How mind can intervene when body behaves according to laws of nature

[bahman]

So, what are the 'laws of nature', which this mind thing supposedly does not behave according to?

The laws of Newton for example.

What are the "laws of newton", EXACTLY, to you, and, HOW does this "mind" thing NOT behave according to those "laws of newton"?

The laws of Newton are a set of constraints that give the behavior of the system in the future given the current state of the system.

And, what does this mind thing behave according to, EXACTLY?

Mind is free so it does not behave according to anything.

How, how can this mind thing or ANY thing be outside of or beyond the 'laws of nature'?

It is what it is.

Is this another way of saying that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE?

Things like the mind have a set of properties. One of the properties of the mind is that it is free. Asking the how question is meaningless.

Matter always acts according to laws of nature but it can reach to an undecided state.

What is a 'decided state', and, what is an 'undecided state'?

Decided like when you decided what you want to do with your body and your body follows it. Undecided like when you are in a situation that a decision is needed.

'Needed' is a VERY RELATIVE WORD.

Since when have the "laws of newton" made the ruling that matter is in a 'decided state'.
[/quote]
Since the time that there is matter.

I, for example, have NEVER seen matter, in the shape of an apple or of a table 'decide' to just do some thing, which apples and tables are NOT known for 'doing'.

You simply misunderstood what I said. Perhaps I should have used determined instead of decided.

What the word 'you' refers to here, which CAN MAKE DECISIONS, and thus DECIDE, is VERY, VERY DIFFERENT from 'matter', itself.

Think of determined instead of decided.

And, how could matter itself even 'decide'?

Matter just follows and it cannot decide. That is the mind which decides.

So, WHY say and CLAIM that matter "can reach to an undecided state"?

Again use undetermined instead of undecided to avoid confusion.

If matter CANNOT even 'decide', in the beginning, then HOW can matter, supposedly, "reach to an undecided state"?

Because there are set of states, such as equilibrium state, in which matter does not move.

Matter, to me, exists in a causal state, and ALWAYS EXISTS IN THIS STATE, and as such is NEVER NEITHER in a, so called, "decided state" NOR an "undecided state".

That is not true. A ball that is on top of a hill can roll down in many different ways.

'you', however, are ABSOLUTELY FREE to choose (or decide) to BELIEVE whatever 'you' WANT to BELIEVE, or NOT.

I am talking about what I think.

The term 'chain of causality' means or refers to NOT being able to be broken NOR fork, does it not?

A chain of causality can reach to an undecided situation/fork.

Will you provide an example, so that we, at least, have SOME 'thing' to LOOK AT and SEE.

Like a ball that is on the top of a hill. Like you that are currently sitting on the chair.

Also, IF, as you CLAIM, matter just follows and 'it' cannot decide, then matter is either ALWAYS in an "undecided situation" ANYWAY, OR, matter can NEVER 'decide' ANYWAY and so is NEVER in a "decided situation" in or order to then become in an "undecided situation" ANYWAY.

No. Matter can be in an undetermined state. I already provided examples for you.

Also, if a 'chain of causality' could fork, then when it does it would, OBVIOUSLY, then be NOT a 'chain of causality', ANYWAY, correct?

The chain of causality is a chain until it reaches the fork. After that, there are several chains of causalities.

If the phrase 'chain of causality' means unbroken links, then WHY say "forks" here?

Matter follow chaing causality when it is in decided state.

You JUST SAID, only two sentences ago, that matter CANNOT DECIDE.

So, now, HOW can matter now be in a "decided state"?

By the way, "bahman", what you are so desperately 'trying to' say and explain CAN BE said and EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, ANYWAY.

I already answered that.

None of this makes ANY sense to me. And, I do NOT even know where to begin to try and makes sense of this. Firstly I hope you defined what an 'undecided state' is, above.

I did.

You wrote, and claimed, that; an 'undecided state' is like when you are in a situation that a decision is needed.

But what has this got to do with ANY thing about HOW the human body, itself, or an apple or a table can be close to being in a situation that a decision is needed.

Whenever 'you', human beings, "yourselves", are existing, then decisions are needed, correct?

And, what this clarifying question is alluding to would be VERY OBVIOUS, to some.

You for example are sitting on a chair. You could continue to sit or stand up. So you have two options. That is what I mean with an undecided/undetermined state. A ball on the top of the hill also is in undetermined state since in can roll down in many different direction.

Next, there is a human body sitting down on some thing. If this is correct, then I understand this.

Ok.

But, we will have to wait to see what an 'undecided state' actually means.

I did.

Now, how does it supposedly logically follow that because when human bodies are moving, and NOT sitting, "only then 'we', (whatever 'you' are referring to here) can plan the motion of "our" bodies"?

I said that we can plan motion of our body.

