Compatibilism: What's that About?

[fromderinside]

The only things of importance are the objective observations of that after that ... It matters not that the humans are subjective beings because they developed objective methods and measures independent of their subjective natures to create objective measures and observations.

Okay. Then let's take a trip to a restaurant and look at the examples of "this after that" in which this menu, is followed by a customer reading the menu, is followed by a customer pausing to think, is followed by the customer saying, "I will have the Chef Salad, please". You know, that deterministic event commonly known as "free will". A simple matter of "this after that".

There you go resorting to subjective reference systems. That is systems dreamed up in the evolved person which rose up in a determined world. No accounting for all the references found there. These glands squirting while those neurons are reacting to sense data derived from faulty receptors.

Eyup you sure can't see where stuff that evolved with this over that processes competing with other similarly evolved stuff would develop addled nervous systems to which each being reacted according to what memory and information it had on hand in it's subjective instance. I've never claimed that in a determined world a probabilistically evolved organism wouldn't become a shotgun of behavior operating on subjective information. It's just that whatever such subjective based result 'this' would generate a determined 'that'.

A subjective this can only generate a determined that. So what you call choice is actually many determined actions colliding to produce a subjective determined 'that' result. Every colliding instance is determined producing the subjective illusion of choice and will.

The point here is that at base evolved humans are aggregates which work in such away as to provide a subjective world within the objective determined world. Their choices are internally derived aggregate behaviors which are purely within the being. The only ones seeing choice are those subjectively generating the appearance of it.

Every choice can be reduced to complexes of objective determined activity. It's in the beauty of the methods developed from  Empiricism of  Francis Bacon that resulted in methodology isolating and developing measures of what is sensed that science evolved.

 

[DBT]

I'm going to just point out for you lot who think equivocate "can" an "shall" in deterministic systems: Urist shall never open the door. Urist cannot open the door. Yet the question "what happens if he does anyway?" Is still a question that has an absolute, singular answer.

Thus there is very clearly a set upon which a function of variance can be drawn.

For the door at the moment of attempt, this function is boolean.

Choice is not anything other than what it is merely because it is always resolved by deterministic mechanisms. Rather, that just means that choice requires process.. but the requirement of process for choice as @bilby is necessary to the result: You don't get a main battle tank without asking for one, unless you happen to live in Ukraine.

Not understanding determinism or its implications, you have nothing to point out.

Determinism, by definition (your own definition), means that all events proceed as determined: time t and the way things go ever after. Antecedents set the conditions in the current state of the system, which in turn determines all future states of the system. The future is just as fixed as the present and the past.

Choice is not resolved by 'deterministic mechanisms.' It was never there in the first place. Choice is not possible within a deterministic system because there are no alternatives, not in initial conditions, nor at any point in time after - ie - ''there is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

 

[Jarhyn]

The future is just as fixed as the present and the past.

... By the decisions of the present. You keep trying to drop the actual process of determination, which goes through a process we call choice in which many virtual futures get reduced to the one actual future that will be, and the reasons why that is.

Again, you burying your head in the sand and pretending that you can order a meal without knowing the options is ridiculous and we all see it as thus.

As it is, FDI treated "Subjective" like a neocon treats "Socialism": they clearly don't understand what it means but they also clearly know they don't like it.

Never mind that neither they nor you can parse why a computer is an object (hint: if I drop it on you it will probably hurt...).

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... A subjective this can only generate a determined that.

Of course. After all, our "subject" also happens to be one of the "objects" existing in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. That's how the subjective process of choosing results in objective activities, like cutting down trees (more objects) to build houses (yet another kind of object), that objectively modify our world (yet another object).

So what you call choice is actually many determined actions colliding to produce a subjective determined 'that' result. Every colliding instance is determined producing the subjective illusion of choice and will.

So this house, that another human object subjectively imagined and designed, and which other human objects used their subjective skills to construct, is that an "illusion"? Then, frankly, why should I care? The important thing is that it keeps me dry when it is raining outside.

The only problem here is how do we distinguish "illusion" from "reality"? Someone once said that "if everything is an illusion, then nothing is".

The point here is that at base evolved humans are aggregates which work in such away as to provide a subjective world within the objective determined world. Their choices are internally derived aggregate behaviors which are purely within the being. The only ones seeing choice are those subjectively generating the appearance of it.

