The Free Will Theorem and Quants - Complexity

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!

On Metaphysics of Time

[by Terje Lea 12. July 2011, time 08:42 by Facebook data only.]
[This begins with a drawing, crude and principal, but useful.]

Spherical waves eminating from agents as a picture to possibly state how one is able to predict ideas.

The time moves along the y/z-axis while your view is positioned at origo or along a somewhat objective history x where the x-line (with no value as such) represents the threshold between past and future and thereby is the resultgiving x-plane on how the spherical waves entwine and create history and thereby giving you a certain historical view. This exposition of time can also be seen as a kind of psychometry (please associate this with telemetry). Make the most of your time!

I can deduce consistency and coherency from Descartes' Meditations and if you have consistency and coherency, you also have continuity, the flow of time!

This is primarily made to describe the ongoing passage of time in relation to agents (people) and their ideas.

This view here can be referred to as Block time or Eternalism, yet I think it's too radical to deduct our psychological experience of closeness of the present and what it represents. In my view, it's implicit that you should maximise the use of your experience through time so that the scope of future becomes as wide as possible.

We can surely say that the past of time has generated the course for the present moment and equally surely we can say the future lies in the scope of the present even though the future consists in only one course, becoming both the present and the past. Therefore, it's not irrelevant what has taken place in the past and the future has to come out of what is our present moment! We can look at everything in our present moment and conclude with certainty that a number of things must have led up to this. At least, this must be the nature of reality, otherwise we wouldn't be alive in exactly this scope of reality as it is. I think this supports block theory of time. This may be plain and is thus probably more pedagogical than informative. My view, however, is now more deeply explained and should be impossible to retreat from unless I trash the whole block theory of time.

McTaggart is wrong in presenting his A and B bands/tracks dichotomy. I believe the origin of time historically has its roots in the seasons, the Sun and possibly the life span of human kind by every single person. The clock is thus determined by the 24 hrs cycle of the Sun (on Earth), essentially giving the time when the Sun is highest through the day. Later, one has divided the Earth into 24 time zones with few exceptions. McTaggart comes out weak in his academic life of presenting time as he does. Let me guess he has lived an incredibly relaxed life with few necessary daily routines. This is from the reason that everyone, historically, has their primary activities during the day and catches the sleep during the night. This is undeniable if one goes back to the medieval times, at least. It is eventually the objective time, given by the Sun and the passing of years, historically, that triumphs the notion of time whether you sense time in this way or that or have funny thoughts about time.

Just let me clarify:

Time is, of course, a physical requirement, being at least, 1 of 4 dimensions. This is not the question. The question is how we as human beings have come to know time, both as concept and our cognition of it. Historically, I believe one has addressed "a day's worth of work", but the revolve of the Earth making the days has been essential of this formation. I believe the timing of motion is quite recent (1400 CE or so, just as a guess, especially in referring to the feather and stone experiment in testing gravity and at the same time having the perception of time in this regard). One can perhaps check out the invention of the first time-taking pieces or clocks on Wikipedia.

Clearly then, there's no questioning of time as such, but it's worth noting that we all live under the sun and it remains our compass of time until then! This may change if we settle in a new star system, but this is not some time soon, I can predict.

In responding to Charles Taylor, Metaphysics, 4th ed., this fleeting moment, referring in particular to The Elusive Present, pp. 85-87, of the present can only float in one direction, forward!

Time is also stuck to the time-track. 1980/01/01 CE will always be 1980/01/01 CE even if you consider it as 1980 CE + 13,7 x 10^9 CE years. This will always yield present time point, X CE + 13,7 x 10^9 CE where 13,7 x 10^9 CE is the most precise scientific estimate of the universe relevant to time and X is current date by year or date. I can write it like this: X + S being the X years from 0 CE and the scientific estimate from 0 CE to the beginning of the universe according to the Big Bang theory and scientific community's consensus.

The time of relativity/absurdism is slashed in the Metaphysical sense of Time theory.

This is also meant as an indicium for free will and the rationalist's approach, only in this regard.

Note. Don't pay too much attention to "rationalist's approach". It's simply put this way for suggesting the special place consciousness may have in regarding events of time and especially the consciousness of other "agents" in this perspective.

©Terje Lea, 2001-2010 with 25.03.2010, 26.03.2010, 12.04.2010, 19.04.2010, 27.04.2010 and 28.04.2010. A little comment has been added, 20.05.2010, to the word "psychometry".