What you ACTUALLY said and stated was:

"Our bodies are close in an undecided state when it is in motion too.", and, "That is why we can plan the motion of our bodies."

So, HOW does it, logically follow, that the reason WHY "we can plan the motion of "our" bodies" IS BECAUSE "our bodies are (supposedly) close in an undecided state when the body is in motion too"?

Because if your body is in a determined state, like when you are falling, then it follows the laws of nature. This means that you cannot change or plan its behavior. To do otherwise, planing your body motion, your body should be close to an undetermined state.

Why can 'you' NOT plan the motion of "your" body when the body is sitting down?

You can.

Okay. So, what you were 'trying to' say is NOT what you ACTUALLY said, and stated.

No.

[Age]

The laws of Newton for example.

What are the "laws of newton", EXACTLY, to you, and, HOW does this "mind" thing NOT behave according to those "laws of newton"?

The laws of Newton are a set of constraints that give the behavior of the system in the future given the current state of the system.

AND, WHY, EXACTLY, does this "mind" thingy NOT behave this way?

Mind is free so it does not behave according to anything.


It is what it is.

Is this another way of saying that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE?

Things like the mind have a set of properties.

What OTHER THINGS are there like this "mind" thingy?

One of the properties of the mind is that it is free.

AND, what are the OTHER properties these "mind" things HAVE, EXACTLY?

Asking the how question is meaningless.

And, some, like those who are called, or call "themselves", "scientists" say that WHY questions are meaningless, whereas HOW questions are NOT meaningless.

But since you here CLAIM that asking "the" how question is meaningless, then I WOULD NOT ask "that" question, EVEN IF I KNEW what "the" how question WAS, which you are referring to here.

Is 'free' an ACTUAL property?

What is a 'decided state', and, what is an 'undecided state'?

Decided like when you decided what you want to do with your body and your body follows it. Undecided like when you are in a situation that a decision is needed.

'Needed' is a VERY RELATIVE WORD.

Since when have the "laws of newton" made the ruling that matter is in a 'decided state'.

Since the time that there is matter.[/quote]

So, since ALWAYS.

Also, what is the matter, which is within a shoe, actually deciding upon, in their 'decided state', and when will they make the decision, which "whatever" will them?

I, for example, have NEVER seen matter, in the shape of an apple or of a table 'decide' to just do some thing, which apples and tables are NOT known for 'doing'.

You simply misunderstood what I said. Perhaps I should have used determined instead of decided.

I would say, "Perhaps you COULD have' instead of 'SHOULD have'. Because there is NO "should" in HOW one EXPRESS their OWN views and thinking of IDEAS. But, OBVIOUSLY, some ways of EXPRESSING COULD be better than other ways are.

And, as I have been INFORMING you, for a while now, that what you are so desperately hard TRYING TO PROVE here, will NOT be done in, nor with, the words that 'you' have DECIDED to use.

That is; because of 'cause and effect' matter is essentially predestined to end up where it does, based on preexisting occurrences. Or, in other words, what matter ends up doing is because of predetermined outcomes, which were the result of preexisting conditions. Or, in other words, matter has NO choice in what way, shape, nor form it ends up being in nor looking like.

In other words, the physical Universe IS, just what It IS, at ANY time. 'It IS what It IS', as some might say.

However, there are human beings who ACTUALLY appear to be able to make CHOICES, of their OWN FREE WILL. And, from WHERE, and from WHEN that came about, EXACTLY, is STILL YET TO BE DECIDED, correct?

Or, has the one solitary little single individual known as "bahman" here ALREADY DECIDED, from WHERE, and from WHEN, this ABILITY of being Truly FREE to be Truly ABLE to MAKE DECISION, FREELY?

If yes, then from WHERE, and from WHEN, EXACTLY, "bahman"?

What the word 'you' refers to here, which CAN MAKE DECISIONS, and thus DECIDE, is VERY, VERY DIFFERENT from 'matter', itself.

Think of determined instead of decided.

But 'you' ACTUALLY DO MAKE DECISION. While matter, itself, OBVIOUSLY can NOT.

Some people just do NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND this FACT because they think that the word 'you' refers to a human body, which is OBVIOUSLY made up of physical matter.

Matter just follows and it cannot decide. That is the mind which decides.

So, WHY say and CLAIM that matter "can reach to an undecided state"?

Again use undetermined instead of undecided to avoid confusion.[/quote]

But WHY NOT just use the ACTUAL WORDS, which ACTUAL WORK without ANY CONFUSION AT ALL?

If matter CANNOT even 'decide', in the beginning, then HOW can matter, supposedly, "reach to an undecided state"?

Because there are set of states, such as equilibrium state, in which matter does not move.

And WHERE and WHEN has this state, supposedly, have EVER existed?