Adding up a column of numbers is also an "internally derived aggregate behavior". So, is addition real or just an illusion? Would you say that "The only ones seeing addition are those subjectively generating the appearance of it".

Every choice can be reduced to complexes of objective determined activity. It's in the beauty of the methods developed from  Empiricism of  Francis Bacon that resulted in methodology isolating and developing measures of what is sensed that science evolved.

For that matter, isn't it also the case that "Their sciences are internally derived aggregate behaviors which are purely within the being. The only ones seeing science are those subjectively generating the appearance of it."?

 

[DBT]

Or the reason may be that this is unpalatable for compatibilists?

Nope. The conflation of "can" with "will" is a logical error that is unpalatable to the rational mind. Unfortunately, the rational mind is plagued by figurative thinking which routinely makes this kind of mistake: "If this is the only thing that I 'will' do, then it is AS IF it is the only thing that I 'can' do." But, like all figurative statements, it is literally false.

Determinism means that all events, including thoughts and actions, must necessarily proceed as determined. This is not a matter of choice, but the state and condition of the system.

Whatever has been determined to happen must happen, being determined to happen, it inevitably will happen.

The figure of speech creates an illusion of truth, where there actually is none.

Not according to the given terms and conditions of determinism, where whatever you do you must do. You do it without realizing that you must because the impulse or drive comes from within the unconscious processes of the brain.

The words we use are a reflection of our experience of the world, an experience built on incomplete knowledge of the system as it transitions from past state to current and future states, which as FDI points out, 'when this, then that.' ''All that is present is that will must take place following then. Can in determined, is will. They are identical.''

If "they are identical" were actually true, then determinism would be satisfied with "would not have done otherwise" rather than saying, "could not have done otherwise". But the hard determinist uses the figurative illusion to overstep, leaving the world of necessity trying to eliminate the world of possibilities. (Hmm. A "War of the Worlds"?).

Trivial semantics. Given the condition that all actions including thoughts are fixed by antecedents, 'would not' is equivalent to 'could not,' and makes no difference to outcome.

But it doesn't work, as I've demonstrated in the two examples. We end up with nonsense. For anyone just arriving, here is the first example:

Waiter (a hard determinist): "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer (hungry): "Gee, I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because we live in a deterministic universe, there is only one thing that you can order".
Customer: "Oh. That's disappointing. But, okay then, what is that one thing that I can order?".
Waiter: "I don't know."

The customer must (a) choose between a single possibility (which is itself impossible) and (b) do so without even knowing what that possibility is!

So, this is not something that is "unpalatable to compatibilists", but unpalatable to the rational mind.

How do you think determinism works? That anyone can do anything at any given moment in time? That, according to the given definition, is not how determinism works.

If the condition, 'no alternated actions are possible' is unpalatable to the rational mind, so is determinism because that is precisiely what determinism means.

Whatever happens must necessarily happen, therefore will happen.

Correct, as always.

Which excludes alternate actions and your customer from ordering or doing anything that was not determined to happen, if Salmon, then not steak, if Pizza, then not Lasagna.

'Could' and 'would' are expressions of uncertainty. Our uncertainty.

'Can' and 'could' are expressions of possibility and the notion of possibility evolved to deal with matters of uncertainty.
'Will' and 'would' are expressions of actuality, and only express uncertainty when used in a question.

There is no uncertainty in a deterministic system, that is, apart from minds that lack the necessary information, an uncertainty of perception and knowledge of the state of the system, an uncertainty of mind that is determined by the system as it evolves without deviation from prior to current and future states.

For example, "What will you have for dinner, sir?", expresses the waiter's uncertainty as to what the customer actually will have for dinner. But the customer's response, "What are my possibilities?", is asking for a list of the things that he "can" order. He is not asking the waiter what he "will" order.
The waiter's response that "there is only one thing that you can order" throws a monkey wrench into the choosing process, totally breaking the logic.

The players don't have the necessary information about the system, they perform their determined roles, if Salmon, then not steak, if Pizza, then not Lasagna, if Coffee, then not wine. A determined action at any given instance in time, no alternate actions possible.

Or are we talking about Libertarian Free Will?

