Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

You nailed it but you missed the target.

Math is used by science, it isn't science. Like material, math's are elements that can be applied in science to gain better understanding of the world. Neither is science nor ever will be science.

Applying math in your mind as game isn't science either.

You just keep falling back on propositions, also not science, deceiving yourself you are gaining knowledge.

Nope. It's a game.

As for senescence you can't avoid it. It's an attribute of life like memory, sensation, digestion, etc.

You are really in to God envy. That's not an attribute of life, its a flaw in thinking.

Hey man you're the one in here stating unequivocally that "the universe is dererministic".

The thing is, this statement "the universe is deterministic" is also saying "the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation"

You cannot escape that corollary of your claim. The more you run from it the more it will catch up to you.

The issue is that if the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation, then extensions of that system along such lines as I have demonstrated in some other mathematical system operating in isolation, by logic, must not be so utterly absurd as you seem to think they are.

The fact that we have to tolerate imperfection and probabilistic answers that yield provisional wills that can still be unfree is the price we pay for existing in and of the stuff of the universe rather than as gods.

And it's not "envy" so much as empathy. You should try it some time.

I think its more precise to say "The universe can be modeled, in part, by using an isolated mathematical system approach."

The universe isn't "math" to me. We use math, like we use words, to "model" the events around us. And, as a point of fact, its still all a human model.

That's the thing: if the universe perfectly behaves as an isolated mathematical system, them it IS an isolated mathematical system and anything you can prove with the math, you can prove of the universe. It's absolute reduction to math is tautologically an absolute reduction to math.

DBT keeps trying to lean on a "definition of determinism" much the same way but keeps getting fouled up on that whole systemic extension thing equivocating Can't and Won't.

 

[SIB]

You nailed it but you missed the target.

Math is used by science, it isn't science. Like material, math's are elements that can be applied in science to gain better understanding of the world. Neither is science nor ever will be science.

Applying math in your mind as game isn't science either.

You just keep falling back on propositions, also not science, deceiving yourself you are gaining knowledge.

Nope. It's a game.

As for senescence you can't avoid it. It's an attribute of life like memory, sensation, digestion, etc.

You are really in to God envy. That's not an attribute of life, its a flaw in thinking.

Hey man you're the one in here stating unequivocally that "the universe is dererministic".

The thing is, this statement "the universe is deterministic" is also saying "the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation"

You cannot escape that corollary of your claim. The more you run from it the more it will catch up to you.

The issue is that if the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation, then extensions of that system along such lines as I have demonstrated in some other mathematical system operating in isolation, by logic, must not be so utterly absurd as you seem to think they are.

The fact that we have to tolerate imperfection and probabilistic answers that yield provisional wills that can still be unfree is the price we pay for existing in and of the stuff of the universe rather than as gods.

And it's not "envy" so much as empathy. You should try it some time.

I think its more precise to say "The universe can be modeled, in part, by using an isolated mathematical system approach."

The universe isn't "math" to me. We use math, like we use words, to "model" the events around us. And, as a point of fact, its still all a human model.

That's the thing: if the universe perfectly behaves as an isolated mathematical system, them it IS an isolated mathematical system and anything you can prove with the math, you can prove of the universe. It's absolute reduction to math is tautologically an absolute reduction to math.

DBT keeps trying to lean on a "definition of determinism" much the same way but keeps getting fouled up on that whole systemic extension thing equivocating Can't and Won't.

Maybe. Its all about information exchange. So maybe, I would have to sit down and learn more about it from you. I just don't know enough.

I think of it like machine langue. The information is being exchanged via state changes. A computer is not "math" although its works by using math. It is actually just state changes of electrons, and other stuff but I am keeping it simple. Its set up so that its turned into a machine langue. Then the machine langue is set up so it can perform math operations.

1/2 and complete adders are not math. They are a set of physical state changes set up in a pattern that can "express" the math. A book that describes everything that I do and could even predict what I will do is not me kind of thing.