Matter, to me, exists in a causal state, and ALWAYS EXISTS IN THIS STATE, and as such is NEVER NEITHER in a, so called, "decided state" NOR an "undecided state".

That is not true. A ball that is on top of a hill can roll down in many different ways.

What has this ball scenario got to do with absolutely ANY thing in what I said, which is, supposedly, NOT true.

'you', however, are ABSOLUTELY FREE to choose (or decide) to BELIEVE whatever 'you' WANT to BELIEVE, or NOT.

I am talking about what I think.

Do you NOT believe ANY thing?

A chain of causality can reach to an undecided situation/fork.

Will you provide an example, so that we, at least, have SOME 'thing' to LOOK AT and SEE.

Like a ball that is on the top of a hill. Like you that are currently sitting on the chair.

You are making LESS SENSE now, to me.

Also, IF, as you CLAIM, matter just follows and 'it' cannot decide, then matter is either ALWAYS in an "undecided situation" ANYWAY, OR, matter can NEVER 'decide' ANYWAY and so is NEVER in a "decided situation" in or order to then become in an "undecided situation" ANYWAY.

No. Matter can be in an undetermined state. I already provided examples for you.

I asked for an UNDECIDED SITUATION EXAMPLE. You gave me EXAMPLES for that.

I want to remove your "undecided" and/or "decided" word COMPLETELY, then make that CLEAR when you express your examples.

So, if one of your examples, for a, now, "undetermined state' is "Like a ball that is on top of a hill", then HOW EXACTLY is that an EXAMPLE of some, so called, "undetermined state"?

Do balls and hills, which ARE made up of matter, NOT FOLLOW the 'laws of Nature'?

Also, if a 'chain of causality' could fork, then when it does it would, OBVIOUSLY, then be NOT a 'chain of causality', ANYWAY, correct?

The chain of causality is a chain until it reaches the fork. After that, there are several chains of causalities.

WHAT?

WHEN did this One and ONLY infinite and eternal One 'chain of causality' split, or DECIDE to split, into now "several chains of causality'?

Matter follow chaing causality when it is in decided state.

You JUST SAID, only two sentences ago, that matter CANNOT DECIDE.

So, now, HOW can matter now be in a "decided state"?

By the way, "bahman", what you are so desperately 'trying to' say and explain CAN BE said and EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, ANYWAY.

I already answered that.

What is "that", now?

I did.

You wrote, and claimed, that; an 'undecided state' is like when you are in a situation that a decision is needed.

But what has this got to do with ANY thing about HOW the human body, itself, or an apple or a table can be close to being in a situation that a decision is needed.

Whenever 'you', human beings, "yourselves", are existing, then decisions are needed, correct?

And, what this clarifying question is alluding to would be VERY OBVIOUS, to some.

You for example are sitting on a chair.

But 'I' or 'me' can NOT 'sit', in the context that 'you' are referring to here.

Only bodies of physical matter, which are in the shape of some animals CAN SIT, on a chair.

You could continue to sit or stand up. So you have two options. That is what I mean with an undecided/undetermined state. A ball on the top of the hill also is in undetermined state since in can roll down in many different direction.

There is SO MUCH to LOOK AT and DISCUSS here.

1. Among other things.

2. I COULD make countless OTHER decisions, which the body would then follow. But the body, itself, has NO choice, literally, in the matter,

3. An 'undecided state' is when a body is in, what is called 'sleep' and there is NO decisions being made.

4. An 'undetermined state' does NOT exist in the visible matter Universe, Itself, as the state visible matter IS IN, was predetermined, and predetermines. 'you', however, may be in a 'undetermined', but this is only because 'you' have NOT YET determined what you want to do next. Which probably last for only for a few seconds, while 'you' are NOT sleeping.

5. How EXACTLY could a ball be in an 'undetermined state'? A ball NEVER determines what it, itself, will do next, so OBVIOUSLY EVERY ball is ALWAYS in an 'undetermined state', in that sense. However, WHERE matter in the shape of a ball IS ALWAYS was determined by the preexisting conditions. So, in this sense ANY and EVERY ball is ALWAYS in a 'determined state'.

Ok.


I did.


I said that we can plan motion of our body.

What you ACTUALLY said and stated was:

"Our bodies are close in an undecided state when it is in motion too.", and, "That is why we can plan the motion of our bodies."

So, HOW does it, logically follow, that the reason WHY "we can plan the motion of "our" bodies" IS BECAUSE "our bodies are (supposedly) close in an undecided state when the body is in motion too"?

Because if your body is in a determined state, like when you are falling, then it follows the laws of nature. This means that you cannot change or plan its behavior.

Why can I, supposedly, NOT be able to flap the arms, or tilt the head, or spread the arms and the legs, or turn the body over, which in turn would make the body FOLLOW those DECISIONS, which I made FREELY, by the way, and that would then NOT MEAN that I can NOT CHANGE or plan the body's behavior.

