update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

Tell me, if it was forbidden to you by your professor to make theory about desire, emotions, love, beauty etc. because it violates the rule that science may not speak about what ought and ought not. Then if you had cleaned up your objective view this way from subjective opinion, would you then still be hostile to knowledge about freedom.If I said your life has less value then a particular rock, then ok maybe I should go to jail, or to a psychiatric institution, fair enough, but i wont have it to be accused of being unscientific for that. I sense you are using science to prop up your valueing of human beings. It explains your reference to desire, and your hostility. The evidence for freedom being plentiful, that cant be the reason.Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.

It logically follows that motion is useless as a measure of time for instantaneous action ove a distance, leaving decision which logically works.As I said twice before, it may be so that a probalistic aspect of GR is translated into freedom of the sysem in anticipation theory.

In creationism there is a division between the material and the spiritual, the objective and the subjective, so there is basically no problem. But you all seem very much to be fudging the objective with the subjective, that love and such is in a human brain, that love is partially material in the least, but may contain some unknown elements. That could ofcourse explain your hostility to knowledge about freedom, because freedom says you cant know love except freely, subjectively.

Obviously it is testable, but it's not neccessarily the case that it would lead to a different result as GR. The paper said the equations of GR are obtained from applying Newtonian gravity in an anticipatory way, so that GR is inherent to Newtonian gravity. The difference as mentioned three times already is probably that a probalistic aspect of GR is converted into freedom of the system.So throwing heads or tails probalisticly leads to 50/50 observation of heads or tails, the observer being the scientist, but in anticapatory terms the coin flipping system observes itself, it decides it's own state, but the result is basically the same.So the difference would be that according to anticipatory theory the planet orbits even without scientists observing / deciding it. Light does not do this, light needs a decider to determine it's trajectory, and otherwise it remains in a state of alternatives.

It is testable if or not the planet behaves the same way as light, particle wave duality etc. It doesn't as far as I know.

The question was raised in the thread if or not the loss of vitiman c production could have turned out differently. Now obviously this is a reasonable question open to scientific enquiry. Was there freedom in the system, was there actually an alternative possible that the gene would persist.And then according to creationism the question why the one was decided on instead of the other is a matter of judgement, which can only be discovered subjectively. By doctrine of reasonable judgement for instance, or common judgement, etc. and most highest in light of the doctrine of God the creator of the universe.We cant so much account for physiology of emotions, we can just see rhythms in decision sequences. We should not infer love, fear etc. objectively, we can just use reasonable judgement to establish them and not have to assert any objectivity for the spiritual. And you know it is hopeless to strictly classify emotions according to expression, ie crying when sad, and crying when happy.

Its no surprise the things follow the laws so closely since the things basically consist of such laws, with an anticapatory element added to it. There is no such complete lack of freedom observed, I think you are just confused that an object going left or right is basically the same freedom as a person going left or right. That freedom is fundamentally a spiritual thing, not a brain thing.

I was just pointing out, for the hundredth time or so, that scientists must be subjective about why questions. That is the rule in science, you cannot make objective statements about good and evil, and that means you cannot make objective statements about why one instead of the other alternative is realized in a choice.The Mercury perhelion was described with anticipation theory. For the 5th time, it's probably so that probalistic aspects of GR are translated into freedom of the system in anticipation theory. So GR does not neccesarily give exact predictions in the first place.Now if you all could just remember these things:
- alternatives are in the future
- the act of realizing an alternative is a decision
- it is not possible to make objective statements about why one or the other alternative is realizedFor people who quite evidently have no theoretical framework to fall back on for as far as knowledge about freedom is concerned, you learned nothing about it in school or college, you should all present a more studious attitude.

For the millionth time you cannot say as a matter of scientific fact, that planets are neither good or evil. Probably it is in the faq.

For the billionth and 1 time, I have claimed that good and evil are subjective, and therefore outside of science. Look at the faq it's very probably in there.

It is not unscientific that toothbrushes are evil, it is just outside of science. Some of your opinions about good and evil are unscientific because you assert them as objective.

Scientists are people too, and they are allowed to present their personal opinion about what's good or not. They are just not allowed to make a theory about it. Such as it is an established fact that there is neither good or evil in the universe, except for people.You said that since other mammals maintained the vit-c gene, that it could also have persisted in people. So it was a decision between alternatives. That is what you said, but probably you said it, not understanding what you said.

Thats smart, and it would take some explaining why that also isnt allowed, but its not so smart that you are simply positing a science of good and evil. As before in creationism there is no such problem, because there is a clear division between the spiritual and the material.So having established that you do indeed make objective statements about good and evil, I have explained the root of your hostility to theories about freedom.

According to Stragglers science these things are not capable of good and evil. So we are just discussung Stagglers science of good and evil in the science thread. I wisely made no mention about my personal opinion of toothbrushes.

Well it is plain that you have a science of good and evil, even it is denoting the absence of both as scientific fact. Regardless if its true or not that this (science) doctrine leads to your aversion to theories about freedom, it is just not allowed in science. So then it seems you have to drop it in this science thread.