Free-Will and The Conservation Laws, Within Conservation Laws, Within Still More Conservation Laws__And All Conserved At Once…

Btw Tim, I think I’ll be keeping my categories and names. Others have already tried convincing me names and naming got in the way of knowing__I completely dis-agree__but I do wonder why people wish to go such a non-scientific route, especially when discussing science. Remember Tim, science is always about “Sound Scientific Methodology”, as you clearly stated in your own TQ posts__and imo, that absolutely requires hypotheses, names, naming, category and model systems__and only then can we debate the merits of each… Realize, I tried to get you to state a goal, a while ago, and you didn’t want to__and unless you do, I’m bound to be flying around without much control of this airplane, which sometimes turns into a rocket, and burns both our ‘arses’__so this is another post you most likely won’t like__but, if you bear down and state a goal to more easily process, we may be able to get past our differences…

Tim, everywhere we measure the systems constituent actions, the conservation laws apply__but, there’s absolutely nothing in the science to state there are not conservation laws, within other same acting conservation laws, acting on/in/within still others. To me, scientists and overly strict logicians have mis-interpreted a multi-functioning quantum system into a ‘oneness-fixed-god-state’ of overly-equilibriated conservation laws__and far overly applied such possibly false logics. Take just the photon, which exists everywhere at exactly the same time__and all the laws of conservation of energy and mass/matter apply__no matter what individual system. To me, far too many scientists and logicians have forgot many varied and varying value and action systems can be, and do function within the greater aspects of itself__and herein lies the greatest problem of over-applying a pseudo-oneness action to the Universal laws of conservation, to the World and Universe__as you seem to be trying to also overly apply them. Yes, we can generally apply the #1st law of conservation to the entire Universe, or #2 and #3 as well__But, that in no way means it creates some sort of Universal God-Oneness Locked-In-Set-Step Motion across the entire Universe__That would be just plain foolish, and much as many in my group argued in high school, until we actually analyzed the entire World and Universe’s many independent functions. Tim, the World and Universe quite normally functions independently within the conservation laws, without breaking any conservation laws__whether free-will, or the free and independent actions of star systems and black-holes, etc. Where did you ever get this bogus idea__All had to be locked together in complete unison, for the laws of conservation to function properly…??? You couldn’t throw a rock across the yard, if that were true, and as I’ve tried unsuccessfully to point out__Independent systems started out as distant independent systems, and inter-mixed their same motion state dynamics, to form into the most uniform system we experience today__Imo, that’s the randomness David was always referring to… To me, you are just fighting for a single Oneness God-System, that just plain don’t exist. Did you ever consider, the conservation motions just may exist in each individual photon__all by each individual photon’s lonesome existence? Such mechanics would effect the Universe’s real state mechanics existence__Not one bit of a difference in function, than it now functions__and such independent systems’ functions, would pushe a lot of the bogus non-free-will functions__away, out of the needless considerations’ conflicts… And, all the evolutionary NS pre-suppositions mean nothing, because there’s no actual exact fundamental path proofs of such actions__though many believers do believe in evolution’s natural selection__I do not. I often asked different evolutionists to prove to me just what is being selected by exactly what__and they simply can’t, as there is no clear evidence of such natural selection science, different from natural chance actions__so as to science__I stay completely away from NS… I do not find any NS in QM, and further__I’ve never seen QM try to defend such thinking, except on TQ__which I never agreed with, as you know, if you followed my responses to Greg__Bio-Evolution, yes__but I was always a No, to NS…
As to arguing or debating, I don’t see any difference, as this area is going to cause so much heated differences__I just don’t think there’s any way to avoid conflict__But, I think it’s important enough to be toughed out__No…?

We are dealing with a fluid like FS Lloyd, thus all points are connected, even if by distances which disallow the ability to be seemingly causal wihin temporal intervals.

