Is free-will an illusion?

Exactly !

u r intelligent bravo for meanin to relate with truth since the end is to of course

especially when absolutes value is first but also is only freedom, imagine all those absolute of absolute freedom what that mean from first so always more compared to ur evil gods randomness farts

u have all the intersts to mean relation with truth u hate while it is impossible reach knowin that truth hate u before u moved seein clearly what kind of free alone steady u r

but u believe in love dont u, maybe it is meant there as ur exclusive way left to seek convincin truth how ur love is beyond its endless hate to u
mayb it will throw u some sugar in the hell it mean to lock u down inn

Why thank you again Fil, I was beginning to doubt my reason

A little support is welcome in this otherwise gestaltist infinitude of dysphoric thrall and insensate persiflage

Do you mean me
Yes I guess so

That's because "humanoids" can create "things" that expands our choices. Sending a craft to Mars is but one of them.

Why thank you Imans, if yours was meant also to be encouraging

If no trouble you might reveal something about yourself; age, sex, nationality, ed., work, motives, etc etc

Do you mean me
Yes I guess so

Like **** they do. Show me the proof that economics is governed by "the rules of physics".

I agree; economics uses math, but it's more an art than it is science. That's the reason why even so-called expert economists disagree on issues of economics.

Bullshit! An agent has free will on any occasion on which that agent makes and enacts a conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives. The exact meaning of constituent terms in this definition has been explicated, on this site, and for the most part, on this thread. 1) science is metaphysically neutral
2) determinism is a metaphysical thesis
3) science is the business of generating, a class of, predictions
4) predictions are generated by deterministic models
5) restriction to a species of model has no ontological implications.
Go on then, what's your argument for this ridiculous contention?
Unless you show signs of understanding and taking in the content of my replies to you, I will assume that you're another case of terminal denialism.

it is never one while two is enough for truth

superiority is the only truth that also can exist

only truth, bc superiority is a kind of free way there is no reason need to mean better a bit, better is always possible but also not the thing nor conditionnin anything, better is free from present, but it become the present truth bc it is the only value in objective terms
while truth by definition cant b but smthg really existin as a value still so it become a reason of a lot of free relatives to or objective free relativism

that also can exist, bc if superiority is constant then objects value is real while logically that object value would mean its own superior free way

the object superiority is first then the individual superior value second then objective values third

that is how and why individual freedom is always the limit of objective free existence, bc objective superiority is by truth limited by individual superiority being more superior value while also individual superiority is limited in truth by objective superior value
so superiority only exist, since there is no mirrors nor inventions but true else superior value that truth always bring out of nothing as present truth

which guarantee the constant march on superiority mods the linear ways

Here is a link to the wikipedia page on algorithmically random sequences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmically_random_sequence

Under History section it says that the first suitable definition of a random sequence was developed in 1966. Since we are talking about random sequences this would be applicable to our discussion. So when Ughaibu says classical mathematics he is being extremely vague. The only definitions for a random sequence seem to be based on the theory of computation which is a field in both computer science and mathematics.

Under the section Three Equivalent Definitions three equivalent definitions are given for randomness that are very complicated. You would probably need the equivalent of a post-graduate degree in mathematics and/or degree in computer science to have the background to begin to say you fully understand these concepts. Once you start talking about measure theory and Lebesgue measures and integrals you are getting into very advanced stuff. I am not close to getting it and I am no math major but I have taken fairly advanced math courses (Three calculus courses and a differential equations course.). In general the more recent the invention of some branch or theorem in mathematics the more difficult it is to understand, because it is building on everything that comes before it.

Under the section Interpretations of the definitions there is a laymans definition of a random sequence that we could use which is:

The Kolmogorov complexity characterization conveys the intuition that a random sequence is incompressible: no prefix can be produced by a program much shorter than the prefix.

Which is essentially saying that the program must be as large as the sequence being generated for the sequence to be random. If it was not then the machine was deterministically producing values in the sequence and the program might be much shorter than that sequence.

Sounds like super-computer stuff; way beyond my level of comprehension.

Back to reality, almost all numbers are uncomputable. If we chose a number, by any means other than by computing it, then the probability of it being computable is zero.

I disagree. Here's a Wiki article on super computers.

With what?

If you don't understand, I can't explain it to you.

You must be ******* joking. You replied to a post of mine and said that you disagree. That which you ostensibly disagree with was authored by me! What the **** was it?

Okay you have given us a resource about Set Theory. It never references randomness, probability, or computability.

I responded with,

It's in relatively simple English language. If you don't understand what it says, I can't explain it to you any further. capiche?