update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

I posted here before about Dubois' theory of strong anticipation, and how it supports the creationist view of things. Now I have an update on how that theory is changing scientists' view of things towards intelligent design theory.In the big picture, creation is a free act, so I have been looking for a theory that supports the fact that freedom is real. Such a theory would inevitably lead to think towards intelligent design theory, or so to say, thinking about things coming to be as a consequence of decisions leads to thinking in terms of intelligent design.So in the detailed picture, the theory I found which confirms freedom is real, is "strong anticipation" theory by Daniel Dubois. Basically what this theory states is that things have a future, and they compute their next state with that future. With strong anticipation, the anticipation is embedded in the laws of nature, weak anticipation refers to making a predictive model in the brain.Somebody else named Edwina Taborsky then applied this theory to the biological realm and found that:"The semiosic biological system is not a random or mechanical process but an informed, reasoned and self-controlled process.""Any randomness is internal and reduced to zero by the time a ”best solution’ is chosen by the system. The emergent model is immediately functional and there is no testing by struggle as required in the thesis of Natural Selection." Biological Organisms as Semiosic Systems: the importance of strong and weak anticipationEdited by Admin, : Fix link.

Strong anticipation theory has also been used to describe Mercury's perihelion (Dubois), dynamics of the knowledge economy (Leydesdorff), also for designing some water-managementsystem, and it's popular among artificial intelligence / consciousness people.

I am referring to the regular freedom of for instance going left, or right, doing something, or not doing it. The freedom that is based on having alternatives, and not based on brains persee.This freedom has not been established in science as real except for Dubois' anticipation theory of the year ~2000.A large share of Darwinists deny freedom on an intellectual level. Ironically many Darwinists mimic the creationist micro-evolution / macro-evolution argument, that there is evidence for micro-freedom at the quantum scale, but not for macro-freedom at the scale of substantial objects.Personally I suggest to use the regular methods of practical every day life by which you determine an act is free, or forced.Otherwise based on Dubois theory you can simply apply the theory and see that it is accurate.I think the best reason to believe Dubois' theory is true, is because Dubos establishes objects as things unto themselves, which all the rest of science really doesn't do. And that independent existence of things is in agreement with common sense of how things are. When you look at a thing, you may sense that the object has it's own future, and acting toward it.But on the other hand if we take away freedom of the object from our view, like in regular mainstream science, then it is kind of a slave to some abstract law of nature, or a slave to far away initial conditions. Either way the object then does not seem to have an independent existence, and that doesn't seem realistic.

This thread starts out with a reference to a paper. That paper contains references as well, so you can start looking from there, for the evidence that's already been established. Alternatively, it is better to google for the word "hyperincursive", or "hyperincursion", since new things are being added all the time.Any youngster who doesn't know what subject to choose for college, if you choose this as your subject, you are guaranteed a good career. That's because:- it's new, so you don't have so much competition
- it's big, huge and enormous since it is fundamental in science, several technical applications have already been made
- if any of it turns out false, or if it all just whimpers out for lack of credibility, you can still use your knowledge about it in the humanities, where many still do believe freedom is real regardless of any hard scientific evidence for itAnd ofcourse it would be helpful if somebody on the forum took the effort to understand hyperincursive math, and could explain the maupertuis least action principle, and the lorenz transform from a viewpoint of incursive and hyperincursive math.

from your reference.
"We speculate that if free will exists,"That doesn't sound very established to me.In any case I have yet to meet *any* evolutionist who believes decisions take place in the universe at large.

It's more established, because it's mathematically worked out according to the laws of nature, and the strong anticipation theory is already applied a few times by different scientists in several different fields, some of them applying it experimentally with direct proof. Right, Taborsky is just giving a generalizing view of what this theory means for semiotics.The kind of thing that you reference, it's not so theoretically worked out, and in the end those kinds of efforts usually end up reinterpret the word freedom to mean calculating towards a goal without the possibility of any alternative. For instance calculating towards a survival optimum, and then they call it "free" because there are less than optimal alternatives presented. These alternatives however can never be actualized according to their own theory, because they assert the thing behaves according to the optimum only.And besides, if you did believe freedom was real, you would understand decisions taking place in the universe at large. That just means decisions taking place in planetary systems and so on, or biological systems in the way Taborsky talked about it. So it seems to me, you have referenced some article about free will, that doesn't even establish decisions at all at it's theoretical basis.But by all means carry on along these lines, argue anything about freedom at all at length, and you will naturally end up with some sort of theory on creativity at the very least.