But making ANY or ALL of those decisions I have, literally, CHANGED the body's behavior.

To do otherwise, planing your body motion, your body should be close to an undetermined state.

'you' have LOST 'me' AGAIN now.

You can.

Okay. So, what you were 'trying to' say is NOT what you ACTUALLY said, and stated.

No.

[bahman]

What are the "laws of newton", EXACTLY, to you, and, HOW does this "mind" thing NOT behave according to those "laws of newton"?

The laws of Newton are a set of constraints that give the behavior of the system in the future given the current state of the system.

AND, WHY, EXACTLY, does this "mind" thingy NOT behave this way?

Why? Because it is mind.

Is this another way of saying that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE?

Things like the mind have a set of properties.

What OTHER THINGS are there like this "mind" thingy?

Yes, it has the ability to experience and cause too.

One of the properties of the mind is that it is free.

AND, what are the OTHER properties these "mind" things HAVE, EXACTLY?

I already mentioned.

Asking the how question is meaningless.

And, some, like those who are called, or call "themselves", "scientists" say that WHY questions are meaningless, whereas HOW questions are NOT meaningless.

But since you here CLAIM that asking "the" how question is meaningless, then I WOULD NOT ask "that" question, EVEN IF I KNEW what "the" how question WAS, which you are referring to here.

Is 'free' an ACTUAL property?

Yes, free is a property.

Decided like when you decided what you want to do with your body and your body follows it. Undecided like when you are in a situation that a decision is needed.

'Needed' is a VERY RELATIVE WORD.

Since when have the "laws of newton" made the ruling that matter is in a 'decided state'.

Since the time that there is matter.

So, since ALWAYS.
[/quote]
I don't know how long there was the matter in this form.

Also, what is the matter, which is within a shoe, actually deciding upon, in their 'decided state', and when will they make the decision, which "whatever" will them?

Matter does not decide.

I, for example, have NEVER seen matter, in the shape of an apple or of a table 'decide' to just do some thing, which apples and tables are NOT known for 'doing'.

You simply misunderstood what I said. Perhaps I should have used determined instead of decided.

I would say, "Perhaps you COULD have' instead of 'SHOULD have'. Because there is NO "should" in HOW one EXPRESS their OWN views and thinking of IDEAS. But, OBVIOUSLY, some ways of EXPRESSING COULD be better than other ways are.

And, as I have been INFORMING you, for a while now, that what you are so desperately hard TRYING TO PROVE here, will NOT be done in, nor with, the words that 'you' have DECIDED to use.

That is; because of 'cause and effect' matter is essentially predestined to end up where it does, based on preexisting occurrences. Or, in other words, what matter ends up doing is because of predetermined outcomes, which were the result of preexisting conditions. Or, in other words, matter has NO choice in what way, shape, nor form it ends up being in nor looking like.

In other words, the physical Universe IS, just what It IS, at ANY time. 'It IS what It IS', as some might say.

However, there are human beings who ACTUALLY appear to be able to make CHOICES, of their OWN FREE WILL. And, from WHERE, and from WHEN that came about, EXACTLY, is STILL YET TO BE DECIDED, correct?

From the beginning.

Or, has the one solitary little single individual known as "bahman" here ALREADY DECIDED, from WHERE, and from WHEN, this ABILITY of being Truly FREE to be Truly ABLE to MAKE DECISION, FREELY?

I have the ability to decide since the beginning.

If yes, then from WHERE, and from WHEN, EXACTLY, "bahman"?

From the beginning.

What the word 'you' refers to here, which CAN MAKE DECISIONS, and thus DECIDE, is VERY, VERY DIFFERENT from 'matter', itself.

Think of determined instead of decided.

But 'you' ACTUALLY DO MAKE DECISION. While matter, itself, OBVIOUSLY can NOT.

Some people just do NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND this FACT because they think that the word 'you' refers to a human body, which is OBVIOUSLY made up of physical matter.

Ok.

So, WHY say and CLAIM that matter "can reach to an undecided state"?

Again use undetermined instead of undecided to avoid confusion.

But WHY NOT just use the ACTUAL WORDS, which ACTUAL WORK without ANY CONFUSION AT ALL?

Actual words?

If matter CANNOT even 'decide', in the beginning, then HOW can matter, supposedly, "reach to an undecided state"?

Because there are set of states, such as equilibrium state, in which matter does not move.

And WHERE and WHEN has this state, supposedly, have EVER existed?

Whenever matter reaches such a state.

Matter, to me, exists in a causal state, and ALWAYS EXISTS IN THIS STATE, and as such is NEVER NEITHER in a, so called, "decided state" NOR an "undecided state".

