update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

I don't get it.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 intelligcne is introduced?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

The problem here is that the "common methods" of daily life are unreliable to the point of positively misleading. By the common methods of daily life alone we would viably conclude that the Earth is flat, that the the Sun goes around the Earth, that gravity accelerates heavier objects at a greater rate than lighter objects, that objects will slow down without a persistent force to keep them in motion and numerous other such conclusions that have been overturned by centuries of scientific analysis and experimentation. If left to the "common methods of daily life" there would be no quantum mechanics, no relativity, no Maxwells equations and none of the resulting technologies these scientific landmarks have resulted in. Including the PC on which you are partaking in this discussion.If nature worked in a wholly obvious and common sense manner we would not need science, scientists or indeed any methods of investigation beyond concluding the "obvious". The argument of "common sense" is an argument of no sense at all.
You claim that anticipation and freedom is a theory derived from science. Yet refuse to even consider a means by which the theory can be analysed scientifically in terms of predicted results and verified conclusions. Why? What are you scared of? Either the laws of physics apply and there is no decision, no freedom and no need for anticipation theory at all regarding inanimate objects and physical phenomenon as we observe them to be OR the temporary stability of such systems as the solar system are the result of anticipation theory at work and require the theory to be true in order for such stability to be arrived at (as you have claimed previously)You obviously cannot have it both ways.If the laws of physics are sufficient to describe and predict the observed workings of physical objects such as planets, electrons, atoms, galaxies etc. etc. what does anticipation theory achieve other than the fulfillment of your faith based desire to introduce the bizzarre notion of inanimate objects having "desires" and "choices"?Even by the standards of your own "common sense" argument you fail miserably. Is it really common sense to think that planets "choose" to stay in orbit? Is it really common sense to think that atoms "decide" to decay? Why would such entities act in such ways? Why would they do so in a way entirely consistent with cause and effect based scientific theories? Is there any evidence whatsoever for such objects doing anything other than that which is predicted by conventional science?The absurdity of you position is obvious. Freedom? Where? How? Freedom to do what? What do planets "want" to do?
If entities such as planets and electrons are free to violate the laws of physics then we should see physical evidence of this.In what conditons do inanimate objects express their "freedom" such that we might experimentally observe such "freedom"?If they do not express such freedom and "happily" continue to adhere to the known laws of physics without exception then on what possible basis can you claim that they have any "freedom" at all?Your position is increasingly ridiculous.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What evidence have you provided to suggest that planets "choose" to remain in orbit?
Is it really common sense to suggest that planets "decide" to do such a thing? So your claims of anticipation as a valid scientific theory are based on the same sound reasoning that led people to conclude that the Earth is flat?
Do you not accept that nature has been repeatedly demonstrated to work in ways that are wholly counter-intuitive to our limited and flawed human perception?
Do you not know that claims of a theory as scientific require said theory to meet certain criteria regarding prediction, testing and veification? Free? Free to do what? Free to violoate the laws of physics? Can the Earth decide to veer off course, do a quick circuit of Jupiter and then re-enter it's orbit around the Sun? If not why not? What is stopping it?
It seems that you are claiming inanimate objects are free only to obey the cause and effect based laws of physics and to behave exactly as conventional science predicts. Whilst simultaneously denying cause and effect actually exist! Can't you see the absurdity of this position?"Mathematical fact" - Wahahhahhah!!!
Can you use anticipatory theory to calculate the predicted positons of planets? I would love to see you try . Go on show us these "mathematical facts".
Newtonian physics makes incredibly accurate predictions regarding planetary motions. GR can be used to impove upon these further still.
Until anticipation theory can at least match the accuracy of these calculated results why should we pay it any heed at all? Do you really have direct experience of inanimate objects "deciding" to do things? Really? Is that what your experience and common sense tells you is happening? This sounds like a misunderstanding of chaos theory (which is not a theory that denies cause and effect) So do planets "choose" to stay in orbits because they "love" ellipses?
Why do planets "choose" to stay in orbits rather than spread their wings, cut the apron strings and set off to explore the universe (via Fiji)? According to your judgement. Variation from what?What are these inanimate objects deciding to do? Why? On what basis do they make their decisions? So all rocks are free but some rocks are freer than others eh? Well as long as you are enjoying yourself it must be true.....obviously.
Scientific? As in tested and verified hypotheses? Predictions? Tested conclusions?
You fail to even accept that anticipation theory should be subject to any analysis beyond your own warped take on "common sense". How can you possibly claim it as scientific? In your case it has led to the contradictory notions that inanimate objects are freely making informed choices based on unspecified desires whilst apparently simultaneously adhering to all the laws of physics such that no experimental evidence of any "freedom" can be experimentally detected.Do you have anything else to offer? Or are rocks that have decided to sit around eroding exactly as predicted by science instead of making the most of their "obvious common sense" anticipatory freedom and exploring the universe, all the evidence you have?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

