They occur due to brain activities which are determined by genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. — Truth Seeker

Ahhhhh, I understand better now. I have thought about this before myself. Everything one does and will do is affected by everything.
However, is there a point to this? Are you separate from your thoughts?
Is a person not their own thoughts, not their own GENE? A person is made of these things even if it is influenced by others.
In the case of ice cream, is a person ever upset that they chose the flavor of ice cream that they like.
Some people might not like other people having an influence on them, but personally this is going too far for me. While our choices are not absolutely free and unfettered, there are choices that we like. You can overcome any outside factors, and you are at one with all internal factors. There is no problem here,
Additionally removing any influence from yourself is denying your connection with others. If your mother made a delicious food that you love, say pasta. Would denying your own love for pasta even if developed by another person be good? Would it not be saying that you deny those experiences?
(I started asking a lot of questions to be lazier)
While absolutely freeing yourself from others can seem desirable, you are also dooming yourself to be absolutely alone. I am glad that I turned back before I went to far myself. The chains that bind you are also your connection to other people.

However, is there a point to this? Are you separate from your thoughts?
Is a person not their own thoughts, not their own GENE? — Red Sky

My sense of self is generated by my brain activities. I am not my thoughts, just as I am not my emotions. Thoughts and emotions are temporary mental states that I experience.

While our choices are not absolutely free and unfettered, there are choices that we like. — Red Sky

Yes, but what we like and dislike are not freely chosen by us. Our preferences are determined by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

You can overcome any outside factors, and you are at one with all internal factors. — Red Sky

This is false. If you abduct me and release me in the vacuum of space, would I be able to survive there by overcoming the lack of oxygen and the lack of heat? No, I wouldn't.

I am not one with all internal factors. I am constructed by the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. They preceded me.

Additionally removing any influence from yourself is denying your connection with others. If your mother made a delicious food that you love, say pasta. Would denying your own love for pasta even if developed by another person be good? Would it not be saying that you deny those experiences? — Red Sky

I don't understand what you mean. Please explain.

While absolutely freeing yourself from others can seem desirable, you are also dooming yourself to be absolutely alone. I am glad that I turned back before I went to far myself. The chains that bind you are also your connection to other people. — Red Sky

I never said that we should free ourselves from others. Nor did I say that I want to be disconnected from others.

Then what you're saying is that to be free of determinism is to not exist as any determinate thing (not exist at all). Is this why people say they are free when they die? When you're dead you can't make any choices - free or determined. — Harry Hindu

Yes. Only something that has never existed is always free from determinism.

You're saying that societies that judge individuals for their actions are not evidence that we are not entirely governed by the factors in the way you say we are? It's our parents fault for the genes they provided and the environment in which we were raised and the experiences and nutrients we consume. So why aren't parents being rounded up for their adult child's bad behavior? That is the implication of what you are saying. — Harry Hindu

I didn't say what you claimed. I am saying that laws are part of our environment (e.g. the laws of physics and the laws of various countries). We experience consequences for breaking social laws. We currently don't have the means to break the laws of physics, but it does not mean that we won't ever develop the means to break the laws of physics. Whether someone obeys social laws or disobeys social laws depends entirely on their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Given the fact that no human chooses to come into existence and no human chooses their genes, their early environments, their early nutrients and their early experiences, they do not deserve blame or credit for breaking laws or not breaking laws. We should change our legal systems to make them preventive, educational and restorative, by predicting who will break laws using their GENE Profiles and intervening to change their GENE Profiles so that they don't break laws. Those who do break laws should be quarantined until their GENE Profile has been altered so that they no longer break laws. Parents don't choose the genes of their children unless except in the case of designer babies, where traits are chosen in labs e.g. gender, eye colour, etc. Even in such cases, parents don't have total control over the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of their children. For instance, I don't have the capacity to choose the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences needed to make my children all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful, even though I want to do it.

My sense of self is generated by my brain activities. I am not my thoughts, just as I am not my emotions. Thoughts and emotions are temporary mental states that I experience. — Truth Seeker

You are not these but they are all a part of you. Do you know who you are? If you say all these things aren't a part of you, then what are you?

