Demystifying Determinism

[Kylie]

A

Let me ask Kylie a different question. If the future is set in stone, as it is in the completely static 4D model of Minkowski, why does that preclude us from having free will?

I'm not familiar with the "static 4D model of Minkowski".

But yes, I believe that if the future is set in stone, it does prevent us from having free will. As I have explained countless times now, true free will means that when we make a choice, we have several different options, each of which has a non-zero probability. Like such:

Option A: 12%
Option B 48%
Option C: 60%

If the future is set in stone, then one outcome is inevitable. This requires that it have a probability of 100%. So we'd see something more like this:

Option A: 0%
Option B: 100%
Option C: 0%

And, let me take the opportunity to say that the compatibilist model would result in this:

Option A: 12%
Option B 100%
Option C: 60%

Since a probability of more than 100% is nonsensical, this can't be true. For this reason, I reject the compatibilist idea.

Probability is just a way to handle limited knowledge of the future.

Imagine that some time in the near future, Elon Musk throws a big party to watch the Melbourne Cup at his new base on Mars.

Due to the distance from Earth, and the speed of light, his guests can place bets on the outcome after the actual race is over. That the result has already become known to people in Melbourne isn't important; It doesn't change the odds Elon's bookie offers, because as far as the people on Mars are concerned, the result is still a matter of probabilities.

The people on Mars can even decide that they're bored of horse racing, and can instead use their TV to watch someone at the racecourse bar choosing what to drink. They can watch him choose between beer and champagne, and not one of them can guess which he was going to choose - even though by the time they see him choosing, he has already finished his drink and gone home. The fact that the choice was made in the past matters not one iota; They nevertheless cannot assign 100% odds to one drink or another. Choosing still happens, even in the past, which we all (I assume) agree is completely unalterable. Odds and probabilities still make sense, and nothing can be shown to be inevitable, even though it's an event that has already taken place, and therefore cannot be changed in any way.

And so I see nonbinary probabilities as illusory, created by ignorance of the truth of which there is a binary reality of.

Probabilities are games played in the imagination with images. They are not real, and this recognition forms the jaws of the trap FDI (and Kylie) steps in, an intuitive but wrong interpretation that confuses the lack of partial real probabilities with a purely imagined lack of choice.

 Eventually, the potentials get reified. How they reify, from 0 <= p <= 1 as R(p) => 0 | 1, describes "freedom"

Geez, you sound like Deeprak Chopra here...

 

[Jarhyn]

in a deterministic universe, free will and free choice can not exist

Not so.

FOR a deterministic universe, free will and free choice cannot exist. But IN a deterministic universe, entities with incomplete knowledge can still exhibit free will and make free choices. Indeed, they couldn't possibly not do so.

The parts do not have the same constraints as the whole; The universe can be completely static in four dimensions, but people living in it can nevertheless not remember the future.

No, in a deterministic universe, entities with incomplete knowledge INCORRECTLY ASSUME they exhibit free will and make free choices. But they do not.

The illusion of free will is not the same thing as actual free will.

Sure it is. It's not really an illusion though. Just a perspective from which the future cannot be seen.

Which is the perspective we all have. I assume.

The fact that a god's eye view sees things differently is only relevant to these of us who are gods, ie nobody.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.

The evidence I have is that I cannot remember the future, only the past.

I presume that's true of others too. But you are right that I don't have a lot of evidence for that.

Other than the surprisingly small number of lottery winners each week.

And, pray tell, how does your inability to remember the future mean it is set in stone?

Where on Earth did I suggest that it did?

It's evidence that we have the ability to make choices, even IF the future is "set in stone".

As I have said a few times now, I don't believe that we live in a deterministic universe, AND I don't think that whether we do or not is in any way relevant to whether or not we make choices.

Where did you suggest that? When you said, "The evidence I have is that I cannot remember the future, only the past."

It doesn't count as evidence for a particular hypothesis if it is consistent with a different hypothesis as well.

And, once again, if the future is set in stone, we can have no free choice.

The future is set in the present, in meat and circuits and many other things which change and through their mechanisms cause decision of options to a reification of the future through the present.

WTF?

This goes one way, is figuratively inflexible, but it is only this way figuratively, in that the system while "inflexible to becoming something different than it will" is not so "inflexible against the concept of an uncertainty over the future and ability to squish around some meat in a way that projects various ideas of what the future could be".