On a side note. I think if they crack the machine langue of the brain that will, well, you know ...

 

[Jarhyn]

You nailed it but you missed the target.

Math is used by science, it isn't science. Like material, math's are elements that can be applied in science to gain better understanding of the world. Neither is science nor ever will be science.

Applying math in your mind as game isn't science either.

You just keep falling back on propositions, also not science, deceiving yourself you are gaining knowledge.

Nope. It's a game.

As for senescence you can't avoid it. It's an attribute of life like memory, sensation, digestion, etc.

You are really in to God envy. That's not an attribute of life, its a flaw in thinking.

Hey man you're the one in here stating unequivocally that "the universe is dererministic".

The thing is, this statement "the universe is deterministic" is also saying "the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation"

You cannot escape that corollary of your claim. The more you run from it the more it will catch up to you.

The issue is that if the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation, then extensions of that system along such lines as I have demonstrated in some other mathematical system operating in isolation, by logic, must not be so utterly absurd as you seem to think they are.

The fact that we have to tolerate imperfection and probabilistic answers that yield provisional wills that can still be unfree is the price we pay for existing in and of the stuff of the universe rather than as gods.

And it's not "envy" so much as empathy. You should try it some time.

I think its more precise to say "The universe can be modeled, in part, by using an isolated mathematical system approach."

The universe isn't "math" to me. We use math, like we use words, to "model" the events around us. And, as a point of fact, its still all a human model.

That's the thing: if the universe perfectly behaves as an isolated mathematical system, them it IS an isolated mathematical system and anything you can prove with the math, you can prove of the universe. It's absolute reduction to math is tautologically an absolute reduction to math.

DBT keeps trying to lean on a "definition of determinism" much the same way but keeps getting fouled up on that whole systemic extension thing equivocating Can't and Won't.

Maybe. Its all about information exchange. So maybe, I would have to sit down and learn more about it from you. I just don't know enough.

I think of it like machine langue. The information is being exchanged via state changes. A computer is not "math" although its works by using math. It is actually just state changes of electrons, and other stuff but I am keeping it simple. Its set up so that its turned into a machine langue. Then the machine langue is set up so it can perform math operations.

1/2 and complete adders are not math. They are a set of physical state changes set up in a pattern that can "express" the math. A book that describes everything that I do and could even predict what I will do is not me kind of thing.

On a side note. I think if they crack the machine langue of the brain that will, well, you know ...

The brain doesn't really have a unified "machine language". It more has structures which accomplish functions much like the logic of a very complicated FPGA.

You could logically write a system that assembled such constructs according to a source definition to the point where you build a large scale mind by hand, but that's more an abstracted graph definition than a machine language definition.

Each individual brain is likely to also feature its own unique definition for how such wills are constructed in the "scripting language" supported by that mess of hardware configurations, too, so while we may be able to identify and isolate a particular surface on which we can capture a temporal SDR description of the present "will" of a neural system, actually decoding, modifying, or injecting that is going to be a pain in the ass that will take user feedback to form the translation of, and participating actively in teaching others to read and write to that part of your mind is unbelievably reckless.

 

[DBT]

You nailed it but you missed the target.

Math is used by science, it isn't science. Like material, math's are elements that can be applied in science to gain better understanding of the world. Neither is science nor ever will be science.

Applying math in your mind as game isn't science either.

You just keep falling back on propositions, also not science, deceiving yourself you are gaining knowledge.

Nope. It's a game.

As for senescence you can't avoid it. It's an attribute of life like memory, sensation, digestion, etc.

You are really in to God envy. That's not an attribute of life, its a flaw in thinking.

Hey man you're the one in here stating unequivocally that "the universe is dererministic".

The thing is, this statement "the universe is deterministic" is also saying "the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation"

You cannot escape that corollary of your claim. The more you run from it the more it will catch up to you.

