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…???

"Something from Nothing" the "Free Will" debate

Are we debating here or arguing? And by the way, this is just as much a philosophical debate as it is scientific so I would suggest you use such words as "perhaps", "assume", etc, a lil more often as neither of us have a monopoly on absolute knowledge. As to the contracted volume, we've discussed these mechanics many times and had few problems as they are crucial to FS mechanics and I didn't state anything about a singularity. I assume that you 'assumed' that's what I was suggesting. You can make the condensed state of the cycle the size of a galaxy, star, atom or whatever as all are small enough to allow all spatial positions to be casually connected with mere temporal phase misalignments. I was actually trying to relate your discussion to something more observable and understandable while keeping the conversation as general as possible to avoid the verbal attacks which usually follow. And yes, a volume must contract to form structural systems Lloyd, but this same process can be taking place in conjunction with the expansion of the universal volume. Forces go both ways as we both know, inward and outward, attraction and repulsion, etc. Black holes exist and thrive while the unstructured spatial densities decrease. Nothing new here. My mistake for thinking I didn't have to be specific and save on a few words or explainations due to the amount of times we've been through all this. 

Btw, I'm not the one promoting a god, deity or religion here as I have yet to find the need for such things. The Universe functions just fine without such until you reach the social sciences were our very own evolved apsepects of survival which kept us and our ancestors alive are at war with our intellect as most seek comfort in a world which otherwise offers none with the exception of the mechanism of imagination. I actually work to menatlly detach from those things which most have given names to and step away from the familiarity which conceals the functions behind those things which we only know by a name. Naming things is the worst enemy of understanding them, because it is a mental shortcut to acknowledgment. We do this with ourselves as a persons name quickly tells us who someone is suggesting but offers nothing else about who or what that person is. People understand what the weather is while few understand how it rains. We are so familiar with concepts and natural processes by name that we often lose value of the actual underlying mechanics thereof. I try to combine the understanding and relationship brought about by associating things by name with often turning that off once the general associations are made to allow the unfamiliar perspective of exploring as though I just woke up in this world to see such things before me. Perhaps true genius is taking advantage of the leverage offered by both knowledge and ignorance simultaneously. Make the intelligent associations made by way of science which guides the thought process, while not allowing the familiarity offered by knowing things by name, thus exploring the predetermined intellectual direction by way of the ignorance which will stimulate the mind to gather further associations of the actual functioning of nature rather than the illusion of everyday life which our minds try to sell us. I hope that makes sense as from a small child, I would often look in the mirror only to momentarily lose my own identity in a sense, whereby I would question to myself of who the reflection in the mirror really was. It's not that I saw myself as a seperate person, but rather I was having an interface of the mind and body working out their relationship whereby I momentarilly lost familiarity with myself in a sense. This would be the most difficult thing to truly explain, but I often do this with words, other people such as family members, concepts, etc. I think it is the very essence of my methodology of thought, as it forces me to evaluate much deeper than just the familiar associations due to naming concepts and people. In short, ignorance is just as powerful as intelligence, if used in unison to achieve understanding. 

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. The local motions are connected per conservation aspects and the various forms of energy which motion takes. I think we agree on this. 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. 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. How deeply connected is the FS? You see to me, free will and thought in general is merely an interface of mind, body and environment. 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? What constituent aspects went into a composite thought? 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. I just choose not to allow living beings with brains to be isolated entities which break scientific laws. 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. 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? Sorting through the saturation of information is merely an aspect of a further interface of thoughts and information meeting with other thoughts and information. All it takes is the evolutionary process of passing down genes and such whereby certain aspects are dominant over others. To truly understand thought we must also understand the evolutionary processes which structured it as a passed down system. 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. 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. It's as I was speaking of earlier, intelligence guides, while ignorance absorbs further intelligence, whereby further connections are made and understanding is achieved. 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? 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. 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. 

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. This is my logical argument with a deity of any sort within the system as such would have the ability to originate chains of events which had no physically grounded path of motion/energy conservation. The same goes for us and our thoughts as free will establishes us as such a deity or isolated system with no physically grounded input/output path.  

Randomly Seeking Determinism__II...(cont...)

(just re-edited, Tim__Wow, that really was bad, sorry… It still amazes me how easily our own brains can, so often, seduce us into stating in such nonsense fashions and terms… Hope this is better stated, but I am still a bit too muddled__to do my best work… I feel like Mutt and Jeff, in one brain/body…)

Hi Tim, well there’s enough to chew on for a while, thanks… Just talked to my son yesterday about a lot of this similar debate. Between he and I, it came down to the incommensurabilities of ‘beliefs’ and ‘knowings’__He is of the opinion that we must have ‘beliefs’ to have ‘knowings’__and I’m of the opinion that we can have ‘knowing states’ not requiring ‘beliefs…’ His position is that of the ‘oneness’ requirement of total thoughts, and my position is that of the ‘manyness’ possible requirement(or at the least, useful mechanic) of total thoughts__or that ‘I know’ does not require ‘I believe’, whereas he demands(a belief) that ‘I know’ absolutely requires ‘I believe’__so you can see these differences exist, even within our own families__mine anyway. To me, the absolutely scientifically rational position would require ‘knowing states’ over ‘belief states’(at least to process fully accurately)__but I full well realize the incommensurable states of mind have existed since the dawn of time__where one side sees the logic of the opposite side’s contradictions, and the other side sees the psychology of the same contradictions, and/or vice versa__so and so, etc… I have about 20 people working on these same or similar problems of fundamental thought, just in my small circle of family, friends and associates… Round and round, the merry-go-round goes__where she stops, nobody knows… Please take this post with a very large grain of salt… :-)

Alright....I'll probably be spending some time at the motel tomorrow due to having to wait on a critical part to come in at work so I can now engulf myself back into the abyss that is the universal actions. Lol.

From what I gather about much of what you are speaking of, we are basically talking about causal light cones and the magnitude by which they effect other points within the universal field as being a logical argument against determinism.

I suppose you could put it that way, as I have written it in those same, or similar, words before__where the speed of light actually controls the abilities of our rationality to even think within certain constraints__and that actually being the collisions of points of light-information, in such group c collisions(where such collisions do not mean destructions, as such would destroy concept informations, and we know from memory recovery states, information is not destroyed…) Many have thought ‘thinking’ can escape the ‘laws of physics’, but I do not. To me, all thought, even our imaginary and dream thoughts, are subject to the c-laws of physics, i.e., the speed of light capabilities__and can not exceed c, but in our minds, are even limited to somewhere around 200 to 800 mph__far below c in the gray mush, that is scientifically known to slow such information and messages’ processing speeds…

You can correct me as needed if I'm misinterpreting here, but I feel that a visible example of such dynamics is captured within visible light itself as the very magnitude of causality itself fades per the inverse square relationship just as does the image of a distant object being focused to our eye by a telescope.

In that case then, wouldn’t you possibly have to explain how we actually/scientifically do see the galaxies in Hubble’s deep space images…??? I’m not sure they do fade, and we can’t ‘feel’ about these things, we really must have evidence__No…? I’m not even sure if there is evidence on the light spectrum’s em-fade, even though I do know there is, as to radio signals, but maybe it’s all atsmopheric densities, causing the radio signal, etc., fades…???

If we imagine the entire universal volume at an early contracted state, then all internal points and states are more symmetrically synchronized or within a closer temporal phase within the whole as all motions go into establishing the external identity/state of the whole with potentially no outside influence unless we acknowledge an ever larger cosmic field which can be left out of this debate.