Its inflexibility, it's stoneyness, is figurative. And as @Marvin Edwards points out, all figurative language is literally false.

Yeah, I can't make any sense out of this. It's technobabble.

It went over your head. If you're going to call things technobabble, consider that others instead of accepting this interpretation may just consider your failure to understand it as an illiteracy.

It is inflexible ONLY in one sense, and that sense in which it is inflexible in fact inflexibly demands that flexes will happen around certain information, and that they will flex in a particular way. It is inflexible as to the fact of it's it's unavoidable tendency to flex in exact ways as a result of exact events may not be changed.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

My understanding is that determinism can be metaphorically described as "all events are set in stone". Therefore, choosing is set in stone, just like every other event. We cannot say that "choosing does not happen due to being set in stone". Quite the opposite. Choosing MUST happen if it is set in stone. We confirm this fact by noting people making choices, such as in the restaurant.

No. It's the ILLUSION of choice. The outcome was fixed long before the person was born.

Well, here we are, watching the other people in the restaurant browse the menu and then place their order. Are we having an illusion?

If the outcome was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity, what difference would it make? The customers are still reading the menu and placing their orders. Where is the illusion?

Assertions, even when endlessly repeated, do not make facts.

That's why I brought you to the restaurant, so you could see for yourself.

You are asserting that two contradictory statements agree with each other.

Each customer in the restaurant is choosing for themselves what they will order, according to their own tastes and dietary goals.
1. Because the choice is their own, it is free will.
2. Because the choice is reliably caused, it is deterministic.
Can you prove that either of these claims is false?
If both are true, then they cannot be contradictory.

I have explained many times how they do not.

You are asserting that two compatible statements are contradictory, when they clearly are not. The only explanation you've offered so far is the probability argument, which I have answered.

All you have is trying to show that we have the ILLUSION of choice, and then trying to trick us into thinking that this illusion is real.

No. I've pointed out actual choosing actually happening in physical reality. This leads me to conclude that the notion that choosing is an "illusion" is a delusion.

When we open the menu there will be multiple items that have a non-zero probability of being chosen.

If it is set in stone that the chicken will be ordered, then how on earth does the steak have a non-zero probability?

When we do not know what a person WILL choose, we estimate the probability of each thing that they CAN choose. With zero knowledge, our estimated probability will be equal for every item on the menu (1/n). If we had some knowledge, like the restaurant's sales history for each item, we could compute probabilities from that. If we had the additional knowledge of that customer's personal dinner history we could refine and improve our probability estimates.

That is how probability works. The more relevant information we have, the better our estimates. With perfect knowledge we can approach 100%. But the most perfect knowledge is in the guy's own head, not ours.

The chicken, after all, has a 100% chance of being the outcome.

Before we know the outcome, the chicken has the same chance as every other item on the menu.

You can choose anything, but you won't.

Exactly! Determinism only fixes what you will do, never what you can do.

You will only choose one thing, and nothing else, but all of the other things could still be chosen

All of the other items on the menu "could have" been chosen instead of the chicken. But the chicken was the only thing that "would have" been chosen for dinner that night.

, even though it's impossible for you to do anything other than what is set in stone.

It was NEVER impossible to choose anything else on the menu. It was simply that we never would choose anything else.

Now, your brain is going to figuratively insist that if nothing else WOULD happen, then it is AS IF nothing else COULD happen. And it is that kind conflation of "can" with "will" that creates the paradox between the Waiter and the Customer, where the customer must somehow choose between a single possibility, while that possibility is as yet unnamed.

You are locked into that one single course of action, but you can still do anything you want. But you won't.

What you've overlooked is that my "want" will also be set in stone, such that determinism will never compel me to do anything that I do not already want to do. I will actually do what I want, and since I want to order the chicken, I will.

The only thing that I am "locked into" is doing exactly what I wanted to do. Thus, determinism poses no threat to free will.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Without reliable cause and effect we can never reliably cause any effect, and would have no freedom to do anything at all. Reliable causation ENABLES every freedom we have. So, "freedom from cause and effect" is not a freedom that anyone actually wants or needs.

You just tried to convince me that EVERYTHING requires reliable causation.

Yes. I find it easier to dispense with determinism by assuming a world of perfectly reliable causation. Determinism becomes irrelevant by its own ubiquity.

