New in cosmology and fundamental physics

That actually sounds way lmao more to be you yo.

.....lol I just lmao at your nanninanni billygoat responses 😂

Lol as I've shared before with you... I'd so far more rather the single woman restored of cancer than an iota of your worldly knowledge, and clearly your pompous intellectual overtones with your vocabulary, dawging your preditor, such comes off... I don't know... perhaps your cracks slapped on my thread regarding the Maui people's haves me so angered presently towards you..

....actually yeah, I do know that's it.

Except that I didn't say a single negative thing about Maui's people or what happened. I said that your "space lasers caused the Maui wildfires and it's all a government cover up" theory is disrespectful, and attention seeking. Which is 100% true. Instead of marking the tragedy and saying something real, you are peddling your conspiracy garbage, and making it all about you and your crusade for justice. Save the crazy for things that aren't actually important/serious.

I've been to Lahaina 3 times, and I love Lahaina, and Maui...how about you?

that was pure oswald bates

Doesn't matter because this is something that not a lot of people would think of or understand. I was being a little ironic when I mentioned that she wouldn't get it right away because nor would most people but it's simply a matter of logic. However, having an open mind is necessary.

Essentially, if free will is not possible then we can't make real decisions that mean anything, so brain development can't contribute to survival. Therefore our brains would be the same as any other animal's. I'm not saying that animals don't have free will but that there would be no need to develop the brain towards decision making. There are other factors that are involved in braiin development. Speech, the ability to get to know the characteristics of a each individual in a large group (a tribe), the ability to use our hands and to use tools and also the ability to lie are probably the most important, regarding brain development. Essentially, lying is considered by some authorities to be very important, because it involves using the mind in an abstract way and inventing realities or narratives, which you then pretend to produce evidence for. Some here are extremely developed in that way. All these mental activities are linked to free will to some degree. It doesn't provide an absolute proof but it provides overwhelming evidence that free will exists. The alternative would be that the brain didn't evolve by normal means and was most likely created, just like it is now, a week last Tuesday.

Because, of course, there's equally no fundamentally based reason to assume our memories weren't created either, except for the same kind of overwhelming, incidental evidence which brain evolution provides for free will. I won't try to publish that because I'd need to spend an extraordinary effort in providing references and vast amounts of embellishment and in getting some relevant degrees to provide an evidential platform. I would no longer have the energy, nor the time, to be involved in higher education so you'll just have to understand it and try to assess it on its merits. I think the idea is more firmly based than, say, the Big Bang.

I think my son has a sort of idea that citing "populist scientists" tends to reduce academic credibility, btw. Therefore the vast numbers of people citing her may be the academically and intellectually less able because the more able would tend to agree with that assessment and avoid citing populist scientists. I know that citing the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy was looked down on by the department of philosophy where I did my philosophy degree and the only thing worse than that was considered to be citing Bertrand Russell.

Again... insane OF YOU to say I'm about me and some pathetic crusade when I am just p_ssed AF when THERES FRICKEN MELTED DOWN CARS WITH LESS A CAR DISTANCE AWAY TREES UNSCATHED, HOW THE FK IS THAT ABOUT ME ? IM NOT ABOUT DIRECT ENERGY WEAPONS, PUNK .

YOU GOT ⚽️S.... I'll give ya that

Lmao you've retained far to much acid trips and obviously in living color, idili 😂

Yo freewill is due to an @ with horns foolishly rebelled The Infinite Of Intelligence wayyyyyyy before the conception of time in the FOREVER ALL THERE IS ETERNITY reality, and the insane reason we're still under that pathetic law is yet the FULL MONTY OF EVERY JOT & TITIILE YET FULFILLED.

......Logically Speaking

Yes, there is that to consider, of course.

Incidentally, do you know whether a jot is bigger than a tittle or whether a tittle is bigger than a jot?

I know that I'm so very looking forward them both to their fulfillment! 👍😂

To claim to answer an objective question about free will (such as "does free will exist") it is first necessary to objectively define "free will". It is safe to say this has not been satisfactorily done in a way that is acceptable to medievalists who think of this a unique superior quality of humans.

Having said that, Conway et al chose an objective definition in 2006 based on relationships between information - I would say that a mind is a source of new information - and then found that this is as far from non-specific to human brains as can be imagined. Indeed each particle has "free will" as well, as a deducible consequence of humans having it. This is shocking to some, but the ground truth as I see it is simply that all quantum systems have intrinsic randomness which acts as a source of information when interactions occur. This is the "free" (undetermined) information, and is nothing to do with special properties of humans.

Yes, clearly I am the insane one here... :eyeroll:

I'm sure I've defined free will accurately, Elroch. It's the sort of thing I used to think about and so perhaps you meant that no consensus has been reached over any definition of Free Will, such that it's accepted generally as being accurate. However, it isn't too difficult an accomplishment and I believe it's possible that the idea that free will hasn't been defined can be a way of saying that it's a confusing subject. I'd agree with that.

A fundamental particle has free will in that it can act randomly in a way which seems to be under no influence external to it.

A human having free will implies that such freedom is the result of actions that are initiated by a decision to perform such an action, where the decision is the result of a set of thoughts which are sovereign to the human.

This is contested by those who assume that all our thoughts are the neccessary effect of everything that's happened to us ... and therefore of the effect that our environment has on us. As I mentioned, I believe that cannot be true because otherwise we would have to accept creationism at least in some form. So I set about determining HOW we can have thoughts that are not the effect of our environment and so are sovereign to us. I came up with something I call the Zener Effect. I think I've explained it previously once or maybe twice.

There is no such thing as an "accurate" definition except in the sense of being consistent with an existing, established definition. I am sure you have not defined free will objectively, which is a more relevant adverb. Thoughts are like everything else - the result of interactions between systems, so not "the result of the environment", rather a result sampled from a random distribution depending on the prior state of the brain and the state of the environment.

There is no need for randomness to generate originality. To illustrate, consider a chess engine. Its environment is the moves it sees played against it and it uses a program to generate original play against it (which suffices for the entire range of possibilities in the game of chess).