Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

If something has not been is not determined to happen at a specific time and place, it cannot will not happen in that specific time and place

There's this fatalism again.

There is no fate. You have a burden of proof if you want to use language like that in this conversation to justify it's use or to accept the first correction.

Again, just like Kylie, you fail to observe that the discussion of "will not" is U(this+n), and "cannot" is U(that+n).

To say there is no logical/mathematical (that+n) has been shown repeatedly to be false, and in fact would require you to disprove "Last Thursdayism", or accept the second correction.

For the record, Last Thursdayism is non-disprovable.

After that, your tautology is tautological.

It's determinism, just as you yourself define it. If any number of things can happen, it's not determinism as you yourself define it. You are contradicting your own terms and references.

If I am then you can carefully lay out this contradiction.

You have a tense problem and you have a conflation problem. You can't seem to answer the conflation problem, and the tense problem you just ignore. It's almost as if you lack the tools to fully think it through.

As I've pointed out, nowhere is randomness or even lack of process involved in the following:

The goal of the thought experiment is to get as close to the following actual experiment as possible:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

The fact that it was ME putting that variable there into MY OWN head is, exactly, the proof of free will.

That we can only ever approximate perfection here does not invalidate it, it just means sometimes we're going to be wrong.

When we are wrong, we don't say "we lacked free will", as we still decided for ourselves (that will was free!), But rather "our will to do X was not free".

Note, this does not in any point discuss randomness.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If something has not been determined to happen at a specific time and place, it cannot happen in that specific time and place regardless of such an event happening at a different time and place.

That is the point. That is how determinism is defined. No alternatives in any given instance in time regardless of "what - can - happen."

I understand your point, but I disagree with it. I know that what you said really sounds correct to you, but it is actually incorrect. Determinism is about what WILL happen, and NOT about what CAN happen.

If we try to make it about what CAN happen, we find ourselves trapped in a paradox, where we can no longer deal rationally with matters of uncertainty. Without the notion of POSSIBILITY, things that might not happen, we are cut off from the rational imagination we need to solve real life problems in the real world, like what to order for dinner.

And that may work fine for an omniscient being, one that ALWAYS KNOWS in advance exactly what will happen and when it will happen. But it does not work for us.

We still require the safe sandbox of our imagination to play out different possibilities, the different things we CAN choose to do, before deciding for ourselves what we WILL do. This is how things actually work in the real world.

When we do not know what WILL happen, we imagine what CAN happen, to prepare for what DOES happen.

When we do not know yet what we WILL choose for dinner, we think about the different things that we CAN choose, and then select the option which seems best.

The logic and language of possibilities evolved specifically for this purpose, to deal with matters of uncertainty, where what WILL happen is as yet UNKNOWN, and where what we WILL choose to do is as yet UNKNOWN.

For example, while it is still unknown to me what I WILL order for dinner, both the Steak and the Chef Salad MUST be considered REAL POSSIBILITIES, things that I CAN order for dinner. Those are the logical requirements before I can even begin to resolve the issue of what I WILL order for dinner.

And after I have decided to order the Chef Salad, it will forever be true that "I only WOULD have ordered the Salad at that point in time, even though I COULD have ordered the Steak".

Everyone knows what WOULD and COULD mean in that sentence. WOULD means that ordering the Salad is what actually happened due to those specific circumstances. COULD means that ordering the Steak did not happen, but might have happened under different circumstances.

Determinism asserts that there WOULD only be those specific circumstances. That is what happens without deviation. And among those specific circumstances, we find the menu of alternate possibilities that a person must think about, and then decide, from among the many things that they COULD order, the specific thing that they WOULD order for dinner.

That is the correct statement of those specific circumstances at that specific point in time.

If there were only ONE item on the restaurant menu, then what they COULD order would be identical to what they WOULD order. And that is the only case where what they COULD do matched what they WOULD do. But that is NEVER the case when there is more than one option to choose from.

COULD and WOULD mean two very different things, just like their roots CAN and WILL mean two very different things.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Just because we can imagine something does not mean it can happen. I can imagine jumping into the air and flying away. Does that mean it CAN happen? Of course not!

A real possibility is something that you are actually ABLE to do IF you choose to do it. If you are not able to do it, then it is not a real possibility. But if you are able to do it, then it is a real possibility, even if you never choose to do it.