So you are actually saying here that the only freedom eliminated is the one that underlies EVERYTHING.

I believe I clearly said that reliable causation enables every freedom we have, so trying to be free of causation would separate us from all freedoms.

With reliable cause and effect we get all our other freedoms. Freedom to brush our teeth, freedom to walk to the kitchen, freedom to choose for ourselves what we will have for breakfast, freedom to turn left or right at the intersection, the whole kit and caboodle.

Please tell me WHY brushing my teeth can only happen in a completely deterministic universe.

Getting toothpaste on the brush requires reliably squeezing the tube while also reliably holding the brush in place. Shall I go on?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Option A: 12%
Option B 48%
Option C: 40%

These probabilities, which are always computed while the outcome is still unknown, would be identical in all three models.

After the outcome is known to be Option B, all three of the probabilities would be identical to

Option A: 0%
Option B: 100%
Option C: 0%

The only difference between the first set and the second set is certain knowledge of the outcome.

If the universe is completely deterministic, then the outcomes were Option A: 0% Option B: 100% Option C: 0% at the moment of the Big Bang.

Love sorting out these riddles (not!). The notion of probabilities is outside the context of determinism. Determinism can tell us what WILL happen, but it will never offer us estimates of probability. So, I'm going to say the problem you've stated is a false problem. In the same fashion that determinism can make no logical assertions regarding possibilities, it can make no logical assertions regarding probabilities.

So, the claim that "If the universe is completely deterministic, then the outcomes were Option A: 0% Option B: 100% Option C: 0% at the moment of the Big Bang", is answered by "No, they were not".

 

[pood]

Option A: 12%
Option B 48%
Option C: 40%

These probabilities, which are always computed while the outcome is still unknown, would be identical in all three models.

After the outcome is known to be Option B, all three of the probabilities would be identical to

Option A: 0%
Option B: 100%
Option C: 0%

The only difference between the first set and the second set is certain knowledge of the outcome.

This is correct, as I pointed out earlier. Kyl;ie can’t legitimately use these probability estimates.

 

[Kylie]

in a deterministic universe, free will and free choice can not exist

Not so.

FOR a deterministic universe, free will and free choice cannot exist. But IN a deterministic universe, entities with incomplete knowledge can still exhibit free will and make free choices. Indeed, they couldn't possibly not do so.

The parts do not have the same constraints as the whole; The universe can be completely static in four dimensions, but people living in it can nevertheless not remember the future.

No, in a deterministic universe, entities with incomplete knowledge INCORRECTLY ASSUME they exhibit free will and make free choices. But they do not.

The illusion of free will is not the same thing as actual free will.

Sure it is. It's not really an illusion though. Just a perspective from which the future cannot be seen.

Which is the perspective we all have. I assume.

The fact that a god's eye view sees things differently is only relevant to these of us who are gods, ie nobody.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.

The evidence I have is that I cannot remember the future, only the past.

I presume that's true of others too. But you are right that I don't have a lot of evidence for that.

Other than the surprisingly small number of lottery winners each week.

And, pray tell, how does your inability to remember the future mean it is set in stone?

Where on Earth did I suggest that it did?

It's evidence that we have the ability to make choices, even IF the future is "set in stone".

As I have said a few times now, I don't believe that we live in a deterministic universe, AND I don't think that whether we do or not is in any way relevant to whether or not we make choices.

Where did you suggest that? When you said, "The evidence I have is that I cannot remember the future, only the past."

It doesn't count as evidence for a particular hypothesis if it is consistent with a different hypothesis as well.

And, once again, if the future is set in stone, we can have no free choice.

The future is set in the present, in meat and circuits and many other things which change and through their mechanisms cause decision of options to a reification of the future through the present.

WTF?

This goes one way, is figuratively inflexible, but it is only this way figuratively, in that the system while "inflexible to becoming something different than it will" is not so "inflexible against the concept of an uncertainty over the future and ability to squish around some meat in a way that projects various ideas of what the future could be".

Its inflexibility, it's stoneyness, is figurative. And as @Marvin Edwards points out, all figurative language is literally false.

Yeah, I can't make any sense out of this. It's technobabble.

It went over your head. If you're going to call things technobabble, consider that others instead of accepting this interpretation may just consider your failure to understand it as an illiteracy.