I truly wish I could agree with you here Tim, but I can’t__and it’s not because I dis-agree with such possibilities__it’s simply because it destroys the other possible necessary mechanics of total Universal functions, of a workable wave-particle system, imo. Just think about it__how do we have a fluid with parts, and yet it’s an entirely all separable points connected fluid…? This is only possible if it’s an extended and entangled field of wave-particles__which exist from independent sources of the fundamental field’s total light cone, which merged over eons of cosmological time__where such motions would produce the many conserved motions we do know presently exist__as I see no way to break the Oneness-Spell, that hoards scientists and logicians into false submissions to its false-god of pseudo-oneness. All I see in that first sentence above, Tim, is a pure conjecture__which your logic and evidence is incapable of supporting, imo__and I’m not being a smart-ass__The evidence just isn’t there… Tim, I just do not look at conservation laws operating on our universe__As I’ve stated before__The Universe’s real motions produce us bio-beings which interpret the raw motions of FS into the conservation laws we have discovered__so that leaves the fundamental motions in limbo__Until you are willing to fully investigate the Universe’s real fundamental re-cycling motions, imo__which is entirely possible with decay mechanics’ numbers. If not, we can’t go any further Tim, as the conservation laws I do accept functioning properly__but not for the reasons you are stating. To me, it’s a far deeper puzzle than A Simple Law Action of Oneness’ Connectedness__To me, it’s about How The Independencies Inter-Act, from the FS-Motion Field__Up or Down, however you want it… But, without fundamental field-motion inter-actions first explained__we have no foundation to state how the fundamental Planck scales actually must behave__we simply have ungrounded motions… It just seems as though I can’t get you to go deep enough into the most fundamental mechanics, and yes I do accept what we’ve discussed in the past, as to all the Va = Vr + Vu etc., but not the actions of inter-connected oneness you seem to be now demanding of your personal form of strong determinism__just as I’m demanding independencies__as foundations__Simply due to c and its distance-time necessities of physical motion’s actions… I can’t see why you can’t see, that these independencies are absolutely necessary, if logic first absolutely necessitates non-contradiction, thus also necessitating eternity/infinity__thus in turn such logic necessitating its independencies of fundamental motions__beyond and outside its pseudo-dependencies on any forms of oneness__as you pre-suppositionally insist, as far as I can see of your opinions… I see nothing in your recent arguments to say otherwise… To me, you seem to be insisting on a oneness, or nothing else__and I mean an inter-locked oneness of a single conservation law Universe__instead of the independent areas of independent conservation motions and laws, inter-acting over eons of Universal time and wave-field-particle motion inter-actions, I am intending and contending…

The local motions are connected per conservation aspects and the various forms of energy which motion takes. I think we agree on this.

As I’ve stated before Tim, I can’t back such statements of “the various forms of energy which motion takes.” I think you may mean the various forms of structured matter which motion states of FS-Fields inter-actingly produce, but I can’t be sure, because I can’t parse the non-sentential logic used…

Infinite and eternal aspects complicate determinism as with the cycling universe model we used to discuss whereby who can say what aspects follow from an infinite number of cycles and carry over to effect the next cycle.

Tim, these are your interpretations of what I did not say. I may have mentioned many cycles existing in past times, which would be logically true in any necessary state of eternal time__but my initial premise was to talk about one complete decay and re-production cycle of the Universe__so’s you could better see the necessary dynamics that would be required to be involved, as to time, distance and velocities of fields and wave-particle motions of decay and re-condensations__as pertains to absolute c and within the full respect of all the laws of physics and nature__Including the laws of thought, i.e., logic__and for no other reason, than to clarify these necessary and most fundamental of modal motion actions__over one complete cycle, to make it easier to understand the physical states and motions involved__not some foolish belief system about it__just a simple and sensible scientific hypothesis, to replace the foolishness of a big-bang and inflation nonsense, coming from some impossible high-mass infinitesimal point, some stupid 13.7 billion years ago__as all too many fools naively believe…

I see no point in arguing with this as uncertainty and randomness are equivalent to determinism even if deterministic mechanics exist in this instance.??? However, perhaps you can explain to me how free will doesn't seemingly break the conservation laws which we both support as it only acts locally within the highest causal distances.

I don’t understand what you mean by; “it only acts locally within the highest causal distances…” Free-will is no different than the rock you throw, not violating the conservation laws… I don’t follow your thinking, in this area at all, Tim… Free-will no more violates conservation laws than playing cards, chess or baseball, etc… You haven’t shown anything that is in violation of conservation laws, except your own conjectures that it is__What do you want me to say…? I don’t see anything to refute… Free-will exists__Determinism exists__What’s the argument…? They are fully compatible, just as any free thought is with liberty… That’s why we honor liberty so highly__It’s freedom of will, within the sensible constraints of legal determinism… Law is often determined, because majorities over histories, have determined to have such sensible cultural laws, of which people choose by that same free-will, to live__liberty respecting__freely within…

How deeply connected is the FS?

That question, we do not have the scientific knowledge to answer__not even close to having the ability to answer…

You see to me, free will and thought in general is merely an interface of mind, body and environment.