The issue is that if the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation, then extensions of that system along such lines as I have demonstrated in some other mathematical system operating in isolation, by logic, must not be so utterly absurd as you seem to think they are.

The fact that we have to tolerate imperfection and probabilistic answers that yield provisional wills that can still be unfree is the price we pay for existing in and of the stuff of the universe rather than as gods.

And it's not "envy" so much as empathy. You should try it some time.

I think its more precise to say "The universe can be modeled, in part, by using an isolated mathematical system approach."

The universe isn't "math" to me. We use math, like we use words, to "model" the events around us. And, as a point of fact, its still all a human model.

That's the thing: if the universe perfectly behaves as an isolated mathematical system, them it IS an isolated mathematical system and anything you can prove with the math, you can prove of the universe. It's absolute reduction to math is tautologically an absolute reduction to math.

DBT keeps trying to lean on a "definition of determinism" much the same way but keeps getting fouled up on that whole systemic extension thing equivocating Can't and Won't.

DBT merely points out the implications of the given definition of determinism, your definition, the compatibilist definition. That with fixed outcomes (based on the given definition), there are no sets of realizable options to choose from, that state and condition of the person and their environment determines output; the persons response in any given instance in time.

 

[Jarhyn]

DBT merely points out the implications of the given definition of determinism, your definition, the compatibilist definition.

No, you beg questions about what implications determinism has, and so argue without assertion the false notion that your equivocation of "can" and "must"... when in fact this is not a will, such to accept this nonsensical notion, that any reasonable person here will allow to remain free.

Math well supports the ideas of tests of equality and of variables, and in fact this is what an algebra describes, the relationship of variables and equality or inequality of identities, and this is all we as compatibilists seek to recognize as sane notions, albeit applied to such grandiose topics as whole universal systems operating in mathematical isolation

 

[Kylie]

If there is only one possible outcome, it's not a choice.

Presumably you're saying that there's no choice under determinism (because determinism allows only one outcome).

It follows therefore that what you mean by choice is a non-determined (random/uncaused) outcome. I don't think that's what most people who use the word mean by 'choice'.

I would say that a choice is where I have multiple different options and each option has a non-zero chance of being the actual outcome.

If things are predestined, then the outcome is 100%, and thus all the other options necessarily do NOT have a non-zero chance.

 

[pood]

If there is only one possible outcome, it's not a choice.

Presumably you're saying that there's no choice under determinism (because determinism allows only one outcome).

It follows therefore that what you mean by choice is a non-determined (random/uncaused) outcome. I don't think that's what most people who use the word mean by 'choice'.

I would say that a choice is where I have multiple different options and each option has a non-zero chance of being the actual outcome.

If things are predestined, then the outcome is 100%, and thus all the other options necessarily do NOT have a non-zero chance.

Except, of course, that determinism is not the same as predestination.

 

[Kylie]

If there is only one possible outcome, it's not a choice.

There are many logical operations that we're able to perform, like the basic arithmetic functions of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. And these are all deterministic operations, meaning that given the same inputs, they will always produce the same outputs.

Choosing is another deterministic, logical operation. Choosing inputs two or more options, applies some appropriate criteria of comparison, and outputs a single 'choice'. The 'choice' is usually in the form "I will X", where X is the thing we have decided we "will" do.

A good place to watch people choosing is in a restaurant. A person walks in, sits at a table, opens the menu, looks over the possibilities, and tells the waiter what they will have for dinner. We know that choosing is happening because the multiple items on the menu have been reduced to a single dinner order. And each person has performed this operation for themselves.

Meanwhile, the waiter has been performing the operation of addition, adding the price of the meal, the drink, the side dish, and summing these into a bill. The waiter brings the dinner and the bill to the customer, who eats the dinner and responsibly pays the cashier on the way out.

The fact that there is a single sum, where previously there were just multiple numbers, is evidence that addition took place.
The fact that there is a single choice, where previously there were just multiple items on the menu, is evidence that choosing took place.

