Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

So if the future is by definition unknowable

It's not, though. It's unknowable by circumstance relative to our systemic perception.

It's not by definition unknowable on account of the fact that if you wait just a moment, it'll be the past, and quite knowable indeed.

 

[DBT]

Just substitute

Action A was determined, yet action B happened.

Nope. Action B COULD HAVE happened, but it WOULD NOT happen. Therefore there was no deviation.

That's quite a Semantic Shuffle. It's meaningless. Action B would not happen because A is fixed by the state of the system.

Action A being fixed by the system negates any possibility of action B happening.

Because there is zero possibility of action B happening when action A is inevitable, immutable, fixed, 'would not happen' is equivalent to cannot happen.

Action B cannot happen within a deterministic system.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''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.

The possibility of a deviation within a sequence of deterministic events allows at least two events to happen, action A or action B.

Nope. The POSSIBILITY of a deviation is NOT an ACTUAL deviation. While two things CAN happen, only one thing WILL happen.

Get used to it. There are MANY possible futures, but there will be only ONE actual future.

There are no alternate possibilities within a deterministic system;

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''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.

It's meaningless to say 'there are many possibilities' within a system where none of these perceived 'possibilities' have the possibility of happening.

Given determinism, alternate possibilities are an illusion formed by an incomplete understanding of the state and evolution of a system where 'there is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.'

The idea of free will is clearly incompatible with determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

because A is fixed by the state of the system.

If action A is emitting the pattern of sounds "I would like the salad please" that action can ONLY be fixed by a translation and repetition of one of the images on the menu.

The only way for the state of the system to actually accomplish fixing A is through the customer making a decision, a choice, that this is what shall be fixed.

It's not a deviation, it's a journey.

The only way for the information to commute and transform from the menu to the waiter's ear is for something to take these many objects and reduce them to a single choice.

The fact that the choice must be made is that which cannot be deviated from

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Just substitute

Yes. If we want to make accurate statements then we need to use the words correctly.

If we are given the choice between Action A and Action B, and we choose Action A, then Action A will happen and Action B will not happen. We Action B COULD HAVE happened if we chose it, but we WOULD NOT choose it this time, so it WOULD NOT happen.

Determinism is satisfied because Action A was always the inevitable choice and it was actually chosen. There was no deviation from the inevitable course of events (and never is).

But we may still speak of the possibility of Action B happening. For example, our first concern will be whether Action B is something that we are ABLE to accomplish. If it is beyond our power to perform Action B, then Action B would be impossible and would be immediately eliminated from our list of options. It would be something that we simply cannot do. But if Action B is something that we are actually able to do, then it is considered a real possibility. And it is just as real a possibility as Action A, assuming Action A is also something that we are actually able to do.

When choosing between Action A and Action B, both options start out as equally possible. All we know at the outset is that "We CAN do Action A" and "We CAN do Action B" are both true. And, by logical necessity, we must logically assume that "We CAN choose Action A" and "We CAN choose Action B" is also true.

The fact that determinism implies we WILL only choose one of them does not contradict the fact that we CAN choose either of them. When switching from the context of "what WILL happen" to the context of "what CAN happen" we enter the world of possibilities, where there are multiple options, with different outcomes, and each outcome is a different possible future.

These multiple possible futures do not contradict the single actual future. In fact, they are part of the machinery that causally determines what that single actual future will be. For example, there is no way to get from the restaurant menu to the dinner order without considering multiple possible dinners and choosing the single actual dinner from among them: "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

The Steak dinner COULD HAVE happened, but it WOULD NOT happen. Only the Chef Salad WOULD happen. Action B COULD HAVE happened, but it WOULD NOT happen. Only Action A WOULD happen.

Action B would not happen because A is fixed by the state of the system.

Correct.

Action A being fixed by the system negates any possibility of action B happening.

Still wrong. Action A being fixed by the system never negates any real possibility. The possibility of B happening is controlled by the rules of logic, the rational thought process that selects the single actual choice from among the many possible choices.

Because there is zero possibility of action B happening when action A is inevitable, immutable, fixed, 'would not happen' is equivalent to cannot happen.

Also wrong, because it creates a logical paradox. Here it is again for your amusement:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "In a deterministic world there is only a single possibility, only one thing that you CAN order for dinner."
Diner: "Oh. Okay. Then what is the single thing that I CAN order for dinner".
Waiter: "You tell me first!"

Action B cannot happen within a deterministic system.

It CAN, but it WON'T.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''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.

Absolutely correct! Finally, you quote a definition of determinism that does not confuse what can happen with what will happen!

And that is all that I am asking for, is to stop misusing CAN as if it meant the same thing as WILL.

It's meaningless to say 'there are many possibilities' within a system where none of these perceived 'possibilities' have the possibility of happening.