Tim please, if you want to speak that simply of free-will, you’ll have to talk psychologically, and never touch a scientific method, and I don’t for a minute think you wish to talk psychology instead of physics__but such statement would require the looseness of psychology, or other such softr social sciences, to handle such dialogue… Thought is much more complex than the picture you’ve just attempted to splash-paint…

Break down the body at death and the brain stops functioning, but nothing is lost as the body decomposes and the consituents which established life no longer support the composite structure which is the living being. Where do the thoughts go though?

Thoughts die with the bio-body’s working memory states’ death__they stop working at death__No…? They can’t go nowhere else, unless you believe in telepathy, which I really don’t, even though I’ve seen it demonstrated more than a few times, especially if you know my wife and wacky friends… They’re all a lotta fun, though…

What constituent aspects went into a composite thought?

Simple em-frenquency inferences__There ain’t nothing more…

If thoughts have causal energy constituent components even if in various forms, then this is where I have problems with free will as it seems to suggest an isolated system or function within a universe which otherwise contains none as even electrical systems have thermal interfaces which allow loses of energy per conservation aspects.

Tim, come on__get real__you certainly can’t think thoughts are as simple as electrical circuits__which are so simple when compared to brain mechanics__you’re talking about tooth-picks vs. diamonds…

I just choose not to allow living beings with brains to be isolated entities which break scientific laws.

Tim, you’ve given absolutely no laws, or instances/incidents of, that are being broken/violated. You’ve only stated pure conjectures about breaking conservation laws__which free-will certainly is not doing, no more than a tossed ball by any child in the neighborhood…

I would rather see them as a highly complex interface unlike any other in nature where various forms of structured substance and energy meet to form the most unique process in the universe which is our thoughts.

And what difference does it make how you’d rather see em, as pertains to anything being scientifically assessed/analyzed…?

If all aspects of this process are not lost and the further actions accomplished by thoughts have a grounded physical path through various forms of energy transference, then where's the free will?

It’s in no different place than the child’s decision to throw the ball__It’s simply a memory space obeying all the conservation laws, but you seem to be forgetting it takes thousands, perhaps millions of photons and electrical neuron circuit firings to make a simple conceptual inference system’s path, all the way through the massive circuitry and billions of switches__allowing trillions of possible free-will choices, over enough operational time, but even a single day’s processing, produces hundreds of free-will choices and decisions… Tim, QM is child’s play, compared to free-will mechanics__if you’d ever take the time to think it through__thoroughly…

Sorting through the saturation of information is merely an aspect of a further interface of thoughts and information meeting with other thoughts and information.

And just exactly how many synapses do you think just fired in your lil’ ol’ pea-brain, to make that overly simple sentence/statement…??? “Merely” is not science Tim__It implies conjecture…

All it takes is the evolutionary process of passing down genes and such whereby certain aspects are dominant over others.

Are we talking about science or conjectural evolution, Tim…??? There isn’t a scientist on Earth, can describe exactly what goes on inside a gene, and you know it… That box is still tightly locked, except for a few generalities and some specifics__but, very few compared to what’s left to know about the inanimate to animate mechanics of such gene mechanics…

To truly understand thought we must also understand the evolutionary processes which structured it as a passed down system.

Tim, where do you get the idea that thought is passed down, in any form we do not already know about, especially since mankind is only capable of understanding syllogistic or symbolic statements as inferences, normally openly inferred into our brains__where we do further processing on it…? There’s nothing hidden Tim, when one remembers their childhood processing states of inferences, we heard, saw or read, or maybe a few other sense methods__but it’s all there if one but searches. There’s nothing scientifically known to be hidden in our gene pool transferences__as science ain’t got that far yet… You can’t go beyond the system that exists, unless you offer some new and sound science of your own… All I offer is what I absolutely know to be the truth of my childhood, mixed with the science and logic of adulthood… The childhood knowledge system is the most important to me, Tim__as imo, it’s the best and most profound science system… Many children have the capacity to put most scientists to shame, if they but had the confidence to stick to their natural knowledge systems__in the presence of adult’s far more evil attitudes…

We're jumping into the middle of the story and trying to explore the role of a key character, when thought processes were honed through millions of years of evolutionary and natural selective processes.