For example, you can raise your hand to ask a question. It is a real possibility. And it remains a real possibility even if it is inevitable that you will never raise your hand in class today. The fact of inevitability is not sufficient to eliminate the possibility.

In this case there are two facts that are equally inevitable. It was a fact that you would not raise your hand today. It was also a fact that it was possible for you to raise your hand today, all day long. These two facts do not contradict each other.

You are butchering the English language in order to make it say what you want it to say.

Conflating what CAN happen with what WILL happen is the language error.

 

[Jarhyn]

And that may work fine for an omniscient being, one that ALWAYS KNOWS in advance exactly what will happen and when it will happen

Not even an omniscient being can know in advance exactly what will happen and when it will happen without it having already happened at least once. The basis for their knowledge can only be it happening in the past.

There is no such thing as automatic omniscience. It is a contradictory nonsense that violates Godel.

Omniscience is a property that can only be presented in the context of a system that is momentarily isolated from the being with omniscience.

I can, in omniscience, know how many hairlike protrusions extend from the body of an organic critter in orbit around alpha centauri, or whether there are any such critters, where they came from, what their names are, and what each of them likes to eat for dinner, but I can't actually perfectly predict the future dinner of a specific one of them. At most I can just push the system forward and  dict it without the pre-*.

At that point though, if I break isolation and tell one of those things on alpha centauri that, again all my diction is indeed just again an imperfect prediction! It cannot possibly account for what has not happened yet (the interaction in which I break isolation and drag in knowledge of events that are past to both them and me of the host system, which omniscience as a property assumes).

Even an omniscient god can only experience the future and knowledge of it through the diction of the present into that future from the past. The diction provides, as Pood points out, the truth value for the knowledge.

*There's a lude joke here that I CAN make but I'm not going to take the time to figure out what it is...

 

[Kylie]

Just because we can imagine something does not mean it can happen. I can imagine jumping into the air and flying away. Does that mean it CAN happen? Of course not!

A real possibility is something that you are actually ABLE to do IF you choose to do it. If you are not able to do it, then it is not a real possibility. But if you are able to do it, then it is a real possibility, even if you never choose to do it.

For example, you can raise your hand to ask a question. It is a real possibility. And it remains a real possibility even if it is inevitable that you will never raise your hand in class today. The fact of inevitability is not sufficient to eliminate the possibility.

In this case there are two facts that are equally inevitable. It was a fact that you would not raise your hand today. It was also a fact that it was possible for you to raise your hand today, all day long. These two facts do not contradict each other.

If it is inevitable that I will NOT raise my hand today, then it is NOT possible for me to raise my hand, and thus me raising my hand is not possible.

You can not say that there is a 100% chance that I won't do something, and then say that there is some chance I will do it. That adds up to a total probability of more than 100%, which makes no sense.

You are butchering the English language in order to make it say what you want it to say.

Conflating what CAN happen with what WILL happen is the language error.

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

And you're butchering mathematics as well.

 

[Jarhyn]

Just because we can imagine something does not mean it can happen. I can imagine jumping into the air and flying away. Does that mean it CAN happen? Of course not!

A real possibility is something that you are actually ABLE to do IF you choose to do it. If you are not able to do it, then it is not a real possibility. But if you are able to do it, then it is a real possibility, even if you never choose to do it.

For example, you can raise your hand to ask a question. It is a real possibility. And it remains a real possibility even if it is inevitable that you will never raise your hand in class today. The fact of inevitability is not sufficient to eliminate the possibility.

In this case there are two facts that are equally inevitable. It was a fact that you would not raise your hand today. It was also a fact that it was possible for you to raise your hand today, all day long. These two facts do not contradict each other.

If it is inevitable that I will NOT raise my hand today, then it is NOT possible for me to raise my hand, and thus me raising my hand is not possible.

You can not say that there is a 100% chance that I won't do something, and then say that there is some chance I will do it. That adds up to a total probability of more than 100%, which makes no sense.

You are butchering the English language in order to make it say what you want it to say.

Conflating what CAN happen with what WILL happen is the language error.

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

And you're butchering mathematics as well.

The only butcher of mathematics is the one who fails to accept the fundamental principles of algebra: math is all about replacing fixed terms with variables and seeing how the function expresses on that term of variance.