Yes, but what we like and dislike are not freely chosen by us. Our preferences are determined by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. — Truth Seeker

This one is highly related to the everything else. Are you mad that you chose the flavor of ice cream you like? Your preference is also a part of you.

This is false. If you abduct me and release me in the vacuum of space, would I be able to survive their by overcoming the lack of oxygen and the lack of heat? No, I wouldn't. — Truth Seeker

Not exactly wrong but just extremely hard. If I drop you off in space, what if you prearranged to be picked up. While the idea is extremely difficult and would take a super genius to predict it is not impossible.
If I am trying to kill you and you are trying to save yourself there is a chance for either of us to survive. I don't win just because I want to kill you and made a plan. What you are saying is that there is a foolproof plan that could absolutely kill you. I think that you are thinking that you must have a way to survive, which is different from a possibility. If you fail, it could be because of incompetence instead of impossibility. While extremely hard now, possibilities in the future might make it easier and even commonplace.
Do we judge the world for what it is now, or what it can be in the future?

don't understand what you mean. Please explain. — Truth Seeker

I believe you have stated that experiences play a role in your behavior, or something to the same effect. While another person influencing you could always seem bad, I might see it as a gift. The memories of the experience you have is a gift/burden/responsibility (One or more of these). I think it wrong to hate the influence other people have had on my life, just because I don't want them to influence my decisions.

I never said that we should free ourselves from others. Nor did I say that I want to be disconnected from others. — Truth Seeker

My original statement that provoked this response is based on the fact that others influence can be a gift. If it is a gift like I say then trying to throw it away is the same as freeing yourself from others.

You are not these but they are all a part of you. Do you know who you are? If you say all these things aren't a part of you, then what are you? — Red Sky

My thoughts and emotions are not part of me. They are part of my subjective experiences. I am a temporary sentient process generated by my brain activities. This sentient process is paused during dreamless sleep cycles and by general anaesthesia. When all of my brain activities stop permanently, I will cease to exist.

Your preference is also a part of you. — Red Sky

My preferences arise due to my brain activities, which occur due to my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

If I drop you off in space, what if you prearranged to be picked up. — Red Sky

How would I know that you were going to abduct me and bring me to space in a rocket, then jettison me into the vacuum of space? I don't personally know people like Elon Musk who have the means to go to space, and I certainly am not rich enough to pay SpaceX to rescue me from the vacuum of space. Even if SpaceX rescue me for free, how would SpaceX know exactly where I am, given how vast space is? How would SpaceX get to me from Earth in the mere five minutes it would take for me to die?

I think it wrong to hate the influence other people have had on my life, just because I don't want them to influence my decisions. — Red Sky

I never said that I don't want others to influence my decisions, nor do I hate the influence others have on my life.

People can overcome some of the these factors.
In your example with ice cream, even if somebody loves chocolate ice cream and hates strawberry (Vanilla man myself), they can still choose strawberry. It is not like it is impossible. — Red Sky

I think Joe will choose that object of all available objects which will lead in summary to Joe's greatest satisfaction. If Joe feels satisfaction in proving that there is a "free will", he will choose an object he dislikes just to demonstrate his alleged free will. But in fact he just compared the satisfaction regarding his preferred object with the satisfaction regarding the free-will-demo. During the comparison he found out that the free-will-demo will make more fun. So Joe was determined to do the free-will-demo. His personality and personal taste forced him to do this. Yes, there were other choices and they were free in the sense that nobody was threating him with a gun. Freedom requires a reference -- free of what? Free of threats. But the choices were not free regarding his personality and his personal taste. Joe likes the idea of a "free will". That's his ideological taste. So he is determined to construct a proof in order to satisfy his taste.

People can overcome some of the these factors.
In your example with ice cream, even if somebody loves chocolate ice cream and hates strawberry (Vanilla man myself), they can still choose strawberry. It is not like it is impossible.
— Red Sky

I think Joe will choose that object of all available objects which will lead in summary to Joe's greatest satisfaction. If Joe feels satisfaction in proving that there is a "free will", he will choose an object he dislikes just to demonstrate his alleged free will. But in fact he just compared the satisfaction regarding his preferred object with the satisfaction regarding the free-will-demo. During the comparison he found out that the free-will-demo will make more fun. So Joe was determined to do the free-will-demo. His personality and personal taste forced him to do this. Yes, there were other choices and they were free in the sense that nobody was threating him with a gun. Freedom requires a reference -- free of what? Free of threats. But the choices were not free regarding his personality and his personal taste. Joe likes the idea of a "free will". That's his ideological taste. So he is determined to construct a proof in order to satisfy his taste. — Quk

I agree.