If choosing took place then there was a choice being made.
If addition took place then there was a sum being made.

Determinism cannot assert that any event is not really happening. Determinism merely asserts that every event will be reliable caused by prior events. The sum on the dinner bill is reliably caused by the waiter performing addition. The choice of what to order for dinner was reliably caused by the customer choosing what they will order from a menu of alternate possibilities. Determinism guarantees that both of these events, the adding and the choosing, would inevitably happen, exactly as we observed them to happen.

Determinism never changes anything.

Okay, let's use that example.

If I go into a restaurant, my order will be either determined or a free choice.

If it is determined, then I can only choose one dish on the menu (let's just keep it simple for the sake of the argument). Let's say it's the chicken. There is a 100% chance of me ordering the chicken, and a 0% chance of me ordering the steak or the pork.

However, if my order is a free choice, then the chicken, steak, and pork each have a non-zero chance of being ordered. It might be 50% chance of chicken, 30% chance of steak and 20% chance of pork.

In the case of a free choice, the probability of one doesn't reach 100% (and the others 0%) until I actually make the choice. In the case of predeterminism, the probabilities were ALWAYS at 100% for one option and 0% for all the others.

 

[Kylie]

If there is only one possible outcome, it's not a choice.

Presumably you're saying that there's no choice under determinism (because determinism allows only one outcome).

It follows therefore that what you mean by choice is a non-determined (random/uncaused) outcome. I don't think that's what most people who use the word mean by 'choice'.

I would say that a choice is where I have multiple different options and each option has a non-zero chance of being the actual outcome.

If things are predestined, then the outcome is 100%, and thus all the other options necessarily do NOT have a non-zero chance.

Except, of course, that determinism is not the same as predestination.

Would you care to explain the difference?

 

[pood]

If there is only one possible outcome, it's not a choice.

Presumably you're saying that there's no choice under determinism (because determinism allows only one outcome).

It follows therefore that what you mean by choice is a non-determined (random/uncaused) outcome. I don't think that's what most people who use the word mean by 'choice'.

I would say that a choice is where I have multiple different options and each option has a non-zero chance of being the actual outcome.

If things are predestined, then the outcome is 100%, and thus all the other options necessarily do NOT have a non-zero chance.

Except, of course, that determinism is not the same as predestination.

Would you care to explain the difference?

Predestination is a religious doctrine. It holds that God has willed every human action and chosen in advance who will be saved and who will be damned.

Fatalism is the doctrine that what will be, must be, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The ancient Greeks knew this as the “idle argument,” in that it is idle, or in vain, to try to do anything to affect the future.

Determinism is simply the doctrine that effects reliably follow causes, an empirical finding at the classical level of description. At the quantum level indeterminism reigns.

When a human makes a choice, he is part of the deterministic stream. It is the human doing the choosing who determines whether he/she will have chicken, or pork, or something else, for dinner.

Let’s say that given antecedents x, y, and z, Jane will choose pork for dinner. It does not follow that Jane MUST choose pork, only that she WILL (freely) choose pork. The inability to distinguish between “will” (contingent truth) and “must” (necessary truth) is known as the modal scope fallacy, or simply the modal fallacy. DBT’s constant commission of this logical fallacy has been the hallmark of his contributions to this thread and to the other thread.

 

[Kylie]

If there is only one possible outcome, it's not a choice.

Presumably you're saying that there's no choice under determinism (because determinism allows only one outcome).

It follows therefore that what you mean by choice is a non-determined (random/uncaused) outcome. I don't think that's what most people who use the word mean by 'choice'.

I would say that a choice is where I have multiple different options and each option has a non-zero chance of being the actual outcome.

If things are predestined, then the outcome is 100%, and thus all the other options necessarily do NOT have a non-zero chance.

Except, of course, that determinism is not the same as predestination.

Would you care to explain the difference?

