Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Marvin Edwards]

There, in the restaurant, choosing must be done. Choosing cannot be avoided. There is no deviation that can get you around the choosing. There is no alternative to choosing. Choosing happens because it must happen, specifically at that place and at that time.

There is no choosing at work in the restaurant or anywhere within a determined system. There is the surface appearance of people selecting their preferences from a list of alternatives.

There is also the surface appearance of people walking in, sitting at the table, opening the menu, and telling the waiter what they chose. Calling these "the surface appearance" of events does not suggest to us that they did not actually happen.

Alternatives exist for the group at large, each option designed to appeal to someone's taste, one orders this, the other orders that....yet in the instance of ordering their meal, no other option is possible, what is ordered in that instance must be ordered and there are no alternatives. It is the illusion of choice

Well, if we're taking a vote on the single thing that we will all have for dinner, then it might make sense to say that "alternatives exist for the group at large". But that is not the case. The menu of alternate possibilities are available for each customer to choose from, and neither the menu nor the choosing is an illusion.

That is how determinism works in each and every instance in time, this then that, x, y, z, no deviation.

Yep. We walk in, we open the menu, we choose what we will order, and we tell the waiter. The waiter brings us our dinner and the bill. As you say, "x, y, z, no deviation".

It's entailment, there are no alternatives in any given action, therefore no choosing. Actions are entailed, necessitated, fixed.

The choosing, just like the walking in, the sitting down, and reading the menu, was "entailed, necessitated, fixed". There is no getting around the choosing. There is the menu, and we have no choice but to choose. Thus saith determinism.

 

[DBT]

There, in the restaurant, choosing must be done. Choosing cannot be avoided. There is no deviation that can get you around the choosing. There is no alternative to choosing. Choosing happens because it must happen, specifically at that place and at that time.

Determinism is essentially a process of necessitation. Events evolve as determined, they not chosen.

To choose implies the possibility of doing any number of things. Determinism does not permit any number of things to happen, only one thing can happen.

With no possible alternative (events fixed by antecedents), there is no choice, actions evolve or unfold as they must.

There is no choosing at work in the restaurant or anywhere within a determined system. There is the surface appearance of people selecting their preferences from a list of alternatives.

There is also the surface appearance of people walking in, sitting at the table, opening the menu, and telling the waiter what they chose. Calling these "the surface appearance" of events does not suggest to us that they did not actually happen.

They do all that, yet have no alternatives to realize. Each action in each moment is fixed, entailed by the evolving state of the system as it transitions from prior to current and future state.

Which of course includes brain state, thoughts thought, actions initiated.


Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

Alternatives exist for the group at large, each option designed to appeal to someone's taste, one orders this, the other orders that....yet in the instance of ordering their meal, no other option is possible, what is ordered in that instance must be ordered and there are no alternatives. It is the illusion of choice

Well, if we're taking a vote on the single thing that we will all have for dinner, then it might make sense to say that "alternatives exist for the group at large". But that is not the case. The menu of alternate possibilities are available for each customer to choose from, and neither the menu nor the choosing is an illusion.

There is no vote on the single thing (in any given instance) that any given person is going to order in any given instance in time, that is a foregone conclusion.

That is how determinism works in each and every instance in time, this then that, x, y, z, no deviation.

Yep. We walk in, we open the menu, we choose what we will order, and we tell the waiter. The waiter brings us our dinner and the bill. As you say, "x, y, z, no deviation".

Correct, except the item that you ordered was a forgone conclusion, a selection determined to happen precisely as it does before you yourself knew what you were going to order.

With no alternatives, you did not select from a set of realizable options, you did not choose, events just went as determined.

Choice, by definition, entails selecting between two or more realizable possibilites

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

Determinism doesn't permit two or more possibilities.

It's entailment, there are no alternatives in any given action, therefore no choosing. Actions are entailed, necessitated, fixed.

The choosing, just like the walking in, the sitting down, and reading the menu, was "entailed, necessitated, fixed". There is no getting around the choosing. There is the menu, and we have no choice but to choose. Thus saith determinism.

The term 'choosing' is being asserted. Insisting that something is chosen when there are no alternatives contradicts the definition of both choice and determinism.

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.



The personal narrative;

''For example, in one study, researchers recorded the brain activity of participants when they raised their arm intentionally, when it was lifted by a pulley, and when it moved in response to a hypnotic suggestion that it was being lifted by a pulley.