My thoughts and emotions are not part of me. They are part of my subjective experiences. I am a temporary sentient process generated by my brain activities. This sentient process is paused during dreamless sleep cycles and by general anaesthesia. When all of my brain activities stop permanently, I will cease to exist. — Truth Seeker

We will just have to disagree, all of my emotions and thoughts are part of who I think I am. My emotions can't be others, my thoughts can't be others, they are mine and part of me. What do you find the difference between yourself and emotions, are they not yours. I understand that you think they are different from your thoughts but they are still part of you.

My preferences arise due to my brain activities, which occur due to my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. — Truth Seeker

And I am saying that these are part of you. You are not just a soul, your body and factors you might consider temporary are also part of you. Your brain is a part of you, if it arises from your brain it is also yours.

How would I know that you were going to abduct me and bring me to space in a rocket, then jettison me into the vacuum of space? I don't personally know people like Elon Musk who have the means to go to space, and I certainly am not rich enough to pay SpaceX to rescue me from the vacuum of space. Even if SpaceX rescue me for free, how would SpaceX know exactly where I am, given how vast space is? How would SpaceX get to me from Earth in the mere five minutes it would take for me to die? — Truth Seeker

Im not saying it is easy, but is it impossible? And I am talking about exactly impossible, that means no way no matter what you do it cannot happen. It is possible to talk to Elon Musk (Not easy, but certainly not impossible).

I never said that I don't want others to influence my decisions, nor do I hate the influence others have on my life. — Truth Seeker

Then I assume you are being impersonal about it, you admit that these experiences have an influence on you. Originally you say that your choice isn't completely free, and my stance is that it is not better to desire to become that way,

I think Joe will choose that object of all available objects which will lead in summary to Joe's greatest satisfaction. If Joe feels satisfaction in proving that there is a "free will", he will choose an object he dislikes just to demonstrate his alleged free will. But in fact he just compared the satisfaction regarding his preferred object with the satisfaction regarding the free-will-demo. During the comparison he found out that the free-will-demo will make more fun. So Joe was determined to do the free-will-demo. His personality and personal taste forced him to do this. Yes, there were other choices and they were free in the sense that nobody was threatening him with a gun. Freedom requires a reference -- free of what? Free of threats. But the choices were not free regarding his personality and his personal taste. Joe likes the idea of a "free will". That's his ideological taste. So he is determined to construct a proof in order to satisfy his taste. — Quk

I understand that without all the extenuating factors, like being held at gunpoint, a person would likely choose what they like. However is that always true?
In every single case in every single universe in all the multiverses, will it always hold true? I don't think so. It is possible even if it is unlikely.
I do agree with your point that you need a reference for freedom though. (That's some good stuff)

You are not just a soul, your body and factors you might consider temporary are also part of you. Your brain is a part of you, if it arises from your brain it is also yours. — Red Sky

I am not convinced souls exist. I know that many people believe that humans are immortal souls and souls go to heaven or hell after death depending on their religious beliefs and practices, but I am convinced that these claims are false. Just as I am convinced that the belief that souls reincarnate based on karma is also false.

My thoughts and emotions are not part of me. They are temporary mental states. I am not an entity. I am a temporary sentient process generated by my brain activities.

Im not saying it is easy, but is it impossible? — Red Sky

You didn't answer any of my questions about how I would know when and where you would jettison me in the vastness of space. Even if I were Elon Musk and owned SpaceX, I would still need to know the time and place.

Then I assume you are being impersonal about it, you admit that these experiences have an influence on you. — Red Sky

Yes, my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain my choices. I am impersonal about it because it is impersonal. The universe is not conscious. It didn't intend for me to come into existence. It didn't plan what genes, environments, nutrients and experiences I would have.

I am not convinced souls exist. I know that many people believe that humans are immortal souls and souls go to heaven or hell after death depending on their religious beliefs and practices, but I am convinced that these claims are false. Just as I am convinced that the belief that souls reincarnate based on karma is also false.

