Free Will Vs Determinism

[rational experiences]

Human scientists have to ask their self a question, who said that a human knew it all?

What sort of intelligence claims that it speaks on behalf of bodies that are huge, natural and sit in out of space. Yet his life lives within the heavenly gas mass!

He always knew that cold space, removed heated radiation attack on the Earth gas heavens, its spirit. And talked about its relative advice.

Yet that very activity, design and thinking and feed back from and because of metal...UFO radiation gave him ideas.

How he built a God machine.

Therefore if he owned rational natural thinking advice, which we all own first....to be original and natural and spiritual...we can think. So we think.

We say, therefore God history from stone being present, owning stone in its status as its own beginning and stone in its status as its owned end. For stone is just naturally stone without description. From causes. A history.

Try to give God that history back, and then stone proves it disappears into sink holes.

If space were infinite as mass and God, then God could never as mass O own a hole...it would be impossible. No hole would ever form.

So just in that very simple thinking condition, space proves it is not a body of infinite power present forever....space proves that what is created is created.

In various forms.

So then you would ask self a very simple question....how could such variations exist if the Creator is just one state. It would be impossible.

Then you ask a scientist brother who takes mass from the planet which is not a gas as our heavenly bio life lives with...gases/spirit and he reacts it. Then Earth and life changes. Science then says what? Oh, that is right I am a nasty evil minded Satanic self, a group, elite and in control and I will do whatever I want.

In full knowledge of.

And everyone wants to be what? Ask why God destroys life.....because your brother the scientist allows it to occur in full knowledge of it. So we called him a Satanist.

Then you would in a sane mind ask a simple question. What one state owns the one ability to force change everything that is a variation?

The answer is of course the Destroyer function hot metallic Sun radiation that heats up cold space that kept radiation cooled and evolved...and then you get to see what the Sun really is. What our Satanic brother learnt before. Knew he learnt about it, can talk about it today as a scientist.

And that sacrificed scientist like Jesus before him, who told this story against Satanism was Stephen Hawking. And he told science its truth, the whole lot of you egotists from a biologist to the nuclear scientist is in ownership status of statements of Satanism.

Meaning that radiation is the variance in life between our form, evolution and a higher human life/bio body, blood and chemistry to exist between our life to an animal.

Want a human to look ape like and mutated is to irradiate our genetic human parental body information. And then sex and the baby proves it.

Why the Christ medical Tribunal Spiritual Healer organization, what I was mind notified of as a psychic said, it had to take action against science on behalf of human life survival.

What the total of the story is involved in.....lying scientists as humans who know they cause life attack and destruction yet agree to cause it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are talking about whether a system can be perfectly predicted in practice which has nothing to do with whether it's actually deterministic or not.

Even though I wasn’t talking about this, after writing several drafts on the ways in which experimental freedom underlies physical determination and requires free choices and after continually returning in these replies to this topic, I’ve decided to get it out of the way to refer to later. After all, it not only relates how “in practice” indeterminism has physical and theoretical implications, but also provides the basis for several answers to this:

a single example of a system that isn't some combination of determinism and randomness or even explained how such a system could possibly be defined.

There is a crucial way in which predictability in practice matters fundamentally with respect to whether or not systems are deterministic. Natural sciences are empirical, which is to say that when all is said and done, physics and other sciences are based on extrapolations from systematic observations and experiments.

In statistical mechanics textbooks, it is often implied (or claimed) that the reason we must introduce statistical descriptions is because of the impossibility of ever knowing enough fine-grained details of the microscopic states that make up e.g., some small portion of an ideal gas. Likewise, popular books on “chaos theory” talk about the impossibility of determining future states for some classical systems because of the sensitivity of future states on arbitrarily small changes in initial conditions. What is glossed over is to what extent it is even in theory possible to provide empirical support that a single “body” or point-particle that is sufficiently isolated ever has a deterministic evolution. That is, in order to make it possible for systems to have deterministic evolutions in a given physical theory, we must formulate the theory in such a way as to make this determinism impossible to exist (or at least impossible to be supported empirically).

