update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

That's true for the scientific community that it is a minority view that freedom is real, but for the rest of people almost all believe freedom is real. So to say in reference to my previous example, people in general do actually believe that they really could have gone left alternatively, and also believe that things like the weather on a given day could have really turned out differently etc.Can you reference any of this overwhelming evidence that contradicts freedom is real ?

Sorry, used up my "response to nonsense" time for the day. Got to get some work done.Try a google and see what the responses have been to that "freedom" idea. Has it caught on or is it being widely ignored?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What you find on google is a lot of philosophy about it, but I would be surprised to find any evidence that contradicts freedom is real, since science proved that it is real.So rather then overwhelming evidence that contradicts it, there is actually no evidence that contradicts it, but just little scientific evidence to support it.But again, why be so emotionally uptight, and defensive about it? We directly experience freedom in our daily lives, so then comes a theory which scientifically validates what we already know to be true, so then where is the fuss?

I was asking these questions in a genuine attempt to find out about this theory of yours. I don't even know what a 'brainist' is never mind whether or not I am one.
I may well have some arguments against your theory (quite probably given our very different positions on the wider EvC debate). However that remains to be seen. At the moment I am simply trying to understand what your position actually is. If you are going to be defensive and arsey about it before any position has even been stated on my part then I won't bother any further. If you are willing to answer the questions then I will.I ask again -What does ID have to do with any of this?
Are you saying that brains are not required to make decisions?
In the absence of conscious intelligence (i.e. in a material universe prior to humans or other evolved intelligences) what are the claims of this theory?
Or does it only apply once conscious intelligence is introduced?
What is a brainist exactly?It's up to you. If you don't want to explain the theory I will just leave it well alone.

I mean the regular concept of freedom, as in "I can go left, or right", and then formalized into a general principle.- alternatives in the future
- a decision is the act of realizing the one alternative discarding the other
- historical time is a sequence of decisions
- the decision comes from nothing, ie there is no brain, or knowledge, or any substance or process at the origin, there is instead nothing
- what makes a decision is in the spiritual domain, only subjective notions of love and such are validFor the science of it look to the original posting, and the references from there.There is no point in answering all your questions since I'm sure we disagree on the most fundamental notions of freedom, that alternatives are in the future instead of the brain.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

So do inanimate objects make "decisions"?Does the Earth "choose" to orbit the Sun?
Does the sun "choose" to exert a gravitational pull on the Earth?
Can the Earth choose not to orbit the Sun? Can the Sun "choose" not to exert a gravitational pull on the Earth?If there is no choice what freedoms actually exist for such objects?Do microscopic entities such as electrons have these freedoms and thus "choices"?
If so how does this theory of freedom fit in with quantum mechanical predictions (which are experimentally accurate to an unparallelled degree)Are inanimate objects obeying physical laws over which they have no "choice" but to follow or can they "choose" to disobey such laws?I may have got totally the wrong end of the stick regarding what you are saying but it seems to me that the fact that there are physical laws which we can repeatedly demonstrate suggests that unconscious inanimate objects have no "choices" available to them and thus no freedom in the sense you seem to be implying.

Basicly decision replaces the role of causes in science, so yes everything is decided, just as everything was thought to be caused previously.I suppose it is easiest explained in math, that you take alternative values for future times, so for instance the alternative values for some property of a thing at times t+1=3 and t+1'=4. But then the thing itself also computes it's state with past and present times t0=4, t-1=6.As different from mainstream science today, where it is only the scientist that computes and not the thing itself, and the scientist computes only with past, and sometimes present values, but not future values.So the role of decision is that by it the thing itself acts, it computes it's next state. If we go by mainstream science then the thing itself does not act, the only act is the start of the universe and the thing is merely an effect of that act. That is because you get an infinite regression of causes, this thing whas caused by that, which was caused be the other, and so on, until you get to the start of universe.That becomes more clear in an information view of things. If we take a cause and effect view then all the information is in the past, and does not increase or decrease. If we put in the value for property x into a law of nature at time 0, then automatically we get the value for x at all other times, because we can use the value of x at time 0 together with the law to calculate the values of x at all those other times. So there is no new information. But if instead things act of themselves, then the decision which alternative they realize is new information in the universe which cannot be calculated beforehand.And ofcourse besides this deciding, there is also a process of creating the future alternatives in the first place.

Your own statement shows why this idea has little substance. Just thew fact that a large portion of the population believes in something doesn't give any more creedence to the idea than if only a few believein it. The has to be proof that the idea is sound not simply that people believe it. Just the fact that many people believe in ghosts, astrology,
and extra terrestrials doesn't mean that theses are real, just that some poeple will believe things without proof ie. faith.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

All of this would seem to imply that there are no laws of physics at all. Is that correct?If, for example, planets have no "choice" but to orbit the sun (i.e. they obey the laws of physics as we know them) then they have no freedom regarding future motion and thus their future is based upon their past and present (i.e. is caused rather than decided) No? If the future values are fixed and unchanging as a result of the present and prior values what difference does it make whether the scientist computes them, the inanimate object computes them(!?) or nothing at all computes them?Given that we can use the laws of physics to make accurate, repeatable and long term predictions regarding the material world (orbits of planets, decay of atoms etc etc. etc.) the idea of freedom that you are proposing would seem to have been refuted before it had even been proposed.Does freedom theory not directly contradict all of the known and experimentally verified laws of physics?
If so, does not our ability to use the laws of physics to predict the future states of systems (orbitting planets, decaying atoms etc. etc. etc.) completely refute any idea of freedom with regard to inanimate unconscious objects?If the Earth orbits the sun in a manner consistent with the known laws of physics and has no "choice" but to do so how does freedom theory apply at all to this system?