Predestination is a religious doctrine. It holds that God has willed every human action and chosen in advance who will be saved and who will be damned.

Fatalism is the doctrine that what will be, must be, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The ancient Greeks knew this as the “idle argument,” in that it is idle, or in vain, to try to do anything to affect the future.

Determinism is simply the doctrine that effects reliably follow causes, an empirical finding at the classical level of description. At the quantum level indeterminism reigns.

When a human makes a choice, he is part of the deterministic stream. It is the human doing the choosing who determines whether he/she will have chicken, or pork, or something else, for dinner.

Let’s say that given antecedents x, y, and z, Jane will choose pork for dinner. It does not follow that Jane MUST choose pork, only that she WILL (freely) choose pork. The inability to distinguish between “will” (contingent truth) and “must” (necessary truth) is known as the modal scope fallacy, or simply the modal fallacy. DBT’s constant commission of this logical fallacy has been the hallmark of his contributions to this thread and to the other thread.

Ah, thanks for that.

I've used it to simply mean "the future is set in stone and only one outcome is possible." The exact mechanism is irrelevant to my argument.

 

[pood]

Even if the future is already set in stone, as it is under the Minkowski/Einstein block universe model, in which all moments in time exist in the same way that all locations in space do, it does not follow from this that we lack compatibilist free will. If the future is fixed, it is fixed in part by choices our future selves make.

 

[Jarhyn]

If I go into a restaurant, my order will be either determined or a free choice.

This is a false dichotomy that steps away from the premises. Something can be a deterministic, a choice, and be made while satisfying the requirement of the will to choose as a function of one's own desires rather than imposed from outside all at the same time.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If I go into a restaurant, my order will be either determined or a free choice.

It will be determined and it will be a choice of your own free will. Free will does not mean free of causal determination. It simply means free of coercion and other things that might reasonably remove your freedom to make the choice for yourself.

If it is determined, then I can only choose one dish on the menu (let's just keep it simple for the sake of the argument). Let's say it's the chicken. There is a 100% chance of me ordering the chicken, and a 0% chance of me ordering the steak or the pork.

In that case it is causally determined that you will choose the chicken. No doubt about that. However, it is also true that you can choose anything else on the menu. However, you will not do so.

However, if my order is a free choice, then the chicken, steak, and pork each have a non-zero chance of being ordered. It might be 50% chance of chicken, 30% chance of steak and 20% chance of pork.

It's not a matter of chance. It is up to you to make the choice. If you have no preferences, then flip a coin, and let the coin do the choosing. But if you make the choice yourself, it will be causally deterministic, which means that you will make the selection that best suits your own goals and your own reasoning, and those goals and reasons will 100% cause you to pick one and not pick any of the others.

In the case of a free choice, the probability of one doesn't reach 100% (and the others 0%) until I actually make the choice. In the case of predeterminism, the probabilities were ALWAYS at 100% for one option and 0% for all the others.

Well, your choice will be causally necessary from any prior point in time. However, it will also be causally necessary that you will be making the choice yourself, of your own free will. No one will be holding a gun to your head (unless, of course, it was causally necessary that the guy with the gun would be there). Both the choice, and the fact that you will be making it, are 100% predictable (at least theoretically).

The notion of probabilities helps us deal with problems of prediction. They do not affect the issue of causation. Deterministic causation is always 100%. However, when some things are very difficult to predict, we resort to statistics to get our predictions in the ball park, like, when predicting the weather, or the behavior of quantum particles.

 

[fromderinside]

You nailed it but you missed the target.

Math is used by science, it isn't science. Like material, math's are elements that can be applied in science to gain better understanding of the world. Neither is science nor ever will be science.

Applying math in your mind as game isn't science either.

You just keep falling back on propositions, also not science, deceiving yourself you are gaining knowledge.

Nope. It's a game.

As for senescence you can't avoid it. It's an attribute of life like memory, sensation, digestion, etc.

You are really in to God envy. That's not an attribute of life, its a flaw in thinking.