That is not true. A ball that is on top of a hill can roll down in many different ways.

What has this ball scenario got to do with absolutely ANY thing in what I said, which is, supposedly, NOT true.

Because a ball on the top of a hill is in a state of undecided/undetermined state.

'you', however, are ABSOLUTELY FREE to choose (or decide) to BELIEVE whatever 'you' WANT to BELIEVE, or NOT.

I am talking about what I think.

Do you NOT believe ANY thing?

I do believe in many things that I do not have any proof for.

Will you provide an example, so that we, at least, have SOME 'thing' to LOOK AT and SEE.

Like a ball that is on the top of a hill. Like you that are currently sitting on the chair.

You are making LESS SENSE now, to me.

I am sorry. I cannot help it.

Also, IF, as you CLAIM, matter just follows and 'it' cannot decide, then matter is either ALWAYS in an "undecided situation" ANYWAY, OR, matter can NEVER 'decide' ANYWAY and so is NEVER in a "decided situation" in or order to then become in an "undecided situation" ANYWAY.

No. Matter can be in an undetermined state. I already provided examples for you.

I asked for an UNDECIDED SITUATION EXAMPLE. You gave me EXAMPLES for that.

I want to remove your "undecided" and/or "decided" word COMPLETELY, then make that CLEAR when you express your examples.

So, if one of your examples, for a, now, "undetermined state' is "Like a ball that is on top of a hill", then HOW EXACTLY is that an EXAMPLE of some, so called, "undetermined state"?

Because the ball can roll down in many different directions.

Do balls and hills, which ARE made up of matter, NOT FOLLOW the 'laws of Nature'?

Yes, it does. The laws of nature in the case of the ball tell us that the total force acting on the ball is zero. Therefore, the ball is at rest/equilibrium. But the ball can roll down in many different directions. Therefore it is in an undetermined state.

Also, if a 'chain of causality' could fork, then when it does it would, OBVIOUSLY, then be NOT a 'chain of causality', ANYWAY, correct?

The chain of causality is a chain until it reaches the fork. After that, there are several chains of causalities.

WHAT?

WHEN did this One and ONLY infinite and eternal One 'chain of causality' split, or DECIDE to split, into now "several chains of causality'?

Well, if you can kick a ball so it can reach exactly to the top of a hill then you have a chain of causality until the ball reaches the top of the hill, afterward, the ball can move in many different directions, therefore the chain of causality forks.

You JUST SAID, only two sentences ago, that matter CANNOT DECIDE.

So, now, HOW can matter now be in a "decided state"?

By the way, "bahman", what you are so desperately 'trying to' say and explain CAN BE said and EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, ANYWAY.

I already answered that.

What is "that", now?

I already answer that I should use undetermined/determined instead of undecided/decided.

You wrote, and claimed, that; an 'undecided state' is like when you are in a situation that a decision is needed.

But what has this got to do with ANY thing about HOW the human body, itself, or an apple or a table can be close to being in a situation that a decision is needed.

Whenever 'you', human beings, "yourselves", are existing, then decisions are needed, correct?

And, what this clarifying question is alluding to would be VERY OBVIOUS, to some.

You for example are sitting on a chair.

But 'I' or 'me' can NOT 'sit', in the context that 'you' are referring to here.

Only bodies of physical matter, which are in the shape of some animals CAN SIT, on a chair.

Yes, that is what I mean.

You could continue to sit or stand up. So you have two options. That is what I mean with an undecided/undetermined state. A ball on the top of the hill also is in undetermined state since in can roll down in many different direction.

There is SO MUCH to LOOK AT and DISCUSS here.

1. Among other things.

2. I COULD make countless OTHER decisions, which the body would then follow. But the body, itself, has NO choice, literally, in the matter,

3. An 'undecided state' is when a body is in, what is called 'sleep' and there is NO decisions being made.

Can you decide when you are sleeping?

4. An 'undetermined state' does NOT exist in the visible matter Universe, Itself, as the state visible matter IS IN, was predetermined, and predetermines. 'you', however, may be in a 'undetermined', but this is only because 'you' have NOT YET determined what you want to do next. Which probably last for only for a few seconds, while 'you' are NOT sleeping.

The undetermined states obviously exist. Otherwise, you could not have options for moving your body.

5. How EXACTLY could a ball be in an 'undetermined state'? A ball NEVER determines what it, itself, will do next, so OBVIOUSLY EVERY ball is ALWAYS in an 'undetermined state', in that sense. However, WHERE matter in the shape of a ball IS ALWAYS was determined by the preexisting conditions. So, in this sense ANY and EVERY ball is ALWAYS in a 'determined state'.

I already answered that. By undetermined I mean that there are possibilities for the motion of the ball.

What you ACTUALLY said and stated was:

"Our bodies are close in an undecided state when it is in motion too.", and, "That is why we can plan the motion of our bodies."