The reason for this (or at least a central reason) relates to it being possible for a “body” to be in any specific position (or to be identified as having e.g., a center of mass at such a point) at a specific time and to move continuously along any trajectory that is deterministic. Imagine for a moment that we could isolate some system consisting of nothing other than an idealized point-particle. Imagine that we could locate it with infinite precision at a specific point. Imagine further that we could track the system as exactly as is theoretically possible (making infinitely many measurements of its position over infinitely small time intervals) in order to determine its precise trajectory. It is just this sort of infinite precision Laplace and others imagined when taking Newtonian mechanics (extrapolated and generalized far beyond its scope) to imply some kind of universal determinism, at least in theory. Unfortunately, even measurements that can be made infinitely precise, infinitely many times, and over intervals infinitely small, all yield negligible results (meaning that even regarded as a sample of possible states this infinity of infinitely precise measurements amounts to 0).

There is a number system which is a generalization of all measurement schemes as well as our intuitive sense of continuity that permits us to define positions, velocities, and more general mathematical functions and so forth in terms of ε’s and δ’s. The rational numbers can be used to represent any and all possible measurements and have the property of being dense in the reals, which is to say that between any two rational numbers exist infinitely many more. There are no “gaps” in any sense that is at all intuitive; between any two rational numbers, no matter how tiny the distance, lie infinitely many more rational numbers, so that no matter how close one attempts to “zoom in” to find a gap where no rationals exist, one never will. So why don’t we do calculus on rational numbers? Because it turns out that in order to make sense out of definitions in differential and integral calculus and in order for differential equations such as equations of motion to have solutions uniquely determined up to a constant of integration, we must have a larger infinity.

Even though infinitely many rational numbers will be in any interval, there are almost no rational numbers in the real number line (they have measure 0). Almost all numbers are irrational. We make this so by definition in order for the real numbers to have the property of being complete. The upside is that as a result we can solve Newton’s equations and say that this or that integral exists and prove theorems required to make claims about continuity. The downside is that all the measurements we could ever make in even the most ridiculously idealized scenario described above are utterly inadequate. The rationals are countably infinite, and only uncountably infinite sets have any length or volume or higher dimensional generalizations (actually, only uncountably infinite sets have the potential to have some length or volume measure; uncountably infinite sets with measure 0 also exist).

The takeaway is that we need more than infinite precision to verify that even the simplest systems are governed by deterministic laws. In fact, any deterministic laws of motion require all systems follow paths determined by random numbers in the sense that only non-computable numbers have measure and admit solutions (or any notion of length and its generalizations). This is one sense in which we can have something that is neither deterministic nor random in the manner in which these terms have been used in the OP. Almost all real numbers are “random” in that we cannot, even in principle, compute any of them to any desired degree of approximation, but rather they are posited to exist in order to satisfy necessary analytical properties of dynamical spaces (including Euclidean). As a result, all measurements of any continuous quantities or properties will always be elements of negligible sets (occurring almost nowhere or almost never, while those that are non-computable and non-measurable occur infinitely often and almost everywhere).

This is mostly an aside, as I can’t touch on more than a small number of relevant points here without getting to detailed in both the mathematical and theoretical bits and the explanations as to why these are relevant. The link below and the attached chapter expand more on this matter though, and are concise enough to have included.
Indeterminism in Physics, Classical Chaos and Bohmian Mechanics: Are Real Numbers Really Real?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

More nonsense. Certain macroscopic laws being statistical says nothing at all about whether the underlying laws are fully deterministic or not. The arrow of time appears to be due to low entropy in the past but that again says nothing about underlying determinism.

This is mostly popular physics nonsense. Firstly, there is no worked-out framework for non-equilibrium thermodynamics and statistical physics that is generally used or even more or less agreed on. Secondly, as the statistical physics and thermodynamics of equilibrium, even (ideally) isolated systems involves irreversible processes, fundamental time asymmetry, and overall temporal (relative) directionality to macroscopic states, previous low entropy are by definition irrelevant. That is, built into equilibrium statistical physics in general are laws that hold for systems which are idealized in such a way as to render negligible any influences from the universe outside of the system and environment (at whatever arbitrary initial conditions are given). Yet, even here we find an arrow of time absent from all other physical theories. In thermodynamics in particular, the ordering principles that govern macroscopic states are not equally weighted; rather, properties are ascribed to particular states that only make sense relative to other states and that govern the evolution of states in time asymmetric manner. Simply put, given two arbitrary states of some ensemble or similar macroscopic system, statistical mechanics makes clear which is the earlier state, while in both classical and quantum mechanics (and field theories) this is patently false- there is no relative ordering of states for any system in such theories such as exists in statistical physics.