I can’t really do that, Tim__as imo, we can not leave the larger cosmic field out of this debate by any sort of ‘possibly falsely imagining/theorizing’ ‘an earlier contracted state’, because there’s absolutely no evidence possible for ‘an earlier contracted state’, imo anyway__That would be a purely and falsely created belief imagination/theorizing interfering__No…?__and an improper(science would be lacking to back up or ground such thinking__no…?) interpretation of Einstein’s ‘relativity ideas’__and I know you don’t think that, so I’m not really sure why you are addressing the model as such, even though we have spoken about such models in the past, we must also re-relate them back to the scientific necessities, imo anyways. A true science processing would not allow you or I the freedom to create such non-realities(and I don’t think we should be copying other false thinkers’ ideas__Yes/No…?)__Imo, our thinking should/must stay within the ‘actual c-laws of physics’, and not any of the many exaggerated +c-theories of physics/cosmology__which is certainly what you seem to be referring to above… If you notice, I’m always trying to get you, or any others, to stay within the c-truth laws of physics’ models, so’s we can actually find and see the necessary scientific truths__with real factually possible and necessary evidence__and not overly conflating our ideas with the exaggerated nonsense of past theorists, who have contributed nothing but pure BS to our science quest… The instant any theory exceeds c, it’s left science, imo__except where the 2c distance of approaching photons, reduce the space between their approaches…

Now as the universal volume expands and structured systems form and gather within the expanding universal light cone, the causal effects of these individaulized systems are reduced per their distance of seperation as distance is internally established.

Tim, Universal volumes would have to shrink, to produce structured systems__not expand, as you imply__No…?__as densities, i.e., Bose-Einstein condensations, would absolutely require a shrinking volume of space, to produce real particle structures, from existing wave-particle-field/s(sorry here for not parsing you model fully into its entire necessities of always fundamentally being in its real three states of motion dynamics__Universe expanding/contracting, as structures within the Universe are expanding/contracting__Brain on strike at time of writing…) I think your above statement contains a logical contradiction of ‘Universal volumes expand to form structured systems’__Tis impossible for thinning densities of field to produce more dense objects__No…???(I’m really leaving this Tim, to stand as my contribution for other’s reading this, for clarity’s sake, even though I do fully now see your implied meanings as just stated above in parentheses…) Imo, this is why you always would/should have to start with FS-Field, as the most fundamental aspect of any theorizing or realizing thought/s__otherwise, you may be adding in pre-suppositionals, that the logic of the facts just does not allow, without having, or at the least contributing to, ‘a massive unwanted creation project’__which is outside of ‘all’ science__as I’m sure you agree with… These really are ‘the most deep fundamentals’, I’m always trying to get you to recognize… The most fundamental triad of scientific thought can not be broken apart, imo…

Naturally, at some point the distances will be so great that the causal mechanics of any nonlocallized point will be so faint that it's magnitude is seemingly unimportant to a local systems functioning and the present state of the local system is so far out of sync with the distant system that it is the very past state of the distant system which is contributing ever so slightly to the present state of the local system. Thus, being as information/causality of this sort travels at the speed of light, then the lesser the physical magnitude acting upon a local system from an equal magnitude nonlocal event, the further the distance of separation both spatially and temporally between the two as the present state of the local system is impacted by an increasingly earlier state of the nonlocal system.

Tim, logically staying within the c-laws of physics would not allow you the privilege of positing a distant non-local action on a local action__No…?__without severely contradicting the c-laws of physics, as far as I can see__thus thinking totally outside science and physics, and deeply into the possible exaggerated imaginations and beliefs__No…? Scientifically, we can’t falsely, and/or, exaggeratedly shrink the Universal Volume to make any sort of +c-physics function, within the laws of physics__That would simply be conjuring mystical physical actions__and imo, it just don’t happen…!!! Tim, you seem to me to be forgetting that once a particle is beyond the light-cone of return, within a sensible time-frame__it ain’t got a chance in Hell of re-a/effecting a local action. To me, it’s simply like the car driving across the African desert__when you are outta gas__your ars’ is cooked… Scientifically speaking, no non-local action beyond a sensible light-time-cone can effect a local action__Only the physicists of more modern funny-book fame are advocating such non-science__as all the best physics only accept EPR-Physics__as far as I know__They were correct in the `30’s, and they are correct today… Bell and Aspect are science fiction, imo__along with most modern physics theorizing about the many more unproven pseudo-science ideas… Tim, I can’t express this enough; ‘We gotta stay within the c-light-cone of real physics’__to do real physics__I hope you agree… There’s absolutely no getting around it, as David always tried to do, with his +c non-science thinking… That was always my major contention with him… Real physics stays within what science has evidence of__That still happens to be c__not c+ tachyons__no matter how much fasle information has been written about them…

This is evident of the image from distant stars arriving at Earth being representative of their past state and the further away the star, the further we are looking into it's past with no way of knowing it's present state at the moment which we turn our telescope towards it until the proper time has past per the distance of separation to recieve information of such by way of visible light. Yet, even if it takes a huge mirror to reflect the faint images, some residule visible radiation still falls upon the lens with the greater magnitude of such being detectable at an increasing magnitude towards the point of origin.

I fully agree with this, Tim…

Could a large enough event at the farthest conceivable distances within the universal volume effect our present state at some point in the future? I would think so, but it would take a relativel amount of time to do so.

Tim, you don’t have to think/theorize about this__you can calculate it. If our star is burned out in less time than the distant light takes to reach us__according to time-frame picture you are assuming, say 10 billion years__there’s no effect upon our bio-system, because it would be long ago died off at the future date of interaction, due to our star burning out. On the other hand, if something huge enough, say a super-massive super-nova explosion, or two or more black-holes collided__then we could definitely be affected, at least to the affects and effects of losing our bio-sphere, then all bio-life on Earth__Iff the gamma blast were close enough in scalar power distance, to retain substantial radiation power__I’ve often thought of just such events happening, but, there’d not be much we could do about it, as the event would be traveling at light speed, and the atmospheric damage would be over, before we fully realized we’d been fatally hit. These hypotheticals have to be put in precise time-frames to have any meaning to our dialogue, though__No…? I full well realize what we are really looking at is mostly a holograph, but there’s a real physical galaxies’ Universe behind all that incoming holographic light… I always look through the holograph to the physical realities, as best I can… I find ‘relativity’ much less useful, than reality though__even for all my most sensible and general theorizing…

The same as a catastrophic event within the sun would take a few minutes for us to know it's state and witness it, which at that point would be a past state. Distance establishes that we will never know the present state of any distant system as there's always a ‘time lapse’ in the conveyance of information. Density also plays a similar role, as the initial interactions which emited the light leaving the surface of the sun often took place at a much earlier time than that indicated by the much lesser distance the light had to travel due to the absorption emission mechanics of stars.

Yeah, there’s nothing wrong with these ideas… The ‘time lapse’ in the conveyance of information is the important aspect, here… It’s what gives us the incommensurabilities of even the number line, as per__“All positive and negative numbers start at zero, and go two directions approaching infinity on the positive side, and the infinitesimal on the negative side__but never does the infinitesimal meet the infinite again”__Thus those pesky incommensurabilities of all non-isomorphicalities of such maths, and herein lies the limit-problems of trying to prop math up as a false-god of rationality, also… Just thought I’d mention this, as what you stated, triggered my mind into that area__again…

The out of phase temporal aspect isn't as relevant to the determinism debate to me as is the question of the origin of motion itself at the Planck scales as causal temporal phase shifts is conserved by way of shifts of causal magnitude. This only means that mechanical determinism is limited to the speed of light and the allowable magnitude of distance. The greatest confusion in my opinion is creating a paradigm whereby motion is divided inwardly and outwardly, whereby distinguishing between the motions which go towards establishing structure outwardly from the micro scales vs the imposed motions which reverberate inwardly from an event at the macro scales.

