update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

I did explain to you what the difference is between alternatives in the future, and alternatives in the present. In anticipation theory alternatives in the present is referred to as weak anticipation, and having them in the future is called strong anticipation. On the whole science is still on the side of weak anticipation, so you know this difference is apparently something tricky that you should take note of.Frontloading seems to equate to evolution acting from memory, from dna they have. This is not fundamentally what I'm talking about, although it means that there can be more sophisticated decision processes in nature that mimic brainfunction.In anticipation theory there is no goal, or so to say the goal is spiritual. The theories that posit a goal have the alternatives in the present, as explained before.I think you still have the alternatives in the present otherwise if you would understand, then we could simply move forward to discussing what decisions went into the creation of species that we see today. As before, decisions are the most fundamental in science according to anticipation theory, there is nothing to which decisions are not applicable. There are various ways of deciding, and that is the new science.

There is no way to have alternative futures without decisions. So when you talk about randomness in the context of alternative futures, and then contrast that with deciding, then you are not making sense. The alternative futures in randomness also must be decided.

Hi, Syamsu. I don't remember seeing you write anything but "alternatives in the future = strong anticipation, alternatives in the present = weak anticipation." That doesn't count as "explaining the difference," because all you've done is put a name to something that you haven't explained.Can you provide me a link to the exact post where you explained what the difference is between "alternatives in the future" and "alternatives in the present"?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Syamsu. So, does your word "decision" only refer to the occurrence of just one of several alternatives? If so, what, exactly, do you think this theory is presenting that isn't already known? Doesn't randomness offer an explanation for the occurrence of just one of several alternatives, even if those alternatives are "in the future?"I contend that, if this is your point, you are only peddling a new term for a phenomenon that already exists and has been described and explained by science. I also contend that, if this is not your point, you're just talking inconsistent, incoherent gibberish.If you are insisting that "decisions" must imply "anticipation," you are really pushing teleology (goal-orienting) or front-loading (advance preparation). But, you have already said that your idea is distinct from these.Edited by Bluejay, : Probably the worst grammar mistake I've ever made.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Well that is your wholly unsupported assertion. This sentance makes no sense. What do you mean? The alternate futures according to science are all of those physically possible. There is no decision making involved in determining these futures. Every physical possibility is included. If your argument has any worth at all you need to supply some evidence or reasoning regarding this key point beyond simply stating that you think it is obvious.The idea of coathangers and cardboard boxes making decisions is not obvious. Is not common sense. And is not supported by other creationists.So just telling us it is obvious really isn't a good enough argument.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I cannot tell what you are talking about anymore. You have some undefined randomness which does include alternative futures, but does not include decisions apparently. Well I dont understand how the alternatives are decided without decision, I cant even begin to ask a question about it, I just dont understand what youre talking about.

This is basically what we have been telling you.
Want to try and address Message 179 which includes addressing Message 101?

No I cant provide the link without thinking of myself as a flunky for a roman emperor. You are making this all too complex, start with the direct experience of being free to go either left or right. And from this principle, what decisions made the species. It is simply a historical view on the universe, with unique decisions.And now theres science to back that up basically.And very probably your view of humanity, freedom and the universe is fundamentally flawed, since you probably let yourself be informed by mainstream science for that.

Creationism is perfectly understandable,
causes in the past, alternatives in the future
decisions to progress through time
the material objectively known, the spiritual subjectively known
freedom of which we have direct evidence
etc.
So apparently you have some other theory which is supported by science. Well, I dont understand it.

The available alternatives are all those that are physically possible. The randomness is due to the inherently probabalistic nature of QM.
Example: At any given point in time a particular atom will, or will not, decay. According to QM we can calculate the statistical likelihood of that atom decaying at each point in time. However we can never say for certain exactly when it actually will decay. An element of non-causal, non-deterministic randomness is an innate and inherent part of quantum theory and thus reality (if such interpretations of QM are true).As far as I am aware this view is consistent with the dominant interpretations of QM amongst scientists.Therefore your assertion that all scientists are somehow advocates of a mechanistically deterministic universe whereby everything is predermined and any notion of freewill is impossible seems to be false.
And we do not have to invoke decision making toothbrushes, evil door knobs or loved-up tangerines in order to allow for these things. Which is a bonus in the eyes of most sane people.

Your answers are nonsense......Are you saying you cannot show how anticipatory theory pushes aside natural selection?

Maybe you are being too simplistic? To the point of idiocy at times. How does this experience of my ability to choose to go left or right necessarily, or even possibly, equate to the ability of a toothbrush to go left or right? Science? A "theory" that cannot be experimentally verified because it predicts nothing and claims no results that can possibly differentiate it from real science. A "theory" that says all of the predictions of conventional science will remain true whilst also saying that all of conventional science is in fact wrong. I am going to keep pointing out to you that you have claimed that toothbrushes make decisions until you realise just how ridiculous you are (or until this thread is eventually closed )Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So in place of comprehension you decide that decsion making walnuts are a valid and even probable alternative? Congratulations on that piece of astute thinking.

Well ridicule seems to be your argument. But whenever you talk about a walnut, or paperclip, then I consider the entire inanimate universe, and it strikes me as being good of itself.
great then that you apparently believe in alternative futures, which are not decided on. But still then the question remains why the one alternative and not the other, which is an enjoyable spiritual question. In any case with that theory you can also ask the question when species were realized from the alternate possibles.No it is absolutely hopeless to discuss that without using the concept of decision.

That which you have presented as your argument frankly deserves little else. Chance. Which is a very non-spiritual answer. It can indeed be interesting to consider what could have been. This however gives no support to your claims. Again you state this unsupported assertion. Repeatedly asserting it neither makes it true nor adds any weight to your almost non-existant argument. Why? Why, and on what basis other than theistic philosophical bias, do you deny any role for blind random chance?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.