Fun with logic, Peano and Constructivism!

[bahman]

Free decision is different. You need to get ride of all constraints yet be able to decide.

Different how? Even humans are constrained in their decision-making.

Human is constrained by options. He however is to choose an option freely. We need the freedom to decide when the options are equally liked. You are free to decide because things are indifferent to you.

In fact - unconstrained decision-making is impossible. Even you can't enumerate a set of infinite options, let alone choose from such a set.

You are fully aware when you make a decision.

[Skepdick]

Human is constrained by options. He however is to choose an option freely.

You can't explain what the word "freely" means....

We need the freedom to decide when the options are equally liked. You are free to decide because things are indifferent to you.

How do you decide between "equally liked options" except rolling a dice? e.g random choice - entropy.

You are fully aware when you make a decision.

So is the algorithm - it's aware of all the possible options.

What you are talking about has a name in computer science: control flow.

[bahman]

Human is constrained by options. He however is to choose an option freely.

You can't explain what the word "freely" means....

I did. It is when you minimally like options equally. Or even when you go for the option you don't want for no reason.

We need the freedom to decide when the options are equally liked. You are free to decide because things are indifferent to you.

How do you decide between "equally liked options" except rolling a dice? e.g random choice - entropy.

I just do it. It looks random from third perspective but not from the first perspective.

You are fully aware when you make a decision.

So is the algorithm - it's aware of all the possible options.

What you are talking about has a name in computer science: control flow.

Everything is conscious. Consciousness is needed for any change. I however don't think that computer is conscious like us.

[Skepdick]

I did. It is when you minimally like options equally. Or even when you go for the option you don't want for no reason.

This is incoherent.

To like all options equally is the same as to like all options at the same level of minimality.
If you "go for the option you don't want" it means you want the other option even less.

I just do it. It looks random from third perspective but not from the first perspective.

Non-deterministic algorithms are all about 1st person perspectives. From the POV of the algorithm the choice is random.

"Just pick any one". It seems that's exactly what you are doing.

Everything is conscious. Consciousness is needed for any change. I however don't think that computer is conscious like us.

You are just tripping up over the discretisation.

Either infinitesimals have a lower bound in which case there is finitely many of them between 0 and 1.
Or they don't have a lower bound in which case there's infinitely many of them between 0 and 1.

[bahman]

I did. It is when you minimally like options equally. Or even when you go for the option you don't want for no reason.

This is incoherent.

Yes, it is. But we can do it. That is why we are different from machines.

To like all options equally is the same as to like all options at the same level of minimality.
If you "go for the option you don't want" it means you want the other option even less.

No, it doesn't mean that.

I just do it. It looks random from third perspective but not from the first perspective.

Non-deterministic algorithms are all about 1st person perspectives. From the POV of the algorithm the choice is random.

Free decision is not non-deterministic algorithm.

"Just pick any one". It seems that's exactly what you are doing.

You pick up the one you decide.

Everything is conscious. Consciousness is needed for any change. I however don't think that computer is conscious like us.

You are just tripping up over the discretisation.

Either infinitesimals have a lower bound in which case there is finitely many of them between 0 and 1.
Or they don't have a lower bound in which case there's infinitely many of them between 0 and 1.

Things has absolute length therefore there is a lower bound so called infinitesimal. The length L by definition contains L infinitesimals.

[Skepdick]

Yes, it is. But we can do it. That is why we are different from machines.

You can't explain how you do it - you are no different to a machine.

No, it doesn't mean that.

Then what does it mean?

Free decision is not non-deterministic algorithm.

Then what is it?

You pick up the one you decide.

Which one did you decide and how?

Things has absolute length therefore there is a lower bound so called infinitesimal. The length L by definition contains L infinitesimals.

This is circular. How do you measure length? What is your unit?

[bahman]

Yes, it is. But we can do it. That is why we are different from machines.

You can't explain how you do it - you are no different to a machine.

I am able to stop to write you whenever I want in spite of wanting to write you. Machine just follow a chain of causality. Mind can break and create a chain of causality whenever it wants. Like stop writing.

No, it doesn't mean that.

Then what does it mean?

You can like an option more yet pick out another option just because you want.

Free decision is not non-deterministic algorithm.

Then what is it?

The one that you cannot write an algorithm for it.

