In considering "The Free Will Theorem Lectures" with Princeton University (and the John Locke Lectures?), I have made this addition:
(Various!Posted by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea 2011-07-05 03:30:40)
I think it requires complexity of heavier bodies of matter for free will to obtain.
The Free Will Theorem is presented by John Conway and Simon Kochen and the Wikipedia page has a criticism of them as a part of presenting The Free Will Theorem.
The url to it is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem.
Fx. a stream of photons of visible light can only do that much when speeding away from the Sun. There is no evidence that the stream of photons can change anything in particular, let's say direction, compensating for some gravity. See Einstein's relativity for gravity effects on photons.
Also, complexity should also be required for the decision for choosing between pleasure and relaxation and exercise and feeding and hunt. Although, these properties are only present with animals and ourselves, the humans.
So unless a bigger body is chosen and the choices are somehow explicated, I think "undetermined" is too weak for giving any plausibility to it or credibility for that matter.
I think, though, that the Dr. Dick Bierman experiments of Holland show that "monades" are likely to obtain in a fundamental way, in line with The Free Will Theorem by John Conway and Simon Kochen, rather than an unknown mechanism that may be impossible to find. This is a warning to future experimenters (the physicists).
The conclusion must be that a bigger system is effectuating the free will existing everywhere whether you call it God or some strange uknown super entity of the Universe / Multiverse or whatever.
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post232
Note2: you can also read about this on Static Display... on Facebook, it's an open group of mine.
Note3: THIS IS A BLOG and doesn't intend to live up to any Chicago Manual of Style or the very hard standards on supporting or relating material, also as I remain virtually without feedback from other people!
Friday 14 December 2012
Sunday 9 December 2012
The Modern Corpus of Philosophy of Law - Here Defined!
I see from the Jurisprudence article on Wikipedia, that people may want some words on Philosophy of Law from me. These are:
1. There should be no holes in a good system of legal practice/legislation system!
2. The laws are absolute and they can't be reasonably dodged. This point is supported by point 1.
3. (if nec.) The laws are complete and describe only objective circumstances (pertaining to HDM and quality of evidence) and most certainly only real life.
4. Legislation is on TOP. The courts are nr. 2 and the Police are nr. 3. There are various security concerns to this. I think the Police need clear rules/procedures as they do their work. I think the Judges only need to set a precedent if the Legislative Assembly (National Parliament) feigns its duties. So I want/hold a theory for a sharp and pro-active Legislative Body and "Judges only to the rescue", acting secondarily so to speak! Good?
Just in case of interest, I find Antonin Scalia's Originalist position compatible with a "Legislationist" position. Thus I pay respect to forming laws "in the spirit of the Book of Laws (fx. Norges Lover)". Or when you sit there writing, that you are "in a spirit of the Law". This should be the beginning bricks for foundation! (Not having read a book, but generally (very) interested for a long time (I'm 35).
You should note my point on Godel (Goedel) in Phil. Notes. I'm hard and I know it. There will be no excuses if the future is properly cared for!!!
The header of it says: Opinions on Gödel's Theorems of Incompleteness and Possibly Tarski and link is (one of them): http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html.
Also take note on the meditative state for making laws. Legislation happens at most meditative state, down to the Judges (by the heat of the Trial and direct Justice down further to Police under fire, so to speak! Thus, this comes natural!
You can get good lessons from Court TV (Nancy Grace) and various interviews from your or U.S. American Supreme Court Members by 60 Minutes. General media awareness isn't so bad either...
I must add that Europe can do well with its own Courts reporting (by example of Nancy Grace) and Justice section on CNN U.S. American edition and a Situation Room type of Legal Practice reporting (in media where there is "interest"). I welcome a more aware and active Legal Practice reporting in Europe. Also in the Pan-European sense (to close some holes for these "U.S. Americans" if not the "Colombians"...