Tim, I think I’m spotting some of the problem that keeps arising between our two different thinking systems__Would you say you seem to be trying to have your fundamental state be a point__whereas my fundamental state is a Universal Field Volume, even infinite, as the logic of eternity, to avoid the infinite regress into creation myths, necessitates…? To me, the problem lies in this ‘Absolutely Most Fundamental State of Thought’ as to what is absolutely required of the ‘Absolutely Fundamental Logic, Velocities and Maths’ to be ‘Absolutley Fundamental Logic, Velocities and Maths…’ Quite often in my view, you seem to want or try to make the “Absolute Fundamental Motions” and ‘In to Out’ the primary motion process(not sure if that’s true, but it seems that way to me…?)__Whereas my mind is always talking about an ‘Out to In’ primary motion process__Or ‘Endoporeutic Processing Motion’(even though both exist at once…), as I’ve referred to it from years ago, even in my very first forum post on TQ(but simply talking about such fundamental motion frames gets more than confusing, as per the lack of definition of real time and motion frames, when talking so fundamental, and this is a major problem, I fully admit…) If the Universe ever were possible of ‘Absolutely Fundamental In to Out’ motion__This would by Modal Necessity be a Non-Logical Creation Process, imo__Which we both know is impossible, as such would require Austin’s foolish state of ‘Something from Nothing…’ Therefore, “Absolute Fundamental Thinking of Motion” must ‘Absolutely Process Endoporeutically’__i.e., “Fundamentally Outside_In” as does all our fundamental inferences__Also… Logic works no other way Tim, unless it is to contain self-contradictions, and in order to remove these contradictions, one must further exclude all ‘beliefs’ from ‘knowings’__imo__to do real scientific truth and logic__at such fundamental levels(Yes, it’s choice to logically process ‘out to in’, but logic does require this choice of order, to function consistently, and without the pesky contradictions entering…) Imo, beliefs always enter false pre-suppositional entities or ideas, that can create the contradictions I often mention… To me, this is the hardest fundamental logic area to see entirely through… One simply has to make up one’s mind which is ‘Possible’ and ‘Necessary’__ “In to Out Motion First” or “Out to In Motion First”__When in fact__True and absolute infinity and eternity is indivisible to the ‘Knowing State’ of our feeble minds, but we still must decide which to pursue, to do such fundamental properly ordered science states__Imbo… The “In to Out Motion First State” always requires “The False Creation State” in one form or another__And, the “Out to In Motion First State” does not require any such “False and Contradictory Creation State” as it’s simply accepting a “Fundamental State of Eternal and Infinite Existence” by the possibilities and necessities of “Absolute Fundamental Modal Logics and The Necessary Laws of Physics, of Such Necessary Mechanics…” Tim, I’m not using desires here, to arrive at my positions__I’m using a thoroughly reasoned and rationally derived and grounded “Science of Inductive/Abductive/Deductive Thought” to arrive at my positions… It’s a thorough scientific methodology I’m using__Yet, I fully admit, a fundamental choice is required to see the entire Universe’s total mechanics__And that choice is either “In to Out” or “Out to In” fundamental motion processing… Logic tells me it necessitates “Out to In” to avoid the foolishness of false creation states__Plus the benefit of it being fully aligned with our “Natural Inference Mechanics…”

There are motions which internally establish the ever larger structural systems of a baseball which resonate from the micro scales ouwardly, and then there is the motions imposed inwardly towards these micro scales due to the ball making contact with a bat and having to act accordingly per energy conservation aspects along with trajcetories, etc, whereby distinguishing between the causal mechanics of systems bound by forces e.g. Strong, EM and gravity, and the causal mechanics of those same systems undergoing external forces due to the motions of other various systems, which ‘must be accounted for/ calculated at the deepest of internal scales and resolutions.’

See Tim, imo, this is where I see you maybe keep making the same false and contradictory assumptions about fundamental motions, which seem at variance with my views of fundamental motions__you always seem to end on, I think anyway, assuming, without fully reasoned scientific logic, which is really pure naked belief imo, that ‘cause and effect’ must be accounted for/calculated at the deepest of “Internal Scales and Resolutions”__Which is nothing more than “Creation Scales” to me__as I don’t see the same possibilities and necessities here__and possibly not fully processing the external realities of the existing ‘modally’ necessary and infinite/eternal science states__To First Necessarily Exist__Science can’t be created from Austin’s, Melanie’s and Nobody’s “Nothingnesses”__which I’m sure you know, but my mind keeps seeing traces leading me to think you sometimes go down such paths__unnecessarily so. This is why I keep trying to mention to you that; “Everything must be accounted for/ calculated at the deepest of “External” scales and resolutions”__as “Internal” simply goes to “Naked Creationism”, imo__and gives “The Logically Impossible” false incommensurable results, if that can make any sense…

How we interpret the Planck scales establish the logic by which we must view determinism from my perspective, because if motion is quantized to a spacetime matrix or fabric whereby the smallest of scales undergo discrete motions which aren't causally connected and contributing to the state of a system but rather are motions due to the mere inability and impossibility of being at rest, with only a degree of motion being causally and constructively connected, then determinism dies as a result of mechanical necessity. However, if the FS is continuously connected, whereby there is no underlying PSF and the unity of motion can take place at any scale or resolution whereby disection to a Planck scale field is impossible due to the impossibility of finding any degree of discreteness within a continuous flow, then how are we to distinguish that any aspect of motion or state of the whole wasn't an aspect of the connected whole at all, even if spatial and temporal phase shifts contribute to the magnitude thereof.

Anser: “You realize the multiplicities of the actual logic realities of how c-truths process our “Inference Mechanics” into real and usable images, within our lil’ ol’ pea-brains__First and Foremost…” Everyone has been brainwashed by the “Oneness” click for so many centuries, they actually believe this bullshit, without even considering the “Absolutely Necessary Modal Mechanics of Our Very Own Simple Inference Mechanics…” Inference mechanics must have many bio-agents__real physical spaces and neuronal areas, such as memory, judgment and will states, to process all that “Incoming” noise and images. Our lil’ ol’ pea-brains are not the simple “Monistic” and “Dyadic” Bull-Shit systems much of modern academics and cognitive science have oh so foolishly run on about__It’s a much more complex triadic+ system of “Inference Processing Mechanics” having many more “Necessary Motion Actions and Physical Parts” than much of the science mentions, although some of this science has been mentioned and known for a few centuries, now__but, most academics still choose to take the easy psychological path, instead of the much more difficult path of deep and sound logic and maths, plus its accompanying empirical experimental evidences__Or Pure Non-Naked Thorough Science__The Real Path to Truth…

I'm not trying to sneak determinism in Lloyd, as I've recently admitted to being agnostic towards the subject as having no definite proof our path of logic to support or deny it's existence.

And this is precisely where we would be in dis-agreement, Tim… Though you have admitted your agnosticism to the idea, I still see a profound glue in you ideas and thinking, thoroughly wedded to determinism, at the exclusion of indeterminacy and free-will’s ability to have and secure actionable intelligence, where I simply know it does, and is included__or we’re just simply lost in non-sensible determinism, just as the logical positivists were for decades__until they learned the truth of their own wrong inference mechanics’ processings…

However, It will always take a better argument than implying that we have a multitude of choices at any one moment and our ability to focus on one and act upon it rather than the others disproves determinism in favor of free will as I've explained before, our ability to imagine, rationalize and concieve endless mental possibilities doesn't imply that there is any more than merely one physical path.

And I beg to soundly differ__As it certainly does not only imply, but necessitates more than one physical path to achieve a single final path__which you seem to always be ignoring__and anyone’s simple common sense is insulted by such strict determinist anti-science views. Yes, though we may see scientifically only a single general physical path, in the macro-Universe of structured objects__Quantum Mechanics posits a probability path of many unseen objects__does it not…??? These are the wave-particle paths of the images and ideas of logics, within our pea-brains of “Sound Inference Mechanics” even you admit to__but out of the other side of your mouth, you do seem to try and deny what you’ve openly admitted to, creating the contradictions in your logic and science__to me anyways, Tim. You can not admit to “Inferences and QM” and deny the same “QM to these same Inferences”__Without creating unnecessary contradictions in your logic and science. You must admit “QM” probabilities and capabilities for “Inferences” just as much as for physics__as thought is just as real a physical wave-motion as is any other em-wave-particle__It’s necessarily a probability wave, that actually exists, or it doesn’t exist__and I think even you’ll have to admit you think… “Ergo Cogito” is a fact of “QM”__no matter how you cut the mustard. These are not simple “wild choices”, but real “Physical QM Facts”__Whether thoughts or light photons, it’s all em-waves of some frequency or another. Btw, I always see thoughts as real physical wave-particles passing first from “out to in”, then “in to out”, as our natural inference mechanics, as John Locke and hundreds of other logicians, mathematicians and many other scientists of minds have long stated… My thinking’s nothing new Tim, It’s as old as history, herself… It’s simply “Out to In First”, the way any normal sexual encounter works__The Universe is quite the same mechanics as us…

It's just that with free will, the seeming potiential for various paths seems to disprove the one.

