studiot

Indeed but Physics uses more than just simple (linear) proportionality. A very simple example would be the statement The Kinetic energy of a moving body is proportional to the square of its velocity. There is also what is known as inverse proportionality.

What's insane about it ? You might like to note that much asian cooking (curries etc) depends upon ghee, which is clarified butter, rather than oil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghee Ghee is supposedly better f or you than the solid state butter.

Your words, not mine. I think you could profitably review your ability to credit other people as well as contradict them. So what is different in a dog's psyche compared my rabbit's, that my rabbit does not chase balls or balloons ? Cats are also hunters and also chase moving objects, but do not play fetch. @Eise Here is a passage from Robert Mills examining the place of determinism in Physics

I don't know. But How did "do not necessarily obey" (my words) become "do not obey" (your words) ? Further thinking could be one of those borderline nouns since thoughts themselves are abstract, but they need something physical to give them existence. Free will is a type of thought so also needs something to support it. So free will entails some measure of obedience to some physical laws. Dogs will chase objects, even when they don't actually know what the object is or is not. Take a dog for a walk and throw a stone, stick, ball something concealed in your hand.

Thank you for properly joining the debate. +1 You have posted the explanation I asked for about your video, the explanation that should have been in the same post as the video. See how easy that was ? I can now offer my comments which are that I do not find it surprising that the dogs chased the balloon. Dogs are a hunting animal that catches prey by chasing them, unlike some hunting animals that doe not chase such as many spiders. Having said that I think Eise is placing too much emphasis on a particular type of determinism. So I will move my spotlight from free will to determinism, and then offer a new example for discussion. The Universe contains more than one kind of object and English divides these into two classes, although it could be argued that there are at least borderline objects with a foot in both camps, if not more actual distinct classes. Formally these are called abtract nouns and concrete nouns respectively. Concrete nouns have a physical presence in the Universe and obey the laws of Physics. However as you point out not all these laws are deterministic. Some are random in nature. Abstract nouns do not necessarily obey the laws of Physics. So here is my new example. Recently I posted a comment in a thread about artificial intelligence involving pictures I had selected. Ahah 'selected' . Do I detect some free will creeping in ? I could have selected each picture from a list of candidate pictures, each of which would have acceptably represented the meaning intended. But the selection could have been made by some random process, which could not have been uniquely determined.

But I was since influencing the outcome is a form of determinism, and randomising is the antidote. Which is why I keep saying the subject is really multifactorial.

Interesting tale. +1

🙂 +1 I believe there has been some talking at cross purposes in this thread. I also believe that offereing plenty of real examples and discussing and explaining them helps to get your point across.

I didn't say they couldn'e, I am asking you as the OP to include them and other methods. As a for instance the point of a Hungarian goulash is that the paprika and onions are gently cooked together in oil just prior to addin the meat, followed by the other ingredients. A similar example of this is to cook the meat in a slow cooker or slow microwave with a bag or perforated ball of 'pickling spice' include in the pot, but this spice is removed at the end before serving. Your Halal reference will not, of course, include pig products. But a good way to cook Ham is to place several cloves of garlic along with a clove of cloves individually in slits in the joint, and then add a spoon of brown sugar to the boiling water. The boiling water also then is used to cook the greens and carrots which gives them extra flavour.

Surely you understand that the point of a multiply blind experiment is a deliberate attempt (as i mentioned earlier) to exlude observer bias so that the observer can't know anything about the randomly selected subject and therefore can't influence the outcome in any way ?

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.