It is inflexible ONLY in one sense, and that sense in which it is inflexible in fact inflexibly demands that flexes will happen around certain information, and that they will flex in a particular way. It is inflexible as to the fact of it's it's unavoidable tendency to flex in exact ways as a result of exact events may not be changed.

You're talking about a concept flexing around information. If you're talking about something real, you don't seem to be able to explain it very clearly.

And I'm not convinced by your, "If you can't understand it, consider that you're not smart enough to understand it" claim either.

 

[Kylie]

My understanding is that determinism can be metaphorically described as "all events are set in stone". Therefore, choosing is set in stone, just like every other event. We cannot say that "choosing does not happen due to being set in stone". Quite the opposite. Choosing MUST happen if it is set in stone. We confirm this fact by noting people making choices, such as in the restaurant.

No. It's the ILLUSION of choice. The outcome was fixed long before the person was born.

Well, here we are, watching the other people in the restaurant browse the menu and then place their order. Are we having an illusion?

If the outcome was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity, what difference would it make? The customers are still reading the menu and placing their orders. Where is the illusion?

Have you just been ignoring me completely?

The illusion is that the people think they are making choices when they are not.

I have stated this countless times.

Assertions, even when endlessly repeated, do not make facts.

That's why I brought you to the restaurant, so you could see for yourself.

Well you've done a poor job of it, coz you ain't shown me squat. I have used your silly man-placing-order-at-restaurant analogy to show you how your position doesn't work every time.

You are asserting that two contradictory statements agree with each other.

Each customer in the restaurant is choosing for themselves what they will order, according to their own tastes and dietary goals.
1. Because the choice is their own, it is free will.
2. Because the choice is reliably caused, it is deterministic.
Can you prove that either of these claims is false?
If both are true, then they cannot be contradictory.

It's not a choice at all! How many times do I need to say this before you actually see it?

A choice requires multiple options with non-zero probability. If one particular outcome is inevitable, then one outcome has 100% probability and all others have 0% probability.​

If you don't grasp it this time, I'll see about making a flashing animated gif for you so you can spot it easier.

What you are saying is a similar argument to saying something can be both a square and a circle.

1. Because each point on the perimeter is the same distance from Point A, the shape is a circle.
2. Because the shape has four equal sides that meet at right-angles, it is a square.

That's about the level of the argument you are using.

I have explained many times how they do not.

You are asserting that two compatible statements are contradictory, when they clearly are not. The only explanation you've offered so far is the probability argument, which I have answered.

Your answer was just more assertions.

All you have is trying to show that we have the ILLUSION of choice, and then trying to trick us into thinking that this illusion is real.

No. I've pointed out actual choosing actually happening in physical reality. This leads me to conclude that the notion that choosing is an "illusion" is a delusion.

When we open the menu there will be multiple items that have a non-zero probability of being chosen.

Then the outcome is not inevitable and can't be the result of purely deterministic forces. Otherwise some being with perfect knowledge about the state of the universe at a point BEFORE the order was placed could perform the required calculations and determine what would be ordered, thus eliminating all but one of the outcomes.

If it is set in stone that the chicken will be ordered, then how on earth does the steak have a non-zero probability?

When we do not know what a person WILL choose, we estimate the probability of each thing that they CAN choose. With zero knowledge, our estimated probability will be equal for every item on the menu (1/n). If we had some knowledge, like the restaurant's sales history for each item, we could compute probabilities from that. If we had the additional knowledge of that customer's personal dinner history we could refine and improve our probability estimates.

That is how probability works. The more relevant information we have, the better our estimates. With perfect knowledge we can approach 100%. But the most perfect knowledge is in the guy's own head, not ours.

And you seem incapable of seeing that a deterministic universe is completely predictable in theory.

Again, you have to resort back to your old argument that is nothing more than, "Since we can't see how it's just an illusion of choice, it really isn't an illusion and therefore it's real." Your argument relies on the imperfect knowledge of Humans, ignoring the fact that in a deterministic universe such knowledge is there to find, we simply lack the capability of doing so.

The chicken, after all, has a 100% chance of being the outcome.

Before we know the outcome, the chicken has the same chance as every other item on the menu.

No it doesn't. We merely think it does. Again, the choice is an illusion, not real.

You can choose anything, but you won't.

Exactly! Determinism only fixes what you will do, never what you can do.