Similar areas of the brain were active during the involuntary and the suggested “alien” movement, while brain activity for the intentional action was different. So, hypnotic suggestion can be seen as a means of communicating an idea or belief that, when accepted, has the power to alter a person’s perceptions or behaviour.''

''All this may leave one wondering where our thoughts, emotions and perceptions actually come from. We argue that the contents of consciousness are a subset of the experiences, emotions, thoughts and beliefs that are generated by non-conscious processes within our brains.''

 

[bilby]

Determinism doesn't permit two or more possibilities.

Of course it does.

It doesn't permit two or more outcomes, but there's no limit to the number of possibilities from which those outcomes are chosen.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

There, in the restaurant, choosing must be done. Choosing cannot be avoided. There is no deviation that can get you around the choosing. There is no alternative to choosing. Choosing happens because it must happen, specifically at that place and at that time.

Determinism is essentially a process of necessitation.

Choosing necessarily happens.

Events evolve as determined, they not chosen.

It is not chosen that choosing happens. Choosing happens as events naturally unfold to a point where we must necessarily make a decision.

To choose implies the possibility of doing any number of things.

And the brain's decision making function is only invoked when there are multiple possibilities, two or more things that we actually CAN do. Decision making reduces those multiple CAN DO's into the single WILL DO.

Determinism does not permit any number of things to happen, only one thing can happen.

And only one thing does happen: Choosing. We choose between the multiple things that we CAN DO to causally determine the one thing that we WILL DO. Deterministic causal necessity includes all prior events, the walking into the restaurant, the sitting at the table, the reading the menu, the choosing what we will order, and the telling the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please". ALL of these events were equally causally necessary from any prior point in time, including the choosing.

With no possible alternative (events fixed by antecedents), there is no choice, actions evolve or unfold as they must.

Ironically, deliberate actions must evolve and unfold as we choose. Without the choosing, they simply will not happen. Choosing is the antecedent event that fixes the will upon a specific action. Prior to the choosing, all we have are possibilities and an uncertainty as to what we will do.

You continue to pretend that choosing is not an event that actually happens within a deterministic causal chain. But it clearly does. And it happens, when it happens, because it must happen.

Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

If we wish to indulge the figurative language, then it was also "impossible" for them not to see multiple possibilities and to feel that they must choose between them. Thus it becomes "impossible" for them to conclude that they could not have made another choice.

That is how determinism works in each and every instance in time, this then that, x, y, z, no deviation.

We walk in, we open the menu, we choose what we will order, and we tell the waiter. The waiter brings us our dinner and the bill. As you say, "x, y, z, no deviation".

Correct, except the item that you ordered was a forgone conclusion, a selection determined to happen precisely as it does before you yourself knew what you were going to order.

No, the conclusion was not "forgone". The conclusion was constructed within my brain as it made the choice. Once my brain concluded what it would order, it told the waiter "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

We may theoretically trace the start of the causal chain back to the Big Bang, if you like. But the conclusion happened at that moment in that restaurant. That was when the string of events leading to the choice concluded, according to a deterministic view of events.

With no alternatives, you did not select from a set of realizable options, you did not choose, events just went as determined.

It was determined that I would be sitting in the restaurant, reading a menu of realizable options, requiring me to make a choice. I considered my options and made a choice: "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

Events, as you say, "just went as determined". It was determined that the menu would contain a set of realizable options and that I would select the Chef Salad from that set.

Choice, by definition, entails selecting between two or more realizable possibilities
Choice 1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

Correct.

Determinism doesn't permit two or more possibilities.

Ironically, determinism guarantees that I would be facing an actual menu containing multiple possibilities and that I would be choosing from among them. THAT WAS THE SINGLE POSSIBILITY, that there WOULD BE MULTIPLE POSSIBILITIES to choose from.

The personal narrative;

''For example, in one study, researchers recorded the brain activity of participants when they raised their arm intentionally, when it was lifted by a pulley, and when it moved in response to a hypnotic suggestion that it was being lifted by a pulley.

Similar areas of the brain were active during the involuntary and the suggested “alien” movement, while brain activity for the intentional action was different. So, hypnotic suggestion can be seen as a means of communicating an idea or belief that, when accepted, has the power to alter a person’s perceptions or behaviour.''