Hey man you're the one in here stating unequivocally that "the universe is dererministic".

The thing is, this statement "the universe is deterministic" is also saying "the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation"

You cannot escape that corollary of your claim. The more you run from it the more it will catch up to you.

The issue is that if the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation, then extensions of that system along such lines as I have demonstrated in some other mathematical system operating in isolation, by logic, must not be so utterly absurd as you seem to think they are.

The fact that we have to tolerate imperfection and probabilistic answers that yield provisional wills that can still be unfree is the price we pay for existing in and of the stuff of the universe rather than as gods.

And it's not "envy" so much as empathy. You should try it some time.

I think its more precise to say "The universe can be modeled, in part, by using an isolated mathematical system approach."

The universe isn't "math" to me. We use math, like we use words, to "model" the events around us. And, as a point of fact, its still all a human model.

I agree. I'm just a retired neuro-psychophysicist putting up with a game modeler/developer/player who loves to spout math's.

 

[fromderinside]

You nailed it but you missed the target.

Math is used by science, it isn't science. Like material, math's are elements that can be applied in science to gain better understanding of the world. Neither is science nor ever will be science.

Applying math in your mind as game isn't science either.

You just keep falling back on propositions, also not science, deceiving yourself you are gaining knowledge.

Nope. It's a game.

As for senescence you can't avoid it. It's an attribute of life like memory, sensation, digestion, etc.

You are really in to God envy. That's not an attribute of life, its a flaw in thinking.

Hey man you're the one in here stating unequivocally that "the universe is dererministic".

The thing is, this statement "the universe is deterministic" is also saying "the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation"

You cannot escape that corollary of your claim. The more you run from it the more it will catch up to you.

The issue is that if the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation, then extensions of that system along such lines as I have demonstrated in some other mathematical system operating in isolation, by logic, must not be so utterly absurd as you seem to think they are.

The fact that we have to tolerate imperfection and probabilistic answers that yield provisional wills that can still be unfree is the price we pay for existing in and of the stuff of the universe rather than as gods.

And it's not "envy" so much as empathy. You should try it some time.

I think its more precise to say "The universe can be modeled, in part, by using an isolated mathematical system approach."

The universe isn't "math" to me. We use math, like we use words, to "model" the events around us. And, as a point of fact, its still all a human model.

That's the thing: if the universe perfectly behaves as an isolated mathematical system, them it IS an isolated mathematical system and anything you can prove with the math, you can prove of the universe. It's absolute reduction to math is tautologically an absolute reduction to math.

DBT keeps trying to lean on a "definition of determinism" much the same way but keeps getting fouled up on that whole systemic extension thing equivocating Can't and Won't.

Maybe. Its all about information exchange. So maybe, I would have to sit down and learn more about it from you. I just don't know enough.

I think of it like machine langue. The information is being exchanged via state changes. A computer is not "math" although its works by using math. It is actually just state changes of electrons, and other stuff but I am keeping it simple. Its set up so that its turned into a machine langue. Then the machine langue is set up so it can perform math operations.

1/2 and complete adders are not math. They are a set of physical state changes set up in a pattern that can "express" the math. A book that describes everything that I do and could even predict what I will do is not me kind of thing.

On a side note. I think if they crack the machine langue of the brain that will, well, you know ...

The brain doesn't really have a unified "machine language". It more has structures which accomplish functions much like the logic of a very complicated FPGA.

You could logically write a system that assembled such constructs according to a source definition to the point where you build a large scale mind by hand, but that's more an abstracted graph definition than a machine language definition.

Each individual brain is likely to also feature its own unique definition for how such wills are constructed in the "scripting language" supported by that mess of hardware configurations, too, so while we may be able to identify and isolate a particular surface on which we can capture a temporal SDR description of the present "will" of a neural system, actually decoding, modifying, or injecting that is going to be a pain in the ass that will take user feedback to form the translation of, and participating actively in teaching others to read and write to that part of your mind is unbelievably reckless.