My thoughts and emotions are not part of me. They are temporary mental states. I am not an entity. I am a temporary sentient process generated by my brain activities. — Truth Seeker

I only used soul as a lack of a better word. I do not exactly believe in all that stuff either. You seem to be stating that you merely exist, which I don't understand as well. You keep on saying that you are merely sentient and able to perceive these thoughts and feeling. But that is not a definition of you. What is perceiving and feeling these experiences and emotions. Is it merely your consciousness?
You also state that experiences and emotions are temporary, you are also a temporary being and there is no shame in taking pride of these things.

You didn't answer any of my questions about how I would know when and where you would jettison me in the vastness of space. Even if I were Elon Musk and owned SpaceX, I would still need to know the time and place. — Truth Seeker

My point is not the method but the possibility, I am not going to spend years of effort to precisely answer those questions. If it is not impossible then it is possible, and that means there is nothing foolproof.
If you think it is impossible then that is just as far as you can go, if you think it is impossible then you think there is no possible method that you are willing/unwilling to do. It is nice to think realistically, but it also dries up possibilities. Other people have probably done what you think impossible, what is the difference between you?

Yes, my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain my choices. I am impersonal about it because it is impersonal. The universe is not conscious. It didn't intend for me to come into existence. It didn't plan what genes, environments, nutrients and experiences I would have. — Truth Seeker

Yet you are still alive today as a human. You are part of the universe, and as such all the things the universe have given you are also part of your own being.

I guess I understand your thoughts. Here's just a linguistic-technical question: In your text you use the words "I" and "my" for a non-existing entity. What do these words refer to in your text?

I am a temporary sentient process generated by my brain activities. — Truth Seeker

So, process is a temporary sentient process generated by the process' brain activities?

I only used soul as a lack of a better word. I do not exactly believe in all that stuff either. You seem to be stating that you merely exist, which I don't understand as well. You keep on saying that you are merely sentient and able to perceive these thoughts and feeling. But that is not a definition of you. What is perceiving and feeling these experiences and emotions. Is it merely your consciousness? — Red Sky

My consciousness is experiencing my thoughts and emotions. My consciousness is temporary, but it lasts as long as I am alive and conscious, while my thoughts and emotions last mere seconds to minutes, then they are replaced by new thoughts and emotions.

My point is not the method but the possibility, I am not going to spend years of effort to precisely answer those questions. — Red Sky

That's fine. I understand your point.

Other people have probably done what you think impossible, what is the difference between you? — Red Sky

All sentient biological organisms have different genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, which cause them to have different behaviours. What is possible for planarian flatworms is impossible for me, e.g. growing back my head after it has been chopped off. Just as what is possible for me is impossible for planarian flatworms, e.g. typing words on this forum.

You are part of the universe, and as such all the things the universe have given you are also part of your own being. — Red Sky

I agree that I am part of the universe. Things such as genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences constructed me, so in that sense, they are part of me.

It seems like a lot of this has gone really out of hand.
The original topic was about the freedom of choice and underlying factors affecting it.
I have gone too far with some of my statements and for that I apologize. I did this because usually when a person states the kind of things you did, it means that they have lost the value of, are trying to deny, or put something in a bad light. However through our correspondence this doesn't entirely seem to be the case with you.
Anyway, I had some fun with this thread.
I will admit that underlying factors such as GENE have effects on our choice (Whether good or bad), But I will retain my point that you can overcome outside factors, such as environment and experience.

It seems like a lot of this has gone really out of hand.
The original topic was about the freedom of choice and underlying factors affecting it.
I have gone too far with some of my statements and for that I apologize. I did this because usually when a person states the kind of things you did, it means that they have lost the value of, are trying to deny, or put something in a bad light. However through our correspondence this doesn't entirely seem to be the case with you.
Anyway, I had some fun with this thread.
I will admit that underlying factors such as GENE have effects on our choice (Whether good or bad), But I will retain my point that you can overcome outside factors, such as environment and experience. — Red Sky

I called the thread Understanding Human Behaviour. If my GENE Causal Self Model has helped you understand human behaviour, then this thread is successful. I am glad you had some fun with this thread. What we can overcome and what we can't overcome is not free from determinants. In fact, it is determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

What we can overcome and what we can't overcome is not free from determinants. — Truth Seeker

At this point I can't help but admit you right. It seems I was thinking too superficially again.
Yes, GENE determines what you can actually do, but it doesn't have as much influence on choice for outside factors. Simply because people can choose to do things they don't know is possible or not.

