the laws of physics rather than actually obeying them. Sheer lunacy. The relative value that you personally place on human lives vs rocks is a matter for your conscience. I would be a little worried for your sanity if you did decide that rocks were of greater worth than human lives but science has little to do with the values you decide upon.Anticipation theory is unscientific because the logical consequences of the theory predict that inanimate objects should be free to disobey the laws of physics. Observation quite obviously refutes this prediction. I do place greater value on the lives of human beings as compared to rocks but I don't claim any direct scientific basis for this. It is a personal moral choice on my part (although evolutionary psychology might have something to say on the matter )You seem to be accusing me of being an inanimatist!!
I look forward to your empassioned "Equal rights for rocks" speech in the near future.Just to be clear: Are you saying that as a consequence of freedom theory you consider rocks and humans to be of equal value?Just to be clear: My objections to freedom theory are based on the fact it is obvious bollocks and have nothing to do with any anti-rock prejudice or hateful inanimatist tendancies on my part.

What probablistic aspect of GR are you talking about?

Then how is it testable?
Why do "free" objects "choose" to act as predicted by GR? GR makes numerous predictions regarding observable phenomenon. Numerous predictions regarding various phenomenon that have been tested and verified. Anticipation theory has made no predictions and passed no tests. Attempting to hijack the knowledge and understanding gained through GR and pass it off as some sort of evidence for anticipation theory is dishonest in the extreme.Making theories fit known facts is an easy game.
Predicting new observable facts from incorrect theories is almost impossible. That is why prediction is the gold standard of scientific testing.
I can devise a theory that says that a great magical unicorn creator controls the universe with his mathematical wand. I can make this fit all known facts. However I am unlikely to be able to predict any new facts or make any new discoveries on the basis of this theory because ultimately it is nonsense.Anticipation theory, ID and creationaism make no predictions and result in no new discoveries because, like my magic unicorn theory, they are nonsensical rubbish dressed up to look like science. Why do coins invariably "decide" to obey the laws of probability and physics? Why do coins not "choose" to land on their sides rather than face-up or down? Why does light need a decider but a planet not?
What constitutes a "decider" (i.e. what makes something able to be a decider?)
What happens in the absence of deciders?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you now claiming that as well as having the ability to make decisions inanimate objects are also capable of love?How do you account for the physiological aspects of emotions (including love) if these things are divorced from the physical?Have you ever heard of the mind body problem?

The question was raised in the thread if or not the loss of vitiman c production could have turned out differently. Now obviously this is a reasonable question open to scientific enquiry. Was there freedom in the system, was there actually an alternative possible that the gene would persist.And then according to creationism the question why the one was decided on instead of the other is a matter of judgement, which can only be discovered subjectively. By doctrine of reasonable judgement for instance, or common judgement, etc. and most highest in light of the doctrine of God the creator of the universe.We cant so much account for physiology of emotions, we can just see rhythms in decision sequences. We should not infer love, fear etc. objectively, we can just use reasonable judgement to establish them and not have to assert any objectivity for the spiritual. And you know it is hopeless to strictly classify emotions according to expression, ie crying when sad, and crying when happy.

You have yet again failed to answer a single question or address a single point made against the theory you are supporting.Question: If freedom is true as described by you why are relatively simple physical systems able to be described and predicted by science so accurately? What restrictions are there upon the freedoms of such systems such that they obey these laws so closely?Do you really not see the observed and tested complete lack of freedoms with regard to simple physical systems as a challenge to anticipation theory?

Its no surprise the things follow the laws so closely since the things basically consist of such laws, with an anticapatory element added to it. There is no such complete lack of freedom observed, I think you are just confused that an object going left or right is basically the same freedom as a person going left or right. That freedom is fundamentally a spiritual thing, not a brain thing.

Sorry this is not the question I asked you. See below for the actual question. Obviously the loss of vitamin c production could have turned out differently since other mammals have the ability to produce it. FAIL. You cannot answer my question. All you can do is invoke God in a science thread.
Most of what you said is just nonsense.
I think what you are trying to say is God judged that we do not need to produce our own vitamin c.
If that is the case, you are now arguing that THERE IS NO FREEDOM GOD CONTROLS ALL.
You are also saying that God wanted us to suffer scury.
Tangent: Did you know the name for vitamin c ,ascorbic acid, is from the word for scurvy, scorbuticus

Syamsu, So way back in message 65 when Straggler (I think) asked how gravity could be anticipatory & you threw out Mercury's orbit as an example, it turns out not to be?You could have saved us a lot of time by admitting you didn't knowMark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

So simple physical systems are not free at all then?
Planets have no choice but to follow orbits, the stability of the solar system is due purely to the laws of physics etc. etc. etc. That is what you are saying? But planets cannot choose to go left or right can they?
That is the point.
Planets and other inanimate objects that form simple physical systems follow predictable patterns with no freedom to do anything else but follow the patterns predicted by the laws of physics. You canot have it both ways.
You cannot say simple physical systems are free to make the same decisions that complex brain owning organisms quite evidently do whilst also stating that such systems will never deviate from predictable paths.That is your folly and that is why freedom theory is so evidently nonsensical.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I was just pointing out, for the hundredth time or so, that scientists must be subjective about why questions. That is the rule in science, you cannot make objective statements about good and evil, and that means you cannot make objective statements about why one instead of the other alternative is realized in a choice.The Mercury perhelion was described with anticipation theory. For the 5th time, it's probably so that probalistic aspects of GR are translated into freedom of the system in anticipation theory. So GR does not neccesarily give exact predictions in the first place.Now if you all could just remember these things:
- alternatives are in the future
- the act of realizing an alternative is a decision
- it is not possible to make objective statements about why one or the other alternative is realizedFor people who quite evidently have no theoretical framework to fall back on for as far as knowledge about freedom is concerned, you learned nothing about it in school or college, you should all present a more studious attitude.

You sir(or madam), are delusional. The rule in science is YOU CANNOT MAKE ANY STATEMENTS AT ALL ABOUT GOOD AND EVIL. They dont belong in science, they belong in philosophy.Rubbish, unless you can show otherwise. Try to answer Message 101 You learned nothing in school about freedom either. You cannot explain it here. You continue to spout off rubbish. You should present some evidence of freedom pushing aside natural selection or concede that you cannot and take this freedom back to philosophy or religious studies.