 

[Jarhyn]

"Their sciences are internally derived aggregate behaviors which are purely within the being. The only ones seeing science are those subjectively generating the appearance of it."

And there, the circle completes. I don't think FDI really understands what subjectivity is at all.

To be fair, it's taken some time to parse out why all of the "confusing" things they try to say of choice are merely just "confused".

There are whole and consistent systems of description. These whole and consistent systems of description are what we use to quantify... Anything. The very idea of quantification rests soundly on first accepting that there is a system of math which contains no contradictions within itself that can describe "all things", the reality of which also contains no contradictions.

This is in fact the entire basis of Langland's Program.

I get that some folks like FDI and Steve get triggered when people say it, but science is a subset of math. And math is what philosophy is going to eventually reduce down to.

This concept of contradiction of course first assumed math.

So it is just putting the spike in your own tires as it were when you try to step away from the logical, and in fact mathematical, modes.

Of course as has been pointed out, if you dump "can" you literally dump all contingent logic, which breaks the ability to reason through anything. Not for everyone, either, mind, just for the idiot who breaks their "logic".

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Determinism means that all events, including thoughts and actions, must necessarily proceed as determined. This is not a matter of choice, but the state and condition of the system. Whatever has been determined to happen must happen, being determined to happen, it inevitably will happen.

And every time you decide to have dinner in a restaurant, the "state and condition of the system" will determine that you must make a choice from the menu. So, being determined to happen, your choosing inevitably will happen.

At some point I hope you will realize that determinism doesn't actually change anything.

Not according to the given terms and conditions of determinism, where whatever you do you must do.

That's what I just said. Choosing happens to be one of those things that you do, and you must do it. When you decide to eat at a restaurant, you will have no choice but to choose something from the menu of alternate possibilities.

You do it without realizing that you must because the impulse or drive comes from within the unconscious processes of the brain.

Actually, you will be conscious of the fact that you are in a restaurant, and you will be conscious of the menu, and you will be conscious of any reasoning that deterministically leads you to your choice. Unless you're a sleepwalker, the fact that the waiter places the dinner that you ordered on the table in front of you, will not come as a surprise.

Granted that there will be layers of unconscious processing that construct each conscious experience, all you will have to work with in any practical sense is those conscious experiences along the way, the thoughts and feelings that rose to awareness as choosing took place.

But keep in mind that those layers of unconscious processing were motivated and directed by a decision that you were fully conscious of, your choice to have dinner at a restaurant. That's why you are not surprised by the memory that you drove to the restaurant, walked in, picked up the menu, considered your options, decided what you will have for dinner, and conveyed your will to the waiter. "I will have the Chef Salad, please."

Oh, and there was no absence of the "sense of must". Your desire to eat out rather than cooking something yourself necessitated your going to the restaurant, which necessitated you confronting the menu, which necessitated you considering your options, which necessitated you decision to order the Chef Salad. If we were to ask you why you did any one of those things, you would be able to tell us the prior events that led you to that specific event.

All of your thoughts and actions were reliably caused by your prior thoughts and actions. Your behavior was fully deterministic.

Trivial semantics.

Semantics, the study of the meaning of our words and concepts, ain't trivial. It is the source of all meaning.

Given the condition that all actions including thoughts are fixed by antecedents, 'would not' is equivalent to 'could not,' and makes no difference to outcome.

I've shown many times now that the assumption that there is no difference between we "would" do and what we "could" do leads to nonsense, due to the destruction of meaning.

For example:

Waiter (a hard determinist): "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer (hungry): "Gee, I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because we live in a deterministic universe, there is only one thing that you can order".
Customer: "Oh. That's disappointing. But, okay then, what is that one thing that I can order?".
Waiter: "I don't know."

The customer must (a) choose between a single possibility (which is itself impossible) and (b) do so without even knowing what that possibility is!

The loss of the correct meaning of "can" by conflating it with "will" leads to nonsense.

How do you think determinism works?

Same as you. "Whatever happens must necessarily happen, therefore will happen. - DBT"

That anyone can do anything at any given moment in time?

Don't be silly. There are many things that we cannot do. But there are also many things that we can do. One of the things, that we definitely can do, is choose from a restaurant menu what we will order for dinner. And this is consistent with determinism, because it definitely does happen, therefore it necessarily must happen.

