5) If one uses mathematics, then one operates with a process which is prohibited in physics.
<< Rubbish! >> I insist on my statement which, unfortunately, is not understood. I stop taking part in the discussion. Best wishes Alex On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Aleksandr Lokshin <[email protected]>wrote: > *<<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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/29/2012 2:09 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:52 PM, John Clark <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, May 27, 2012 Aleksandr Lokshin <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> [email protected]. >>>> 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 [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