Nevertheless, perceiving those possibilities is part of the very mechanism that causally determines the single actuality. They are undeniably deterministic events within a deterministic system.

 

[pood]

So the outcome can only be "set in stone" AFTER it has happened?

If you like the "set in stone" metaphor, then, yes, the outcome will be "set in stone" from any prior point in eternity. So what? How does that change anything?

We still don't know WHAT is "set in stone" to happen. And when we don't know the single thing that WILL happen, we consider the MULTIPLE things that CAN happen, compute the probability for each if you like, and place our bets.

That's how possibilities and probabilities work.

You fail to grasp the point that if it is "set in stone," then there's nothing we can do to change it, and thus we do not have free will.

You really don‘t pay attention to what I or others write, do you?

I’ve already gone over this several times. Free will does not entail changing the past, present, or future, but simply to help make it be what it was, is and will be. You‘ve made no effort to rebut my argument. You simply ignore it.

 

[Kylie]

So if the future is by definition unknowable, how can you be justified in saying that what will happen in that future is solely the result of the condition the universe is in now.

Such a claim - that the state of the universe (and don't quibble with the words here, you know what I mean) - is determined by some previous state implies that we can look at some particular state of the universe and extrapolate it to determine what will happen in the future. From what has been said in this thread, that's the core argument of determinism, that anything that happens is DETERMINED by what came before. If you are to claim that the future is inherently unknowable and can not be determined ahead of time, not because we lack sufficient knowledge, but because it is in principle unknowable, then determinism can not be true.

First, we don't presume the universe is deterministic enough to predict the distant future. We presume that causes and their effect are reliable enough to believe that when we turn the steering wheel to the right, the car will go to the right. That is a prediction based upon events behaving deterministically, where the event of the car moving to the right is reliably caused by our turning the steering wheel. Determinism asserts a "theoretical predictability" of distant future events, but can claim no practical ability to do so.

Second, we believe that we behave deterministically as well. We think about things. Thinking, like walking and chewing gum, is one of the things we do. When we run into a problem or issue that requires us to make a decision (such as what to order in the restaurant), we consider our options and choose the one that we think will turn out best. Choosing is a deterministic operation that reliably causes our choice.

Third, our thinking and choosing are the prior causes of our deliberate acts. The final responsible prior cause of a deliberate act is the act of deliberation in which we chose to do it.

Fourth, who and what we are, right now, is part of the "current state" of the universe. Our choices and actions are part of what reliably causes the state of the universe to change to its next state. Most of the universe does not get to choose what happens next. But we do.

Finally, within the domain of human influence (things we can cause to happen if we choose to do so), the single inevitable future will be chosen, by us, from among the many possible futures that we will imagine.

It's either deterministic or it's not. How can you have something that's only partially deterministic?

Everything is always deterministic, including our thoughts and feelings and choices.

Everything is deterministic? Then what was that you were saying about "we don't presume the universe is deterministic enough to predict the distant future"? How do you measure the amount of the universe's determinisation?

Honestly, it sounds like you're making this up as you go.

 

[Kylie]

... are you suggesting that the universe was not deterministic when it was first created because there was no one around to have knowledge. Our knowledge does not change reality.

I am simply explaining the proper function of the notion of possibility (and probability).

You have explained nothing. Unless you think repeating a claim is the same thing as explaining it.

The notion of possibility is part of the causal mechanism that enables choosing.

Choosing is the causal mechanism that determines our choice. Our choice is the causal mechanism that determines our actions. Our actions are the causal mechanism that determines what will happen next. This is causal determinism.

It is only with we do not already KNOW what will happen that we consider different possibilities and the probability that one or the other will happen.

For example:

If I give you three boxes, tell you that keys to a new car are in one and then ask you to pick one, the fact that you don't know doesn't mean that each box has a non-zero probability. No matter what you say, one box has a 100% chance and the other two have a 0% chance.

The fact that I do not know which of three boxes holds the keys means that each box has a 33.3% probability of having the keys. None of the boxes have a 100% probability.

The fact that one of the boxes will inevitably hold the keys does not change any of the probabilities. We have the same situation with the horse race. We know that one of the horses will inevitably win the race, but we don't know which one. So, we calculate the odds of winning based upon the factors that we do know, like the age of the horse, its history of wins and losses, the conditions of the track, the experience of the jockey, etc.

Despite the fact that one of the horses will win and all of the others will not win, does not change the odds, because the only reason that we are computing the odds is because WE DON"T KNOW WHICH HORSE WILL WIN.

Probabilities are entirely about what we know and what we don't know. The same is true for possibilities.

No, it means from your limited point of view, you can only reach a certain conclusion. It does not mean that conclusion is correct. The boxes don't contain a third of a key each.