Wow. Now you're a brain process expert. You will have to supply references so this retired neuro-psychophysicist, or any other one competent in neuroscience can evaluate them. If not, you just typed in unsubstantiated/imagined blather.

 

[Jarhyn]

You nailed it but you missed the target.

Math is used by science, it isn't science. Like material, math's are elements that can be applied in science to gain better understanding of the world. Neither is science nor ever will be science.

Applying math in your mind as game isn't science either.

You just keep falling back on propositions, also not science, deceiving yourself you are gaining knowledge.

Nope. It's a game.

As for senescence you can't avoid it. It's an attribute of life like memory, sensation, digestion, etc.

You are really in to God envy. That's not an attribute of life, its a flaw in thinking.

Hey man you're the one in here stating unequivocally that "the universe is dererministic".

The thing is, this statement "the universe is deterministic" is also saying "the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation"

You cannot escape that corollary of your claim. The more you run from it the more it will catch up to you.

The issue is that if the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation, then extensions of that system along such lines as I have demonstrated in some other mathematical system operating in isolation, by logic, must not be so utterly absurd as you seem to think they are.

The fact that we have to tolerate imperfection and probabilistic answers that yield provisional wills that can still be unfree is the price we pay for existing in and of the stuff of the universe rather than as gods.

And it's not "envy" so much as empathy. You should try it some time.

I think its more precise to say "The universe can be modeled, in part, by using an isolated mathematical system approach."

The universe isn't "math" to me. We use math, like we use words, to "model" the events around us. And, as a point of fact, its still all a human model.

That's the thing: if the universe perfectly behaves as an isolated mathematical system, them it IS an isolated mathematical system and anything you can prove with the math, you can prove of the universe. It's absolute reduction to math is tautologically an absolute reduction to math.

DBT keeps trying to lean on a "definition of determinism" much the same way but keeps getting fouled up on that whole systemic extension thing equivocating Can't and Won't.

Maybe. Its all about information exchange. So maybe, I would have to sit down and learn more about it from you. I just don't know enough.

I think of it like machine langue. The information is being exchanged via state changes. A computer is not "math" although its works by using math. It is actually just state changes of electrons, and other stuff but I am keeping it simple. Its set up so that its turned into a machine langue. Then the machine langue is set up so it can perform math operations.

1/2 and complete adders are not math. They are a set of physical state changes set up in a pattern that can "express" the math. A book that describes everything that I do and could even predict what I will do is not me kind of thing.

On a side note. I think if they crack the machine langue of the brain that will, well, you know ...

The brain doesn't really have a unified "machine language". It more has structures which accomplish functions much like the logic of a very complicated FPGA.

You could logically write a system that assembled such constructs according to a source definition to the point where you build a large scale mind by hand, but that's more an abstracted graph definition than a machine language definition.

Each individual brain is likely to also feature its own unique definition for how such wills are constructed in the "scripting language" supported by that mess of hardware configurations, too, so while we may be able to identify and isolate a particular surface on which we can capture a temporal SDR description of the present "will" of a neural system, actually decoding, modifying, or injecting that is going to be a pain in the ass that will take user feedback to form the translation of, and participating actively in teaching others to read and write to that part of your mind is unbelievably reckless.

Wow. Now you're a brain process expert now. You will have to supply references so this neuro-psychophysicist can evaluate them. If not, you just type in unsubstantiated/imagined blather.

First off, I wouldn't trust you to be able to make sense of what an elephant ate for breakfast.

You can't even seem to parse the difference between "can't" and "won't", of understanding a system vs systemic extensions along a vector of absolutes.

Maybe when you can describe for the class what Last Thursdayism is and why it is Unfalsifiable as a hypothesis of universal origin you'll finally "get it", but there's your homework for now.

 

[Kylie]

If I go into a restaurant, my order will be either determined or a free choice.