''All this may leave one wondering where our thoughts, emotions and perceptions actually come from. We argue that the contents of consciousness are a subset of the experiences, emotions, thoughts and beliefs that are generated by non-conscious processes within our brains.''

From the same article (highlights mine):
"Just because consciousness has been placed in the passenger seat, does not mean we need to dispense with important everyday notions such as free will and personal responsibility. In fact, they are embedded in the workings of our non-conscious brain systems. They have a powerful purpose in society and have a deep impact on the way we understand ourselves."

 

[DBT]

Determinism doesn't permit two or more possibilities.

Of course it does.

It doesn't permit two or more outcomes, but there's no limit to the number of possibilities from which those outcomes are chosen.

All events and outcomes are fixed by the state of the system as it evolves from past to current and future states, no deviations, no alternate actions,

It may be physically possible to turn left or right at a fork in the road, as presented, yet if a left turn is determined, turning right is not a possibility. A determined left turn rules out a right turn.

Turning right may appear to be an option from the driver's perspective, but that's an illusion formed by their limited perspective, they don't have the necessary information.

The state of the system in any given instance in time equates to whatever action is being produced by the system. People are aspects of the system. Brains are aspects of the system that respond to information feeding into their neural networks.

''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

There is no freedom of will to be found in determinism. Nothing that is not determined can be willed. Nothing that is not determined can be done.

'Won't do' is equivalent to 'cannot do.' Sorry, determinism is not compatible with the idea of free will.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nothing that is not determined can be willed

Plenty of people all over the world will things that are going to be determined against.

This state, when someone wills something that is determined against is called "unfreeness".

The state in which someone wills something that is determined for is called "freeness".

These are clearly not illusory...

 

[bilby]

It may be physically possible to turn left or right at a fork in the road, as presented, yet if a left turn is determined, turning right is not a possibility.

You presumably recognise that you are using two different meanings of 'possible/possibility' here, because if both uses carried the same meaning, your sentence would be nonsensical.

So the only problem here seems to be your insistence on the most uncharitable possible meaning when others use the words, so as to needlessly render their utterances nonsensical, so that you can dismiss them as fools.

That's neither reasonable nor polite. You should probably stop doing it.

 

[bilby]

Turning right may appear to be an option from the driver's perspective, but that's an illusion formed by their limited perspective, they don't have the necessary information.

Indeed.

And the information that is missing is that they don't yet know which direction they will (inevitably) choose.

Choice is the mechanism by which that information is determined.

 

[DBT]

Turning right may appear to be an option from the driver's perspective, but that's an illusion formed by their limited perspective, they don't have the necessary information.

Indeed.

And the information that is missing is that they don't yet know which direction they will (inevitably) choose.

Choice is the mechanism by which that information is determined.

It doesn't matter that they don't know. Not knowing is the source of the illusion of choice within a deterministic system

The definition of choice being;

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

Yet determinism does not offer two or more possibilities. The mere appearance of alternate possibilities does not offer choice, only the illusion of choice.

If driver A must necessarily (determinism at work) turn left at the next intersection, he does not have the option of turning right in that instance, he must turn left.

If driver B must necessarily turn right at the same intersection (determinism at work), she does not have the option of turning left in that instance, she must turn right.

One goes left, the other goes right, neither driver has a choice in that instance, or any other as the system evolves without deviation, as it must.

That is how determinism works.

''Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

Causal necessity/determinism is not compatible with freedom of will or choice....where - by definition - no alternatives exist.

 

[Jarhyn]

And yet again DBT mangles the meaning of possibility and choice.

Alternatives, here, are reified objects, like marbles or sheets of paper. The "marble" or "sheet of paper" of the sorts of alternatives human brains express are dizzying in complexity, arranged as patterns of impulses across large scale node interfaces. But they are nonetheless sets of real events in some sort of common framing, that are sorted and selected of.

Would DBT deny the marbles exist in a marble sorting machine?

Would DBT deny that the marbles go in one place, and come out in several in a very peculiar, selective way?

I mean hell, DBT has been all up in here talking about evolution, I wonder if they recognize that whole SELECTION part in Survival of the Fittest by Natural Selection?

There are choice functions, clearly, which are part of how deterministic systems operate.

 

[fromderinside]

Wow. Paper on a table. Words not spoken. The fact of the menu eliminates choice since all 'options' are in place. No alternative menu only one outcome from menu? Choice. Where? You aren't going to argue that another persons uttering another item is evidence of choice are you? Could have? Didn't! Where's the choice?