I don’t really know how you are interpreting that Tim, but, my micro-QM-thoughts work quite easily along side the other physical paths of the macro-Universe… There’s no visible undue interference between my physical em-thoughts’ paths, and the particle paths of the other micro- and macro-Universe’s paths__Is there…??? And btw, I always choose the concept of my goals, I and Only I, wish to follow… The Universe does not choose for me__If it did, I’d have long ago committed suicide…

While with determinism, the one path must inevitably account for the illusion of the potiential for various others as an aspect of a deeper fundamental mechanics of the bio realm.

I hate to mention this here Tim, but the only illusion is the illusion of your illusion__thinking free-will to be an illusion__come on get real__Free-will exists. It’s just not intelligent to think it doesn’t… Bio-em-mental paths can just as easily exist alongside the excretions of my bio-body, as ice-cream and apple pie. What’s the use in trying to be an exclusionist__that’s the same foolish mistake every ideology and dogma has made, since the dawn of history. Inclusionism, with a sound sortal logic is a much better path__As only it functions, without contradictions… The false oneness path is no more than creationist BS, imbo… Where does the bad exhaust go, as it passes through a catalytic converter__you don’t see the chemical gasses being converted, but the converter simply splits these gasses into inert gasses and or elements and or other sub-atomic divisions, and sends them straight back into the em-field, as the car continues on its path__much the same as all our excess thoughts are thrown back into the em-field, while we satisfy our freely chosen paths and goals… You gotta get over this “Christian Exclusionary Oneness Bull-Shit”(though I do greatly appreciate the counter-voice of reason, in all other areas of your logic__determinism simply goes beyond the pale)__to see the true paths possible and necessary, of real science and logic… There ain’t no self-contradictory oneness rocket flying through the Universe, Tim__It’s a multi-operationally functioning system, with many, many, many independent paths of all them thar em-wave fields and extended and entangled wave-particles…

This isn't a robotic view, but rather an evolving view of the whole which gets increasingly complex at the bio level with it's imaginations, evolutionary aspects, ecosystems, etc. Just as I discussed earlier about the inward and outward motions, thoughts to me are the inward reverberations from the external more macro geo world as their only ‘outward connection’ to the world is by way of the physical actions they preceed and influence. I know of no scientific evidence of our thoughts alone having the ability to influence any other aspect of this world other than the muscles which our brains are wired too which then influence many physical aspects of this world. This implies to me that the flow here is inward from the macro enviromental aspects whereby being processed to some micro resolution within the accumulative pool of lessons, knowledge, memories, etc, after which reverberating back out by way of physical action to further effect our world or the inward processing of another system. “We can't use intelligence as an indicator of free will” or having a dependence thereof either if we are to believe in bio evolution because bio evolution is a seemingly intelligent physical process of life taking different shapes and forms as the system appears to 'learn' and work from it's mistakes and successes, yet it has deterministic aspects of a physical algorithm running it's course over the entire spectrum of life and not just the individual (which is often the least important in favor of the species) with no emotion but rather a mere process.

Boy, you certainly go out of you way to state only a personal deterministic opinion. Tim, we truly do use intelligence as an indicator of free-will__as without free-will, there’d be no definition of intelligence possible__so intelligence absolutely does necessitate free-will, but quantum mechanically, you also have no other explanation for our known inference mechanics, perception system and conception systems’ mechanics. Ya done gotta be free to choose from all the inferences nature, or as you stated, the geo-world dumps in the skull every second, of every day of our lives. I’d like to see you even begin to try and act on every inference dumped into your skull by the geo-mechanics__alone. I know you simply can’t/couldn’t__and absolutely must use your intelligent/or even a sleepy unintelligent free-will to make such decisions of which inference idea to follow, or set a sortal goal over all the inferences dumped into your skull__That’s simple decision choice Tim, and you can’t deny you use your decision engine over your primary thoughts about all those inferences__remember, I’m well aware that every word on a printed page, or spoken by self or others, creates a concept all by its lonesome__so that’s a lotta’ bio-geo concepts cluttering up your mind, if ya don’t choose to free-will sort the mess, before you decide to act__No…??? Tim, it’s quantum mechanically necessary to have free-will to sort the mechanical inferences of nature alone, or your brain would be over-flooded with trees and leaves alone, not to mention the thousands or millions of other green/pink striped elephants, etc., etc., etc… Where’d you be, if you couldn’t free-will sort that much junk…??? Just think how much inference is involved in simply spinning one circle, with your eyes open__that’s a lotta giga-bytes of image inference mechanics__No…??? If you couldn’t freely and intelligently sort it, your mind wouldn’t work__Period… And that’s Free-Will__and to think otherwise, such as you saying the Universe is doing all this, is simply the old ‘God Omniscience, Passing the Buck, of the Church…’ You see Tim, you’ve really got only a choice to make the Universe be ‘God’ or yourself to be ‘god’__and notice I premised self as the small case ‘god’__but it is a logical fallacy to not have one or the other acting as the god of choice__Either you have the free-will choice, or the Universe is Alive with Free-Will Determined Choice__Which is a pure logical contradiction in terms, even if you state the Universe as a pure deterministic machine__the machine is either a god, in your deterministic system, or it ain’t__and if it ain’t, then it’s up to you to assume the responsibility of self-control of your own free-will decisions and actions__And pleading ignorance of these very laws of science, free-will and logic is no excuse__And any judge on Earth will give you a minimum 30 days in jail to think about it, if you insist on; “The Universe made me do it”__“I have no responsibility over my Universally caused free-will actions…” Tell that to a judge and see how far it goes… Tim, the law holds us all responsible for our personal actions, because it knows we have free-wills, and only because it “KNOWS” we have free-wills__Laws and courts work no other way__Sorry__and ya can’t have science in contradiction with the law, as that’s simply not scientifically sound thinking__This is a state where your ‘Oneness’ does apply across boundaries of laws, logics and free-wills, with science held in common physical action status, as per “The Universality of Truth Systems’ Functions…” These same ideas could be just as easily explained with mathematics__Though addition, subtraction, division and multiplication apply Universally across the entire Universe__these sub-motions of mathematics nowhere in the World apply simultaneously across the entire Universe__as you are trying to falsely insinuate ‘Strong Determinism’ does. “What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander…”

If such a system of interaction can have aspects of intelligence and intelligent operation but also have no intelligence overseeing it and can be explained away as a physical process, then why should our systematic methodology of sorting, storing, and evaluating ideas and aspects, which defines an intelligent process be indicative of definate proof against an underlying process which we don't understand completely, due to complete understanding requiring the ability to analyse a thought by way of thinking?

Tim, if you had read carefully, I never said free-will annuls determinism__I’ve always and constantly stated they are compatible, and act together, as part and parcel of the greater Universal and personal mechanics of everything… Free-will acts intelligently inside the greater deterministic geo-systems__and never annuls the fundamental actions of these greater geo-systems, except where man clearly chooses to alter the geo-world he inhabits, by building new structures, the geo-determinism does not supply for his pleasure, wants and needs… Btw, determinism is even classed as a falsely stated definition, in almost every source__where none of these definitions mentions__Determinism is a human trait of free-will__Only, i.e., I’m determined to be free of society’s silly definitions of positivistic determinism’s false free-wills__which is really just the old negativistic determinism, of Logical Positivism’s long gone era of its severely false interpretations of such knowledge states…

My point here being, if there be no higher intelligence, and the entire bio systems interactions as a whole show aspects of intelligence to which we can identify with/to our own intelligence and minds, and the larger system can be explained by mere physical interactions and processes, then why too can't the lesser recursive process within our minds be accomplished by the same means.

Because of the sortal faculty of free-will the bio-nature has, and the geo-structures’ complete lack thereof, of such free-will__at least as pertains to the bio-systems with such free-wills…

This is the essence of the religious debates, as a product of intelligence within the mind is to recognize the interactions which define it in other systems as with seeing intelligent design underlying nature, thus some project those aspects contradictive to a process and supportive of an independent entity (which is how we see ourselves) upon those things which reflect our own intelectual processes back at us.

