update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

I already answered your questions. You reasoned there were alternatives, I said why the one alternative was realized is a subjective issue. The science part is just finding the decisions and the alternatives they are deciding.

Yes I do believe toothbrushes make decisions, that they anticipate their future. And thats because if toothbrushes didnt decide then you would have the even weirder situation that toothbrushes are same as light, that they are in a state of alternatives, called the wave state with light, and that a decider can decide their state for them. Its been established that small molecules dont decide their own state, just like light. So that is observation against toothbrushes deciding.You should think more about the signifucance of freedom. If you have many balls on your computerscreen bouncing of each other, and one ball acts freely by your choice, your control, then all balls act according to your choice. So to say if freedom is real, then it is fundamental for everything in the universe.

I brought up the good and evil bit because I know from experience that people who have some kind if science of good and evil have a hard time understanding and accepting theories about freedom. And you have to admit i established he did in fact have a science theory about good and evil, even if slight.

Its a point of principle, and its an important principle, we dont make science about good and evil, and that includes the absence if benevolence in coffecups, as some kind of scientific fact. I suspect Straggler has much more of this kind of science, ive seen that all before. But ok, since he dropped it, we should simply accept the principle and proceed.

I dont particularly know what decisions, i assume a toothbrush degrades of its own accord, and can do so in alternative ways. Ive seen the trajectory of light being decided, and Ive seen the theory about molecules shaking about, so i have no problem believing that a toothbrush decides because actually a toothbrush is animate of its own accord in sime aspects.

I think Dubois anticipation theory is going to make it in science, thats kind of inevitable with the technical applicability of it. I only see incomprehensible hostility to theories about freedom on the part of you all, not like you have some other math and observations about freedom of any kind to offer. You are all simply against knowledge about freedom, which is terrible.

I would take the 3 as an indication of a little freedom in the system yes.There are many predictions possible based on theory of freedom, such as that with equal starting conditions you get different results.

I think you are mistaken in that chaos theory does not involve indeterminacy according to the standard interpretation.As far as I know in standard quantum theory the decision is with the observer (or actually the issue of decisionmaking is fudged with the scientist as an observer, as explained before 50/50 uncertainty of the scientist, instead of indeterminacy of the system itself), and therefore there is no indeterminacy in quantum theory.In any case I fail to understand your objections then. If it is acting indeterminately as you say, then toothbrushes can act alternative ways.And let's not forget that toothbrushes here means the entire inanimate universe every starsystem etc. That supposedly it could have turned out alternative ways of it's own accord.

I'm inclined to believe so, since love has preference over hate, in common judgement. Again, it just seems you have some sort of science of good and evil.

When you put an observation - or measurement device on light in a wavestate, then the wave does not collapse. So it is not observation that is key, but decision. But like I said, this issue is dropped with the observer in quantum theory, and there fudged.

Unfortunately I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. You seem to be insisting that paperclips are not capable of love, and that this is some kind of scientific fact, that the love-o-meter turns to zero when pointed at a paperclip.

It is not strict evidence that it is free, but neither do you present strict evidence that it isnt. You can use anticipation theory to determine the question precisely, if or not it is free.

The observer is most definitely making a decision. An observation, and measurement device doesnt work, but a deciding device does work.

The way I tell which is right and which is wrong is, evidence of freedom from direct experience, practical common knowledge about freedom formalized to general principles about freecom, see if it works, and if it works better then the other.I think anybody exploring the issue reasonably this way will generally come to the conclusion that freedom is real and fundamental in the universe. And besides it is evidenced by an influential professor. I suppose if you want to be scientific about it, you should learn hyperincursive math. But your lack of acknowledgement of freedom is not reasonable to begin with considering direct evidence from experience, and the structure of practical knowledge about freedom. Alternatives are in the future according to experience and common knowledge, it is unthinking and unreasonable to posit them as being in the brain, which is rather the real opposing theory. Its as if writing opton a and option b on pieces of paper, and then say that such are the actual alternatives. This theory is mainstream in science now.

Start evidencing as follows:Your experience of freedom is not consistent with cause and effect theory, because there are no alternatives in the future in cause and effect theory, but direct experience says otherwise.Then continue evidencing as outlined before.