So, HOW does it, logically follow, that the reason WHY "we can plan the motion of "our" bodies" IS BECAUSE "our bodies are (supposedly) close in an undecided state when the body is in motion too"?

Because if your body is in a determined state, like when you are falling, then it follows the laws of nature. This means that you cannot change or plan its behavior.

Why can I, supposedly, NOT be able to flap the arms, or tilt the head, or spread the arms and the legs, or turn the body over, which in turn would make the body FOLLOW those DECISIONS, which I made FREELY, by the way, and that would then NOT MEAN that I can NOT CHANGE or plan the body's behavior.

But making ANY or ALL of those decisions I have, literally, CHANGED the body's behavior.

Yes, you can do all sorts of other things but you cannot stop falling.

[Age]

The laws of Newton are a set of constraints that give the behavior of the system in the future given the current state of the system.

AND, WHY, EXACTLY, does this "mind" thingy NOT behave this way?

Why? Because it is mind.

Things like the mind have a set of properties.

What OTHER THINGS are there like this "mind" thingy?

Yes, it has the ability to experience and cause too.

One of the properties of the mind is that it is free.

AND, what are the OTHER properties these "mind" things HAVE, EXACTLY?

I already mentioned.

Asking the how question is meaningless.

And, some, like those who are called, or call "themselves", "scientists" say that WHY questions are meaningless, whereas HOW questions are NOT meaningless.

But since you here CLAIM that asking "the" how question is meaningless, then I WOULD NOT ask "that" question, EVEN IF I KNEW what "the" how question WAS, which you are referring to here.

Is 'free' an ACTUAL property?

Yes, free is a property.

'Needed' is a VERY RELATIVE WORD.

Since when have the "laws of newton" made the ruling that matter is in a 'decided state'.

Since the time that there is matter.

So, since ALWAYS.

I don't know how long there was the matter in this form.

Also, what is the matter, which is within a shoe, actually deciding upon, in their 'decided state', and when will they make the decision, which "whatever" will them?

Matter does not decide.

You simply misunderstood what I said. Perhaps I should have used determined instead of decided.

I would say, "Perhaps you COULD have' instead of 'SHOULD have'. Because there is NO "should" in HOW one EXPRESS their OWN views and thinking of IDEAS. But, OBVIOUSLY, some ways of EXPRESSING COULD be better than other ways are.

And, as I have been INFORMING you, for a while now, that what you are so desperately hard TRYING TO PROVE here, will NOT be done in, nor with, the words that 'you' have DECIDED to use.

That is; because of 'cause and effect' matter is essentially predestined to end up where it does, based on preexisting occurrences. Or, in other words, what matter ends up doing is because of predetermined outcomes, which were the result of preexisting conditions. Or, in other words, matter has NO choice in what way, shape, nor form it ends up being in nor looking like.

In other words, the physical Universe IS, just what It IS, at ANY time. 'It IS what It IS', as some might say.

However, there are human beings who ACTUALLY appear to be able to make CHOICES, of their OWN FREE WILL. And, from WHERE, and from WHEN that came about, EXACTLY, is STILL YET TO BE DECIDED, correct?

From the beginning.

Or, has the one solitary little single individual known as "bahman" here ALREADY DECIDED, from WHERE, and from WHEN, this ABILITY of being Truly FREE to be Truly ABLE to MAKE DECISION, FREELY?

I have the ability to decide since the beginning.

If yes, then from WHERE, and from WHEN, EXACTLY, "bahman"?

From the beginning.

Think of determined instead of decided.

But 'you' ACTUALLY DO MAKE DECISION. While matter, itself, OBVIOUSLY can NOT.

Some people just do NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND this FACT because they think that the word 'you' refers to a human body, which is OBVIOUSLY made up of physical matter.

Ok.

Again use undetermined instead of undecided to avoid confusion.

But WHY NOT just use the ACTUAL WORDS, which ACTUAL WORK without ANY CONFUSION AT ALL?

Actual words?

Because there are set of states, such as equilibrium state, in which matter does not move.

And WHERE and WHEN has this state, supposedly, have EVER existed?

Whenever matter reaches such a state.

That is not true. A ball that is on top of a hill can roll down in many different ways.

What has this ball scenario got to do with absolutely ANY thing in what I said, which is, supposedly, NOT true.

Because a ball on the top of a hill is in a state of undecided/undetermined state.

I am talking about what I think.

Do you NOT believe ANY thing?

I do believe in many things that I do not have any proof for.

Like a ball that is on the top of a hill. Like you that are currently sitting on the chair.

You are making LESS SENSE now, to me.

I am sorry. I cannot help it.

No. Matter can be in an undetermined state. I already provided examples for you.