If what we WILL do is set in stone, then everything else has a probability of zero. And if it has a probability of zero, then it is NOT something we can do.

You will only choose one thing, and nothing else, but all of the other things could still be chosen

All of the other items on the menu "could have" been chosen instead of the chicken. But the chicken was the only thing that "would have" been chosen for dinner that night.

No they couldn't. Because the chicken had a 100% chance. It ALWAYS had a 100% chance.

, even though it's impossible for you to do anything other than what is set in stone.

It was NEVER impossible to choose anything else on the menu. It was simply that we never would choose anything else.

If we would never choose something else, then all those "something elses" had a probability of 0%. So yes, it was always impossible to "choose" them.

Now, your brain is going to figuratively insist that if nothing else WOULD happen, then it is AS IF nothing else COULD happen. And it is that kind conflation of "can" with "will" that creates the paradox between the Waiter and the Customer, where the customer must somehow choose between a single possibility, while that possibility is as yet unnamed.

Again you insist on wordplay.

You are locked into that one single course of action, but you can still do anything you want. But you won't.

What you've overlooked is that my "want" will also be set in stone, such that determinism will never compel me to do anything that I do not already want to do. I will actually do what I want, and since I want to order the chicken, I will.

The only thing that I am "locked into" is doing exactly what I wanted to do. Thus, determinism poses no threat to free will.

So you will inevitably do one thing, and you will inevitably believe that you want that thing. Doesn't change the fact that you couldn't have done any differently. The thing you will inevitably do has a probability of 100% precisely because it's inevitable. Therefore, all other options you think are possible really have a probability of 0% and are actually IMpossible.

 

[Kylie]

Without reliable cause and effect we can never reliably cause any effect, and would have no freedom to do anything at all. Reliable causation ENABLES every freedom we have. So, "freedom from cause and effect" is not a freedom that anyone actually wants or needs.

You just tried to convince me that EVERYTHING requires reliable causation.

Yes. I find it easier to dispense with determinism by assuming a world of perfectly reliable causation. Determinism becomes irrelevant by its own ubiquity.

Determinism isn't required in a purely deterministic universe, because everything's determined.

Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

So you are actually saying here that the only freedom eliminated is the one that underlies EVERYTHING.

I believe I clearly said that reliable causation enables every freedom we have, so trying to be free of causation would separate us from all freedoms.

Nonsense.

Reliable causation would mean that there is only one path the sequence of events in the universe can take, and it will take that path with as much certainty as watching a movie you've seen many times. The characters can't choose to do any different, and neither can we. We would not be free to do ANYTHING.

Please tell me WHY brushing my teeth can only happen in a completely deterministic universe.

Getting toothpaste on the brush requires reliably squeezing the tube while also reliably holding the brush in place. Shall I go on?

I'm sorry. Do you think I'm arguing that NOTHING is deterministic? Why do you think I hold an "ALL-OR-NOTHING" position? I do not. I know there are some things that have a reliable cause-and-effect. My argument is that not everything does. When I decide what to eat for dinner, that is not something that can be described in mathematical terms like the cause-and-effect the moon has on the tides.

Geez, why do you need to invent ridiculous positions to argue against?

 

[Kylie]

Love sorting out these riddles (not!). The notion of probabilities is outside the context of determinism. Determinism can tell us what WILL happen, but it will never offer us estimates of probability. So, I'm going to say the problem you've stated is a false problem. In the same fashion that determinism can make no logical assertions regarding possibilities, it can make no logical assertions regarding probabilities.

So, the claim that "If the universe is completely deterministic, then the outcomes were Option A: 0% Option B: 100% Option C: 0% at the moment of the Big Bang", is answered by "No, they were not".

Wow. Now you're arguing that we have to ignore an entire field of mathematics in order for you to prove your point.

If your position contradicts mathematics, that's your problem, not mine. You can pretend that we can ignore maths if that's what it takes to convince you, but don't ask me to accept it unless you can offer a helluvalot more than you've provided so far.

 

[Kylie]

Option A: 12%
Option B 48%
Option C: 40%

These probabilities, which are always computed while the outcome is still unknown, would be identical in all three models.

After the outcome is known to be Option B, all three of the probabilities would be identical to

Option A: 0%
Option B: 100%
Option C: 0%

The only difference between the first set and the second set is certain knowledge of the outcome.

