09-12-2016, 04:04 PM

secur wrote: "'Buridan's principle' is worthwhile; Lamport's point is non-trivial."

Indeed. You've got good counterarguments; forgive me for ignoring them, and going to your case for free will: " ... with a conscious being like a donkey or human, it's circumvented by free will - the ability to make an (objectively) random choice."

Time flows in reverse. We can’t experience time flow in reverse, however, because our brains process data digitally.

Or at least, we think that brains process data digitally; after all, we can convert wavelike information into digital data, and make sense of it. Sense seems always well ordered, so obviously so that we construct an axiom – the axiom of choice – to guarantee it.

The axiom of choice is equivalent to free will.

What if choice is not an axiom? What if randomness is built into the system, such that nature makes random choices continuously in a way that makes our own choices only seem random or non-random? It boils down to what makes nature comprehensible -- in that same 2006 conference paper, I wrote:

5.6 What is the center point of a space that has no center? Or, what is the median prime number? Because we know that the primes are infinite (Euclid), we know that the question has no answer. On the other hand, an arbitrary choice of endpoints in an ordered prime sequence, or in a finite set of primes, allows us to answer from Zorn’s Lemma, or the Axiom of Choice (which are equivalent). [Mathworld, “Zorn’s Lemma”] Suppose we do not wish to appeal to this axiom. One would ask, is nature well ordered in principle? We know that it is not. Quantum events are discrete and random.

Indeed. You've got good counterarguments; forgive me for ignoring them, and going to your case for free will: " ... with a conscious being like a donkey or human, it's circumvented by free will - the ability to make an (objectively) random choice."

Time flows in reverse. We can’t experience time flow in reverse, however, because our brains process data digitally.

Or at least, we think that brains process data digitally; after all, we can convert wavelike information into digital data, and make sense of it. Sense seems always well ordered, so obviously so that we construct an axiom – the axiom of choice – to guarantee it.

The axiom of choice is equivalent to free will.

What if choice is not an axiom? What if randomness is built into the system, such that nature makes random choices continuously in a way that makes our own choices only seem random or non-random? It boils down to what makes nature comprehensible -- in that same 2006 conference paper, I wrote:

5.6 What is the center point of a space that has no center? Or, what is the median prime number? Because we know that the primes are infinite (Euclid), we know that the question has no answer. On the other hand, an arbitrary choice of endpoints in an ordered prime sequence, or in a finite set of primes, allows us to answer from Zorn’s Lemma, or the Axiom of Choice (which are equivalent). [Mathworld, “Zorn’s Lemma”] Suppose we do not wish to appeal to this axiom. One would ask, is nature well ordered in principle? We know that it is not. Quantum events are discrete and random.