Back to front page.

 

My mentioning of Block Time Theory and Eternalism may require a definition of them that are uniquely suitable for my Time theory. It's questioned whether time stops when or if (/this/) human kind is no more and if another human kind (equivalent) arises elsewhere in the Universe and whether this /new/ human kind discovers or not that another human kind has lived (us) in the Universe... This is all theory and my time theory may not exactly fit the two concepts that are mentioned by my time theory, thus requiring this adjustment of them, not the other way around, that I change my description of my time theory!!! This is merely a notice...
Note: First written to Facebook, 9 March at 05:43 (CET?)

 

Regarding time as moving forward, that I write under my Time of Metaphysics, I have now added "steadily moving forward within a very small fraction of change, possibly, yet to determine, each year for our Sun time, in being Earth years from this Sun time"!
Note: Written to Facebook 1. March at 00:48 (CET?).

 

Also, it is plain that the Elusive Present is not so elusive as we always "stand in it" to say it with Heraclitus... Time flows itself, but we float with it as well..

 

After some "thoughts" it may be that my exact launching of the Time.html of 2001 and the Time theory of metaphysics lies at 21. Jan. 2001, some eleven years ago!
Note: a notice made to Facebook 24. February at 22:08.

 

Some more notice on 13,7 Bn years of age by Universe:
Upon writing 13,7 Bn years as the age of the Universe, I now declare my own value to be 14,5627426 Bn years instead of, let's say, 16,7 or 16,4 Bn years. The foundation for this lies in...
24 February at 21:37

the Hubble constant (H) that is H = (15 - 25) km/s per Million light years ... Not only this, but...
24 February at 21:39

...I happen to have a book on Physics, "Rom, Stoff, Tid, 3FY by Øgrim, Ormestad, Lunde and 2 others written in 1991 and published by Cappelen! This book has a (standard) Astrophysics chapter that contains the above information. Probably all other World GCSE students share this with me so I'm not anything unique, but the above number of 14,5... ! Good?
24 February at 21:43

The book itself defines the scope of valid numbers by the above constant to appx. 12 - 20 Billion years! But you can calculate the exact numbers yourself...
24 February at 21:45

I'll give you some basic formula: t (time) = d (distance) / (div. on) v (speed) = d / H d = 1 / H = so and so, put in for constant scope!
24 February at 22:00

...or your favourite estimate...!
24 February at 22:00

In this book there are also two other notes based on estimated "life" spans of the Universe: 1. Theories on stars' life and development gives a closer scope of 15 plus/minus 3 Bn years. 2. Studies of radioactive materials in meteorites gives us the same as above...
24 February at 22:03

So the scientific consensus doesn't lie at 16,7 but rather at something like 15! (Shame on you, you t*rd scientists!)
24 February at 22:04

Or I'll make it 14,7 + some as my 2nd favourite...!
24 February at 22:36 · Like

Again to Facebook as noted.

 

(Transferred from Whatiswritten777.)

Remark on Truth - Plain Realist View - For the Subject of Metaphysics or Phil. of Language

I'm not a skeptic to truth! There are many truths out there and I'm saying this.

Even if we don't know neither the biggest facts nor the smallest facts, we should affirm our existence and its whole journey up to today, 22.04.2010, and assert that we pretty much know all that's between these levels/frontiers in the boundary, being between these biggest and smallest facts. That is: our language is precise when it's applied within this boundary and consequently it expresses truth!

I think I'm very much aligned with both Tarski's theory of truth and the Logical Positivists' protocol sentences.

I have really told this story, being a kind of Cumulativist version, in a Philosophy in Science class in Spring 2008. The story is that astronomy represents the biggest facts and physics, biochemistry and medicine to mention some, represent the smallest facts. Everybody knows by now that knowledge in astronomy has grown enormously since ancient times and that the cattle on the fields are now consisting of molecules and DNA where they've been representing meat and milk before, perhaps in 2000 BCE.

You can hold your hands in a 45 deg. arc with one straight hand pointing downward and the other straight hand pointing upward to give a very fine, simple picture of this Cumulativist version above and it probably goes well with the young in being a story of Philosophy of Science you can tell them.

By Terje Lea, 20.03.2010, 21.03.2010 and 22.04.2010.