studiot

So please explain in detail how I would determine the response of some particular audience member, selected in at random, from my Philips example. The test of the determination would be that it has to be made at the point of entry to the auditorium.

I think the problem is that you are not providing full and complete answers to others or paragraphs in support of your own posts. For instance I asked for an example of free will - according to your stated definition, which I quoted from your earlier post. You have not yet done so. In fact the last thing you offered was a video with no supporting explanation of how exactly it is an example.

You said several things and I'm sorry to tell you that some of these are contradictory. That is why I quoted certain of your passages. Yes eise has introduced what I call free will. +1 Free as opposed to forced. It must also be remembered that you are not the OP and we are off topic if we change the actual OP question, although I have already stated it to be flawed and given my reasons that no one seems to want to address. Here is a good example of what how I distinguish between free and forced will. It is good because it can also introduce where randomness comes into the picture. When I was first at university, HIFi was de rigeur. In the pub, at parties gatherings of technical people discussed and compared hi fI. The Dutch company Philips did a lot of research into this and published a book about Audio (that unfortunately I have lost). The book included lots of experimental results, and the developed several measurement criteria. One such experiment involved evaluating loudspeakers. They invited a huge audience to rate lots of loudspeakers for preference. These were arranged on a stage behind a sound transparent curtain and the audience did not know which ones were playing at any time. Now for the purposes of this thread let us consider only two speakers, speakers A and speakers B. If the audience were asked to rate the first speaker and second speaker they heard in order of preference with a typical modern IT computer choice box 1 or 2, (remember they did not know it 1 was A or B) That we be an example of a forced evaluation If they were offered a third choice of equal or even a fourth of didn't like at all etc that would be a free choice. I will address the role of randomness more fully in a later post and just point out that some students use randomness (guessing) when attempting multiple choice exams.

Not an example of what I asked for. You also stated that So I feel justified in asking for an example of such nirvana.

Can you not widen the scope of this thread. Grilling or frying are are from the only methods of cooking. Equally some spices and cooking methods are designed to be added first, some, such as pickles are designed to be eaten with the food and some folks like to add some spices after cooking but before eating.

I agree +1 but my post made it stronger than this. Can you offer an example of will, free of anything else at all, without any precursor at all ? Yes +1 Should we not be critically examining outside definitions of free will critically ? Is that not what this thread is about ?

I am sorry I have not been making my points clear, what with one thing and another recently. I suggest that the problem is that the original proposition is flawed. It is not a two horse race between 'free will' and 'determinism'. Other factors also play a part. Not only do they play a part but humans actively exploit these factors when deploying 'free will' (I will elaborate below). Eise is correct in identifying one of these factors, notably circumstances or conditions, +1. However I disagree with his later statements as they stand. Another factor is of course randomness. In the ultimate; free will implies having a point of view, making a decision, coming to a conclusion ie the result of some thought process, whereas determinism introduces the eternal clockwork universe since you can always ask the why quest 'what determines the determinant ?' (turtles all the way down). Will, free or otherwise must be about something. Otherwise it is about nothing at all. But that something must also come with some baggage of its own to add into the mix.

Have you heard of Fire Walkers ? In the days when we had steelworks in the UK, there were recorded cases of hands deliverately plunged into molten metal and surviving ( I believe it was a lower temp steam protection).

All true, but incomplete Philosophy of Physics (or metaphysics). Not all physics require coordinate systems and "The Laws of physics" are of a different nature than those of Mathematics. (Theoretical) Physics being based on Principles ans Physics alone being based on Observations, whilst Mathematics is based on Assumptions (Axioms, Notions and Definitions)

Ok so you have posted another picture. It is your thread, what is it you actually want to discuss ?

Isn't that just a bit glib ? Most decisions are conditioned by what went before. Most decisions are also conditioned by a balance of forcing conditions at the time. Yes we are often free to decide to do something different, but how often does this actually happen ?

That is a very strong statement. Doesn't it depend upon what you mean by invariant ? For instance the Principle of Relativity requires the same form in any inertial system or that these laws are independent of the coordinate system.

@ThraXeD I see you have been back several times, but have not posted more in this thread. Please don't be shy if you have a genuine interest in the subject. There are lots of interesting patterns in nature that can be discussed.