Well, you can believe that__I sure as hell ain’t gonna… I am of the opinion we start fresh every birth from a blank slate brain__and only the inference mechanics from birth on, builds our usable knowledge systems. Yes, we learn by the advantage of having access to the past’s thousands of years of stored historical library knowledge__but I accept absolutely zero innate knowledge being present, before live birth, and science has absolutely no gene-evidence to contradict this information__mainly because it’s bs, if you but thoroughly research your own inference mechanics necessities of total processings and its associated memory storage mechanics, etc… It ain’t no magic involved__just simple em-frequency mechanics paths you actually see happening, if you but look inside… It’s a most visible mechanics, late at night, just before going to sleep, and early in the morning, upon freshly awakening to a new day… The inference mechanics itself never changes__only its content changes, and free-will changes the stored content, and sometimes the actively entering actions, etc…

Perhaps our dominant file sorting system is an aspect of intelligence itself which seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom as they obviously aren't genetically engineered to have the dominant guidance to sort through the information saturation whereby they might learn more sophisticated forms of communication, the use of tools, etc.

Perhaps…

It's as I was speaking of earlier, intelligence guides, while ignorance absorbs further intelligence, whereby further connections are made and understanding is achieved.

Ignorance absorbs intelligence, Tim…? That makes absolutely no sense to me, sorry… Why would you want ignorance to absorb intelligence…? Are you meaning, if a certain area of your brain is ignorant of a certain subject area, and someone mentions information pertaining to this area, that area absorbs such new information…? Kinda a crude way of putting it, ain’t it, but is that what you mean…?

It's like simultaneously seeing through the eyes of both a child and adult and taking advantage of the benifits offered by both. I see no break in the chain of events whereby the interface of various systems and energies collide to make thoughts which further collide with each other to make connections and intelligence, but I do see many gaps in our understanding of this process whereby free will is assumed, but how 'free' is it if it isn't an isolated process but rather just a convergence of various different processes?

Tim, I don’t assume free-will__I absolutely know I have free-will, and I further absolutely know you have free-will, as well as does every living soul on Earth, and that’s not being religious, as I’ve been an atheist for many a year. It’s just I know the paths of my inference mechanics, and it’s certainly not collisions, or the information would be lost and not recoverable__which we know is not the truth, as we recover the childhood memories, you’ve alluded to above. And, the smoothness of that inference transference, just from perception, to judgment, intuition, memory, concepts and back and forth to memory, intuitions, judgments and wills is absolutely necessary or we couldn’t makes sense of the world, let alone, make meanings and understandings of it… Tim, we’ve all built our own brain’s intelligence, from birth on__there’s no magic__just us free-will beings, of freely choosing inference mechanics from stored memory to active memory states/agents, to judgments, wills, decisions and those pesky free-will actions…

If there is true motion/energy conservation here then there is no break of interaction which is how I define such concepts as 'choice' and 'free will' as implying a break in such.

Tim, where would you get such information from of there being no break of interaction__which would be stating you can’t process different areas of stored information, to self-create different and new concepts…? That just isn’t possible Tim, as I’ve seen all the concepts you use in even just this one post__so, you are breaking contact from one concept choice of speaking about it, to the next one, on and on and on… So, are you contradicting yourself, or just not realizing all the separate mental inter-actions, conjunctions and disjunctions of concepts that are absolutely necessary to yours, mine or anyone elses’ thinking systems, of inference mechanics…? Of course there’re breaks in the information chain, or you’d continue all your life to process a progressive concept, and none of us do process a progressive concept(except possibly the general Universal movie we may all process, idk), as we absolutely know we freely choose from the world and our many stored memory concepts__So, the facts of life’s known experiences contradict your logic, Tim… There are necessary breaks due to the natural processings’ disjunctions clearly taking place for perception to display different concepts at will, yet there’s no reason motion and energies can not be fully conserved by our extremely complex brain mechanics__at the same time as being compatible with these disjunctions and free-will’s many decision actions__There’s just an over-whelming number of synapses’ switches in the brain to fully accomplish such mechanics__and what I’ve described, you very well know you’ve done in this very post__as the evidence is here for all to read, and which real world correspond with the inference mechanics roughly described… If I were writing a professional paper, it’d take me a week or more to polish it, but this is simply my off the top of my head understandings of the issues at hand…

Choice in this sense, is merely an ordering of processes and not an original chain of events or 'something from nothing' as such free will concepts seem to support way more then what I'm suggesting. The mind becomes focused on many things whereby it finds dominant thoughts and concepts which divide the BS from the more usefull information pertaining to the guiding parameters.

What about all the times you just choose the concepts you think about, such as the simplest one of deciding to go to work, rather than stay home, or think about your inventions instead of not…???