You pick up the one you decide.

Which one did you decide and how?

The point is that a machine can resolve a problem in a point that there is a equal conflict of interest. A mind can.

Things has absolute length therefore there is a lower bound so called infinitesimal. The length L by definition contains L infinitesimals.

This is circular.

It is not.

How do you measure length?

Everything has an absolute length. That is why we can measure them. We use a good constant to assign a standard length to things.

What is your unit?

The true unit is infinitesimal. We don't have access to it so we use other thing which are made of infinitesimal.

[Skepdick]

I am able to stop to write you whenever I want in spite of wanting to write you. Machine just follow a chain of causality. Mind can break and create a chain of causality whenever it wants. Like stop writing.

So can a machine.

NOP

You can like an option more yet pick out another option just because you want.

You mean you can choose the least preferred option? Sure!

An algorithm can do that. You can program your choice-function either way.

The one that you cannot write an algorithm for it.

You haven't given me any procedure for which i can't write an algorithm yet.

The point is that a machine can resolve a problem in a point that there is a equal conflict of interest. A mind can.

The way I resolve my own conflicts is by flipping a coin.

Here's a bunch of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlock_ ... algorithms]Deadlock prevention algorithms.

It is not.

Yeah. it is. It's no different to the Integers.

Everything has an absolute length. That is why we can measure them. We use a good constant to assign a standard length to things.

OK, but the length is always divisible by 2. Hence your problem.

The true unit is infinitesimal. We don't have access to it so we use other thing which are made of infinitesimal.

So the Integer 1. Which is indivisible by 2 (if the division is to be closed).

[bahman]

I am able to stop to write you whenever I want in spite of wanting to write you. Machine just follow a chain of causality. Mind can break and create a chain of causality whenever it wants. Like stop writing.

So can a machine.

NOP

No. I don't use an algorithm when I want to stop a chain of causality or create one.

You can like an option more yet pick out another option just because you want.

You mean you can choose the least preferred option? Sure!

An algorithm can do that. You can program your choice-function either way.

Yes, but not freely.

The one that you cannot write an algorithm for it.

You haven't given me any procedure for which i can't write an algorithm yet.

You don't use any algorithm when you decide freely. Do you? That is the very meaning of freedom.

The point is that a machine can resolve a problem in a point that there is a equal conflict of interest. A mind can.

The way I resolve my own conflicts is by flipping a coin.

Here's a bunch of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlock_ ... algorithms]Deadlock prevention algorithms.

Yes, but you can resolve that issue without flipping a coin too. You simply decide.

It is not.

Yeah. it is. It's no different to the Integers.

Integers don't have any absolute length.

Everything has an absolute length. That is why we can measure them. We use a good constant to assign a standard length to things.

OK, but the length is always divisible by 2. Hence your problem.

You cannot divide infinitesimal to two.

The true unit is infinitesimal. We don't have access to it so we use other thing which are made of infinitesimal.

So the Integer 1. Which is indivisible by 2 (if the division is to be closed).

Infinitesimal has a absolute length. Integer is mathematical construct.

[Skepdick]

No. I don't use an algorithm when I want to stop a chain of causality or create one.

Then what do you use?

Yes, but not freely.

It's as "freely" as you are doing it. That's why it's non-deterministic to the programmer.

You don't use any algorithm when you decide freely. Do you? That is the very meaning of freedom.

Of course I do. I choose the thing which maximises my utility, whatever that may be given my utility function.

Yes, but you can resolve that issue without flipping a coin too. You simply decide.

In the cases where I can decide - I decide.
In the cases where I can't decide - I flip a coin.

Integers don't have any absolute length.

The "absolute length" of the 1st integer is 1 - its distance from 0.

You cannot divide infinitesimal to two.

Infinitesimal has a absolute length. Integer is mathematical construct.

Exactly. Dividing 1 by 2 is open, not closed e.g the answer is not in the domain of the integers.

[bahman]

No. I don't use an algorithm when I want to stop a chain of causality or create one.

Then what do you use?

I use my mind.

Yes, but not freely.

It's as "freely" as you are doing it. That's why it's non-deterministic to the programmer.

Non-deterministic means that you cannot anticipate it. Free decision is non-deterministic. It is also free.