I replace a term "outcome of decision" with "variable". That variable here is a bounded enumeration: {steak, salad}. I plug in the variable to the macrophysics model, and calculate exhaustive here. I then find one that isn't rejected by the priorities of the selection logic (my logic!) I then exercise the actual function (the small bit of macrophysics that actually pushes the selection to execution) with the result I calculated.

Hooray! A decision is made.

It's just an exercise in algebra.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If it is inevitable that I will NOT raise my hand today, then it is NOT possible for me to raise my hand, and thus me raising my hand is not possible.

If it is inevitable that you will not raise your hand today then you will not raise your hand today. But there is nothing that prevents you from raising your hand if you want to. So, it is still possible that you can raise your hand, regardless of what you will inevitably do or not do.

You can not say that there is a 100% chance that I won't do something, and then say that there is some chance I will do it. That adds up to a total probability of more than 100%, which makes no sense.

As you should know, causal necessity/inevitability is not a matter of chance. When you discuss matters of chance you are speaking of possibilities. When you speak of possibilities you are imagining things that can happen, regardless of what will or will not happen. And, whenever you are uncertain what will happen, you imagine what can happen to prepare for what does happen.

To put it simply, it was always the case that you COULD raise your hand, whether you ever actually raised it or not.

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

That is exactly right. You always have the ability to raise your hand, whether you will or will not raise it.

I will not raise my hand right now. Assuming determinism is correct, the fact that I am not raising my hand right now would prove that it was causally necessary/inevitable from any prior point in time that I would not raise my hand. And yet it is always true that I retained the ability to raise my hand.

As you can plainly see, the fact that I would not raise my hand does not imply that I could not raise my hand. So, those two facts, (a) that I could, and (b) that I would not, obviously do not contradict.

 

[Kylie]

Just because we can imagine something does not mean it can happen. I can imagine jumping into the air and flying away. Does that mean it CAN happen? Of course not!

A real possibility is something that you are actually ABLE to do IF you choose to do it. If you are not able to do it, then it is not a real possibility. But if you are able to do it, then it is a real possibility, even if you never choose to do it.

For example, you can raise your hand to ask a question. It is a real possibility. And it remains a real possibility even if it is inevitable that you will never raise your hand in class today. The fact of inevitability is not sufficient to eliminate the possibility.

In this case there are two facts that are equally inevitable. It was a fact that you would not raise your hand today. It was also a fact that it was possible for you to raise your hand today, all day long. These two facts do not contradict each other.

If it is inevitable that I will NOT raise my hand today, then it is NOT possible for me to raise my hand, and thus me raising my hand is not possible.

You can not say that there is a 100% chance that I won't do something, and then say that there is some chance I will do it. That adds up to a total probability of more than 100%, which makes no sense.

You are butchering the English language in order to make it say what you want it to say.

Conflating what CAN happen with what WILL happen is the language error.

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

And you're butchering mathematics as well.

The only butcher of mathematics is the one who fails to accept the fundamental principles of algebra: math is all about replacing fixed terms with variables and seeing how the function expresses on that term of variance.

I replace a term "outcome of decision" with "variable". That variable here is a bounded enumeration: {steak, salad}. I plug in the variable to the macrophysics model, and calculate exhaustive here. I then find one that isn't rejected by the priorities of the selection logic (my logic!) I then exercise the actual function (the small bit of macrophysics that actually pushes the selection to execution) with the result I calculated.

Hooray! A decision is made.

It's just an exercise in algebra.

I'm not the one who adds up all the probabilities and gets more than 100%, pal.

 

[The AntiChris]

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

They don't.

You can choose to respond to me or you can choose not to .

You will not do both.

 

[Kylie]

If it is inevitable that I will NOT raise my hand today, then it is NOT possible for me to raise my hand, and thus me raising my hand is not possible.

If it is inevitable that you will not raise your hand today then you will not raise your hand today. But there is nothing that prevents you from raising your hand if you want to. So, it is still possible that you can raise your hand, regardless of what you will inevitably do or not do.

If there is nothing stopping it from happening, then you can't say it's inevitable that it won't happen.

You can not say that there is a 100% chance that I won't do something, and then say that there is some chance I will do it. That adds up to a total probability of more than 100%, which makes no sense.