If the condition, 'no alternate actions are possible' is unpalatable to the rational mind, so is determinism because that is precisely what determinism means.

Alternate actions are possible. Determinism simply asserts that only one of those possibilities will actually happen. And that comports with our observation that, despite the many dinners on the restaurant menu, only one of them was ordered.

There is no uncertainty in a deterministic system, that is, apart from minds that lack the necessary information, an uncertainty of perception and knowledge of the state of the system, an uncertainty of mind that is determined by the system as it evolves without deviation from prior to current and future states.

I think what you just said is that there IS uncertainty within a deterministic system, and that uncertainty is found in our own human minds, which exist deterministically within a deterministic system. When there is uncertainty, it will, like choosing, be causally inevitable from any prior point in time.

Determinism doesn't actually change anything.

Or are we talking about Libertarian Free Will?

No. We're talking about what determinism does and does not logically imply. Libertarians, as I understand it, consider determinism to be false. But I defend rational determinism, which you've seen me do throughout this discussion. And I also defend the rational, operational definition of free will, which is simply a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence. Both concepts, when correctly understood, are compatible with each other.

 

[Jarhyn]

@Marvin Edwards I can't help but think DBT is the one sitting in the diner saying "BRING ME MY DINNER!"

And the waiter saying "I would if you'd just tell me what dinner it is that you want",

After which DBT says "There's only one possible inevitable dinner, so just bring it out to me, quit pushing that piece of paper with the markings on it I don't want it"

And then the waiter says "Hey Boris, could you bring the nice gentleman the only one possible inevitable dinner for hard determinists?"

And then Boris serves DBT the surface of the parking lot.

It was inevitable.

The inevitable result of not making choices is having choices made for you, or taken from you.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

@Marvin Edwards I can't help but think DBT is the one sitting in the diner saying "BRING ME MY DINNER!"

And the waiter saying "I would if you'd just tell me what dinner it is that you want",

After which DBT says "There's only one possible inevitable dinner, so just bring it out to me, quit pushing that piece of paper with the markings on it I don't want it"

And then the waiter says "Hey Boris, could you bring the nice gentleman the only one possible inevitable dinner for hard determinists?"

And then Boris serves DBT the surface of the parking lot.

It was inevitable.

The inevitable result of not making choices is having choices made for you, or taken from you.

I feel guilty about enjoying that. Generally, I prefer not to make things personal in these discussions. It is a sign of weakness to attack the person rather than the argument. I've been trying to say 'you' less often and 'we' more often.

 

[Jarhyn]

@Marvin Edwards I can't help but think DBT is the one sitting in the diner saying "BRING ME MY DINNER!"

And the waiter saying "I would if you'd just tell me what dinner it is that you want",

After which DBT says "There's only one possible inevitable dinner, so just bring it out to me, quit pushing that piece of paper with the markings on it I don't want it"

And then the waiter says "Hey Boris, could you bring the nice gentleman the only one possible inevitable dinner for hard determinists?"

And then Boris serves DBT the surface of the parking lot.

It was inevitable.

The inevitable result of not making choices is having choices made for you, or taken from you.

I feel guilty about enjoying that. Generally, I prefer not to make things personal in these discussions. It is a sign of weakness to attack the person rather than the argument. I've been trying to say 'you' less often and 'we' more often.

I feel a little guilty about writing it... It's just so GD stupid. Like, choice is obviously a process, and a deterministic one at that. It's a part of the system happening. The choice is the deterministic resolution of the menu to the selection, and the inevitability of the result of the system in isolation doesn't change that.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

@Marvin Edwards I can't help but think DBT is the one sitting in the diner saying "BRING ME MY DINNER!"

And the waiter saying "I would if you'd just tell me what dinner it is that you want",

After which DBT says "There's only one possible inevitable dinner, so just bring it out to me, quit pushing that piece of paper with the markings on it I don't want it"

And then the waiter says "Hey Boris, could you bring the nice gentleman the only one possible inevitable dinner for hard determinists?"

And then Boris serves DBT the surface of the parking lot.

It was inevitable.

The inevitable result of not making choices is having choices made for you, or taken from you.

