*<<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

## Advertising

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.