Yes Tim, I’m well aware of the religious and intelligent design arguments__but though free-will be used in their arguments__their arguments apply to an entirely different aspect of bio-evolitionary and geo-structuring states… They are applying free-will to the entire Universe through living Universal Minds and Gods, and I’m using say Spinoza’s “Dead God” premise, where only bio-beings on Earth, as far as we thus far know, exhibit intelligent free-will, which is far short of the religious and intelligent design’s exaggerated nonsense… Let’s not confuse and conflate science with religion and intelligent design__as I’m simply speaking about scientific free-will, QM and possible and necessary bio-intelligence…

Some cannot relinquish themselves to the system anymore than they can acknowledge that intelligence in any and all forms is a product of the system whether within the mind of the individual or the survival and mutation of the species and the system is not a product of intelligence.

Tim, I think you are again conflating the issues of those religious and design nutcases__with that of science’s full position. Free-will is possible and necessary, but only as a minor mechanic, within the greater Universal Totally Mechanical System… Intelligence is the tiny living micro-em-field, within the massively larger non-intelligent/non-living macro-em-field__though by necessity of particle actions, it does form logical structures, and at least here on Earth, intelligent bio-free-will beings__as a final em-field product, to re-act back into the inert non-intelligence…

Thus, you can't prove or disprove a more constituent aspect of a processes such as the existence or lack thereof of deterministic interactions within thought itself by way of the composite outcome of the process, which is to think.

Well, I’d dis-agree with you completely here, Tim. You seem to be stating I’m trying to prove determinism does not exist at all, and I have never stated such__I’ve simply tried to bring attention to the false definitional processes of interpretation of the words mis-applications to the geo-world__which definitions I hold to be improper and fasle to cognitive realities__They always need clarifying, but when anyone attempts clarity, the strict determinists go nuts on ya__Oh well... But, the “composite outcomes of the thought process” does prove that non-deterministic processes exist alongside the deterministic processes__even though in a per percentage Universal concept, they are admittedly miniscule__as when macro-geo-fields are compared to living micro-bio-fields… You quite often seem to be debating what I’m not debating, instead of what I am stating and debating… Sometimes this takes many written words to resolve, whereas simple presence can solve in short order__these are the problems of using electronic media, or even telephones__as I used to use Skype, but found that useless, and refuse to use it any more, and I also hate telephones. I’ve found only personal presence possible of resolving deep held differences__such as being discussed here, then sometimes even that is impossible__but, I don’t really think we are that far apart, as I see it simply as that ol’ ‘One and The Many’ bogoie-man again__which has plagued history, since the dawn of time…

But as I've stated, I'm only playing the devils advocate here not to sell you on determinism, but rather to introduce you to the further complexities of proving/disproving such as it isn't as cut and dry as you would have me to believe, at least not from where I stand as I am still agnostic to such things.

Well, you may see yourself as agnostic, Tim, and by your use of this term, I take it you mean non-commital to a position__When in fact, I see you fully committed to a very strong determinism, by the very concepts you use__which I know you can’t prove, as it’s impossible for your model to prove the fundamental cause of motion__and therein lies your determinism’s ultimate infinite regress problem... And, if you were truly agnostically skeptical of all positions, maybe I could see you as agnostic, but I just don’t see that in your writings. I do think if you follow the laws and logics to their full conclusion, you can only arrive at a single scientific opinion about eternity and or creation though__which to me, is and always historically has been the heart of this devil’s advocate free-will/determinism debate. Could it be as simple as history “Not” recognizing “Eternity/Infinity” and “Creation” being absolute scientific and logical contradictions of each other…??? From my speaking to many people about these ideas, this seems to be the crux of it__And it must be dealt thoroughly with in order for the present states of the sciences to progress…

If you were to swap and declare a fully deterministic system, I would have to bring up points I see against that also, but I would try not to base them off of subjective aspects of highly composite interactions, but rather the before mentioned origin of motion whether localized or nonlocalized.

I noticed your interpretation of what you consider subjective as verses objective not to be as my understanding of these concepts are. Any action, divorced from feelings’ judgments can be considered objective__as per I and most history have generally processed such ideas. Subjective judgments only enter in when someone is using purely opinionated and un-scientific, un-methodological, feelings attached to their ideas based on beliefs, opinions and faith. Some people think the objective to be a purely external object oriented language use, but this is not the case__or we could never have made objective sense of our language use, all throughout the centuries. Many great objective logical and scientific minds have known about and interpreted the inference mechanics objectively since our earliest records, but many writers have confused sound inference mechanics of having subjective epistemic elements attached__but the truth of these matters rests with judgments within the inference mechanics system__if judgments are free of subjective feelings, beliefs and opinions__then these epistemic judgments are, or at least can be, actually fully objective, as they are being drawn from pure a priori rationality and empiricism/experimental evidences. So, I’m usually very carefully and most always parsing my sentences into objective inference mechanics, and it’s the judgment area of the inference mechanics that falsely falls into the subjective feelings, and only this area of inference mechanics’ judgment, that does create the pseudo-subjectivities, or the psychologies which I try to almost always avoid. Tim, I can easily state the complete a priori rational paths, empirical experimental evidences and real world facts and groundings of all my ideas__which I think most others would have great difficulty doing… And yes, I also agree that a healthy skepticism is extremely necessary to keep our objective intuitions tuned up…

The same aspects can be applied to free will and the mind. Do thoughts discretely originate within the mind with no preceeding influence of any kind needed, similar to the quantization of discrete motion at the PSF or are they a product of external influence coupled with internal chemistry with physical chains of events always preceeding the thought even if in another form of energy?

As I’ve most always stated elsewhere; “All thoughts originate external to thinking beings, except the thoughts of bio-beings’ internal mechanics knowledge, i.e., we absolutely know we have bodies, pains and visions within our bio-beings-brains…”

Perhaps they are a continuous flow of interactions with no discrete aspects or origins to identify like a river flowing through our minds whereby displaying the same causal aspects as the lightcone discussion earlier, with memories having magnitudes relative to certain perameters which influence the flow of information which we can never seemingly disconnect from fully, not even while sleeping.

Tim, I think you know “Perhaps” does not have any meaning, nor should it be used, in a scientific debate, but thought I’d mention it anyway. Yes, it is a continuous flow of inference mechanics, as we see this daily__but never does the inference mechanics account for our total self-knowledge of our own bodies, pains and visions within our bio-beings’ brains… If we seriously scientifically account for all our internal and external known actions and states__we absolutely know that process necessitates a very powerful sortal intelligence, beyond the pure determinism of any such simple inference mechanics of strong determinism… Neuro-medicine has already physically proven such, by inspecting and recording the actions of patients with either damaged dorsal or ventral canals, leading to our perception center, as per what parts of the body were controllable by the brain, or not, after such severly brain injured patients were fully medically tested… Science now knows much about the internal necessity mechanics of our brains, and also about the free-will intelligence choices of damaged and undamaged patients, as well__forcing many strong determinists to take another serious look at their highly mis-guided ideas…

I often consider the thinking process as being fluid in nature with no starts, stops or gaps, but only changes in the direction of flow, as the mind drifts from thought to thought to the point that the rest of our body seeks relief from it's relentlessness in an attempt to disconnect if only for a little while as we sleep. You ever tried to actually think of nothing? I'm not sure it's possible.