 

[DBT]

And yet again DBT mangles the meaning of possibility and choice.

Alternatives, here, are reified objects, like marbles or sheets of paper. The "marble" or "sheet of paper" of the sorts of alternatives human brains express are dizzying in complexity, arranged as patterns of impulses across large scale node interfaces. But they are nonetheless sets of real events in some sort of common framing, that are sorted and selected of.

Would DBT deny the marbles exist in a marble sorting machine?

Would DBT deny that the marbles go in one place, and come out in several in a very peculiar, selective way?

I mean hell, DBT has been all up in here talking about evolution, I wonder if they recognize that whole SELECTION part in Survival of the Fittest by Natural Selection?

There are choice functions, clearly, which are part of how deterministic systems operate.

Just shows that you don't understand the terms and conditions of determinism in spite of having given them yourself.


It must have been copy and paste, posted but not understood.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow. Paper on a table. Words not spoken. The fact of the menu eliminates choice since all 'options' are in place. No alternative menu only one outcome from menu? Choice. Where? You aren't going to argue that another persons uttering another item is evidence of choice are you? Could have? Didn't! Where's the choice?

The fact of the menu FORCES choice.

The fact of your word salad implies that this is all you really have: word salad.

Tell me FDI, how many cards go into the shuffling machine before playing a hand of poker, and how many cards come out?

If you cannot see the operation of a deterministic choice function in the fact that someone picks up several objects and keeps one, and the object they kept was one they had to pick up first, then you really are being willfully blind.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It doesn't matter that they don't know. Not knowing is the source of the illusion of choice within a deterministic system

Not knowing what we will do necessitates actual choosing, which is not an illusion, but a real logical operation. Choosing is just as real as Adding or Subtracting. Choosing is a logical operation that considers two or more things we CAN do and selects from among them the single thing that we WILL do.

The definition of choice being;
Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

Choice is the action of choosing between two or more possibilities.

Yet determinism does not offer two or more possibilities.

Determinism routinely offers two or more possibilities. Where did you think possibilities came from if they were not reliably caused? Steak or Salad? Left or Right? Study or Party? Rain or Shine? Walk or Drive? Now or Later? All of these possibilities that show up in our lives are causally inevitable from any prior point in time. It is as if determinism is constantly offering us two or more possibilities, whether we want them or not.

The mere appearance of alternate possibilities does not offer choice, only the illusion of choice.

Like Adding and Subtracting, Choosing is a logical operation performed by the brain. The fact that we can do it in our heads does not make it an "illusion". It is a real operation performed by a real brain. And it has real consequences in the real world.

If driver A must necessarily (determinism at work) turn left at the next intersection, he does not have the option of turning right in that instance, he must turn left.

First, determinism does not exist as an entity that goes around making things happen. Our "(determinism at work)" is metaphorical, not actual. But the guy driving the car is actual. And if he is UNCERTAIN how to get to his destination, the one thing that he is still CERTAIN about is that, he CAN turn left, he CAN turn right, and he CAN go straight ahead.

He is uncertain of what he WILL do, but he is very certain of what CAN do. So, how will he resolve his three CAN's into a single WILL? He looks at his map and finds his destination relative to this intersection. He needs to turn left to get where he wants to go. And it is his own choosing process that DETERMINES which way he WILL go.

If driver B must necessarily turn right at the same intersection (determinism at work), she does not have the option of turning left in that instance, she must turn right.

Driver B has exactly the same options as Driver A. She CAN turn left, she CAN turn right, and she CAN go straight ahead. But she already KNOWS what she WILL do. She knows that she needs to turn right to get to her destination, so she simply turns right without further thought.

One goes left, the other goes right, neither driver has a choice in that instance, or any other as the system evolves without deviation, as it must.

She already KNEW which way she WOULD go, so she did not need to choose between her three options. He DID NOT KNOW which way he WOULD go, so he HAD TO MAKE A CHOICE, and that required him to read the map.

Both she and he had the same three options at the intersection. They both COULD HAVE turned left, COULD HAVE turned right, and COULD HAVE gone straight ahead. But they each WOULD do what was NECESSARY to reach their destination.

Each WOULD do the one thing they NEEDED to do in order to reach their destination. But what they WOULD do did not in any way change what they COULD do. Each COULD HAVE turned left, turned right, or driven straight ahead.