I asked for an UNDECIDED SITUATION EXAMPLE. You gave me EXAMPLES for that.

I want to remove your "undecided" and/or "decided" word COMPLETELY, then make that CLEAR when you express your examples.

So, if one of your examples, for a, now, "undetermined state' is "Like a ball that is on top of a hill", then HOW EXACTLY is that an EXAMPLE of some, so called, "undetermined state"?

Because the ball can roll down in many different directions.

Do balls and hills, which ARE made up of matter, NOT FOLLOW the 'laws of Nature'?

Yes, it does. The laws of nature in the case of the ball tell us that the total force acting on the ball is zero. Therefore, the ball is at rest/equilibrium. But the ball can roll down in many different directions. Therefore it is in an undetermined state.

The chain of causality is a chain until it reaches the fork. After that, there are several chains of causalities.

WHAT?

WHEN did this One and ONLY infinite and eternal One 'chain of causality' split, or DECIDE to split, into now "several chains of causality'?

Well, if you can kick a ball so it can reach exactly to the top of a hill then you have a chain of causality until the ball reaches the top of the hill, afterward, the ball can move in many different directions, therefore the chain of causality forks.

I already answered that.

What is "that", now?

I already answer that I should use undetermined/determined instead of undecided/decided.

You for example are sitting on a chair.

But 'I' or 'me' can NOT 'sit', in the context that 'you' are referring to here.

Only bodies of physical matter, which are in the shape of some animals CAN SIT, on a chair.

Yes, that is what I mean.[/quote]

Then these are AN EXAMPLE of the ACTUAL WORDS, which your question mark was referring to.

You could continue to sit or stand up. So you have two options. That is what I mean with an undecided/undetermined state. A ball on the top of the hill also is in undetermined state since in can roll down in many different direction.

There is SO MUCH to LOOK AT and DISCUSS here.

1. Among other things.

2. I COULD make countless OTHER decisions, which the body would then follow. But the body, itself, has NO choice, literally, in the matter,

3. An 'undecided state' is when a body is in, what is called 'sleep' and there is NO decisions being made.

Can you decide when you are sleeping?

4. An 'undetermined state' does NOT exist in the visible matter Universe, Itself, as the state visible matter IS IN, was predetermined, and predetermines. 'you', however, may be in a 'undetermined', but this is only because 'you' have NOT YET determined what you want to do next. Which probably last for only for a few seconds, while 'you' are NOT sleeping.

The undetermined states obviously exist. Otherwise, you could not have options for moving your body.

5. How EXACTLY could a ball be in an 'undetermined state'? A ball NEVER determines what it, itself, will do next, so OBVIOUSLY EVERY ball is ALWAYS in an 'undetermined state', in that sense. However, WHERE matter in the shape of a ball IS ALWAYS was determined by the preexisting conditions. So, in this sense ANY and EVERY ball is ALWAYS in a 'determined state'.

I already answered that. By undetermined I mean that there are possibilities for the motion of the ball.

Because if your body is in a determined state, like when you are falling, then it follows the laws of nature. This means that you cannot change or plan its behavior.

Why can I, supposedly, NOT be able to flap the arms, or tilt the head, or spread the arms and the legs, or turn the body over, which in turn would make the body FOLLOW those DECISIONS, which I made FREELY, by the way, and that would then NOT MEAN that I can NOT CHANGE or plan the body's behavior.

But making ANY or ALL of those decisions I have, literally, CHANGED the body's behavior.

Yes, you can do all sorts of other things but you cannot stop falling.
[/quote]
"Falling" is only relative.

AND, a ball can ALSO NOT stop moving AND changing. The "rest" and "equilibrium", which you referenced earlier was only in, and from, a very narrowed and small perspective of things.

No, physical, matter can ACTUALLY STOP 'falling', 'moving', or 'changing', EVER.

[bahman]

"Falling" is only relative.

Relative to what?

AND, a ball can ALSO NOT stop moving AND changing. The "rest" and "equilibrium", which you referenced earlier was only in, and from, a very narrowed and small perspective of things.

No, physical, matter can ACTUALLY STOP 'falling', 'moving', or 'changing', EVER.

Believe on.

[Age]

"Falling" is only relative.

Relative to what?

Considering the FACT that it was 'you' who used the 'falling' word in a CLAIM of yours, then HOPEFULLY it is 'you' who KNOW what that word was RELATIVE TO, EXACTLY.

AND, a ball can ALSO NOT stop moving AND changing. The "rest" and "equilibrium", which you referenced earlier was only in, and from, a very narrowed and small perspective of things.

No, physical, matter can ACTUALLY STOP 'falling', 'moving', or 'changing', EVER.

Believe on.

Will you PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of where you BELIEVE that physical matter can ACTUALLY STOP "falling", "moving", and/or "changing"?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?