...and besides your reference is evidence that strong anticipation theory is true to fact

Your critiqe is pointless for a more broad reason. We can trace back the likelyhood of species, or categories of organisms, coming to be further into the past than the randomness natural selection proposes. Since freedom is established as real in the whole universe by dubois, we therefore must attribute the main part of creation further back in the sequence of decisions, which is history. And reasonably, we can find all kinds of decisionprocesses in between. Your insistence on only one kind of decisionprocess in the biological realm for the formation of an organism, an illdefined randomness, is very probably based on a misconception of decisions altogether.

You seem to have missed that part in Taborsky s paper, where she talks about randomness as freely choosing. So as before, your critique is based on a misconception of decisons altogether, including very probably an intellectual misconception of peoples choices also.When an elephant is likely, then the elephant may be walking about in the future, ready to become actualized if so decided. But by randomness, the decision is short, just for a single gene, and there hardly is a future to speak of. This is what you say is occuring, that it is short, but we see the future is long, but then you dont say it, because you simply fail to comprehend decisions.Besides, reasoably Taborsky is well aware that species go extinct, she doesnt need to spell that out.

Why doesn't somebody post something exciting about the rhythms of the universe? Besides the more linear kind of decision sequences, the familiar historical progression, there are also sophisticated rhythmic decision sequences in the universe at large.I suggest for people to take a priority interest in the science about freedom, decisions. It is the cutting edge science, and closer to the spiritual truth of creationism.As you can see in the paper, natural selection is out, and creation is in. So why not take an interest in this science, which seems to be the best science ever had to offer. I mean they have discovered free will of people, applied the same theory to the perihelion of Mercury, have pushed natural selection aside in favor of some kind of intelligent creation theory. These are not small things. The concept of decision is not a small thing. Choices have your interest in your day to day life, perhaps choices should have your interest in science too.

The freedom in anticipation theory is basically of alternatives in the future. So these alternatives are not in the present. It applies to anything the same way, so biologcal systems, planetary systems, people's brains, all of these have freedom, and decisions are made to realize the one alternative.

I want to invite some more comment on the original posting in the thread, to the point that the paper referenced affirms freedom as a reality.On his blog in uncommon descent Behe said that Darwinists don't believe in free will. Then a Darwinist blogger responded that such was an absurd accusation. However, on these forums I cannot find any single Darwinist who affirms freedom as a reality, and is willing to actually do science with freedom.What I find invariably on these forums is Darwinists that believe decisions only occur in brains (of people), and is not actually free, meaning it is not actually possible that an alternative may become realized. So the logic of that works as follows; person A can go left or right, person A goes right because... (and then follows some explanation which forces the person to go right). The alternative here is merely a variable in an equation. So for instance; if the point is to get the highest safety value, and going left has a safety value of 10, right a safety value of 20, then the outcome is going right since it has the highest safety value. So the alternative of going left could never become realized by this logic, because the option of going right is forced because it has a higher safety value.So can any of these brainists validate their belief that decisions only occur in brains, in face of the scientific evidence referenced in the orignal posting that freedom abounds?

Right, brains are not required to make decisions, freedom abounds in the universe at large, so says science.I think this should be about brainists validating their beliefs scientifically, since the creationists beliefs are already validated by the papers referenced.I mean you are asking these questions about creationism, but in the meantime you seem to be slipping in the brainist beliefs without any scientific evidence whatsoever.

Ok, my line of argument doesn't work since brainists can simply define words such a way that decisions only occur in brains is true.But why don't you all believe in freedom in the universe at large, when direct experience, common knowledge, religion and science prove it is real?Enlighten me about what thoughts go through your head when you deny freedom is real.

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 ?