*<<It is certainly physically possible for me to consider the class of
persons with no feet.  Whether I have an operational test for "no feet" or
whether I can apply it a billion times or infinitely many times is
irrelevant.  The function is defined, i.e. made definite.  It is not
"physically constructed" whatever that may mean because the function is not
a physical object.>>*
*  ** You are not right. I insist that it is physically impossible to
consider (simultaneously!) all common properties of all triangles. *
*<< No, we say "for every x an element of X" or "for any x, an element of
X". *>>
   *When we say "for every element" we hide what we are really doing. It is
physically impossible to consider all (every) triangles simultaneously. *
*  *But we use a physically prohibited operation of considering ( =
choosing) an arbitrary element. I will try again to explain why in my
opinion it is normal to say that we deal with free will choice here.
 A) We really consider a single element about which we say that it is "an
arbitrary one". Therefore we psycologically deal with a choice. This choice
is neither a random one nor a determinate one. Therefore *formally* I can
give it the name of "a free will choice in mathematics".
B) Now I begin considering the "arbitrary element"* informally*. What i am
really doing when I consider "an arbitrary element"? First of all, by *using
my free will* I compare the infinite number of (for exapple) triangles
between them , I do this with an infinite speed and as a result I know
which properties turn out to be common to all triangles. Then I can choose
a random triangle under the following restriction. I can take into
consideration only those common properties of all triangles which I have
obtained by using the "journey" of my free will.
 Alex


On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:16 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  On 5/29/2012 9:06 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin wrote:
>
> It is a question of terminology. If you say "a function" it is necessary
> to construct it (from physical point of view). But, physically it is
> impossible to do so.
>
>
> It is certainly physically possible for me to consider the class of
> persons with no feet.  Whether I have an operational test for "no feet" or
> whether I can apply it a billion times or infinitely many times is
> irrelevant.  The function is defined, i.e. made definite.  It is not
> "physically constructed" whatever that may mean because the function is not
> a physical object.
>
>
> I say "choice", because when proving some theorem we already say : "let us
> consider/choose an arbitrary x belonging to X".
>
>
> No, we say "for every x an element of X" or "for any x, an element of X".
> Maybe you should just stop saying "choose/consider".
>
> Brent
>
>
> If you say "function" it is all the same. You give another name to your
> infinitely/finitely repeated choice.
> Alexander
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:52 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>  On 5/29/2012 8:11 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin wrote:
>>
>> The original poster introduces what free will means.
>> 1) Every choice which is allowed in physics is a random choice or a
>> determinate one.
>> 2) If human free will choice exists, it is agreed that it is not
>> determined by some law and is not a random process.
>> 3)We have agfeed that the choice of "an arbitrary element" is not a
>> random chaice and is not a choice determinate by some law.
>>
>>
>>  We haven't even agreed that it is a choice.  It's just using a function,
>> as in (. is an element of X) so (x is an element of X)->true and (y is an
>> element of X)->false.  (all x |x an element of X) doesn't involve choosing
>> an element x, just specifying a function that defines X.  Then it is a
>> "choice determinate by some law."  And whether X is infinite or finite is a
>> red herring.  Suppose I said,"Consider an arbitrary person with no feet.
>> Then he has no toenails."  This is a perfectly valid inference whether
>> there are finitely many or infinitely many persons in the multiverse.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>  4)Therefore I do call it "a free will choice in mathematics". One can
>> consider it as a definition of a specific "free will choice in
>> mathematics".
>> 5) If one uses mathematics, then one operates with a process which is
>> prohibited in physics. Therefore an investigator who uses mathematics
>> cannot deny existence of mental processes which cannot be described by
>> physics (and, in particular, cannot deny existence of free will, even if
>> "free will" is not introduced explicitly).
>> Good luck.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Stephen P. King 
>> <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
>>
>>>  On 5/29/2012 2:09 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:52 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, May 27, 2012  Aleksandr Lokshin <aaloks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  > All main mathematical notions ( such as infinity, variable, integer
>>>>> number) implicitly
>>>>> depend on the notion of free will.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because nobody can explain what the ASCII string "free will" means the
>>>> above statement is of no value.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Precisely. The original poster should introduce some sensible
>>> definition of free will. Good luck!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      The "belief" in a particular perceived outcome given some state of
>>> affairs?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Onward!
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
>>> ~ Francis Bacon
>>>
>>>   --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>    --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to