I feel guilty about enjoying that. Generally, I prefer not to make things personal in these discussions. It is a sign of weakness to attack the person rather than the argument. I've been trying to say 'you' less often and 'we' more often.

I feel a little guilty about writing it... It's just so GD stupid. Like, choice is obviously a process, and a deterministic one at that. It's a part of the system happening. The choice is the deterministic resolution of the menu to the selection, and the inevitability of the result of the system in isolation doesn't change that.

Well, just keep in mind that GD stupidity is part of the human condition, and both you and I are also subject to it.

 

[Jarhyn]

@Marvin Edwards I can't help but think DBT is the one sitting in the diner saying "BRING ME MY DINNER!"

And the waiter saying "I would if you'd just tell me what dinner it is that you want",

After which DBT says "There's only one possible inevitable dinner, so just bring it out to me, quit pushing that piece of paper with the markings on it I don't want it"

And then the waiter says "Hey Boris, could you bring the nice gentleman the only one possible inevitable dinner for hard determinists?"

And then Boris serves DBT the surface of the parking lot.

It was inevitable.

The inevitable result of not making choices is having choices made for you, or taken from you.

I feel guilty about enjoying that. Generally, I prefer not to make things personal in these discussions. It is a sign of weakness to attack the person rather than the argument. I've been trying to say 'you' less often and 'we' more often.

I feel a little guilty about writing it... It's just so GD stupid. Like, choice is obviously a process, and a deterministic one at that. It's a part of the system happening. The choice is the deterministic resolution of the menu to the selection, and the inevitability of the result of the system in isolation doesn't change that.

Well, just keep in mind that GD stupidity is part of the human condition, and both you and I are also subject to it.

Indeed, and recognizing it is how I avoid getting mired down in it.

Still... While I know the mires of murky thought muck up some minds, it is a sad sorrow seeing it.

 

[Valjean]

Compatibilism asserts that free will remains a meaningful concept within a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. There is no conflict between the notion that my choice was causally necessary from any prior point in time (determinism) and the notion that it was me that actually did the choosing (free will).

The only way that determinism and free will become contradictory is by bad definitions. For example, if we define "determinism" as "the absence of free will", or, if we define "free will" as "the absence of determinism", then obviously they would be incompatible. So, let's not do that.

Determinism asserts that every event is the reliable result of prior events. It derives this from the notion of a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. Our choices, for example, are reliably caused by our choosing operation. The choosing operation is a deterministic event that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and, based on that evaluation, outputs a single choice. The choice is usually in the form of an "I will X", where X is the thing that we have decided we will do. Our chosen intent then motivates and directs our subsequent actions.

Free will is literally a freely chosen "I will". The only issue here is what that choice is expected to be "free" of. Operationally, free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do while "free of coercion and undue influence". The notion of "undue influence" includes things like a mental illness that distorts our view of reality with hallucinations or delusions, or impairs the ability of the brain to reason, or imposes an irresistible impulse. Undue influence would also include things like hypnosis, or the influence of those exercising some control over us, such as a parent/child, doctor/patient, commander/soldier. It can also include other forms of manipulation that are too subtle or too strong to resist. These are all influences that can be reasonably said to remove our control of our choices.

The operational definition of free will is used when assessing someone's moral or legal responsibility for their actions.

Note that free will is not "free from causal necessity". It is simply free from coercion and undue influence.

So, there is no contradiction between a choice being causally necessitated by past events, and the most meaningful and relevant of these past events being the person making the choice.

Therefore, determinism and free will are compatible notions.

 

[fromderinside]

... A subjective this can only generate a determined that.

Of course. After all, our "subject" also happens to be one of the "objects" existing in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect.

No. Subjective is internally referenced, self referenced, mental activity reflecting output from evolutionarily generated sense mechanisms which are derived from, but not equal to, objective operators. Such detect only shadows of external material data which you claim instead are perfect replicas of the external world.

If senses were perfect reporters we wouldn't be taking repeated measures of randomized quantitative inputs because that would be presuming corrections are needed for sensing probabilistic rather than definitive objective data.

 

[fromderinside]

Compatibilism asserts that free will remains a meaningful concept within a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. There is no conflict between the notion that my choice was causally necessary from any prior point in time (determinism) and the notion that it was me that actually did the choosing (free will).

ya da yada ya da .....

