Free Will

No, you're still not with it. "Truth" is "what works"...i.e. gives successful predictions (or retrodictions). The key issue is that it is our will to predict which fornulates science. So "science" cannot logically explain "will".

Did you mean that science can not logically explain why we choose to try to predict things?

Correct.
"Scientific explanation" takes "prediction" as axiomatic. Axioms cannot be analysed by their own dependent systems.

So what is wrong with following science explanation as why we try to predict future.

Throughout the history different influences were changing leaving organisms.
Some of those changes resulted in creating organisms which were more or less interested in the ability to predict future. It seems that those that were interested and had capabilities in predicting future had good enough chance of surviving and this is why today we have organisms that are interested in predicting future. If will to predict future was something bad that would kill you on site today we wouldn'e have organisms that try to predict future.

So, conclusion is that we were programmed to have interest in predicting future by chance and that interest proved valuable in our survivale so we kept it simply by not dying because of it.

It's wrong because you are not taking care with the word "scientific" . Karl Popper gives the criterion of "scientific" as "refutable in principle". Your statement is not. You cannot appeal to an evolutionary survival mechanism because "the future" is too vague a term to be applied to survival thereby avoiding refutability.

At this juncture, I am suggesting a break in our dialogue because I feel I am having to go over basic principles which you can read for yourself in any "Philosophy of Science" book. Why not read up on Popper for example, apply it to your pet term "programming", and see if it survives. Then maybe you can report back with a thread of your own.

It can. It's because we like it. Pleasure principle.

LOL
I leave for a few weeks and see what happens?

vori evidently never studied Philosophy. He wouldn't be able to see his own shadow during mid-summer if his life depended on it. ROFL

Yeah, but was he able to post that of his own volition?

Fresco, I heard somewhere recently that "truth" is what one can get away with among his contemporaries.

Then I'll never loan you money.

Ha! Lucky for me we are not contemporaries.

You have money?

I have Federal Reserve notes. Are they any good?

No, they're worthless. Send them to me, I'll try to sell them for you.

amazin how far u love to invent business profits from truth knowledge

which cant b but a lie

what might think smthg out of objective reality is only the liar

and while liars are by definition the opposite to what they say

It looks like imans has seen through your clever scheme

Every time I read this sort of reasoning of yours it gives me an headache the effort by which you establish the truth about "no truth"...I mean your concept is pretty much set in stone on the subject, can't you notice the contradiction ?

...2 point is that your will does not formulate anything your will only channels the energy to bring up work in any/some direction...why the hell science cannot logically explain will is beyond me...for one (in a single short sentence) fighting decay is a damn good reason to justify will...

I'm surprised that some your previous comments about your appreciation of meditation seem to be negated by your "headache" in this matter. "Will to predict" is an aspect of samsara...i.e. of the mode of being which divides existence dualistically into what "is" and "what is not". It is within the meditational process of suspension of the ego and hence "will", that the meaning of my quoted remarks emerges.

fresco has a point in what all existence seem to b objective so realities are true, bc of such event that occur as a plus to all truth
when truth was recognized existing in concept right objectively, that done became out free value parallel to truth value
but which truth cannot say

now, is the will really what makes sciences??? i dont think so

the will is not right, it is inferiority choice, to set as a condition what u need to get first before u could mean recognizin existence to b objectively real

so the will is never an absolute fact, then it is not sciences reason
and when wills are always wrong moves careless about present values to respect, then sciences can easily say all about wills if it wants to
like and more what i just did in one second

so fresco as a believer choice is always wrong
but the objective reference was not wrong

like sciences cannot say present value simply bc it didnt makes it so it cant step above true existing positive facts

which show sciences being useful to know what is wrong or bad roots

and that also prove how knowledge in truth is about evil only