update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

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 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

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.

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.

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?

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.

And still i completely fail to understand your hostility to theories about freedom, for the various reasons mentioned before.You seem to be oblivious to the fact that it is also common sense to provide evidence for claims. People did that long, long before the scientific revolution. It is a common method. So I also fail to understand your hostility to common knowledge.It is just a mathematical fact that Newtonian gravity applied in an anticipative way leads to free behaviour, and the results are consistent with the variation we observe. There was a paper about this in view of the perihelion of Mercury. And if I would reference it sure you would find things wrong in it, or my interpetration of it, simply because you are hostile to any theory about freedom, for reasons that are incomprehensible to me.We have the direct experience of freedom, so we formalize to a general principle of it, and apply it where it fits on equal terms. And the equal terms are alternatives in the future, indicated by variation in results from same startingconditions. That seems applicable in nature generally, in varying ways. Your talk of desires and such is subjective. There exists 0 love in the universe objectively speaking, not in a brain, and not in a stone. It only exists according to judgement.We observe variation in results everywhere in inanimate nature, it indicates freedom in the system. Lets also not forget that there is great variety in rocks, liquids and gasses, in inanimate nature, it is not so simple as you make it out to be. And to observe anything in consideration of it coming from nothing by decision from the spiritual domain, is a very enjoyable and scientific way to get to know about a thing. It leads to correct historical thinking, and wonder at the spirit of such decisions.

The result of your incomprehensible hostility is that your own knowledge about freedom does not get developed. And I'm pretty sure that means your knowledge about freedom contains many errors in the sense that it does not provide for alternatives in the future. I've seen that lots of times with people, that they mistake alternatives in the brain, with alternatives in the future. So all in all, my knowledge about freedom is much better than yours I'm quite sure, eventhough you are right that my knowledge is also not perfect.

"In taking into account the retarded gravitational potential in the Newtonian equation, the equation of general relativity is obtained in introducing anticipative propagation of the gravitational field. The anticipation is stronger than for the electromagnetic field, because it is dependent not only on the velocity but also on the acceleration."(Anticipative effect in relativistic physical systems, exemplified by the perihelion of the Mercury planet, Daniel M. DUBOIS, Centre for Hyperincursion and Anticipation in Ordered Systems)

It seems to me the instantaneous propagation requires decisions. I think the freedom is in the general relativity part. Maybe something to do with scientists previously proclaming uncertainty in themselves, making a range of statistical probability, but leaving the system determinate in theory, and that this statistical uncertainty is now translated into freedom of the system itself instead.

Are saying at some point there were alternative futures of having the gene, and not having it?regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I am not the expert on knowledge about freedom, you can argue it yourself if it could have turned out another way, you don't need me for that.

But I am an advocate of creationism, and anticipation theory is just a tool for that. You just have to drop your hostility towards theories about freedom as a whole, for many reasons, the most important being that it is just not safe to be like that. You don't know how important knowledge about freedom is for people, but it could be very important. So take care.

If freedom is correct then you are making choices, and at the end of a choice there is a judgement. Again I fail to comprehend your opposition to what is known by direct experience, common knowledge, religion, science, courts of law etc. Your hostility is what, from some ideal for perfect knowledge. No it isnt based on that, it is unexplainable, incomprehensible.

Meaning the decision is instantaneous over the distance, but the transfer of energy limited by the speed of light. The peculiar perihilion of mercury is described by general relativity before. As mentioned before, im unsure whether it is predicted in terms of probability, which is translated to freedom in anticipation theory, or that anticipation sets the same limit as described by general relativity.