Is free-will an illusion?

while in school we all learn that number are impossible to list, bc each number include the quality of infinite absolute itself first before being that reality number, maths know that infinite cause is absolute, absolute is not a finite thing
while a number is nothing without the relation with other and all others numbers
which confirm the impossible definition
exponential infinite is impossible to see an end through

evil is the reason of that logic tomr is using

infinite is real then infinite is determined

merde, infinite is real infinite is real reality is infinitely, freedom of course is what exist and even the most simple point cannot b determined nor programmed
on the contrary the more it is a point the more it is then existing real the more it is related to all infinities the more it is free only

Is that the one entitled "Normal"

…….internet explorer has a "find on this page…"…...very useful!

I know about command-F and use it often though I don't know where it resides

Is that the one entitled "Normal"

…….internet explorer has a "find on this page…"…...very useful!

I know about command-F Tomr and use it often though I don't know where it resides

If you assume that there can be a countable infinity of statements generated by an algorithm then it follows that you generate the uncountables as well. And I will show you how:

Cantor's Diagonal argument is used to show that there exists numbers beyond a countably infinite set. He claims that a set must have a one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers to be countable. In his argument he creates a pairing of real numbers (in decimal form) to the positive integers. He then shows that alot of numbers were not accounted for in the pairing between the two sets (the reals and the natural numbers). These numbers are called uncountable real numbers.

Here is the setup to Cantor's Diagonal argument:

n=1 -> . a1 a2 a3 a4 ...
n=2 -> . b1 b2 b3 b4 ...
n=3 -> . c1 c2 c3 c4 ...
n=4 -> . d1 d2 d3 d4 ...
.
.
.

where n is the natural number that corresponds to some decimal real number given by the sequence . a1 a2 a3 a4 ... The letters a, b, c, etc... are just to show that the number in that position goes with the other numbers with the same letter.

For instance the decimal . a1 a2 a3 a4 could be the real number .00000.... where a1 is the first zero, a2 is the second zero and so forth. Each row contains one distinct combination of the countably infinite set of the real numbers. Here is a link to a wikipedia page describing this, you can also find clear and easy to understand demonstrations of the proof on youtube:



The proof goes on to show some numbers exist that were not apart of the countably infinite set of real numbers given. This is done by the diagonal argument.

n=1 -> . a1 a2 a3 a4 ...
n=2 -> . b1 b2 b3 b4 ...
n=3 -> . c1 c2 c3 c4 ...
n=4 -> . d1 d2 d3 d4 ...
.
.
.

By making the decimal S = . a1 b2 c3 d4 ... we can also define a decimal real number that does not contain these values in those positions. The "anti-sequence" of S is S' = . s1 s2 s3 s4 ... where {s1 ≠ a1, s2 ≠ b2, s3 ≠ c3, s4 ≠ d4, ...} Because S' is defined to be different than each combination in the original list we can see S' cannot be on the previous list of countably infinite numbers.

However, and to Ughaibu's claim that the sequences of uncountable numbers cannot be generated by an algorithm, the algorithm for generating uncountable numbers is given in the proof. It is simple: S' = . s1 s2 s3 s4 ... where {s1 ≠ a1, s2 ≠ b2, s3 ≠ c3, s4 ≠ d4, ...}. So an algorithm can be made to use all the acceptable values for s1, s2, s3, s4,... producing all the possible combinations of such numbers as well. Of course this is still assuming infinites to powers of infinities of time to perform the calculation in.

Ugh I simply can't agree, based largely on the principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else

After which, if you try to arrange the two sets in one to one correspondence, the same thing will occur, you will have members of the reals which can not be paired with any natural.

Disambiguate me: I was hoping someone might explain what on earth randomness has to do with free will, using common words in short sentences suitable to your Common Everyday Lout (me)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEL_(disambiguation)

And this "principle" prevents things being defined?!? Besides which, what is this principle? I don't recall anyone other than you, using it.
Anyway, here yet again is the definition of free will: an agent has free will on any occasion on which that agent makes and enacts a conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives.
If you need further explication, use the search function.

Nobody said the process would not be endless we are assuming infinite time to produce these sequences. Essential for the same reason you could complain about not being able to produce the countably infinite numbers because they are infinite.

No, the reasons are quite different.

As I have pointed out earlier it very much depends on infinity being or not being the case, if no infinity exists any thing ends up being computable...there is no reason to not hypothesize infinity is either a repeating loop or simply doesn't exist...whatever matter and stuff there is if infinitely divisible, it becomes magical and lacking of any reasonable explanation...same goes with space, or even movement, in an continuous infinitely dividable area movement in space becomes mechanically unexplainable once you need infinite many steps to move a single inch in any direction, as energy required is also infinite...in sum its nonsensical !

How so?

Yes, that is, being defined in an absolute sense. In any def you come up with, somebody will challenge an assumption, and with each reply to said challenge, another assumption, ad infinitum until what you wind up with, is a tautology……..

……. a 1700-word definition that amounts to nothing more than that

"But how about '2 + 2 = 4,' " you ask. Indeed it's a tautology. But then you respond with a very complex equation of some sort asking, "Is it also a tautology," whereupon I respond, "It depends exactly what you mean by the word…."

That nothing is entirely anything…….

Me nuther


Thanks Ugh for the definition, it's very concise indeed. However it doesn't exclude the possibility that his choice is predetermined

Ugh you have to forgive my laziness

You have seen Cantor's proof, either you understand it or you don't. If you don't, then you're out of luck.

There are only two options here. Either you call the numbers generated by the sequence S' = . s1 s2 s3 s4 ... where {s1 ≠ a1, s2 ≠ b2, etc...} uncountable numbers or you endlessly add those numbers to the list of infinitely countable real numbers and endlessly verify that infact they were countable to begin with and so no uncountable numbers exist.

I am afraid he is right Tomr...I rather discard infinity for that matter...most physicists do just that exactly for the same reasons...infinity leads to all kinds and sorts of paradoxes...

Which is what can't be done, even by an infinite number of verifications, because there is at most a countable number of verifications.
Anyway, this isn't interesting, so you're on your own again.

I get the feeling that most of you fellas are too deeply into metaphysics and the deeper you go the more distant any possible conclusion

I have this theory that any assertion ought to be reduced to simple everyday language and if it can't be, then we ought to explore the possibility that it's largely a semantic not teleological, philosophical, or mathematical issue

Note "largely" according to the general principle that nothing is entirely anything, while……..

….itself clearly a contradictory estoppel

He is not right. There are only two possibilities either you call S' = . s1 s2 s3 ... uncountable or you say that every S' is a countable number. There are no other alternatives.