As you should know, causal necessity/inevitability is not a matter of chance. When you discuss matters of chance you are speaking of possibilities. When you speak of possibilities you are imagining things that can happen, regardless of what will or will not happen. And, whenever you are uncertain what will happen, you imagine what can happen to prepare for what does happen.

To put it simply, it was always the case that you COULD raise your hand, whether you ever actually raised it or not.

And I'm not disputing that, am I?

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

That is exactly right. You always have the ability to raise your hand, whether you will or will not raise it.

I will not raise my hand right now. Assuming determinism is correct, the fact that I am not raising my hand right now would prove that it was causally necessary/inevitable from any prior point in time that I would not raise my hand. And yet it is always true that I retained the ability to raise my hand.

As you can plainly see, the fact that I would not raise my hand does not imply that I could not raise my hand. So, those two facts, (a) that I could, and (b) that I would not, obviously do not contradict.

But you can't say you "will not" until the point has past.

I can't say, "I will not run screaming out my front door naked today," because for all I know my house could catch fire while I'm in the shower and I might be forced to flee for my life. The only point that I can say that it was inevitable that I wouldn't perform such an act today is when it has become tomorrow. At that point it is locked in stone because it is the past and I lack time travel abilities. But at any point BEFORE the end of today, I can not justify saying that such actions are inevitably not going to happen.

 

[fromderinside]

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

They don't.

You can choose to respond to me or you can choose not to .

You will not do both.

Choosing isn't something done. It is something you choose to do. If all that matters is what takes place which is what it is in the real world there is no choosing. There is just this then that. Amazing how inserting yourself into the process brings choice out of thin air.

Stop interposing intervening variables just to make the world flow from your perspective. The world flows. The world operates independent from your perspective.

Think of things without considering your perspective. You are part of things, not the source of things. Ergo the world flows independent of your perspective.

 

[The AntiChris]

Choosing isn't something done. It is something you choose to do.

 

[DBT]

If something has not been is not determined to happen at a specific time and place, it cannot will not happen in that specific time and place

There's this fatalism again.

There is no fate. You have a burden of proof if you want to use language like that in this conversation to justify it's use or to accept the first correction.

Again, just like Kylie, you fail to observe that the discussion of "will not" is U(this+n), and "cannot" is U(that+n).

To say there is no logical/mathematical (that+n) has been shown repeatedly to be false, and in fact would require you to disprove "Last Thursdayism", or accept the second correction.

For the record, Last Thursdayism is non-disprovable.

After that, your tautology is tautological.

It's determinism, just as you yourself define it. If any number of things can happen, it's not determinism as you yourself define it. You are contradicting your own terms and references.

If I am then you can carefully lay out this contradiction.

You have a tense problem and you have a conflation problem. You can't seem to answer the conflation problem, and the tense problem you just ignore. It's almost as if you lack the tools to fully think it through.

As I've pointed out, nowhere is randomness or even lack of process involved in the following:

The goal of the thought experiment is to get as close to the following actual experiment as possible:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

The fact that it was ME putting that variable there into MY OWN head is, exactly, the proof of free will.

That we can only ever approximate perfection here does not invalidate it, it just means sometimes we're going to be wrong.

When we are wrong, we don't say "we lacked free will", as we still decided for ourselves (that will was free!), But rather "our will to do X was not free".

Note, this does not in any point discuss randomness.

It's quite simple really:

Jarhyn - ''A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.''

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,'' there can be no alternative actions within the system as it develops or evolves based on prior states of the system, and given that brains are an inherent part of the system, in no way separate as the system evolves or develops from prior to current and future states without deviation (randomness), each and every action the brain performs in terms of thought and action must be entailed by the development of the system, and not a matter of 'free will' or ability to choose over and above how the system develops or evolves.

Namely:

If something is not determined to happen at a specific time and place, it cannot happen at that specific time and place regardless of such an event happening at a different time and place, ie, that there are no alternatives in any given instance in time regardless of "what 'can' happen" at some other time or place if determined.

 

[Jarhyn]

Just because we can imagine something does not mean it can happen. I can imagine jumping into the air and flying away. Does that mean it CAN happen? Of course not!

A real possibility is something that you are actually ABLE to do IF you choose to do it. If you are not able to do it, then it is not a real possibility. But if you are able to do it, then it is a real possibility, even if you never choose to do it.