You don't use any algorithm when you decide freely. Do you? That is the very meaning of freedom.

Of course I do. I choose the thing which maximises my utility, whatever that may be given my utility function.

Yes, we all use maximum utility when we follow a chain of causality. We however are free not to use it.

Yes, but you can resolve that issue without flipping a coin too. You simply decide.

In the cases where I can decide - I decide.
In the cases where I can't decide - I flip a coin.

You can always decide.

Integers don't have any absolute length.

The "absolute length" of the 1st integer is 1 - its distance from 0.

In real number yes. In integer number no.

You cannot divide infinitesimal to two.

Infinitesimal has a absolute length. Integer is mathematical construct.

Exactly. Dividing 1 by 2 is open, not closed e.g the answer is not in the domain of the integers.

Yes.

[Skepdick]

I use my mind.

As far as I can tell your mind is a Turing machine.

Non-deterministic means that you cannot anticipate it. Free decision is non-deterministic. It is also free.

Exactly. As the programmer I can't anticipate precisely what a non-deterministic algorithm will decide, even though I wrote it.

Like this: https://repl.it/repls/EthicalBlindNetbsd

Code: Select all

I choose not to choose!
[78, 80, 26]
[79, 8, 46]
I choose not to choose!
[60, 56, 31]

Yes, we all use maximum utility when we follow a chain of causality. We however are free not to use it.

So you are minimising, not maximising utility. Is just an inverse.

You can always decide.

That's true thanks to my coin.

In real number yes. In integer number no.

The real number 1 is exactly the same distance from 0 as the integer 1.Said differently.

Real(1) = Integer(1)

Yes.

So Integer(1) is what you are looking for?

[bahman]

I use my mind.

As far as I can tell your mind is a Turing machine.

Not when it comes to experience, decision and causation.

Non-deterministic means that you cannot anticipate it. Free decision is non-deterministic. It is also free.

Exactly. As the programmer I can't anticipate precisely what a non-deterministic algorithm will decide, even though I wrote it.

Like this: https://repl.it/repls/EthicalBlindNetbsd

Code: Select all

I choose not to choose!
[78, 80, 26]
[79, 8, 46]
I choose not to choose!
[60, 56, 31]

Yes, your program is non-deterministic but it is not free.

Yes, we all use maximum utility when we follow a chain of causality. We however are free not to use it.

So you are minimising, not maximising utility. Is just an inverse.

No, I am not either thinking of minimising or maximising when I decide freely.

You can always decide.

That's true thanks to my coin.

You could do it without a coin. I do it all the time.

In real number yes. In integer number no.

The real number 1 is exactly the same distance from 0 as the integer 1.Said differently.

Real(1) = Integer(1)

There is no distance in integer number.

Yes.

So Integer(1) is what you are looking for?

No. I was looking for how one can get a consistent mathematical framework that allows us the measurement at the same time explain how one can get continuum from infinitesimal.

[Skepdick]

Yes, your program is non-deterministic but it is not free.

How do you test for "freedom"?
How do you falsify "freedom"?

No, I am not either thinking of minimising or maximising when I decide freely.
You could do it without a coin. I do it all the time.

You still haven't told me how and why you do it. If you don't know know how; and you don't know why - then why are you so sure you are doing it "freely" ?

There is no distance in integer number.

Then what is subtraction?

No. I was looking for how one can get a consistent mathematical framework that allows us the measurement at the same time explain how one can get continuum from infinitesimal.

What you are really asking is how one can get a "continuum" from discrete elements. The simple answer is - you can't.

Mathematics is discrete because language is discrete. On metaphysical level - language is discrete because time is discrete. Humans think in beginnings and ends. Physics is discrete because a "measurement" is an effect on the measurement apparatus caused by the thing being measured.

If physics was "continuous" you can't have things like "causes" and "effects" - you'll just have a function.

[RCSaunders]

Physics is discrete ... [but not for the reason you explained]

Physical entities are discrete, and, you are right that language and mathematics are discrete (a very astute and correct observation, by the way). But all physical relationships are analog, which is why no mathematical measurement is ever absolutely exact (except by accident) because measurement is in terms of arbitrary discrete units of measure.

There is no physical infinitesimal (or infinite) which are only the extremes of arbitrary (human invented) units of measure.[/quote]