What they WOULD do was determined by their INTENTION (their "will") to reach their specific destination. He WOULD turn left. She WOULD turn right. What they each COULD do was determined by the physical structure of the intersection.

And that is how determinism works.

''Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

That kind of figurative language is the source of people's confusion about what scientific determinism really means.

It is TRUE to say that determinism means "that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable".

But it is FALSE to say that "it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action". WHY is this false? Because, whenever a decision is being made, there will always be at least TWO things that we CAN do. From them we will select the SINGLE thing that we WILL do. Which leaves us with at least one other thing that we COULD HAVE DONE instead. This is a matter of logical necessity, just like the triangle having three sides.

And when they say "In other words", they give us a clue that they have switched from literal to figurative speech. They might as well have placed "In other words" in front of the first false statement.

 

[fromderinside]

Wow. Paper on a table. Words not spoken. The fact of the menu eliminates choice since all 'options' are in place. No alternative menu only one outcome from menu? Choice. Where? You aren't going to argue that another persons uttering another item is evidence of choice are you? Could have? Didn't! Where's the choice?

The fact of the menu FORCES choice.

The fact of your word salad implies that this is all you really have: word salad.

Tell me FDI, how many cards go into the shuffling machine before playing a hand of poker, and how many cards come out?

If you cannot see the operation of a deterministic choice function in the fact that someone picks up several objects and keeps one, and the object they kept was one they had to pick up first, then you really are being willfully blind.

The existence of a list is. It is not the options. It is a list of possible outcomes. You shall perform something on the list. What you perform has already been determined, else it would not be listed.

To create a choice you must demonstrate some sort of control over what is presented. Since the list exists you have no control.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is not the options. It is a list of possible outcomes.

Nice contradiction. Make a selection between these two statements saying exactly opposite and contradictory things are true as to which is true and why, and then we can discuss why you just contradicted yourself so badly.

 

[DBT]

Turning right may appear to be an option from the driver's perspective, but that's an illusion formed by their limited perspective, they don't have the necessary information.

Indeed.

And the information that is missing is that they don't yet know which direction they will (inevitably) choose.

Choice is the mechanism by which that information is determined.

It doesn't matter that they don't know. Not knowing is the source of the illusion of choice within a deterministic system

The definition of choice being;

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

Yet determinism does not offer two or more possibilities. The mere appearance of alternate possibilities does not offer choice, only the illusion of choice.

If driver A must necessarily (determinism at work) turn left at the next intersection, he does not have the option of turning right in that instance, he must turn left.

If driver B must necessarily turn right at the same intersection (determinism at work), she does not have the option of turning left in that instance, she must turn right.

One goes left, the other goes right, neither driver has a choice in that instance, or any other as the system evolves without deviation, as it must.

That is how determinism works.

''Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

Causal necessity/determinism is not compatible with freedom of will or choice....where - by definition - no alternatives exist.

It doesn't matter that they don't know. Not knowing is the source of the illusion of choice within a deterministic system

Not knowing what we will do necessitates actual choosing, which is not an illusion, but a real logical operation. Choosing is just as real as Adding or Subtracting. Choosing is a logical operation that considers two or more things we CAN do and selects from among them the single thing that we WILL do.

The definition of choice being;
Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.

Choice is the action of choosing between two or more possibilities.

Yet determinism does not offer two or more possibilities.

Determinism routinely offers two or more possibilities. Where did you think possibilities came from if they were not reliably caused? Steak or Salad? Left or Right? Study or Party? Rain or Shine? Walk or Drive? Now or Later? All of these possibilities that show up in our lives are causally inevitable from any prior point in time. It is as if determinism is constantly offering us two or more possibilities, whether we want them or not.

The mere appearance of alternate possibilities does not offer choice, only the illusion of choice.

Like Adding and Subtracting, Choosing is a logical operation performed by the brain. The fact that we can do it in our heads does not make it an "illusion". It is a real operation performed by a real brain. And it has real consequences in the real world.

If driver A must necessarily (determinism at work) turn left at the next intersection, he does not have the option of turning right in that instance, he must turn left.

First, determinism does not exist as an entity that goes around making things happen. Our "(determinism at work)" is metaphorical, not actual. But the guy driving the car is actual. And if he is UNCERTAIN how to get to his destination, the one thing that he is still CERTAIN about is that, he CAN turn left, he CAN turn right, and he CAN go straight ahead.