As too the knowing future states from present states and positions, it's not that easy as herein lies a deep discussion with a fully deterministic system, which as I've stated, I'm not sure that we're a part of not in the sense of causality but rather interaction thresholds. To truly know any is to know all in such a system.

Boy, you sure like to add in a lotta conjectures, i.e., “To truly know any is to know all in such a system.” Are you implying we can’t know anything about the sun coming up tomorrow…? Even simple deduction allows us to know much about the future, without knowing all, so I don’t hold your views, in that area, if I’m reading you correctly… Tim, if it were a fully deterministic system, we would know everything about past, present and future states__as that would be simple classical mechanics, and easily knowable, in toto, so I probably fail to see your point… Are you referring to some state where we might be separate acting beings, from the deterministic system…? If so, I ain’t going there either, as I’ve read about that model elsewhere__It don’t work__It’s fully unscientific, imo…

It's an impossibility as it takes the entire system to determine a single position of any one thing along with it's path and future state.

Come on Tim__That would be like saying we can’t know anything, because we can’t know everything. Is this what you really meant to say…??? If the system is sourced of an independent ‘Manyness System States’, there’d be no problem of a single position being known in relation to any other known position__so what are you trying to state…??? If it makes no difference in a ‘Manyness System’, and you say it makes such an all important difference in a ‘Oneness System’__then certainly, please give me the free independence of the ‘Manyness System’__No questions asked… Sorry Tim, but your ‘Oneness System’ is looking even more horrible to me, than even I had imagined__“Give me freedom, or give me death…” “Oportunity is ignorance, on strike__Let’s party…!!!”

Yes, all internal motions are connected, but cannot be prederived due to the computational power of the system being the system itself whereby any internal computational aspect is running on far less power and information than the whole.

Better be careful here, Tim__or you’ll be destroying all the reasoning possible of the necessary defense of the system you are advocating… “There’s always more than one way to skin a cat...” Don’t forget about the power of prederiving massive amounts of informations from the images, analogical, metaphoric and alegorical inferences… Tim, I’d also have to say the internal computational aspect of pure seeing and knowing thought, is the most powerful computer in the world__because, when you ‘see’ fully__you absolutely know…

Reduce all things and concepts to motion related aspects within the FS, and you'll never achieve more computational motion within a region than you will within the whole.

Then why are our brains capable of doing just that…??? My brain can process far more information than any stupid computer__think about it__we process what we see, and computers have trouble processing anything of what they see, then only very crudely. ‘Scientific America’ made this point recently with a photo of a man floating sideways, in the air, above a city’s background__with the computer article’s question being; “Can a computer meaningfully process this image…?”__and the answer being; “No…!!!” In other words, I don’t agree with your above statement about computational reductions__as I do it all the time, mentally, in a much smaller space than your statement alludes to__The free-will brain “region…” Ain’t I a pisser…???

It's taken the universe this long to calculate everything we see around us per interactions at the speed of light, we can't do it any more efficently in any less time within any less distance than what the universe currently occupies as we are working at far less scales and speeds, concerning the state of all things, but we can find a means to predict the state of some things and interactions whereby we get into the accuracies and such covered by QM, RM and CM.

The Universe exists__The Universe does not process__Only free-will processes…

PS. To get an idea of what I'm trying to relate, reduce all aspects of energy and structure to FS and motion and consider our private perpetual motion conversations with closed system, engines and such and you'll see what I'm getting at. The brain is a thought engine in a sense and it's components and fuel cannot be a closed system if we are to support 100% energy/motion conservation. Yes, it may alter that which is input to output another form of energy or structure, but it cannot be totally isolated from the system whereby thoughts originate causing chains of events from nothing.

Tim, nobody’s saying thoughts are produced from nothing. I’ve always clearly stated all information comes from external ‘out to in’ inferences, with a wee bit of internal inferences about our fundamental bio-constitutions, so I don’t know why you even mention such… The brain is never a closed system and always functions within the conservation laws, through its extremely complex neural switching mechanisms. All is in full compatibility mode with all the laws of physics, and you’ve shown nothing that is not fully compatible__except your own conjectures… All I see is, you are destroying your own validity by attempting a false contradiction of free-will and sound inference logic mechanics…

If this be the case, then free will is a byproduct of operational aspects. Use the names by which we associate our world to dictate a path of logic and then turn off the familiarity caused by such labels and witness the system operating as a unit both bio and geo in unision through the evolution of both bio and geo states and structures.

Tim, are you suggesting I start processing as Melanie…???