What we can overcome and what we can't overcome is not free from determinants.
— Truth Seeker
At this point I can't help but admit you right. It seems I was thinking too superficially again.
Yes, GENE determines what you can actually do, but it doesn't have as much influence on choice for outside factors. Simply because people can choose to do things they don't know is possible or not. — Red Sky

Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences determine all behaviours. What makes you say: "but it doesn't have as much influence on choice for outside factors. Simply because people can choose to do things they don't know is possible or not."?

Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences determine all behaviours. — Truth Seeker

I meant that is not limiting the options.

I meant that is not limiting the options. — Red Sky

Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and limit what a sentient biological organism can do. That's why I can't do what planarian flatworms can do, and they can't do what I can do.

I didn't say our choices were predetermined. I said that our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. This happens in the present continuous, not in the past. — Truth Seeker

Determined? Predetermined? Not sure there is a significant difference here.

It doesn't seem like we can say that genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences operate in the continuous present, and not in the past. Don't determinants and constraints pretty much HAVE to operate in the past? How much of the immediate continuous present do we even perceive / experience? The bell that you hear ringing began to ring in the past -- before you heard it. The lightning bolt you saw had already changed by the time your brain registered the flash. Whatever caused you to choose vanilla ice cream over chocolate was in operation before you decided what to get. The past might be only milliseconds old, but it is still the past (of the high-speed CNS).

I don't like it that we make decisions before we are aware of what the decision is going to be, but like it or not, reality seems to work that way.

I mostly agree with you that "genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences" determine and constrain who we are, and the choices we might or might not make. The ideas I have about socialism, gay liberation, personal finances, religious practices, preferred foods -- so on and so forth -- didn't arise randomly. They were / are shaped by all sorts of factors. I didn't make up Karl Marx, Stonewall, double entry bookkeeping, prayer, or bananas.

If we look at dogs as an example (dogs are not an unflattering model for human behavior) we see that "genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences", for instance, produce millions of dogs who all do the same things. They all do some things because we all do some things--like feed them at the same time every day. If we let them run loose (which we used to do in small towns) they didn't beg for a walk. (On the other hand, they got run over by cars a lot more often.). Dogs are exceptional animals in that they readily follow the human gaze. Most animals don't. Dogs employ a hard stare, for instance, to compel us to act on their needs and wants -- "feed me now", "let me go outside", "let's go for a walk", etc. Dogs solicit play by the same posture -- front legs on the ground, rump in the air, mouth open, bright eyes. They attempt dominance by humping a leg (it's not sexual--males and females both do this).

It doesn't seem like we can say that genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences operate in the continuous present, and not in the past. Don't determinants and constraints pretty much HAVE to operate in the past? How much of the immediate continuous present do we even perceive / experience? The bell that you hear ringing began to ring in the past -- before you heard it. The lightning bolt you saw had already changed by the time your brain registered the flash. Whatever caused you to choose vanilla ice cream over chocolate was in operation before you decided what to get. The past might be only milliseconds old, but it is still the past (of the high-speed CNS). — BC

Our brains are continuously processing information and making decisions - from regulating heart rate and breathing to deciding where to look or how to respond in social situations. The vast majority of brain activity is unconscious. For example, decisions related to motor control, language processing, and threat detection often happen without conscious awareness. Experiments (e.g. Benjamin Libet’s work in the 1980s and later studies using functional MRI and EEG) have shown that brain activity predicting a decision can occur hundreds of milliseconds to several seconds before people report being consciously aware of making that decision. For example, Libet found a "readiness potential" in the brain that preceded conscious awareness of the intention to act. Later research (e.g. Soon et al., 2008) showed researchers could predict a participant’s choice (e.g. left or right button) based on brain activity up to 7 seconds before the participant was aware of deciding.