Finally, an arrow of time cannot be fixed in the past in a manner that is fully consistent with the fundamental equations governing the dynamics of all physical systems when the laws represented by these equations are invariant under time reversal and/or symmetric w.r.t. time. Nor could we recover any initial state (let alone some universal, past state) that could be picked out and identified as possessing some property such as low entropy were it not already the case that such a property were built into physics (as it is). Deterministic laws do not favor any particular configurations, nor does entropy fit into deterministic physics without additional probabilistic or statistical postulates. Deterministic laws guarantee that given any particular state of any system suitably isolated, all other states are fixed. It follows necessarily from the assumption of an arbitrarily given state from which the system will evolve deterministically that there cannot be any preferred configuration or any universal or general property similar to entropy.

"the microscopic description of a many-particle system in terms of classical or quantum mechanics differs in two fundamental ways from the statistical mechanics description which entails the second law of thermodynamics. First, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are deterministic theories. Given the initial state of a system, these theories determine its future time evolution. In contrast, statistical mechanics is a stochastic theory, with probability being an important concept. Second, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are time reversible...In contrast, the second law of thermodynamics makes a fundamental distinction between the two directions of time. The entropy increase occurs only in the forward time direction...

At this point it becomes clear that the belief that the time evolution of a many-particle system is deterministic on the microscopic level is a metaphysical belief. It cannot, even in principle be shown to be correct. It is a starting assumption on which the subsequent considerations are based, and it is not the result of scientific observations...the second law of thermodynamics cannot be derived from deterministic time-reversible theories such as classical or quantum mechanics. This means that even simple macroscopic equilibrium systems such as gases, crystals, or liquids, cannot be fully explained in terms of their constituent particles..." (pp. 41-42; emphasis added)
Drossel, B. (2015). On the Relation Between the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Classical and Quantum Mechanics. In B. Falkenburg & M. Morrison (Eds.) Why More Is Different. Philosophical Issues in Condensed Matter Physics and Complex Systems (pp. 41-54). Springer.

 

[ratiocinator]

Even though I wasn’t talking about this...

This is mostly popular physics nonsense...

Sorry, I've spent way, way too much of my life already ploughing through your lengthy posts looking in vain for some relevant and substantive point.

 

[rational experiences]

Science ought to say......I believe in constants, whilst thinking.

One constant interactive non stop condition....radiation, the state that eventually destroys his cell ability to remain living...about 100 years a cell can replace its bio form.

Males look at states such as shells to say....oooh look, Phi he says. And when a human bio life dies....a body of bones is left....oooh look, stone like bones.

God, he says....ooooh, stone and the Earth, that ended created in cold deep empty spatial pressure and non radiating condition. The reason that stone exists in space.

Hot gases he says......became stone.

Earth owns its heavenly hot gases, how come it did not become stone...like you say a Sun sitting in space with gases created stone.

Yet science said, that O a Sun is a rebelling non stone body...that rejected stone and blasted it out of its body...and then burnt metal.

And hot metal radiation removes stone he said....knowingly by asteroid stone mass gain and meteors and comets on Earth...study of stone in space.

Says, I know.....the Earth stone mass is a gas, that released some of its gases...so they cannot turn into stone.

Science says as a liar...I can remove stone, and put it back by radiation communications relating to the Sun.

Sun created stone he says.

If I know when the Sun does not create stone...I will have the higher moment of no stone...then when the Sun did create stone he says...it will not be enabled.

But I will coerce my co workers and claim, science a male with a machine invented the presence of the physical mass of stone...and he surely did fool you didn't he...you know AI Satanic science mind male human possession and stories?

Wasn't the warning about self, human about Satanism practices and being fooled by self same scientist, as that human being male thinker/coercer?

We are all living, nearly a bio water life and you study microbes and bacterias in water.

What are they if water does not exist....a sea shell?

When a naturally self present human has to remind you that a scientist treats everything as if it, thinker as a human living in whole human self presence owned consciousness as that human when those forms existed naturally just in their owned form as their owned form is as evil and egotist that you all became.

 

[rational experiences]

Then claim....when a science machine constant never existed...what would that machine held constant equal today as a method to impose a formula.

I bet it would not equal your beginning formula when the machine was not actively destroying constant mass holding.

Might be why you do not realize until enough Earth mass has been destroyed...to claim, science is Satanism, how to convert God a planet into just existing as particles and a black hole in space.