This is correct, as I pointed out earlier. Kyl;ie can’t legitimately use these probability estimates.

Again, you are using the old, "If we Humans can't know it, it isn't there" argument.

An omniscient being with perfect knowledge of the universe would be able to figure it out, so the claim that each option must have a non-zero probability before the "choice" was made is wrong.

 

[pood]

Option A: 12%
Option B 48%
Option C: 40%

These probabilities, which are always computed while the outcome is still unknown, would be identical in all three models.

After the outcome is known to be Option B, all three of the probabilities would be identical to

Option A: 0%
Option B: 100%
Option C: 0%

The only difference between the first set and the second set is certain knowledge of the outcome.

This is correct, as I pointed out earlier. Kyl;ie can’t legitimately use these probability estimates.

Again, you are using the old, "If we Humans can't know it, it isn't there" argument.

An omniscient being with perfect knowledge of the universe would be able to figure it out, so the claim that each option must have a non-zero probability before the "choice" was made is wrong.

But I’ve already addressed this. Did you read my post on omniscient prediction?

I showed that if an omniscient predictor existed who knew infallibly everything you would ever do, that still would not mean that you HAVE TO DO those things. This has been demonstrated as a matter of logic.

Given that so far as we know, there are no omniscient predictors, we are left with humans and fallible knowledge. Probability is a measure of our ignorance. The only 100 percent probabilities are posterior (after the fact). Marvin has given you the correct probabity estimates no matter what metaphysics you subscribe to.

 

[pood]

Moreover —and this is important — the posterior probability of unity for some event only tells that this event happened, not that it NECESSARILY happened. Your argument to inevitability is an argument to modal necessity. As I have explained, this is a modal fallacy, a formal fallacy of logic.

 

[bilby]

in a deterministic universe, free will and free choice can not exist

Not so.

FOR a deterministic universe, free will and free choice cannot exist. But IN a deterministic universe, entities with incomplete knowledge can still exhibit free will and make free choices. Indeed, they couldn't possibly not do so.

The parts do not have the same constraints as the whole; The universe can be completely static in four dimensions, but people living in it can nevertheless not remember the future.

No, in a deterministic universe, entities with incomplete knowledge INCORRECTLY ASSUME they exhibit free will and make free choices. But they do not.

The illusion of free will is not the same thing as actual free will.

Sure it is. It's not really an illusion though. Just a perspective from which the future cannot be seen.

Which is the perspective we all have. I assume.

The fact that a god's eye view sees things differently is only relevant to these of us who are gods, ie nobody.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.

The evidence I have is that I cannot remember the future, only the past.

I presume that's true of others too. But you are right that I don't have a lot of evidence for that.

Other than the surprisingly small number of lottery winners each week.

And, pray tell, how does your inability to remember the future mean it is set in stone?

Where on Earth did I suggest that it did?

It's evidence that we have the ability to make choices, even IF the future is "set in stone".

As I have said a few times now, I don't believe that we live in a deterministic universe, AND I don't think that whether we do or not is in any way relevant to whether or not we make choices.

Where did you suggest that? When you said, "The evidence I have is that I cannot remember the future, only the past."

You appear to be confused. I have never at any point offered any arguments or evidence for a future set in stone; It's an assumption for the sake of discussion, and I have made it very clear that it's not relevant to the question of whether or not there is free choice - and it is in fact that lack of relevance that I am demonstrating with the evidence you are bizarrely assigning to a position I do not hold.

It doesn't count as evidence for a particular hypothesis if it is consistent with a different hypothesis as well.

And, once again, if the future is set in stone, we can have no free choice.

Of course we can; Because we don't know what that 'set in stone' future contains. For all we know, it contains a metric fuckton of free choices.

Just like the similarly immutable past did.

 

[bilby]

Let me ask Kylie a different question. If the future is set in stone, as it is in the completely static 4D model of Minkowski, why does that preclude us from having free will?

I'm not familiar with the "static 4D model of Minkowski".

But yes, I believe that if the future is set in stone, it does prevent us from having free will. As I have explained countless times now, true free will means that when we make a choice, we have several different options, each of which has a non-zero probability. Like such:

Option A: 12%
Option B 48%
Option C: 60%

If the future is set in stone, then one outcome is inevitable. This requires that it have a probability of 100%. So we'd see something more like this:

Option A: 0%
Option B: 100%
Option C: 0%

And, let me take the opportunity to say that the compatibilist model would result in this:

Option A: 12%
Option B 100%
Option C: 60%

Since a probability of more than 100% is nonsensical, this can't be true. For this reason, I reject the compatibilist idea.