+1 I don't have a problem with free will. How about free will is the ability to override the unconscious reflexes @iNow refers to ? For instance the deliberate choice to grab hot end of a red hot poker ? I would also like to refer @Anirudh Dabas to the discussion in Jordan Ellenberg's book, pages 84 to 89, about the mathematics of Artificial intelligence, where Jordan discusses this question Jordan Ellenberg Shape : the Hidden Geometry of abssolutely everything.

So glad you highlighted the oft confused matter of sign conventions. These are rarely treated properly in schools and colleges but are all important in calculations. +1 Sign conventions are used primarily describibg two state systems. Folks often associate the most usual convention (plus and minus) with surplus and deficit, even though the states may be of an entirely different form, making such notions inappropriate. Problems also arise when more than one sign convention is in play, but plus and minus are used for both. This gives rise to many student miscalculations in such disparate topics as electrical engineering and the mechanics of falling bodies.

None of them have two competent ministers in their cohort to rub together. And none of them will address the real issues that so desperately need putting right. So I am hoping for a hung parliament. At least that way nothing will get done, which is marginally better than the hugely expensive gaffs in recent years.

More news on this subject I sincerely hope the labour party will not take 'control'. And look at their planning record. Their man is "Going to build 5 new towns in the next couple of years to solve the housing crisis". How ? This will be after radically removing the 'planning' from the planning process, instead of changing that process from a bureaucratic game of rules and hurdles and hoops and obstructions to nothing at all. How will that ensure that what we actually need will get built ?

I note you haven't acknowledged swansont's correction so I will amplify it as you have made several mistakes that you could learn from. Secondly This not actually a photo. No one could ever take such a photo because there are no nets or grids around the Earth as shown in the image you posted. In fact the 'gooves' you speak of are not in either space or spacetime, anymore than there are nets as depicted in in your artificially generated image. The image is a representation of function space, which describes the values of a function at points in space. It is an attempt to display a representation of a four dimensional graph on a two dimensional piece of paper. The geodesics referred to are the paths of extremal values of these functions. These paths do not move about in space so cannot realisitcally be called either grooves or waves. You haven't distinguished between travelling waves and standing waves. Only standing waves could be imagined to possess 'grooves' that must be followed since the peaks and troughs of a travelling wave necessarily move about in space, by their very definition. So how do you think standing gravitational waves can be generated ?

So you can perform the following simple calculation, without using energy. Please show me how. I have a 1kg bar of lead that I wish to melt. I have a bunsen burner and a suitable steel pot to melt the bar in. How much gas to I need to fully melt the bar ? Please ignore losses for this calculation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67101176 Towards the end of the article there is almost a footnote But noting the political situation here and what has already happened to HS2 is this really the first step (sorry about the pun) towards cancelling ?

This is neither a speculation nor a question it is a tirade so it belongs in the trash. A real question would be something like Are there any circumstance where energy methods are easier and or more efficient than other methods of analysis ? To which the answer is a resounding yes.

As exchemist says, one purpose of homework is to make you think. So some things for you to think about : environmental science draws on many sicences disciplines. I molecule of water produces 1 molecule of hydrogen on electrolysis. The molar volume of water is about 18 x 10-3 litres and the molar volume of hydrogen is about 22 litres so occupies over 1000 times as much volume as the parent water. Electrolysing water produces what else. Does it make a difference if that water is salt or fresh ? How would you handle these other products ? You said the hydrogen produced was destined for use as a fuel (in a fuel cell or otherwise) What is the result of using hydrogen as a fuel ? So why are you worrying about abstracting water ? Have you studied natural environmental cycles such as the carbon cycle and the water cycle ?

Don't know how @Daedalus got on with his operation, but he spent a lot of time with a long thread working on this. (as have quite a few other members)

I originally wrote anthill, but changed it because I was worried you would argue with that terminology as some ant colonies are not hills at all. Some ants create their colonies underground, under rocks or in rotting tree wood for example. Either way your reply doesn't address my actual example at all, which was how to achieve a design without a designer. Microprocessors have to be connected to some sort of circuit board. The connection process invariably involves wetting (although not by water). It is a detail of Science you therfore may not have come across, so I apologise for presuming. However if that is the case then I remain surprised that you seem uninterested in that particular area of Science.

Something I forgot to mention before, thanks CharonY for reminding me. The correct terminilogy for the inactive ingredients of the pill or preparation are called excipients.