Yeah, I have tried, and I agree with you__I don’t think it’s possible__but, I’ve also discovered many gaps in our thinking processes, by being involved and exposed to so many raised in group discussions, that I now realize how prevalent they truly are__and have been discussed at least since the early Greeks. That’s why I’ve mentioned so much about Ramsey, Godel and Herbrand, etc., as they covered so much of these areas of thought… Imo, we know far less than we actually think we do, yet at the same time, if we choose to be general in our thinking, we know far more than we think we do__as my wife and son are always pointing this out to me… Just yesterday, my son mentioned his evolutionary stages of regular thought, religious and new age nonsense, he finally boiled down to three simple states of mind__Objective logic, subjective psychology, and morality__as that’s really the entire general picture of everyone’s reality, imo__in every field of study, when all is considered under the simple category of generality… He and my wife choose to process most all public information to their simplest common sense states, and my daughter and I choose to process most all information, public and private, to their most complex states, and back to simplicity and common sense…

As to the signal frequency analysis from the other day which I think you said was out of sciences abilities or something, I was only speaking of a frequency counter or simple radio receiver. Consider the dopler shifts of visible radiaton. Now consider two objects of exact physical makeup with one on each side of your direction of travel. Any relativistic shift of color, apparent physical makeup, or any other frequency dependent aspect provides a means to make an objecitve calculation of absolute position and motion by way of a comparison of the frequency dependent changes undergone between the two objects. Such frequency dependent aspects take the form of various types of information within the radio frequencies, thus the same message would be recieved and interpreted differently depending upon it's point of origin. Any situation which effects the frequency of a clock, such as the motions of the gps satelites should be subject to some aspect of this as a clock is merely an oscillator. The effects would still be very small at current acheivable velocities but should be present none the less.

Yeah Tim, my point wasn’t that this wasn’t scientific, it’s the point that due to so much noise of different frequencies involved__certain frequencies are presently beyond science’s ability to detect, i.e., those of morphogenetic fields, or brain aura fields, etc.__until science develops more sensitive detector capabilities… As to what science is presently able to detect of the total em-frequency spectrum, where signal noise is an issue, I’m not really familiar enough to comment further about… I just know it is an issue, as to my studies about brain waves and the cognitive medical studies I am familiar with__There’s a lot we can not yet detect__that I do know…

Hey, thanks for all the devils advocate material. Gives me something new to do, as I’m really bogged down a bit with trying to word this total central processing problem of; “The absolute infinite is indivisible…???” I don’t know if this statement of Spinoza’s is true or not, or even if it’s possible to answer to, in the form posed, but it’s just one example of how this issue has been approached by another historical thinker, in another time far away… The thing with Spinoza, he was considered an atheist and excommunicated from the Jewish faith, yet endorsed by many Christians as a great Christian thinker. Now that’s quite a feat__to be thought an anthiest and a believer of god, at the same time… And remember from above; Spinoza’s god, was a dead materialistic god__you’d most likely be in complete agreement with his scientific ideas__whereas, I am not…

“An emotion can only be displaced or overcome by a stronger emotion.” Spinoza

Brought over from email

I've actually been focused on the inventions and stuff along with working a turnaround in Wyoming. We should be leaving today or tomorrow and making the twenty-one hour ride back to the good country. Lol.

You don't bother me at all with the determinism debates as I actually see enough variables and judgments based off judgments that it is nothing more than a logical debate of closest to facts opinions that we can make on both sides. All that we can do is to try to narrow the discussion to the most logical debate. I actually had a response and got side tracked. I think we need to further clarify a few points before we proceed though because much of the confusion with the determinism debate is definition based along with the distinction of the ability to know vs the ability to merely function (bio vs geo) just as QM tries to place the wavefunction collapse at the mercy of the observer when you and I know that things are as they are despite us deciding to open the box and see the health of the cat. Free will or not, our thoughts only change the world by way of our further actions due to such, whereby the world isn't dictated to alter itself due to our thoughts or decisions to see what's inside without the proper physical channels of classical mechanics whereby the path to such changes are governed by the common four forces. To me, there is only one universe in one specific state and not a multitude of infinite possibilities. From there, there is a distinction of observation vs mere operation whereby I see operation as objective and observation as a sub-subjective aspect. However, the randomness and uncertainty that I find threatening determinism is the reverberation of cause and effect penetrating inward and outward communicating between the macro and micro whereby establishing the world which merely is as accuracy only gains meaning at the more macro scales.

Randomly Seeking Determinism

Alright....I'll probably be spending some time at the motel tomorrow due to having to wait on a critical part to come in at work so I can now engulf myself back into the abyss that is the universal actions. Lol.

From what I gather about much of what you are speaking of, we are basically talking about causal light cones and the magnitude by which they effect other points within the universal field as being a logical argument against determinism. You can correct me as needed if I'm misinterpreting here, but I feel that a visible example of such dynamics is captured within visible light itself as the very magnitude of causality itself fades per the inverse square relationship just as does the image of a distant object being focused to our eye by a telescope. If we imagine the entire universal volume at an early contracted state, then all internal points and states are more symmetrically synchronized or within a closer temporal phase within the whole as all motions go into establishing the external identity/state of the whole with potentially no outside influence unless we acknowledge an ever larger cosmic field which can be left out of this debate. Now as the universal volume expands and structured systems form and gather within the expanding universal light cone, the causal effects of these individaulized systems are reduced per their distance of seperation as distance is internally established. Naturally, at some point the distances will be so great that the causal mechanics of any nonlocallized point will be so faint that it's magnitude is seemingly unimportant to a local systems functioning and the present state of the local system is so far out of sync with the distant system that it is the very past state of the distant system which is contributing ever so slightly to the present state of the local system. Thus, being as information/causality of this sort travels at the speed of light, then the lesser the physical magnitude acting upon a local system from an equal magnitude nonlocal event, the further the distance of seperation both spatially and temporally between the two as the present state of the local system is impacted by an increasingly earlier state of the nonlocal system. This is evident of the image from distant stars arriving at Earth being representative of their past state and the further away the star, the further we are looking into it's past with no way of knowing it's present state at the moment which we turn our telescope towards it until the proper time has past per the distance of seperation to recieve information of such by way of visible light. Yet, even if it takes a huge mirror to reflect the faint images, some residule visible radiation still falls upon the lens with the greater magnitude of such being detectable at an increasing magnitude towards the point of origin.

Could a large enough event at the farthest conceivable distances within the universal volume effect our present state at some point in the future? I would think so, but it would take a relativel amount of time to do so. The same as a catastrophic event within the sun would take a few minutes for us to know it's state and witness it, which at that point would be a past state. Distance establishes that we will never know the present state of any distant system as there's always a time lapse in the conveyance of information. Density also plays a similar role, as the initial interactions which emited the light leaving the surface of the sun often took place at a much earlier time than that indicated by the much lesser distance the light had to travel due to the absorption emission mechanics of stars.

The out of phase temporal aspect isn't as relevant to the determinism debate to me as is the question of the origin of motion itself at the Planck scales as causal temporal phase shifts is conserved by way of shifts of causal magnitude. This only means that mechanical determinism is limited to the speed of light and the allowable magnitude of distance. The greatest confusion in my opinion is creating a paradigm whereby motion is divided inwardly and outwardly, whereby distinguishing between the motions which go towards establishing structure outwardly from the micro scales vs the imposed motions which reverberate inwardly from an event at the macro scales. There are motions which internally establish the ever larger structural systems of a baseball which resonate from the micro scales ouwardly, and then there is the motions imposed inwardly towards these micro scales due to the ball making contact with a bat and having to act accordingly per energy conservation aspects along with trajcetories, etc, whereby distinguishing between the causal mechanics of systems bound by forces e.g. Strong, EM and gravity, and the causal mechanics of those same systems undergoing external forces due to the motions of other various systems, which must be accounted for/ calculated at the deepest of internal scales and resolutions. How we interpret the Planck scales establish the logic by which we must view determinism from my perspective, because if motion is quantized to a spacetime matrix or fabric whereby the smallest of scales undergo discrete motions which aren't causally connected and contributing to the state of a system but rather are motions due to the mere inability and impossibility of being at rest, with only a degree of motion being causally and constructively connected, then determinism dies as a result of mechanical necessity. However, if the FS is continuously connected, whereby there is no underlying PSF and the unity of motion can take place at any scale or resolution whereby disection to a Planck scale field is impossible due to the impossibility of finding any degree of discreteness within a continuous flow, then how are we to distinguish that any aspect of motion or state of the whole wasn't an aspect of the connected whole at all, even if spatial and temporal phase shifts contribute to the magnitude thereof.

