martillo

The world and the universe are not deterministic. I repeat, there would be a degree of freedom in the universe to allow that. They are not contradictory at all. Seems you are not well understanding my posting.

As I mentioned in some previous post some degree of freedom in the dynamics of the universe exist to allow some "conditioned will". Not a totally free will because some conditioning always exist but some degrees of freedom to make choices do exist sometimes, not always may be, but sometimes do.

That's an example on no "free will" of course. What about the case of the video of the dogs above? Don't you think the dogs have a good degree of freedom in playing that way?

I'm thinking on: Please remember that I said that actually a total "free will" actually does not exist. Just a "conditioned will" would exist. We can talk about degrees of freedom in making choices. I think that in the case of the video the dogs have a good degree of freedom...

What about:

As I said before the server got down for a week:

I think the definition cannot be changed so easily. That could be a definition of simply "will", not of "free will". "Free" means without conditions. I stay with the dictionaries' definitions. "Free will" and "determinism" are, by definition, mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist at the same time.

As impossible as the meant "free will" is. Just a "conditioned will" as defined above is possible.

Right, just some degree of freedom exist in making choices and not always is possible. We can only make choices in the degrees of freedom the conditions leave to us. That's why I talk about a "conditioned will". We must first agree in some definitions, if not, how to discuss anything? The dictionaries' definitions are fine for me in this case. The problem is in how much degree of freedom we can have in reality to make choices. Thinking about it, comes a good definition of "conditioned will" to me: "the ability to make decisions in the degree of freedom the conditions allow". There would be no "free will" nor "determinism", just a "conditioned will".

Thanks! I just want to comment that we are not so free in making alternative definitions. I have made a google search for the definition of "free will" before I posted about and it can be found in dictionaries like Cambridge, Oxford, etc. The definitions I found can be well expressed as I did in my previous post:

I stay with that last definition of "free will" as "to be able to make decisions independent of any previous condition". That in total opposition to "determinism" as "everything caused by previous conditions". I don't see how they could become "compatible". For me they are both not true, not real. As I said, actually what exist is something in the middle. I think it can be called "conditioned will". I think this agree someway with @iNow point of view. Science is always based on cause-effect relations but this does not imply beings cannot take their own decisions "uncaused by any previous condition" sometimes. I think even animals can take such kind of decisions following an own "conditioned will". For instance a dog or a cat can freely decide to play with a ball and how to play it. Seems it could be related to a degree of freedom in the universe...

I have found that if recharging the page with the round icon at the upper left of the page (same as pressing F5) at posting a new topic or replying a post (with the "Quote" function or not) seems everything runs fine in the site with Chrome.

I'm having this problem In Chrome too, not in Edge as I'm replying fine now. Also the "Quote" function doesn't work in Chrome. I wonder if something has to do with the new advertising features incorporated at the last times. The problems seem to begun to appear coincidently. I having the problem in Windows 10 now.

I apologize. That posting was for another thread. I have deleted it.

I apologize. This posting was for another thread.

Stephen Hawking. I always get confused with his name.

I stay with the quote of Steve Hawking: "I have noticed that even those who assert that everything is predestined and that we can change nothing about it still look in both ways before they cross the road." But we don't have total free will, our decisions are always conditioned by some things, environmental or personal ones, physical or psychological. We should talk about a conditioned free will. So it is something in the middle between total free will and determinism.

I took a look at the thread in the link. Seems only the posts in the sciences' forums count for the rank. I have many posts in the Speculations forum so it makes sense to remain as "quark". I just got curious because at the profile page "quark" appears under the "Retained" title and I just stood wondering if I would have been retained because of something and what that would mean, just that. Just to mention, these posts I published in this forum didn't augment the number of posts appearing in my posting remaining in 600 for now.

That's fine. Is just that if I enter my profile page I see "rank molecule" while in the left bar it is said "Retained quark" and in the posts "quark" appear. A bit curious about.

Just a question: Why I am retained as "quark" in my profile?

I agree, the classical formula would work at subatomic scale although seems in a "fuzzy" way...

Got it. I think this is what @swansont tried to express. About this and the Feynman video I find them the same as to say "The things are as what we observe and say. Don't ask more questions about.". I'm sorry but I still will continue looking for a more precise better explanation. Sometimes we arrive at two possible roads. There could be a third way although may be cross country...

Do you mean the photon has size and it would be about its wavelength? The electron and positron also have wavelengths. Would they also have a size about their wavelength? I think that is not currently sustained. If so they would have spatial dimensions, shape, I mean a structure. As far as I know is sustained they are all particles with no dimensions with an associated wave, the De Broglie wave.

I agree, the only consideration I can make is that the electric potential energy is a constraint in the minimum separation distance at which the pair is created as the energy tends to infinite as the distance tends to zero. At least we agreed in that the pair of charged particles must be created at some distance apart. I just will stay wondering how that can happen starting from a single and neutral photon particle (interacting with an atom, I know).

Production of pairs separating apart have been observed in cloud chambers. See photos below: