update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

Syamsu, In which case physical laws are non-free. They act in the same way every time, which is consistent with non-freedom, not freedom.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

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.

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.

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.

Hi, Syamsu. I don't understand this.How do you apply Newtonian gravity "in an anticipative way"?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

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)

Syamsu, Please elaborate on exactly what is going on here. How does this system not follow physical laws & therefore behave in a constrictive & totally non-freedom way?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

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.

What this paragraph boils down to is, "I am smarter than you, and you cannot understand."You are still failing to show some evidence other than pointing to the taborsky paper and the dubois paper.So tell me syamsu, did hominids "choose" to lose a functioning gene that creates a protein that can make vitamin c? If so, why did they, it, their atoms or whatever you are claiming to have freedom do so? It is much more likely that hominids lost this functioning gene due to their diet high in vegetable matter. We really could use that ability to produce vitamin c now. If they looked into the future wouldn't thay have seen this comming?

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

That is essentailly what you are saying.
We have almost all of the genes to make vitamin c except one is now defective: How does your interpretation of freedom explain this problem?

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.

Syamsu, 1/ What do you mean by instantaneous propagation?
2/ Where does this appear in the orbit of mercury which has had its orbit predicted?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

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.