For example, you can raise your hand to ask a question. It is a real possibility. And it remains a real possibility even if it is inevitable that you will never raise your hand in class today. The fact of inevitability is not sufficient to eliminate the possibility.

In this case there are two facts that are equally inevitable. It was a fact that you would not raise your hand today. It was also a fact that it was possible for you to raise your hand today, all day long. These two facts do not contradict each other.

If it is inevitable that I will NOT raise my hand today, then it is NOT possible for me to raise my hand, and thus me raising my hand is not possible.

You can not say that there is a 100% chance that I won't do something, and then say that there is some chance I will do it. That adds up to a total probability of more than 100%, which makes no sense.

You are butchering the English language in order to make it say what you want it to say.

Conflating what CAN happen with what WILL happen is the language error.

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

And you're butchering mathematics as well.

The only butcher of mathematics is the one who fails to accept the fundamental principles of algebra: math is all about replacing fixed terms with variables and seeing how the function expresses on that term of variance.

I replace a term "outcome of decision" with "variable". That variable here is a bounded enumeration: {steak, salad}. I plug in the variable to the macrophysics model, and calculate exhaustive here. I then find one that isn't rejected by the priorities of the selection logic (my logic!) I then exercise the actual function (the small bit of macrophysics that actually pushes the selection to execution) with the result I calculated.

Hooray! A decision is made.

It's just an exercise in algebra.

I'm not the one who adds up all the probabilities and gets more than 100%, pal.

Wow. Now descending to dishonesty.

Nowhere did I bring up probability. Randomness does not create or destroy free will. It has nothing to do with it.

There is exactly one thing with 100% chance of happening, so the probability automatically adds to 100%.

Perhaps DBT needs to start actually responding to actual materials of a post, too, since BOTH of you seem to fail to understand it so thoroughly:

Choice is not produced by randomness, it's FORCED by uncertainty.

Yet again, you both fail to do basic algebra. And recognize that there are clearly mathematical extensions to the universe along moments of instantaneous variation, even if those moments of instantaneous variation are purely virtual.

Again, "could but didn't" is just a mathematical implication of the fact that the only thing preventing the brain from choosing was the brain, and nothing else. The fact that I can stop myself from doing something should be enough to demonstrate it, but I went the extra mile and explained the math of it, too.

It's not my fault you both seem to not understand algebra.

 

[DBT]

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

They don't.

You can choose to respond to me or you can choose not to .

You will not do both.

That's not how determinism is defined. The stipulation of no deviation negates multiple options. Consequently, what is done must be done and nothing else can be done in that instance or any instance as the system evolves or develops.

 

[Jarhyn]

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

They don't.

You can choose to respond to me or you can choose not to .

You will not do both.

That's not how determinism is defined. The stipulation of no deviation negates multiple options. Consequently, what is done must be done and nothing else can be done in that instance or any instance as the system evolves or develops.

Yes, it is, because deviation doesn't create the options nor negate them. "Deviation" has nothing to do with it. Nor does randomness. The "deviation" you think you see in discussion of free will is in fact the illusion. It is not deviation but exploration of hypothetical states: we can process as much in our imaginations.

In fact that's the point: to recognize that approximations of hypothetical future macrostates are almost as good as the power to stop the universe and instantiate such immediately in  microstate as much as macrostate for understanding the future of the system from the present.

Our ability to make ANY kind of prediction, especially if the imperfect kind, prior to the outcome means we can play that game of confounding "god" ourselves, and do something contrary to it.

When such a prediction has its truth basis invalidated, the prediction is rendered "incorrect". Wills whose truth basis to outcome are incorrect are "unfree".

 

[The AntiChris]

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

They don't.

You can choose to respond to me or you can choose not to .

You will not do both.

That's not how determinism is defined. The stipulation of no deviation negates multiple options. Consequently, what is done must be done and nothing else can be done in that instance or any instance as the system evolves or develops.

You've lost the plot.

 

[Kylie]

Just because we can imagine something does not mean it can happen. I can imagine jumping into the air and flying away. Does that mean it CAN happen? Of course not!

A real possibility is something that you are actually ABLE to do IF you choose to do it. If you are not able to do it, then it is not a real possibility. But if you are able to do it, then it is a real possibility, even if you never choose to do it.

For example, you can raise your hand to ask a question. It is a real possibility. And it remains a real possibility even if it is inevitable that you will never raise your hand in class today. The fact of inevitability is not sufficient to eliminate the possibility.