It doesn't help to repeat what another has said. The statement becomes no stronger. Rather such only lends credence to skeptics of said opine.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Subjective is internally referenced, self referenced, mental activity reflecting output from evolutionarily generated sense mechanisms which are derived from, but not equal to, objective operators. Such detect only shadows of external material data which you claim instead are perfect replicas of the external world.

There is no claim to any "perfect replica of the external world". The symbolic model of reality created by the brain provides "useful" information that helps us deal with our external (and internal) environment. For example, we can walk around a tree rather than walking into it.

If senses were perfect reporters we wouldn't be taking repeated measures of randomized quantitative inputs because that would be presuming corrections are needed for sensing probabilistic rather than definitive objective data.

Again, the test is whether the information from the model is useful. When it is accurate enough to be useful we call it "reality". When it is so inaccurate that it creates problems, then we call it "illusion".

Science attempts to improve the accuracy of the information. Science hopes that better accuracy will be more useful and create less problems.

 

[fromderinside]

Subjective is internally referenced, self referenced, mental activity reflecting output from evolutionarily generated sense mechanisms which are derived from, but not equal to, objective operators. Such detect only shadows of external material data which you claim instead are perfect replicas of the external world.

There is no claim to any "perfect replica of the external world". The symbolic model of reality created by the brain provides "useful" information that helps us deal with our external (and internal) environment. For example, we can walk around a tree rather than walking into it.

If senses were perfect reporters we wouldn't be taking repeated measures of randomized quantitative inputs because that would be presuming corrections are needed for sensing probabilistic rather than definitive objective data.

Again, the test is whether the information from the model is useful. When it is accurate enough to be useful we call it "reality". When it is so inaccurate that it creates problems, then we call it "illusion".

Science attempts to improve the accuracy of the information. Science hopes that better accuracy will be more useful and create less problems.

Long sentence coming.

Yet we muddled along for thousands of years believing in a God that reflected us, Judged good and bad based on propositional logic and we still elect leaders based on lies. because .... we choose to believe them.

Finally:

... its not useful as the criteria. Rather it's good enough to remain living.

... science doesn't attempt anything. Properly used science, based on determinism, can be used to provide information about material reality.

 

[Jarhyn]

Properly used science, based on determinism, can be used to provide information about material reality.

And properly used will generation and evaluation engines, based on determinism, can be used to  apply the information provided by science about material reality for whatever nonsensical reason happens to tickle your pickle.

I'd rather use what I learn of the sun outside the cave to learn how to replace the shitty shadow puppets with baudy puppets remove the chains, kick everyone out, and charge admission to let them back in rather than... Wanking off at the sun and getting eye cancer or whatever else you want to call abandoning agency.

 

[fromderinside]

Properly used science, based on determinism, can be used to provide information about material reality.

And properly used will generation and evaluation engines, based on determinism, can be used to  apply the information provided by science about material reality for whatever nonsensical reason happens to tickle your pickle.

Thanks for opening the door.

Properly applied

Re: Scientific method

...

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries). It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[

...

Your little modeling insert doesn't fit the definition.

 

[DBT]

@Marvin Edwards I can't help but think DBT is the one sitting in the diner saying "BRING ME MY DINNER!"

And the waiter saying "I would if you'd just tell me what dinner it is that you want",

After which DBT says "There's only one possible inevitable dinner, so just bring it out to me, quit pushing that piece of paper with the markings on it I don't want it"

And then the waiter says "Hey Boris, could you bring the nice gentleman the only one possible inevitable dinner for hard determinists?"

And then Boris serves DBT the surface of the parking lot.

It was inevitable.

The inevitable result of not making choices is having choices made for you, or taken from you.

So, JC, you still want it both ways, determinism and non-determinism, fixed and probabilistic, no alternatives and alternatives.....all the while failing to grasp the implications of determinism and that compatibilism is an argument related to the given definition of determinism, where all events are set by initial conditions and fixed by antecedents ever after, with no deviation, no alternate actions, no multiple possibilities or choice.

That choice requires the possibility of choosing any one of two or more options, yet determinism doesn't permit alternate options, only what is determined in any moment in time, no deviation, no alternative, no choice.

That is what determinism means.