Dear Mr. Broski,

Thank you for reading, and your kind remarks.

The topic on which we differ is complicated and nuanced, thus it is important to be careful and rigorous. I will try my best to keep up with these standards.

I would be delighted if you could link or cite a paper in which this result -- removal of the will -- is demonstrated.

I'd like to clear up my own position: I do not believe that the will is mystical, or non-physical in some sense; It is important for me to stress that I believe that the will cannot be explained by use of mechanism. Thus, a result such as the removal of will by removal of chemicals or parts of the brain do not contradict my position.

I own position mostly deals with our understanding of the will, and that it can never be achieved by mechanism; this does not mean that it cannot be a biological process.

Regards,

Attay.

Dear Attay Kremer,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Attay,

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I suppose that I believe that anything possible biologically is also possible mechanically. I can see how this is debatable, but I'd rather not spend effort on that because I don't think it is critical to the general topic of purpose/aim/intentions. A study where the removal of will via brain damage would be fascinating, but first we would have to agree on a rigorous definition of will. How would a person act differently if they did not have a will? (Other than conscious vs. unconscious.) I don't know, but am interested in suggestions.

Hi Attay

Yes, I think I was putting my own interpretation on top of yours in my first paragraph. You may be interested to read Robin Berjon's essay, which also discusses teleological aspects of physics/chemistry/biology.

Regards

Gavin

Nice essay Kremer,

Your ideas and thinking are good, your way of writing is simple and good, best wishes...

I got some observations... for eg.,

""Can physical problems be described by purpose?"."....

.................. Universe and bodies movement will be having a purpose...just have a look at my essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will crate a direction and purpose of movement.....

I have no comments for the rest of your essay, it is good.

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

"A concept of causality is essential, since once cannot conceive of change, or of results of actions without one." Consider the question: What causes randomness? In the Bohr versus Einstein debates, Bohr argued for an interpretation of quantum mechanics involving semi-causality and semi-randomness while Einstein argued that the randomness involved in quantum mechanics was merely an incomplete theoretical development, which should ultimately be replaced by undiscovered causes or hidden causes in a totally causal model. My guess is that Bohr was about 2/3 correct and 1/3 incorrect, while Einstein was about 1/3 correct and 2/3 incorrect, on the issue of quantum randomness -- Bohr was correct on the empirical findings and pragmatic philosophy but wrong on the fundamental philosophy - Einstein was wrong on the empirical findings and pragmatic philosophy but correct on the fundamental philosophy. My guess is that, per Fredkin and Wolfram, nature really is finite and digital. I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology -- on the basis of the empirical evidence which now exists. I conjecture that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND, while string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry. Este-ce que je mérite un billet pour la ville de crackpot? Quand le train part-il?

Dear Attay Kremer

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

16 days later

Attay,

A good essay, well written and organized, right on topic and pertinent. It has helped me remain convinced that; "the question of the origin of purpose is problematic, due to purpose being an essential part of human experience.

I confess I'm less convinced that the best description of the implications of the the principle of least action is that 'a system strives to minimise' action as an 'aim' in the same way.

But I do identify a 'feedback loop' mechanism in my essay producing decisions and thus higher level 'intent' in a layered architecture equivalent to that of propositional dynamic (or 'modal') logic. ('Purpose' is then simply lower level decisions referring back to and serving a past higher level one.) I hope you may get to read it and comment.

Answering "Why do we want?" Do not good & bad outcomes and bio-chemical releases? direct preferences?

But yes, fundamentally I agree we're not driven by mathematical laws, which though useful I suggest are really only integer approximations, abstractions and distractions from understanding physical process.

Thanks for the interesting essay. Much underrated at 4 I think so deserving a boost.

Best of luck getting into the final group.

Peter

    Dear Peter,

    Thank you so much for reading, and for your kind remarks.

    When I claim that a physical system under the principle of least action has an intention to minimize said action, I mean to say that it is a principle which regards the behavior of the system over time, and thus requires a level of intent not shared by such laws as Newton's Universal Gravitation.

    Looking forward to reading your essay.

    Best of luck getting into the final group as well.

    Attay.

    Hi Attay,

    Thank you for a most readable thought provoking essay. Your conclusions (which match my own) are listed below:

    1. The question: "How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?" is not a legitimate question. And finding a mechanical origin for Will, is fundamentally impossible.

    2. We organize our experience of the world in the same way our minds are organized. We project the structure of our own thought onto our experience of the world.

    Thus when a society trains mathematicians through years and years of study, it gets questions from mathematicians like: "How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?"

    I approach this question with a dialog you may find interesting. Take a look.

    Thanks so much for this clear view from a higher logical higher plane.

    Don Limuti

      Dear Don,

      Thank you for taking the time to read my essay, and for your most kind comments.

      I am glad to see that you agree with my position, as so far I have mostly come across people with whom I disagree (at least regarding this topic).

      I would be delighted to read your essay, and am looking forward to it; but I am unable to find it. If it wouldn't too much of a bother, a link would help a lot.

      I'm also glad to read that your essay is in dialog form, as I wanted to write my own essay in a similar way.

      Regards,

      Attay.

      Dear Attay

      I have opened your nice essay that seen to me meaningful - serious (and a little bet large) to have deeply study it and make some significantly analyze in this limited time. However, it are very attractive to me even with this brief reading, because I have find there first important for me thing: You clearly says that the offered question not so deserves (subtly speaking) all this huge efforts that we all spend here. I think almost the same but I gone a some other direction. I see that we somewhat are like - minded people that is why I hope my work can be interesting to you also. Then we can tell each to other on our impressions, remarks and evaluations.

      Good wishes

      6 days later

      Attay,

      Great essay, very well written. I also agree with much but am unconvinced that 'will' isn't effectively an 'illusion' emergent from higher order mechanisms. i.e. If we have a 'choice', we run scenario's (imagine) using memories, get feedback (from motor neurone responses, biochemical release etc) so get 'good' feelings or alarm bells back, throw quantum switches, and make a decision. If the wrong one, we get REAL feedback and thus the switches are thrown the other way for the next time. (unless it's do I jump off this cliff or not? - then Darwin intervenes.)

      As Will means choices which means decisions, Does that no mean we have what effectively passes for a mechanism for 'will'? My essay explains better so I hope you'll read it and comment. (It also identifies how quantum sillyness can be mechanistically removed!) Are you familiar with the work of Philosopher Daniel Dennett? ..who seems to agree with me on all that!

      Very best

      Peter

        I thought I was getting deja vu when reading your essay - I'd read and commented previously! I'm a bit swamped with posts so can't recall if you've read mine yet, but hope you do if not.

        Too many essays!!

        P

        Dear Sirs!

        Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

        New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

        New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

        Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

        Sincerely,

        Dizhechko Boris

        Dear Sirs!

        Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

        New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

        New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

        Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

        Sincerely,

        Dizhechko Boris