# Re: free will and mathematics

```On 5/29/2012 10:12 PM, Aleksandr Lokshin 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.
```*
```
```
```
First, is easy to consider the common properties of triangles because there are only a few of them, e.g. having three sides as line segments which meet pairwise at vertices. Second, there is no necessity to consider all of them simultaneously in order to make inferences about triangles, e.g. all triangles have exactly three vertices.
```
```
```/<< 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. *
```
```
No, it is you who are muddling what we are really doing.

```
```*It is physically impossible to consider all (every) triangles simultaneously.
*
```
```
```
But it's easy to consider the properties of all triangles, e.g. having sides which meet pairwise => there are three vertices.
```
```
**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".
```
```
```
No we don't. We don't actually pick out an element from an infinite set. If I were in a restaurant looking at the menu and the waiter asked, "Which item will you have?" and I replied "I'll eat any item on the menu." I would NOT have picked one. I can refer to all the items on the menu without picking 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".
```
Except considering an indefinite element in a defined class is not a choosing.

```
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
```
```
"Triangles between them"?? what's "them" and why are you considering only 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.
```
```
Nonsense, you define the class of triangles by specifying their common properties. You have not and cannot inspect all possible triangles.
```
Brent

```
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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Sun, May 27, 2012  Aleksandr Lokshin <aaloks...@gmail.com
<mailto: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
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
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