I'm not trying to sneak determinism in Lloyd, as I've recently admitted to being agnostic towards the subject as having no definite proof our path of logic to support or deny it's existence. However, It will always take a better argument than implying that we have a multitude of choices at any one moment and our ability to focus on one and act upon it rather than the others disproves determinism in favor of free will as I've explained before, our ability to imagine, rationalize and concieve endless mental possibilities doesn't imply that there is any more than merely one physical path. It's just that with free will, the seeming potiential for various paths seems to disprove the one. While with determinism, the one path must inevitably account for the illusion of the potiential for various others as an aspect of a deeper fundamental mechanics of the bio realm. This isn't a robotic view, but rather an evolving view of the whole which gets increasingly complex at the bio level with it's imaginations, evolutionary aspects, ecosystems, etc. Just as I discussed earlier about the inward and outward motions, thoughts to me are the inward reverberations from the external more macro geo world as their only outward connection to the world is by way of the physical actions they preceed and influence. I know of no scientific evidence of our thoughts alone having the ability to influence any other aspect of this world other than the muscles which our brains are wired too which then influence many physical aspects of this world. This implies to me that the flow here is inward from the macro enviromental aspects whereby being processed to some micro resolution within the accumulative pool of lessons, knowledge, memories, etc, after which reverberating back out by way of physical action to further effect our world or the inward processing of another system. We can't use intelligence as an indicator of free will or having a dependence thereof either if we are to believe in bio evolution because bio evolution is a seemingly intelligent physical process of life taking different shapes and forms as the system appears to 'learn' and work from it's mistakes and successes, yet it has deterministic aspects of a physical algorithm running it's course over the entire spectrum of life and not just the individual (which is often the least important in favor of the species) with no emotion but rather a mere process. If such a system of interaction can have aspects of intelligence and intelligent operation but also have no intelligence overseeing it and can be explained away as a physical process, then why should our systematic methodology of sorting, storing, and evaluating ideas and aspects, which defines an intelligent process be indicative of definate proof against an underlying process which we don't understand completely, due to complete understanding requiring the ability to analyse a thought by way of thinking? My point here being, if there be no higher intelligence, and the entire bio systems interactions as a whole show aspects of intelligence to which we can identify with/to our own intelligence and minds, and the larger system can be explained by mere physical interactions and processes, then why too can't the lesser recursive process within our minds be accomplished by the same means. This is the essence of the religious debates, as a product of intelligence within the mind is to recognize the interactions which define it in other systems as with seeing intelligent design underlying nature, thus some project those aspects contradictive to a process and supportive of an independent entity (which is how we see ourselves) upon those things which reflect our own intelectual processes back at us. Some cannot relinquish themselves to the system anymore than they can acknowledge that intelligence in any and all forms is a product of the system whether within the mind of the individual or the survival and mutation of the species and the system is not a product of intelligence. Thus, you can't prove or disprove a more constituent aspect of a processes such as the existence or lack thereof of deterministic interactions within thought itself by way of the composite outcome of the process, which is to think. But as I've stated, I'm only playing the devils advocate here not to sell you on determinism, but rather to introduce you to the further complexities of proving/disproving such as it isn't as cut and dry as you would have me to believe, at least not from where I stand as I am still agnostic to such things. If you were to swap and declare a fully deterministic system, I would have to bring up points I see against that also, but I would try not to base them off of subjective aspects of highly composite interactions, but rather the before mentioned origin of motion whether localized or nonlocalized. The same aspects can be applied to free will and the mind. Do thoughts discretely originate within the mind with no preceeding influence of any kind needed, similar to the quantization of discrete motion at the PSF or are they a product of external influence coupled with internal chemistry with physical chains of events always preceeding the thought even if in another form of energy? Perhaps they are a continuous flow of interactions with no discrete aspects or origins to identify like a river flowing through our minds whereby displaying the same causal aspects as the lightcone discussion earlier, with memories having magnitudes relative to certain perameters which influence the flow of information which we can never seemingly disconnect from fully, not even while sleeping. I often consider the thinking process as being fluid in nature with no starts, stops or gaps, but only changes in the direction of flow, as the mind drifts from thought to thought to the point that the rest of our body seeks relief from it's relentlessness in an attempt to disconnect if only for a little while as we sleep. You ever tried to actually think of nothing? I'm not sure it's possible.

As to the signal frequency analysis from the other day which I think you said was out of sciences abilities or something, I was only speaking of a frequency counter or simple radio receiver. Consider the doppler shifts of visible radiaton. Now consider two objects of exact physical makeup with one on each side of your direction of travel. Any relativistic shift of color, apparent physical makeup, or any other frequency dependent aspect provides a means to make an objecitve calculation of absolute position and motion by way of a comparison of the frequency dependent changes undergone between the two objects. Such frequency dependent aspects take the form of various types of information within the radio frequencies, thus the same message would be recieved and interpreted differently depending upon it's point of origin. Any situation which effects the frequency of a clock, such as the motions of the gps satelites should be subject to some aspect of this as a clock is merely an oscillator. The effects would still be very small at current acheivable velocities but should be present none the less.

Two Points In 'Time' Are Past And Present 'Independent' To Each's Action__As To Future States' Actions...

Hi Tim. I know the reason you are probably not continueing our blog posts is most likely over the free-will-choice differences__so, let me point out something as simply as I can, by relating it to this paragraph excerpt of yours.

"We must differentiate between local and non-local determinacy as with the state of all points being causal to the point of the future outcome of the entire whole being a product of every point and time of the present, or the mere determinacy of the ability for any local point in the universe being able to replicate the same laws as any other distant point due to homogenous and isotropic mechanics embedded within the fabric of the FS spacetime matrix itself."

If you notice, I've carefully broken this sentence up, into its constituent parts__as this is the trickiest part of logical and mathematical processing, ever presented, to understand. This great logical and mathematical puzzle goes all the way back in recorded history, but in its clearest modern form, was first thoroughly discussed between Pascal and Fermat, about probability maths and logics__then Huygens wrote the first real treatise on their probability arguments, as they pertained to real math and logic problems__The very core of free-will's and determinism's arguments.

If you noticed, you wrote about differentiating between local and non-local determinacy, yet you have not distinguished clearly between what is meant by a real difference between local and non-local 'Time' determinacy... This is very difficult to even write about, as it involves the impossible understandings of 'The Asymmetries of Symmetries or Symmetries of Asymmetries' which truly can not be differentiated, at either the local or non-local points, of our 'Frames of References' without infringing upon the definitions of each point, since all state changes are one connected, extended and entangled whole fundamental substance field__It involves 'The Problem of The Problem of No Meaning Possible', at this level, which many logicians and mathematicians do not accept, while others do__which gives us the core of our views of differences__whether it's me and you, or any other two people on Earth, who are going to take the different sides of this 'Absolutely Most Fundamental Pre-Suppositional Position'__until soundly derived axiomatic proofs are given. Now, don't take me wrong here, as I've so often spoken against axioms, but that's because I've never seen 'Fundamental Enough', fully derived axiomatic proofs, yet__It doesn't mean they are not possible. As a matter of fact, I think I may be able to add to the derivation of this fundamental area of 'Axiomatic Proofs'__but, it centers on our differences__you thinking the world is wholly 'Deterministic', as far as I can tell from your writings, and I thinking it's both 'Deterministic' and 'Free-Acting', 'Non-Deterministic', or 'Indeterministic...'

Simply put, iff the world were 'Wholly Deterministic', you should be able to tell me what all past and present points of action, will be doing in the future. Of course, we both know this is entirely impossible, but the point isn't that it's impossible, but rather, why is it impossible...? You may argue it's simply due to lacking information, but I'd argue it's untrue because we do not lack the information__it's simply because certain mathematicians and logicians have not clearly looked at the sound information we do possess. No matter how sound the points of deterministic information(matter's actual motions) are__No matter points, in the past can fully determine matter points, in the future__Due fully to the facts of 'Time and Distance's Origins' of the 'wave-matter points' involved... Iff we are bound to 'Axiomatically Accept' a Universe existing__We are 'Axiomatically' bound by 'The Laws of Physics' to accept it existing for eternity. Iff existing for eternity, the Universe is bound by 'The Laws of Physics' to be 'Infinite', due to the inargueable point of 'Eternity' and 'Infinity' being in 'Logical Contradiction' if not so. By the very 'Laws of Physics' existence, and by the logic we are necessitated to accept these 'Fundamental Axiomatic Facts', or we are creating a logically infinite regress, a contradiction, or a question begging situation, i.e., the snake can not swallow its own tail, and live__only the catepillar and moth, etc., can... Tim, I'm just pointing out some fundamental facts, that major modal logicians and major mathematicians have discovered about the 'Laws of Physics', 'Logic' and 'Math's Necessities', that have been discovered and known, since the `30's and `40's__mainly by Ramsey, Herbrand, Godel, Lukasiewicz, Tarski, Church, Turing and Cohen, plus many others...

