# Re: free will and mathematics

```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 <aaloks...@gmail.com>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 <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
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>> 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
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>
>>>
>>>    --
>>> 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
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> 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
>> For more options, visit this group at
>>
>>
>>  --
>> 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
>> For more options, visit this group at
>>
>
>

--
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