This is a false dichotomy that steps away from the premises. Something can be a deterministic, a choice, and be made while satisfying the requirement of the will to choose as a function of one's own desires rather than imposed from outside all at the same time.

How can something be chosen freely if there is only ever one possible outcome that can occur?

 

[Kylie]

If I go into a restaurant, my order will be either determined or a free choice.

It will be determined and it will be a choice of your own free will. Free will does not mean free of causal determination. It simply means free of coercion and other things that might reasonably remove your freedom to make the choice for yourself.

Free will means that each option has the possibility of being chosen. If the outcome is determined, then I do not have the freedom of making the choice myself.

If it is determined, then I can only choose one dish on the menu (let's just keep it simple for the sake of the argument). Let's say it's the chicken. There is a 100% chance of me ordering the chicken, and a 0% chance of me ordering the steak or the pork.

In that case it is causally determined that you will choose the chicken. No doubt about that. However, it is also true that you can choose anything else on the menu. However, you will not do so.

If I will not choose anything else, how can you say I can?

However, if my order is a free choice, then the chicken, steak, and pork each have a non-zero chance of being ordered. It might be 50% chance of chicken, 30% chance of steak and 20% chance of pork.

It's not a matter of chance. It is up to you to make the choice. If you have no preferences, then flip a coin, and let the coin do the choosing. But if you make the choice yourself, it will be causally deterministic, which means that you will make the selection that best suits your own goals and your own reasoning, and those goals and reasons will 100% cause you to pick one and not pick any of the others.

But the fact that it can not be determined prior to me making the choice means that it is not predetermined.

In the case of a free choice, the probability of one doesn't reach 100% (and the others 0%) until I actually make the choice. In the case of predeterminism, the probabilities were ALWAYS at 100% for one option and 0% for all the others.

Well, your choice will be causally necessary from any prior point in time. However, it will also be causally necessary that you will be making the choice yourself, of your own free will. No one will be holding a gun to your head (unless, of course, it was causally necessary that the guy with the gun would be there). Both the choice, and the fact that you will be making it, are 100% predictable (at least theoretically).

The notion of probabilities helps us deal with problems of prediction. They do not affect the issue of causation. Deterministic causation is always 100%. However, when some things are very difficult to predict, we resort to statistics to get our predictions in the ball park, like, when predicting the weather, or the behavior of quantum particles.

Please show evidence to support that my choice is theoretically 100% predictable.

 

[bilby]

If I go into a restaurant, my order will be either determined or a free choice.

This is a false dichotomy that steps away from the premises. Something can be a deterministic, a choice, and be made while satisfying the requirement of the will to choose as a function of one's own desires rather than imposed from outside all at the same time.

How can something be chosen freely if there is only ever one possible outcome that can occur?

Because choices aren't about what will happen, (which is fixed but unknown), but about what can happen, (which is just fixed).

You choose the salad rather than the steak, but the steak is a possibility (even though you will not order it), because it's on the menu.

If the waiter makes an error and brings you the steak, you might be annoyed, but you shouldn't be shocked. If, however, he makes an error and beings you an armoured combat vehicle, you would be shocked - because there was a choice, and the main battle tank wasn't one of the options. So clearly, "choice" is a real thing.

What must (due to determinism) happen, is unknowable. What might (due to incomplete knowledge) happen, is chosen.

Presented with a menu of options, our brains follow a deterministic path to select one of them. We call that process "choosing", and the fact that it's hypothetically possible (if we had complete knowledge of the state of every particle in, or able to influence, the brain), to model what that choice must be, doesn't change the fact that we don't know what it will be until the brain has completed its "choosing" and returns a decision.

If that choosing was done without coercion, then we say that the brain freely arrives at the choice it has made.

Determinism doesn't change this freedom of choice at all. A "god's eye view" might have shown us that the whole thing was inevitable and immutable - but nobody and nothing has that view, so why would we worry about it? It changes nothing.