Now, as to the points of the past and present 'Deterministically' affecting/effecting the future, or the simple past affecting/effecting the present and future, or the past and present affecting/effecting the present or future__we are locked in a local and non-local time determinacy debate__which can not be settled by viewing the Universe in either a known state of 'Oneness' or 'Manyness'__as this can 'Absolutely' not be known 'Absolutely'__with any amount of positive knowledge__this area is locked in belief and probability theories and facts. Now, this gets back to Pascal and Fermat's debate, then Huygens', Beyes, Laplace, Gauss, Bolzano, Peirce and all the others about the many types of probability maths, logics, laws and mechanical systems__involved... To make this as uncomplicated as possible, yet give you the main overview__There's basically 4 types of interpretations of the 'Probabilities' involved__'Two Subjective Systems' and 'Two Objective Systems...' These four systems are extremely conflated and confused, in all the modern written academic literature, almost no matter where its sources are drawn from__These facts I can not over-state enough, Tim... There's two subjective probability methods, and two objective probability methods, and there has been since the different system debates between Pascal and Fermat, interpreted by Huygens__the more accurate objective system, and that similar system interpreted by Beyes and Laplace__Where Gauss and Peirce, along with the mathematicians and logicians I listed above, are on Huygens side. Anyway, psychology can be purposely interpretively judged from either a subjective probability method, or an objective probability method__and logic can be purposely interpretively judged from either a subjective probability method, or an objective probability method. Now first off, none of these either subjective or objective systems poses a general overall problem, by itself__but when any of these methods are turf-crossed in many authors' works, they do not stipulate 'Exactly' which method is being used and discussed__and herein lies the conflation and confusion problems, at the very heart of all meaning and interpretation problems of probability, or 'Statistical Analysis', 'Probability Analysis' and 'Statistical Mechanics...' The main problem of using 'Psychological Probabilities' is hardly any psychologies distinguish thoroughly between the 'Subjective Analysis' and the 'Objective Analysis' where probability systems are involved__so should be avoided for the most complex of problems, unless it's at least a 51/49 probability mechanics or above, and never the subjective 50/50 analyses, except where pure guessing is needed for initial intuitive and abductive hypothesis theorizing, which must be later checked by the 51/49+ systems. Those logicians and mathematicians using the 'Objective Analyses' systems, more often use the correct Huygens' 51/49+ system, which doesn't get us into the subjective problems of interpretations of information path unknowns. The 'Objective Analysis' can track all the path facts for its systems of relaying its objective truths. I'm not saying you are missing these points Tim, I'm simply mentioning them__as I don't think you may be aware of all this long and very confusing and conflationary history of logical and mathematical interpretations, vs., the psychologically subjective, and even logically subjective__that has the world locked in a massive amount of false facts... What I'm saying is that; "Iff all the facts are processed by the 'Absolutely Objective Analyses' systems, 'Then And Only Then', can the actual 'Axioms' be fully path derived..."

Tim, the reason the deterministic paths of the past or present can not control the present__100%__is the 'Time Factor' of never being possible of such action of all the past actions upon the present or future actions__Due to the simple 'Fact' of 'Location' in 'Different Time Frames' of 'Absolute Fundamental Motion...' We absolutely know, by the necessity of modal logic, that's 1st proto-logical necessity, that 'Iff By The Necessity of The Laws of Physics' the Universe is required to be either 'Created' or 'Eternally Existed'__that 'Creation Is Impossible' by the very 'Laws of Physics' we are axiomatically bound to use. Now, you may think I'm axiomatically stepping beyond what logic and truth systems can know__but, just check out the very necessities of all the fundamental mechanics, in relation to these fundamental 'Laws of Physics', 'Modal Logical Necessities' and 'Non-Contradiction Necessities...' I've been through these arguments thousands of times over the last forty years, and they always come out the same__'Iff we are true and honest to our rational a priori logics, maths and empirical laws and evidential experiences of physics__we can make no other axiomatically derived and determined answers'__The Universe Functions Time-Asymmetrically, Since By Axiomatic Necessity of Being Eternal and Infinite, It's factually too far beyond the speed of light, to fundamentally function any other way... So by the necessity of 'Fundamental FS-Field-Motion', it's absolutely axiomatically required to be 'Time Asymmetrical', and wave-particles traveling in opposint directions, for trillions of years__can never have physical affects and effects resulting in the same deterministic mechanics of any one point in space__to any other point in space__even thought the majority of wave-particles are traveling more within the curvature of local time-frame mechanics__All wave-particles can never be traveling locally determined, due to the c-limits of the limits within the 'Axiomatic Laws of Physics...'

Tim, even within our local time-frame__any deterministic system is always out-of-time, iff simply traveling to the short distance center of our own galaxy, where many wave-particles would be trapped for trillions of years, in our galaxy's neutron star center's massive gravity, otherwise known as a black-hole__Thus creating 'The Black Hole Axiom' of 'No Possible Way of Local Action Being Fully Local Action Caused'__It can't be, if certain wave-particles are being captured by black-holes and taken out of the local action pseudo-symmetry circus. The Universe just isn't symmetrical__It's fully physical-action asymmetrical, by necessity__By the logics, maths, facts, laws and physics__Involved... At the same, as to 'Time', 'The Universe Has The Full Capacity To Be Time Symmetrical'__'At Both The Local and Non-Local Points and Whole'__as 'Time Is An Abstract Event/Occurence, As Well As A Real Physical Progression...' I can understand all the distinct differences Tim, but I'm still not sure if I've explained my thinking well enough for you to understand me, but I've tried...

Lloyd

P.s.
Tim, I've simply tried to get you to explore this 'determinism' 'indeterminacy' more deeply, because it's the true core of all the problems between logicians, mathematicians, psychologists and philosophers__almost since the beginning of time, and imo, the only way to solve it is to dive even deeper into it... You've offered the Planckian Matrix, but I'm trying to show you the limits of logic, reasoning and mathematics__at the very core of Quantum Mechanics...

Btw, been working with my favorite Maine physicist/chemist over the last few months, on these very questions. He and I have boiled it all down to how we process personal judgments, from how we've been programmed from birth, and how we can as adults, use a sortal logic, to prove the core of Universal necessities, and create the new axioms needed to procede further... Also, one of the oldest members of my philosophy group has asked me to school him in how I am processing the logic I'm using in the meetings__and he's 78 years old, and no slouch about logics and maths, as he worked as a scientist and teacher all his life__but he recognizes something different and useful in my method__which is really just a strict adherence to the most sound scientific methods__We've all got it boiled down to the Planckian scales of QM, Logics and Maths__but how we all prove what we 'Know to Be True' can be quite difficult, without inferring false axioms, into the systems of quantification proofs... This line of thinking and rationality of judgments has led us into the fundamental personal belief systems of tribes, and whether and how we process this information either subjectively or objectively__where I'm relating the objective path axioms of our fundamental subjective sub-conscious childhood thinkings to them__which can all be re-processed totally axiomatically objectively__within the sceintific methods I'm using__But, explaining the 'Free-Will Problem' to them is also causing the largest problems, with other members, within the group, thinking opposite to us__but, the three of us main thinkers, think the same__as I've described above__The necessary independence of the Universe's most fundamental actions, due to time-distance separations of points/frame-references and directions/vectors... None of us think it's quite as simple as many of the absolute positivist thinkers, think it is__yet, it's very close__but, the differences allow for 'Free-Will', 'Actionable Values Intelligence' and 'Necessary Axiomatic Intelligence...'

"Quantum limits, limit our rationality; and rational limits, limit our quantum abilities__this must be addressed…" me
--
The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possible premises, and the combined results will be the total actions of the idea.”