I believe it has been Clarence Thomas who has uttered the words on an interview with CBS 60 Minutes that "you _need_ legislation to make verdicts". Consequently, I have the "Legislationist" position from him, but I'm uncertain if it is he who says the words or somebody else because a fair amount of time has passed since then.
When I write "Absolutist", I mean of course that there should be (normativity) little or no room for "interpretation". Burglary is thus burglary and rape, even for the sexist or crazy, is still the rape. The victim can never be the burglar oneself and the victim can't either be the rapist oneself. Some people are blind to this, they fail to make proper distinctions of words or situations or whatever. I also think that today's systems across the world seeks brevity of law as description of law on a rather unfounded basis. Therefore, I can imagine a more complete description to go with the law as it's delivered from the Legislative Assembly. Fx. in case it's needed, a better description can be given as a secondary compilation to the laws by corresponding documents to the collection of laws where these are needed. A law concerning The Protection of Private Information as fx. one's private address can be given a better description until it reaches a level of descriptive completeness, possibly adding 1, 2 or 3 pages.
Even if we speak of filming for the press, there is still no valid objection to having this filmed by Court's Archiving Services! Thus, Courts would have the pressure to do the job right and appeals could become much more clear. Corruption could also get rooted out much faster and idiot judges would never be allowed. But corruption to the archiving system makes every problem return again! I say, attack! (Because the world really looks retarded!)
So under the "Issues from the Internet", under the header of "What are your philosophical positions?" you can now add on me, Philosophy of Law: Absolutist, Legislationist and Originalist. Just for the update.
A hard list of modern notions to (every) Philosophy of Law, I introduce to you:
1. I've made a novel move in terms of describing the real and hard criminal nature of "monkey business", in conjunction with mSomatism!
2. I've suggested a national assembly approved official commentary that is to support the courts and reduce the amounts of precedents, so also as to diminish their mistaken authority throughout the World, even if they have served us to some good extent in the past! Germany is explicitly on the move in this respect.
3. I've described the definitive relations between the national assembly, the courts, and the police forces, so as to make the lines of duty more clear and to reduce any illusion of "self-made-policies" in that auto-generated sense. This is really /the/ policies killer, withholding the far more serious "police instructions", fx.!
4. I've made Objective Ethics including the crucial 4 methods of lie-detection to be used, potentially, at the same time, inside the police "interrogation room"/"questioning room". These are, of course, (f)MRI, "a swim hat of sensors", voice-stress analyzer, mimicry, including eye-dialation, and polygraph-testing, the reaction of body to nervousness in exuding sweat, essentially.
5. I have, together with others, suggested to film all cases in the courts so as to heavily reduce poor judge performance in the long run and to definitely place the possibilities for democratic control well within the proper hands of democratic care-takers! So that the court-archives will take on the most definite character and leave no doubt how the case has run. Some set-ups may even contain one or more of these 4 methods above.
This should speak well for me in demolishing any legal Hilbert's program! (Hilbert for insiders.)
Good?
1. There should be no holes in a good system of legal practice/legislation system!
2. The laws are absolute and they can't be reasonably dodged. This point is supported by point 1.
3. (if nec.) The laws are complete and describe only objective circumstances (pertaining to HDM and quality of evidence) and most certainly only real life.
4. Legislation is on TOP. The courts are nr. 2 and the Police are nr. 3. There are various security concerns to this. I think the Police need clear rules/procedures as they do their work. I think the Judges only need to set a precedent if the Legislative Assembly (National Parliament) feigns its duties. So I want/hold a theory for a sharp and pro-active Legislative Body and "Judges only to the rescue", acting secondarily so to speak! Good?
Just in case of interest, I find Antonin Scalia's Originalist position compatible with a "Legislationist" position. Thus I pay respect to forming laws "in the spirit of the Book of Laws (fx. Norges Lover)". Or when you sit there writing, that you are "in a spirit of the Law". This should be the beginning bricks for foundation! (Not having read a book, but generally (very) interested for a long time (I'm 35).