Yes, the stimulus begins in the past (e.g. the bell ringing), but it is processed in the present by our nervous system. As far as subjective experience goes, we can only experience the present. For example, I can't experience the first time I flew in a plane on 21 September 1982 right now. I can recall the most memorable parts of it, but I can't experience the whole thing exactly as I did back then. Just as I can't experience right now what I will do tomorrow. A plane could be crashing on our house tomorrow (or sooner or later), causing my death.

Thank you for bringing my attention to the behaviours of dogs. I have a doggy friend who sleeps with me and does all the things you have said.

Yes. Only something that has never existed is always free from determinism. — Truth Seeker

This is an odd thing to say. Something that does not exist can't make any choices, so you're pulling the rug out from under your own argument.

I didn't say what you claimed. I am saying that laws are part of our environment (e.g. the laws of physics and the laws of various countries). We experience consequences for breaking social laws. We currently don't have the means to break the laws of physics, but it does not mean that we won't ever develop the means to break the laws of physics. — Truth Seeker

What does that even mean? What would it look like to break the laws of physics if not to say that determinism is not the case and everything is random?

Whether someone obeys social laws or disobeys social laws depends entirely on their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Given the fact that no human chooses to come into existence and no human chooses their genes, their early environments, their early nutrients and their early experiences, they do not deserve blame or credit for breaking laws or not breaking laws. We should change our legal systems to make them preventive, educational and restorative, by predicting who will break laws using their GENE Profiles and intervening to change their GENE Profiles so that they don't break laws. Those who do break laws should be quarantined until their GENE Profile has been altered so that they no longer break laws. Parents don't choose the genes of their children unless except in the case of designer babies, where traits are chosen in labs e.g. gender, eye colour, etc. Even in such cases, parents don't have total control over the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of their children. For instance, I don't have the capacity to choose the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences needed to make my children all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful, even though I want to do it. — Truth Seeker

Why would we quarantine an individual if they are not the agent of their actions? Doesn't this not support the idea that an individual is responsible for their actions?

The implications of your argument is that it is society that is to blame for an individual's actions, not the individual, yet you are trying to use society to punish the individual for society's own actions in creating an environment that determines the individual's actions. If society is the cause of one's behavior, then are you quarantining the individual from society or the society from the individual? In doing so, are you not setting the individual free of society's influence? Why would you now need to adjust their gene profile?

Why would you even need to adjust the gene profile to match what society wants if society is what determined their behavior in the first place? I could also say that if you have to adjust the gene profile then society had no deterministic effect on them prior and now society is trying to have a deterministic effect on them. :roll: It's a total contradiction and trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Isn't is the accumulated effect of all four that creates unique individuals? If we make everyone the same that will stifle diversity and competition and by extension - progress.

This is an odd thing to say. Something that does not exist can't make any choices, so you're pulling the rug out from under your own argument. — Harry Hindu

If something doesn't exist, it can't suffer, it can't enjoy, it can't make any determined and constrained choices.

What does that even mean? What would it look like to break the laws of physics if not to say that determinism is not the case and everything is random? — Harry Hindu

Being able to move faster than light would require breaking the laws of physics.

The **laws of physics** are the fundamental principles that govern how matter, energy, space, and time behave in the universe. These laws are not laws in the legal sense — they are descriptions, often expressed in mathematical form, of patterns we observe in nature. They are derived from empirical observations, refined through experimentation, and sometimes revised as new data emerges.

Here’s a breakdown of the **core categories** and **major laws** of physics:

**Classical Mechanics** (Newtonian Physics)

1. **Newton’s Laws of Motion**

* **First Law (Inertia)**: An object remains at rest or moves at constant velocity unless acted upon by a force.
* **Second Law**: Force equals mass times acceleration
* **Third Law**: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

2. **Law of Universal Gravitation**

* Every mass attracts every other mass with a force proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:


**Electromagnetism** (Maxwell’s Equations)

3. **Maxwell’s Equations**
A set of four equations that unify electricity and magnetism:

* **Gauss's Law for Electricity**: Electric charges produce electric fields.
* **Gauss's Law for Magnetism**: There are no magnetic monopoles.
* **Faraday’s Law of Induction**: A changing magnetic field induces an electric field.
* **Ampère's Law with Maxwell's Addition**: Electric currents and changing electric fields produce magnetic fields.