He is uncertain of what he WILL do, but he is very certain of what CAN do. So, how will he resolve his three CAN's into a single WILL? He looks at his map and finds his destination relative to this intersection. He needs to turn left to get where he wants to go. And it is his own choosing process that DETERMINES which way he WILL go.

If driver B must necessarily turn right at the same intersection (determinism at work), she does not have the option of turning left in that instance, she must turn right.

Driver B has exactly the same options as Driver A. She CAN turn left, she CAN turn right, and she CAN go straight ahead. But she already KNOWS what she WILL do. She knows that she needs to turn right to get to her destination, so she simply turns right without further thought.

One goes left, the other goes right, neither driver has a choice in that instance, or any other as the system evolves without deviation, as it must.

She already KNEW which way she WOULD go, so she did not need to choose between her three options. He DID NOT KNOW which way he WOULD go, so he HAD TO MAKE A CHOICE, and that required him to read the map.

Both she and he had the same three options at the intersection. They both COULD HAVE turned left, COULD HAVE turned right, and COULD HAVE gone straight ahead. But they each WOULD do what was NECESSARY to reach their destination.

Each WOULD do the one thing they NEEDED to do in order to reach their destination. But what they WOULD do did not in any way change what they COULD do. Each COULD HAVE turned left, turned right, or driven straight ahead.

What they WOULD do was determined by their INTENTION (their "will") to reach their specific destination. He WOULD turn left. She WOULD turn right. What they each COULD do was determined by the physical structure of the intersection.

And that is how determinism works.

''Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

That kind of figurative language is the source of people's confusion about what scientific determinism really means.

It is TRUE to say that determinism means "that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable".

But it is FALSE to say that "it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action". WHY is this false? Because, whenever a decision is being made, there will always be at least TWO things that we CAN do. From them we will select the SINGLE thing that we WILL do. Which leaves us with at least one other thing that we COULD HAVE DONE instead. This is a matter of logical necessity, just like the triangle having three sides.

And when they say "In other words", they give us a clue that they have switched from literal to figurative speech. They might as well have placed "In other words" in front of the first false statement.

Two or more possibilities cannot exist within a system where all events must proceed without deviation. If we have two or more realizable options, and we could have chosen this or that at any given time, it's not determinism and we are not talking about determinism.

If there are two or more realizable options allowing different decisions and alternate actions to happen, this is not determinism. It's a non - determined world and libertarian free will. It contradicts the terms and conditions of determinism and compatibilism..

 

[Jarhyn]

Two or more possibilities cannot exist within a system where all events must proceed without deviation.

Nice assertion fallacy.

We have shown what possibilities are. Possibilities are just names for objects going into a choice function. If a system can contain two or more "marbles" a system can contain two or more "possibilities", because in the context of some operation of choice upon the marbles, they are also "possibilities" in the operation of the choice function, even if one will certainly never be "the actual marble selected".

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Two or more possibilities cannot exist within a system where all events must proceed without deviation.

We've seen two or more possibilities reliably showing up at the beginning of every choosing event. Obviously, two or more possibilities CAN and WILL exist within a system where all events proceed without deviation. There is no getting around them, because, like all events, they must occur without deviation.

If we have two or more realizable options, and we could have chosen this or that at any given time, it's not determinism and we are not talking about determinism.

And, a "realizable option" is just another name for a "possibility". It is something that CAN happen even if it never WILL happen. The notion of things that CAN happen, even if they never DO happen, is built into the rational causal mechanism which causally determines what we WILL choose to do.

Whenever choosing is required, it will always begin with two or more realizable options. It is the fact that we have two or more realizable options that necessitates the choosing operation. "Would you like a salad or a potato with your steak?" means that choosing has just been causally necessitated.

If there are two or more realizable options allowing different decisions and alternate actions to happen, this is not determinism. It's a non - determined world and libertarian free will. It contradicts the terms and conditions of determinism and compatibilism..

I say it doesn't contradict determinism, because both realizable options are there by causal necessity and inevitably must be there.

You are still insisting that determinism must change things in some significant way. I'm simply pointing out that it actually doesn't.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'll note that I consider Actualities to also be "Possibilities".

To me the state of "freedom" of a possibility, is that it is also an actuality.