[bahman]

"Falling" is only relative.

Relative to what?

Considering the FACT that it was 'you' who used the 'falling' word in a CLAIM of yours, then HOPEFULLY it is 'you' who KNOW what that word was RELATIVE TO, EXACTLY.

So you don't know?

AND, a ball can ALSO NOT stop moving AND changing. The "rest" and "equilibrium", which you referenced earlier was only in, and from, a very narrowed and small perspective of things.

No, physical, matter can ACTUALLY STOP 'falling', 'moving', or 'changing', EVER.

Believe on.

Will you PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of where you BELIEVE that physical matter can ACTUALLY STOP "falling", "moving", and/or "changing"?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?

I am talking about things in this world that are on rest. You claim that nothing is at rest.

[Age]

Relative to what?

Considering the FACT that it was 'you' who used the 'falling' word in a CLAIM of yours, then HOPEFULLY it is 'you' who KNOW what that word was RELATIVE TO, EXACTLY.

So you don't know?

YOU, "bahman", wrote the STORY. So, ONLY YOU Truly KNOW what the "ball" was "falling" in RELATION TO, EXACTLY?

I was just POINTING OUT that the FACT that YOUR "falling ball" STORY was coming from a VERY NARROWED and VERY SHORT SIGHTED field of view, perspective.

Believe on.

Will you PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of where you BELIEVE that physical matter can ACTUALLY STOP "falling", "moving", and/or "changing"?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?

I am talking about things in this world that are on rest. You claim that nothing is at rest.

What, EXACTLY, do the words "this world" here REFER TO, EXACTLY?

To me, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in 'this world', which is at, or on, "rest".

Even you have ADMITTED before that EVERY thing CHANGES, as thus this MEANS could NOT be "at rest".

[bahman]

Considering the FACT that it was 'you' who used the 'falling' word in a CLAIM of yours, then HOPEFULLY it is 'you' who KNOW what that word was RELATIVE TO, EXACTLY.

So you don't know?

YOU, "bahman", wrote the STORY. So, ONLY YOU Truly KNOW what the "ball" was "falling" in RELATION TO, EXACTLY?

I was just POINTING OUT that the FACT that YOUR "falling ball" STORY was coming from a VERY NARROWED and VERY SHORT SIGHTED field of view, perspective.

Will you PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of where you BELIEVE that physical matter can ACTUALLY STOP "falling", "moving", and/or "changing"?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?

I am talking about things in this world that are on rest. You claim that nothing is at rest.

What, EXACTLY, do the words "this world" here REFER TO, EXACTLY?

To me, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in 'this world', which is at, or on, "rest".

Even you have ADMITTED before that EVERY thing CHANGES, as thus this MEANS could NOT be "at rest".

I have never said that everything is subject to change and there is nothing at rest.

[Age]

So you don't know?

YOU, "bahman", wrote the STORY. So, ONLY YOU Truly KNOW what the "ball" was "falling" in RELATION TO, EXACTLY?

I was just POINTING OUT that the FACT that YOUR "falling ball" STORY was coming from a VERY NARROWED and VERY SHORT SIGHTED field of view, perspective.

I am talking about things in this world that are on rest. You claim that nothing is at rest.

What, EXACTLY, do the words "this world" here REFER TO, EXACTLY?

To me, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in 'this world', which is at, or on, "rest".

Even you have ADMITTED before that EVERY thing CHANGES, as thus this MEANS could NOT be "at rest".

I have never said that everything is subject to change and there is nothing at rest.

I KNOW. What you have said is; The laws of nature in the case of the ball tell us that the total force acting on the ball is zero. Therefore, the ball is at rest/equilibrium.

[jayjacobus]

YOU, "bahman", wrote the STORY. So, ONLY YOU Truly KNOW what the "ball" was "falling" in RELATION TO, EXACTLY?

I was just POINTING OUT that the FACT that YOUR "falling ball" STORY was coming from a VERY NARROWED and VERY SHORT SIGHTED field of view, perspective.


What, EXACTLY, do the words "this world" here REFER TO, EXACTLY?

To me, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in 'this world', which is at, or on, "rest".

Even you have ADMITTED before that EVERY thing CHANGES, as thus this MEANS could NOT be "at rest".

I have never said that everything is subject to change and there is nothing at rest.

I KNOW. What you have said is; The laws of nature in the case of the ball tell us that the total force acting on the ball is zero. Therefore, the ball is at rest/equilibrium.

He didn't say that.

[Age]

I have never said that everything is subject to change and there is nothing at rest.

I KNOW. What you have said is; The laws of nature in the case of the ball tell us that the total force acting on the ball is zero. Therefore, the ball is at rest/equilibrium.

He didn't say that.

If that is NOT what was said by "bahman", then what did "bahman" say?