Leaderboard

But, does the hen recognize what it has found, or is it just a shiny rock that attracts it attention? And for the hen's purposes, a nugget of gold is less valuable than a small rock. Chickens ingest these small rocks to hold in their gizzards, were they serve in lieu of teeth. The contractions of the gizzard use the rocks to grind up the grain, etc. into small digestible bits. Gold, being a soft metal, serves as a poor substitute for common rocks.

What if your neurologist was so competent that he became a Laplace's Demon and provided you with a scheduled listing of all your actions for the next 24 hours? Wouldn't a compatibilist's belief in determinism conflict with his freedom to deviate from the Demon's prediction only to fall foul of some time reversed Grandfather paradox? Even if you claim that predictability has nothing to do with free will it appears from the above that compatibilism requires the future to be unknowable for free will to remain meaningful. The macroscopic diversity and non-linearity I mentioned were intended to suggest that there may be profound reasons why that future is indeed unknowable; we do not and never will know exactly the point where lightning will next strike, and that seems a necessary condition for the very existence of free will. They give free will 'elbow room'. When you talk about the predictability of your behaviour are you not not really just talking about trust? The habitual repetitive patterns of behaviour that you have developed over a lifetime in defiance of random external stimuli? Those patterns that a wife may find reliably secure and comforting, in contrast to an archetype impulsive free spirit like Peter Pan? How would we ever know that a Peter Pan had any free will at all? It surely takes an effort of free will curb one's impulses and train oneself to be a person a life partner could trust. This seems to be Spinoza's vision of free will While initial urge may arguably be deterministic, the development and regular practice of 'good habits' further distances action from external influences. Having made elbow room for some definition of free will: As a philosophical construct that definition of free will must be an idealised perfect form. One issue I might raise here is that evolution doesn't habitually create perfect forms. It strongly prefers 'sufficient' forms. Given a choice of multiple alternative means to an end, it invariably seems to go the recurrent laryngeal nerve route. However, evolutionarily desirable free will may be to the survival of a species, I suspect that the most economic structure to build from readily available materials would be some merely sufficient simulation. Your decision to engage in a sensible diet was a result of logical deduction. Logic transcends the boundaries of the universe and is therefore an uncaused cause.

Cream cake ? Yes please. +1

"Ummm... I'd love a cream cake". (determinism), but I'm not going to have one as I'm on a diet. (freewill). True or false? I constructed this to be analysed.

I think 2 new laws are necessary or F/m = Motion Resistance force / deceleration when moving towards any absolute motion direction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ or F/m = Reduced absolutte motion resistance force, - when moving oppesite any absolute motion direction F = RR-Force v = the speed by the travelling observer m = mass of the traveling observer c = the speed og light

Your argument is valid only against the concept of libertarian free will, not against the concept of compatibilist free will. It would be nice if in the philosophy forum, arguments are exchanged, not just viewpoints. I gave an argument against the idea that unpredictability is an element of free will. So now I expect an argument for your viewpoint from you. Or an argument why mine is wrong: So why don't you share your thoughts? What are the experiences that convince you we have free will? And what kind of free will? As said above, having an opinion about a philosophical topic is not philosophy. Having well-reasoned arguments, and present them, so others can understand your trains of thought, and evaluate them, that is what makes exchanges of ideas philosophy.

Of course there is. Dinosaurs existed even though no humans were there at the same time. How did the human mind come to be if there was nothing there from which they could have developed?

"six of whom largely supported Democrats and six of whom generally supported Republicans" So basically they would cancel out. And presidential candidates are not relying on the same donors, which was the implication of the previous assertion. ETA: and there's a big asterisk on the numbers "The $3.4 billion from the 12 biggest donors amounts to one in every $13 that all federal campaigns and outside groups raised over the past decade, the analysis shows. Roughly $1.4 billion of that came from the self-funding of the unsuccessful 2020 presidential campaigns of Bloomberg L.P. founder Michael Bloomberg and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer -- with Bloomberg alone dropping more than $1 billion of his own money into his historically expensive presidential bid." So 40% of the contributions were from self-funding of campaigns, and not anyone trying to influence elections because of support for Israel. And that's not the president. A local elected official in a town of 40,000 has no say in foreign policy (that election was for a parish sheriff in Louisiana). —- As to an earlier comment, if a US president were to withhold or restrict aid, would Israel listen to us? What would be the incentive to get to a result that we wanted? Like a cease-fire. Or beyond. Consider that other countries with different agendas, contrary to the US’s, might be willing to step in and replace it.

This song should be playing in every voting center in the country during the election!

Pardon me. I thought you were trying to make sense.

Maybe someone should stop reading sci-fi and read textbooks instead. Start with the AI textbook quoted in my original article.

Good grief. The "missing piece" is the design without a design. There's no such thing- It's a contradiction as I've already pointed out numerous times. The process of evolution isn't that of design. There is no design in nature unless someone is fielding some sort of Intelligent Design argument (ironic given the reply I got above) I'm going to take TheVat's advice and ignore you and your replies. Not going to spend any more time with some school child whose concept of design is expressed with his ridiculous post about his parents having sex.

You had to get that in, didn’t you Either way, I’m familiar with it under its original name Swordy-Abbasi spectrum, from when this was first published - but you seem to be right that it appears to be called “the knee” and “the ankle” nowadays. See, I learned something new today! And no, my area of expertise is General Relativity (mostly its theoretical foundations), not HEPP, which is why I haven’t followed latest developments on this particular issue. Exactly why do you think this is even relevant to theories of gravity? Yes. The fundamental grounds are rock solid.

e.g. this one https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222660357_Models_of_the_Knee_in_the_Energy_Spectrum_of_Cosmic_Rays Google search gives numerous links if you'd like to be more informed on that subject. Actually, I hoped that you have wide knowledge in Astrophysics. You say such because you are talking on a GR language. Because fundamental grounds must be reinspected. Dynamic gravity based on other grounds which declares that "There aren't motions, in the Universe, without forces". PS. thanks for attention and spended time.

Unfortunately I am not the best physicist in the world. If there was "matter" before the Big Bang and it did not get completely destroyed by the Big Bang, it would still be out there right? I am guessing it would be "between the molecules" (undetected). I don't know what 13 billion years does to space / matter that existed before the BB. It would be strange I am guessing. Our current science uses people on a planet in the current universe, and we are trying to explain a lot (e.g. all of time itself). So it is entirely possible it is not completely right......

no, you

atoms as to objects. (Current universe / time) X as to Y. (T previous) T as to Z. (T previous) See how in previous "time" things might have been very different even "strange" Ie can you always assume things will always be like atoms?

But in experiment with two slits observation makes electrons to behave like particles. I read the material. But how can you measure the colour if it doesn't exist nowhere except your head! There is no true green, no true blue. Colour is subjective, everyone sees their own colors. I'm talking about the color, not about the light. I mentioned religious statements to explain my thought: there is nothing without human brain.

Something exists because it was observed and realized. And this is ability of a human only.