No the opposite, anticipation theory says that the laws of the universe have an independent existence, it is more or less what the object consists of, instead of that the laws of the universe describe objects. Like I said, the thing itself computes.I think you can well see how much more probable it is that the solar system is stable if it isn't solely tied to initial conditions increasingly further away.Or if there was a slight push in one direction, from a comet for instance, then there isn't any possible way to return to stability, and the planet would fly off. But with decisions, then if there is a push in a particular direction, then it is possible to return to stable orbit.And we observe variation in orbits, the orbits are not as absolute as you make them out to be. Indeed if the orbit was off the slightest of a millimeter, then conceptually your entire argument collapses.So to say it is theoretically possible to get stability from freedom, but it doesn't seem theoretically possible to get freedom from force.

Independent of what? Consist of? At the macroscopic level, microscopic level or both? An electron is....what according to anticipation theory? A planet is....what according to anticipation theory? Are you claiming that if anticipation theory is not true you would expect to see no stable systems? Are any systems truly stable given a large enough timeframe? If not where does this leave anticipation theory? Are you claiming that a planet "chooses" to temporarily violate the laws of physics in order to acheive stability under certain circumstances? E.g correcting it's orbit after being deflected by a comet? Do you have any actual evidence of this? How?
Surely the fact that orbits do ultimately decay, systems do become unstable and entropy always increases tells us that physical systems are not actually "deciding" anything and are not stabilising themselves in the way that you seem to be claiming? It seems to be possible only if we accept that the laws of physics as we know them are temporarily overturned such that inanimate objects can "decide" to do something that is contrary to the laws of physics.
Planets can "decide" to enter stable orbits despite external forces acting on them to do otherwise for example.
Presumably unstable atoms can "decide" not to decay?
However I am unaware of any evidence whatsoever for any such occurrances.You have also completely failed to explain why it is that the laws of physics do hold in so far as we can predict physical phenomenon. Why do inanimate objects "choose" to obey such laws (both those that lead to stability and those that lead to instability of systems) whenever we conduct experiments on them?More importantly under what circumstance can we observe them "choosing" not to obey these laws? That would be the ultimate test of anticipation theory would it not?

Hi, Syamsu.Straggler beat me to most of the stuff I wanted to say, but I still have one thing left. Are you suggesting that the "exogenous" laws typically used by physicists are not successful at predicting or explaining the behavior that they see in physical objects? Where do you see discrepancies?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Variation is observed everywhere in nature, indicating freedom. For example variation in orbits.It is not as though we have to measure the position of the moon a single time, and can then extrapolate the position of the moon at all future times. We actually measure it again, and again. And you can make excuses that it is too complex to measure accurately to full precision, but then why don't you allow for the obvious alternative to this science of excuses, that there is some measure of freedom in the system? Why is freedom excluded without investigation?In my opinion the direct experience of freedom constitutes sufficient evidence for it. I completely fail to understand people that deny their direct experience of it. What is the point in that?

Well orbits and other such physical phenomenon can be predicted to extremely high degrees of accuracy using current scientific understanding........but lets put that to one side for a moment.Lets see where this anticipation theory as you describe it actually takes us.The obvious test here would be to induce the conditions under which anticipaton theory predicts that variation from known physical laws will occur and then observe these effects.Thus anticipaion theory should be able to make testable predictions with verifiable results that are different to those predicted by current, cause and effect based, scientific understanding. Do you agree?The laws of thermodynamics, Newtons laws of motion, QM, GR etc. etc. etc. should all show conditions under which they are violated if anticipation theory is true. No?What, in your opinion or in your understanding, are the conditions under which anticipation theory predicts that inanimate objects will not just follow the normal cause and effect derived laws of physics? I don't see how current scientific thinking precludes freedom in complex biological entities any more than I can see how anticipation theory allows for the accuracy and relability of predictions made by standard scientific models in relation to simple systems composed of inanimate objects.
Frankly our current scientific understanding is too limited to say much at all about the actuality of freewill, the nature of consciousness and other such matters.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I suggest to use the common methods of daily life by which we determine something acts forced or freely.As said the laws are not violated, they are applied in a selfrefferential way, resulting in free behaviour. So you can simply apply Newtonian gravity this way, and you would see mathematically that it would lead to freedom. And then you look at the kind of variation it produces, and what limits on the freedom, and experimentally see if it is consistent with observation or not.