Probability is just a way to handle limited knowledge of the future.

However, in a completely deterministic universe, it is theoretically possible to have ALL knowledge of the future. So let's not just look at this from a limited Human's point of view, because that isn't an accurate view of the reality you are proposing. Let's look at it from some omniscient being's point of view.

Imagine that some time in the near future, Elon Musk throws a big party to watch the Melbourne Cup at his new base on Mars.

Due to the distance from Earth, and the speed of light, his guests can place bets on the outcome after the actual race is over. That the result has already become known to people in Melbourne isn't important; It doesn't change the odds Elon's bookie offers, because as far as the people on Mars are concerned, the result is still a matter of probabilities.

The people on Mars can even decide that they're bored of horse racing, and can instead use their TV to watch someone at the racecourse bar choosing what to drink. They can watch him choose between beer and champagne, and not one of them can guess which he was going to choose - even though by the time they see him choosing, he has already finished his drink and gone home. The fact that the choice was made in the past matters not one iota; They nevertheless cannot assign 100% odds to one drink or another. Choosing still happens, even in the past, which we all (I assume) agree is completely unalterable. Odds and probabilities still make sense, and nothing can be shown to be inevitable, even though it's an event that has already taken place, and therefore cannot be changed in any way.

Interesting analogy, but it is still limited to a Human point of view, the limitations of which can be eliminated, as I've shown. That omniscient being, being fully aware of some past state of the universe in exact detail can calculate the state of the universe at any point in the future. After all, you claim it's a purely deterministic universe, so it's simply a matter of running the needed calculations and figuring out the answer. So he could be at Musk's party on Mars and know the answer. He would even know the answer before he left for mars. He'd know the result of the race even before the Earth was formed! So your analogy doesn't exactly work.

Then why aren't we surrounded by lottery billionaires?

 

[bilby]

Again, you are using the old, "If we Humans can't know it, it isn't there" argument.

No, it's a "If we humans can't know, it can't matter to us" argument.

An omniscient being with perfect knowledge of the universe would be able to figure it out, so the claim that each option must have a non-zero probability before the "choice" was made is wrong.

Only if such a being exists.

None do.

The claim that we should place the opinions of imaginary beings above our own experiences is not only wrong, but bizarre.

 

[Jarhyn]

A choice requires multiple options with non-zero probability

No, it doesn't. A choice requires multiple options. Period. The end.

"Probabilities", being imaginary, are not required for any thing.

All that is required for "choice" is "one or more things go in, a subset of one of those things pops out."

 

[Jarhyn]

You're talking about a concept flexing around information.

No, I'm talking about a part of a system flexing around another part of a system as a part of the overall function. That the system does this with no variation, figuratively inflexibly, does not invalidate the literal flexibility of it's parts.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Well, here we are, watching the other people in the restaurant browse the menu and then place their order. Are we having an illusion?

The illusion is that the people think they are making choices when they are not.

But we're not them. We're watching them as they browse the menu and then place their order. They are performing a logical operation called "choosing". Choosing inputs multiple options, such as those listed on the restaurant menu, then applies some criteria for comparing those options, and then selects a single dinner order that they then communicate to the waiter. The waiter takes their order to the kitchen and comes back with their chosen dinner and the bill.

It cannot be denied that choosing is actually happening, right there in front of us, and we are not having any illusions.

You are asserting that two contradictory statements agree with each other.

Each customer in the restaurant is choosing for themselves what they will order, according to their own tastes and dietary goals.
1. Because the choice is their own, it is free will.
2. Because the choice is reliably caused, it is deterministic.
Can you prove that either of these claims is false?
If both are true, then they cannot be contradictory.

It's not a choice at all! How many times do I need to say this before you actually see it?

How many times do I need to drag you to this restaurant before you actually see it?

A choice requires multiple options with non-zero probability. If one particular outcome is inevitable, then one outcome has 100% probability and all others have 0% probability.

There are 50 dinners on the menu. When they open the menu, each dinner has a 2% probability of being chosen. None of the options will have 0% or 100%. They all start out at 2%. Now, if we learn that certain customers have food allergies and others are vegan, then we can adjust our probabilities to 0% for certain meals. But without that knowledge every option has a probability of 2%.