**Thermodynamics**

4. **Zeroth Law**: If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.

5. **First Law**: Energy cannot be created or destroyed — only transformed (conservation of energy).

6. **Second Law**: Entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases over time. Heat flows from hot to cold.

7. **Third Law**: As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.


**Relativity** (Einstein)

8. **Special Relativity**

* Laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.
* The speed of light is constant in all frames.
* Time dilation and length contraction occur at high speeds.
* Famous equation: E = mc^2

9. **General Relativity**

* Gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy.
* Objects follow geodesics (the straightest possible paths) in curved spacetime.


**Quantum Mechanics**

10. **Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle**

* You cannot simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of a particle:

11. **Schrödinger Equation**

* Describes how the quantum state of a system evolves over time.

12. **Pauli Exclusion Principle**

* No two identical fermions (like electrons) can occupy the same quantum state.

13. **Wave-Particle Duality**

* Particles such as electrons and photons exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behaviour.


**Modern Extensions & Theories**

14. **Standard Model of Particle Physics**

* Describes fundamental particles (quarks, leptons, bosons) and their interactions via the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.

15. **Quantum Field Theory (QFT)**

* Combines quantum mechanics with special relativity; particles are excitations in fields.

16. **Conservation Laws** (Apply across physics):

* **Conservation of Energy**
* **Conservation of Momentum**
* **Conservation of Angular Momentum**
* **Conservation of Charge**
* **Conservation of Baryon and Lepton Numbers** (in particle physics)

Important Notes

* These laws **describe** what we observe but don't necessarily **explain why** the universe is this way.
* Some laws are **approximations** (e.g. Newton’s laws break down at relativistic speeds or quantum scales).
* Scientists are searching for a **Theory of Everything** that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics — current candidates include **string theory** and **loop quantum gravity**.

If we could do things that go against the above laws of physics, that would count as breaking the laws of physices e.g. knowing both the exact position and the momentum of a subatomic particle such as an electron.

Why would we quarantine an individual if they are not the agent of their actions? Doesn't this not support the idea that an individual is responsible for their actions? — Harry Hindu

The implications of your argument is that it is society that is to blame for an individual's actions, not the individual, yet you are trying to use society to punish the individual for society's own actions in creating an environment that determines the individual's actions. If society is the cause of one's behavior, then are you quarantining the individual from society or the society from the individual? In doing so, are you not setting the individual free of society's influence? Why would you now need to adjust their gene profile?

Why would you even need to adjust the gene profile to match what society wants if society is what determined their behavior in the first place? :roll: It's a total contradiction. — Harry Hindu

We would quarantine law-breakers and potential law-breakers to protect potential victims of crimes. We have a duty to protect potential victims from being murdered, tortured, raped, robbed, conned, etc. Once we have altered the mix of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences that cause crimes, we would let the law-breakers out of quarantine. A similar approach is taken if you catch a deadly communicable disease, e.g. Ebola. We don't blame the patients for being infected. We quarantine the patients to protect potential spread of the germs, then cure the patients and then release them from quarantine. If your car has an accident because the break cable snapped would you call your car evil and imprison it? No, you would call your car broken and you would bring it to a mechanic and when it is fixed you would drive it again. The same applies to people who break laws. They are not evil, they are damaged and need to be repaired.

Society is made of individuals. As I have said before, no one chooses to come into existence and no one chooses their genes, early environments, early nutrients, and early experiences. Therefore, no one deserves any blame or credit for any choices. There is no contradiction in my model and approach to crimes. You simply misunderstood me.

Isn't is the accumulated effect of all four that creates unique individuals? If we make everyone the same that will stifle diversity and competition and by extension - progress. — Harry Hindu

Yes, all four categories of variables i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences (GENE) are essential to construct every unique sentient biological organisms. I never said we should be making everyone the same. There can be diverse individuals who don't harm themselves and others, e.g. vegan egalitarians such as me and my vegan egalitarian friends. We are not clones of each other. We differ in terms of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences considerably. We have different genders, different skin colours, different eye colours, different types of hair, different heights, different weights, different education, different sexualities, and different careers. The only thing we have in common is that we are all vegan and we are all egalitarian.