You should note my point on Godel (Goedel) in Phil. Notes. I'm hard and I know it. There will be no excuses if the future is properly cared for!!!
The header of it says: Opinions on Gödel's Theorems of Incompleteness and Possibly Tarski and link is (one of them): http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html.
Also take note on the meditative state for making laws. Legislation happens at most meditative state, down to the Judges (by the heat of the Trial and direct Justice down further to Police under fire, so to speak! Thus, this comes natural!
You can get good lessons from Court TV (Nancy Grace) and various interviews from your or U.S. American Supreme Court Members by 60 Minutes. General media awareness isn't so bad either...
I must add that Europe can do well with its own Courts reporting (by example of Nancy Grace) and Justice section on CNN U.S. American edition and a Situation Room type of Legal Practice reporting (in media where there is "interest"). I welcome a more aware and active Legal Practice reporting in Europe. Also in the Pan-European sense (to close some holes for these "U.S. Americans" if not the "Colombians"...
I believe it has been Clarence Thomas who has uttered the words on an interview with CBS 60 Minutes that "you _need_ legislation to make verdicts". Consequently, I have the "Legislationist" position from him, but I'm uncertain if it is he who says the words or somebody else because a fair amount of time has passed since then.
When I write "Absolutist", I mean of course that there should be (normativity) little or no room for "interpretation". Burglary is thus burglary and rape, even for the sexist or crazy, is still the rape. The victim can never be the burglar oneself and the victim can't either be the rapist oneself. Some people are blind to this, they fail to make proper distinctions of words or situations or whatever. I also think that today's systems across the world seeks brevity of law as description of law on a rather unfounded basis. Therefore, I can imagine a more complete description to go with the law as it's delivered from the Legislative Assembly. Fx. in case it's needed, a better description can be given as a secondary compilation to the laws by corresponding documents to the collection of laws where these are needed. A law concerning The Protection of Private Information as fx. one's private address can be given a better description until it reaches a level of descriptive completeness, possibly adding 1, 2 or 3 pages.
Even if we speak of filming for the press, there is still no valid objection to having this filmed by Court's Archiving Services! Thus, Courts would have the pressure to do the job right and appeals could become much more clear. Corruption could also get rooted out much faster and idiot judges would never be allowed. But corruption to the archiving system makes every problem return again! I say, attack! (Because the world really looks retarded!)
So under the "Issues from the Internet", under the header of "What are your philosophical positions?" you can now add on me, Philosophy of Law: Absolutist, Legislationist and Originalist. Just for the update.
A hard list of modern notions to (every) Philosophy of Law, I introduce to you:
1. I've made a novel move in terms of describing the real and hard criminal nature of "monkey business", in conjunction with mSomatism!
2. I've suggested a national assembly approved official commentary that is to support the courts and reduce the amounts of precedents, so also as to diminish their mistaken authority throughout the World, even if they have served us to some good extent in the past! Germany is explicitly on the move in this respect.
3. I've described the definitive relations between the national assembly, the courts, and the police forces, so as to make the lines of duty more clear and to reduce any illusion of "self-made-policies" in that auto-generated sense. This is really /the/ policies killer, withholding the far more serious "police instructions", fx.!
4. I've made Objective Ethics including the crucial 4 methods of lie-detection to be used, potentially, at the same time, inside the police "interrogation room"/"questioning room". These are, of course, (f)MRI, "a swim hat of sensors", voice-stress analyzer, mimicry, including eye-dialation, and polygraph-testing, the reaction of body to nervousness in exuding sweat, essentially.
5. I have, together with others, suggested to film all cases in the courts so as to heavily reduce poor judge performance in the long run and to definitely place the possibilities for democratic control well within the proper hands of democratic care-takers! So that the court-archives will take on the most definite character and leave no doubt how the case has run. Some set-ups may even contain one or more of these 4 methods above.
This should speak well for me in demolishing any legal Hilbert's program! (Hilbert for insiders.)
Good?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)