Then the outcome is not inevitable and can't be the result of purely deterministic forces. Otherwise some being with perfect knowledge about the state of the universe at a point BEFORE the order was placed could perform the required calculations and determine what would be ordered, thus eliminating all but one of the outcomes.

Well, an omniscient being, such as God, or Laplace's Daemon, or the guy's wife, could theoretically tell us what he would inevitably order for dinner. And after they tell us, we can adjust that option's probability to 100%. But they won't tell us.

They won't even tell our customer. So, until he starts considering the different items listed, and adjusting the probabilities himself, until he finds the perfect dinner for tonight, he won't know either. After choosing his dinner, he and we and the waiter will all know which option had the 100% probability. But not before that.

And our knowledge will come from the choosing, not from a prediction (not unless his wife whispers it to us in advance).

As you can see, the choosing had to happen in order to know which dinner was inevitable.

And you seem incapable of seeing that a deterministic universe is completely predictable in theory.

If the customer could simply predict his choice then he wouldn't have bothered going through the process of choosing. But he could not predict his choice. So, his only way of knowing what his choice would be was by considering the different items on the menu in terms of his personal tastes and dietary goals, and selecting the option that seemed best at the time.

His choosing had to happen or he would have no dinner at all. It was unavoidable.

You are locked into that one single course of action, but you can still do anything you want. But you won't.

What you've overlooked is that my "want" will also be set in stone, such that determinism will never compel me to do anything that I do not already want to do. I will actually do what I want, and since I want to order the chicken, I will.

The only thing that I am "locked into" is doing exactly what I wanted to do. Thus, determinism poses no threat to free will.

So you will inevitably do one thing, and you will inevitably believe that you want that thing. Doesn't change the fact that you couldn't have done any differently. The thing you will inevitably do has a probability of 100% precisely because it's inevitable. Therefore, all other options you think are possible really have a probability of 0% and are actually IMpossible.

The thing about a possibility is that it remains a possibility even if it never happens. If it is inevitable that I will choose the chicken, then I will choose the chicken, even though I could have chosen the steak. Please note that "I chose the chicken, even though I could have chosen the steak" is a true statement in both its parts.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Without reliable cause and effect we can never reliably cause any effect, and would have no freedom to do anything at all. Reliable causation ENABLES every freedom we have. So, "freedom from cause and effect" is not a freedom that anyone actually wants or needs.

You just tried to convince me that EVERYTHING requires reliable causation.

Yes. I find it easier to dispense with determinism by assuming a world of perfectly reliable causation. Determinism becomes irrelevant by its own ubiquity.

Determinism isn't required in a purely deterministic universe, because everything's determined.

No, determinism is definitely required. But there is never any reason to bring it up, because reliable cause and effect is simply taken for granted. It is like a constant that appears on both sides of every equation and can be subtracted from both sides without affecting the result.

The intelligent mind simply acknowledges it and then forgets about it. It only tells us one thing, that everything that happens is causally necessary from any prior point in eternity. Yeah, but so what? How does this change anything? It doesn't.

It cannot help us to make any decision, because it only can tell us that, whatever we decide will have been inevitable. We can't even use that to decide between the chicken and the steak, because it never tells us what that inevitable choice will be. We still have to make that choice for ourselves based upon more useful information, like, what did we have for lunch earlier?

Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

Thank you!

Reliable causation would mean that there is only one path the sequence of events in the universe can take, and it will take that path with as much certainty as watching a movie you've seen many times.

Well if you've already seen a movie of your future ... but wait, that never really happens does it.

The movie of our future is "produced and directed" by our imagination. The only limit to our possibilities are the ability to imagine them and the ability to carry them through.

The characters can't choose to do any different, and neither can we. We would not be free to do ANYTHING.

Choosing will inevitably happen, just exactly as it does happen. And if the people in the restaurant can do it, then so can you.

When I decide what to eat for dinner, that is not something that can be described in mathematical terms like the cause-and-effect the moon has on the tides.

No math required. You will simply have your own reasons why you chose what you chose for dinner. Thoughts and feelings are causes.

Oh, and one important thing to keep in mind: Within the domain of human influence, the single inevitable future will be chosen, by us, from among the many possible futures that we will imagine.