In this case there are two facts that are equally inevitable. It was a fact that you would not raise your hand today. It was also a fact that it was possible for you to raise your hand today, all day long. These two facts do not contradict each other.

If it is inevitable that I will NOT raise my hand today, then it is NOT possible for me to raise my hand, and thus me raising my hand is not possible.

You can not say that there is a 100% chance that I won't do something, and then say that there is some chance I will do it. That adds up to a total probability of more than 100%, which makes no sense.

You are butchering the English language in order to make it say what you want it to say.

Conflating what CAN happen with what WILL happen is the language error.

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

And you're butchering mathematics as well.

The only butcher of mathematics is the one who fails to accept the fundamental principles of algebra: math is all about replacing fixed terms with variables and seeing how the function expresses on that term of variance.

I replace a term "outcome of decision" with "variable". That variable here is a bounded enumeration: {steak, salad}. I plug in the variable to the macrophysics model, and calculate exhaustive here. I then find one that isn't rejected by the priorities of the selection logic (my logic!) I then exercise the actual function (the small bit of macrophysics that actually pushes the selection to execution) with the result I calculated.

Hooray! A decision is made.

It's just an exercise in algebra.

I'm not the one who adds up all the probabilities and gets more than 100%, pal.

Wow. Now descending to dishonesty.

Nowhere did I bring up probability. Randomness does not create or destroy free will. It has nothing to do with it.

There is exactly one thing with 100% chance of happening, so the probability automatically adds to 100%.

Perhaps DBT needs to start actually responding to actual materials of a post, too, since BOTH of you seem to fail to understand it so thoroughly:

Choice is not produced by randomness, it's FORCED by uncertainty.

Yet again, you both fail to do basic algebra. And recognize that there are clearly mathematical extensions to the universe along moments of instantaneous variation, even if those moments of instantaneous variation are purely virtual.

Again, "could but didn't" is just a mathematical implication of the fact that the only thing preventing the brain from choosing was the brain, and nothing else. The fact that I can stop myself from doing something should be enough to demonstrate it, but I went the extra mile and explained the math of it, too.

It's not my fault you both seem to not understand algebra.

If you say Outcome A WILL happen, then outcome A has a probability of 100%.

If you say that, simultaneously, Outcome B CAN happen, then Outcome B MUST have some non-zero probability. Even if it has a probability of 1%, then the total probability is 101%. If it has a one-in-a-million chance, then it's still a total probability of 1.000001%.

Now, I'm more than happy to accept what you are saying. There is exactly one thing that will happen, and it has a probability of 100% that it will happen. But that means that ALL OTHER THINGS by definition have a 0% chance of happening. And if something has a 0% chance of happening, then they can't happen.

 

[pood]

Once again, you are confusing posterior with prior probabilities.

Were you going to answer my latest posts? Did you read the forekowledge and free will paper I linked?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If you say Outcome A WILL happen, then outcome A has a probability of 100%.

If you KNOW that Outcome A WILL happen, then why are you discussing probabilities? The only time probabilities come up is when we DO NOT KNOW what the Outcome will be.

Probabilities are out best guesses as to what will happen. A probability is a measure of the possibility. The only time we make guesses is when we don't know what will happen. When we don't know what WILL happen, we imagine what CAN happen, to prepare for what DOES happen.

To say that an event that we know will happen has a probability of 100% is bull ship.

If you say that, simultaneously, Outcome B CAN happen, then Outcome B MUST have some non-zero probability. Even if it has a probability of 1%, then the total probability is 101%. If it has a one-in-a-million chance, then it's still a total probability of 1.000001%.

If we KNOW that Outcome B CAN happen, then we also KNOW that Outcome A might NOT HAPPEN. Now, if we need to guess the likelihood of A versus the likelihood of B, we express those two likelihoods a parts of 100%. So, the probabilities will NEVER total more than 100%.

Now, I'm more than happy to accept what you are saying. There is exactly one thing that will happen, and it has a probability of 100% that it will happen. But that means that ALL OTHER THINGS by definition have a 0% chance of happening. And if something has a 0% chance of happening, then they can't happen.

Something that CAN happen will always have a probability higher than 0%. Something that WILL happen will have no probability attached at all. If something other than A can happen, then A will have a probability less that 100%.