My "hostility" is borne of frustration. Frustration at your refusal to even contemplate a method of determining how the worth of this theory can actually be tested. You have failed to answer a single question regarding the quite evident problems anticipation theory has as applied to simple physical systems.
I will try again to get your views on exactly why anticipation theory is needed, how it actually works in practise and ultimately how we can scientifically verify it's veracity (or otherwise). Maybe you could actually try providing some answers.1) Are current scientific theories unable to adequately describe and predict observed physical phenomenon such as planetary motions in your view?2) You have suggested that anticipation theory is required in order to explain the apparent stability of systems such as the solar system. Is this your view?3) Is it your view that inanimate objects "choose" to form stable systems rather than unstable ones? If so why do they choose stable systems over unstable systems? Also if this is the case why is it that many physical systems (e.g. radioactive isotopes) are very unstable and all physical systems are ultimately unstable given large enough timescales?4) If inanimate objects have "freedom" what are the restrictions on this "freedom"?I am trying to determine the circumstances under which the effects of anticipation theory are actually detectable in simple physical systems such that we can predict the physical effects of this theory and thus determine the worth of this theory by means of the standard scientific methods of prediction, experimentation and observation.As an advocate of anticipation theory and keen claimant of it's scientific credentials surely this should be your aim too?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you saying that you do not actually care whether anticipation theory can be shown to be true or false? That you will advocate it anyway because it supports your wider beliefs? Are you saying that it is unsafe to oppose theories that are false?
Surely it is more dangerous to prescribe to false theories than to oppose them?
If the theory is demonstrably wrong then it should expect to be treated with contempt. If the theory is demonstrably wrong then it's advocates should expect to be either educated or treated with disdain. It seems obvious to me that anticipation theory as you have described it is demonstrably false. You have been completely unable to refute any of the problems that have been pointed out to you and utterly unwilling to answer any of the questions posed. It could be very important. Or it could be complete rubbish that is worthy of no further consideration. How do you know it has any value at all? How will we know unless we analyse and ultimately scientifically test the theory? I can only conclude from your complete refusal to even contemplate the idea of scientifically testing anticipation theory, on simple physical systems, that you have so little practical faith in it's ability to pass such tests that you would rather remain ignorant of such results on the basis that an untested theory that potentially supports your irrational world view is better than definite results that in all likelihood would force you to question the legitimacy of your irrational world view.You are using anticipation theory in a flawed attempt to prop up your irrational beliefs and don't want to even consider the prospect of any hard evidence that might require those beliefs to be questioned or challenged. That pretty much sums up the entire ID/creationist position. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I, and you, are indeed making choices and judgements. However your exptrapolation of this ability to choose and judge to planets, rocks, electrons, tables, chairs, telephones, cardboard boxes and all other inanimate objects despite all of the predictive evidence to the contrary not only defies all scientifc understanding it also defies the same common sense "knowledge" on which you seem to be basing your flawed argument. Is it really the case that direct human experience, common knowledge, religion, science and law all point to the free expression of cardboard boxes???????? Any "hostility" is borne of the frustration at your ongoing determination to present blatantly stupid and deeply flawed arguments whilst continually maintaining that evertyone who does not agree with your nonsensical view is somehow biased against a perfectly reasonable theory. There is nothing here that is incomprehensible or unexplaianable. There is only a theory that you do not wish to be comprehended, explained or tested for fear that it will be shown to be the obvious nonsense that it quite evidently is.

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?