We would quarantine law-breakers and potential law-breakers to protect potential victims of crimes. We have a duty to protect potential victims from being murdered, tortured, raped, robbed, conned, etc. — Truth Seeker

As I already pointed out, a law-breaker is an example of someone where the society had no determined effect on them. You quarantining them and adjusting their gene profile would be an example of having a determined effect, but only after they have shown that society had no determined effect on them.

As I already pointed out, a law-breaker is an example of someone where the society had no determined effect on them. You quarantining them and adjusting their gene profile would be an example of having a determined effect, but only after they have shown that society had no determined effect on them. — Harry Hindu

No. We experience the culture, the religion, and the traditions we are born into. No one is free from the determining and constraining effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Some of us follow laws, and some of us don't follow laws due to differences in our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. We don't deserve blame or credit.

No. We experience the culture, the religion, and the traditions we are born into. No one is free from the determining effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. — Truth Seeker

That's what I said. We experience the society (culture, the religion, and the traditions we are born into.) we are born into. If the society is based on laws and an individual breaks those laws then how can you say that the culture, the religion, and the traditions we are born into has a deterministic effect on them? It would seem that genes overcame the determining factors of the culture, the religion, and the traditions they were born into.

If the society is based on laws and an individual breaks those laws then how can you say that the culture, the religion, and the traditions we are born into has a deterministic effect on them? — Harry Hindu

Because it is not a simple situation. Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences interact in complex ways to form neural pathways which lead to choices. Both the law-followers and the law-breakers are making determined and constrained choices. Every human being is unique because every human being has a unique mix of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. It's a dynamic mix that is changing every millisecond.

I have defined defined free choice as the capacity to have access to all information to make informed decisions. If you don't like that definition that is fine, but do you agree that having access to more information is a good thing for an individual? Do you agree that the culture, the religion, and the traditions we are born into is not the only source of information about the world and can hinder an individual's access to more information about the world outside of society or the religion you were born into? We can dispense with the term, "free", as some have pointed out that it may be a nonsensical term, if that works. I am only concerned with an individual's access to information that is unhindered by society or others.

How would you describe, in detail, the deterministic causal chain on someone that was raised in a certain religious environment but ended up rejecting it later in life?

I have defined defined free choice as having access to information. — Harry Hindu

I disagree with your definition of free choice because having access to information does not make a choice free from the determining and constraining effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

do you agree that having access to more information is a good thing for an individual? — Harry Hindu

Yes, as long as the individual can process the amount of information. Let's say, you are driving a car. While you are driving it, the passenger sitting next to you shows you videos on the laws of physics, the manufacturing process of cars, etc. All these information would overwhelm you and make you a worse driver. You don't need all of these information to drive the car well. You need to pay attention to the road to drive the car well and you need to know how to use tools such as the steering wheel, the gear stick, accelerator and clutch and brake pedals and mirrors, etc.

Do you agree that the culture, the religion, and the traditions we are born into is not the only source of information about the world? — Harry Hindu

I agree. Science is a much better source of information than cultures, religions and traditions. Cultures, religions and traditions often perpetuate ignorance, superstition and harmful practices.

I disagree with your definition of free choice because having access to information does not make a choice free from the determining and constraining effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. — Truth Seeker

Would you agree that having access to more information equates to having more experiences?

Yes, as long as the individual can process the amount of information. Let's say, you are driving a car. While you are driving it, the passenger sitting next to you shows you videos on the laws of physics, the manufacturing process of cars, etc. All these information would overwhelm you and make you a worse driver. You don't need all of these information to drive the car well. You need to pay attention to the road to drive the car well and you need to know how to use tools such as the steering wheel, the gear stick, accelerator and clutch and brake pedals and mirrors, etc. — Truth Seeker

Exactly. Some information is irrelevant to the current goal. I am talking only about relevant information in some specific instance or issue.

I agree. Science is a much better source of information than culture, religion and traditions. Culture, religions and traditions often perpetuate ignorance, superstition and harmful practices. — Truth Seeker

Exactly. So we can say that the person that was raised in a religious environment acquired more information outside of the environment they were raised in to make a more informed choice. In essence, more information "freed" themselves from their upbringing. Their current ideas are no longer constrained by their upbringing. Now, how can an individual that was raised to NOT question one's religious beliefs start to question their religious beliefs?