So what if I know which box the keys are in? I can then safely say that you are incorrect when you say that each box has a 33.3...% chance of holding the keys, and tell you to keep trying.

No, you can't safely say that I am incorrect in my estimate of probabilities, because my estimate is based upon what I know, not what you know. I am the one with a vested interest in computing the probabilities, because I am the one who wants the car keys.

So, from my perspective, which is the only perspective available to me, each of the 3 boxes has a 33.3% probability of holding the keys. And there is no argument that would convince me otherwise.

Please show how something that WILL DEFINITELY HAPPEN, ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED TO HAPPEN NO DOUBT ABOUT IT WHATSOEVER can ever have a probability of less than 100%

Sure. That's what I just did. From the perspective of any human being who does not know which box holds the car keys, each of the 3 boxes has the exact same 33.3% probability, and not one of them has a 100% probability. Not even the box that is actually holding the keys and was always inevitably going to be the one with the keys. It still has a 33.3% probability.

Only because you have limited information.

Just because you do not know certain information doesn't mean that information doesn't exist.

Well, if I don't have that information, and there is no way that I can get that information, then for me that information does not exist.
Uncertainty is a logical condition within the realm of human reasoning. Why are you pretending that it does not exist?

It's stupid to say that the information might as well not exist just because you don't have access to it.

A few hundred years ago, people did not have the knowledge to understand that the sun shone because of nuclear reactions. The entire concept was completely unknown to them. The information did not exist for them. Yet, the sun still shone.

I have lost track of how many times people in this thread have acted as though human's having some knowledge or not was an important thing. Newsflash: The universe doesn't care what you know. It's gonna do its thing regardless. You knowing or not knowing something isn't going to change anything.

 

[Kylie]

Geez, you might as well say that a circle can have four straight sides that meet at right angles, it makes about as much sense.

If that is all you have to say, then why waste my time?

Dunno, why are you wasting my time? I'll just use your answer.

 

[Kylie]

So if the future is by definition unknowable

It's not, though. It's unknowable by circumstance relative to our systemic perception.

It's not by definition unknowable on account of the fact that if you wait just a moment, it'll be the past, and quite knowable indeed.

Ah, but then it won't be the future anymore, will it. It will be knowable, but it will have ceased to be the future.

 

[Kylie]

Just substitute

Yes. If we want to make accurate statements then we need to use the words correctly.

If we are given the choice between Action A and Action B, and we choose Action A, then Action A will happen and Action B will not happen. We Action B COULD HAVE happened if we chose it, but we WOULD NOT choose it this time, so it WOULD NOT happen.

Determinism is satisfied because Action A was always the inevitable choice and it was actually chosen. There was no deviation from the inevitable course of events (and never is).

So if the inevitable course of events is that Outcome A was going to happen, and if there can be no deviation from that course of events, it's wrong to say Outcome B can happen.

We only think it can happen because we can't see what the inevitable outcome is.

But we may still speak of the possibility of Action B happening. For example, our first concern will be whether Action B is something that we are ABLE to accomplish. If it is beyond our power to perform Action B, then Action B would be impossible and would be immediately eliminated from our list of options. It would be something that we simply cannot do. But if Action B is something that we are actually able to do, then it is considered a real possibility. And it is just as real a possibility as Action A, assuming Action A is also something that we are actually able to do.

When choosing between Action A and Action B, both options start out as equally possible. All we know at the outset is that "We CAN do Action A" and "We CAN do Action B" are both true. And, by logical necessity, we must logically assume that "We CAN choose Action A" and "We CAN choose Action B" is also true.

The fact that determinism implies we WILL only choose one of them does not contradict the fact that we CAN choose either of them. When switching from the context of "what WILL happen" to the context of "what CAN happen" we enter the world of possibilities, where there are multiple options, with different outcomes, and each outcome is a different possible future.

These multiple possible futures do not contradict the single actual future. In fact, they are part of the machinery that causally determines what that single actual future will be. For example, there is no way to get from the restaurant menu to the dinner order without considering multiple possible dinners and choosing the single actual dinner from among them: "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

The Steak dinner COULD HAVE happened, but it WOULD NOT happen. Only the Chef Salad WOULD happen. Action B COULD HAVE happened, but it WOULD NOT happen. Only Action A WOULD happen.

But your determination of the possibility is based on our limited knowledge. Reality is not defined by our limited knowledge. Reality doesn't give a rat's about what we know or do not know.

Action B cannot happen within a deterministic system.

It CAN, but it WON'T.

If it's absolutely guaranteed to WON'T, how is it any different from CAN'T?

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''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.

Absolutely correct! Finally, you quote a definition of determinism that does not confuse what can happen with what will happen!

And that is all that I am asking for, is to stop misusing CAN as if it meant the same thing as WILL.

So, when I watch Jurassic Park, the lawyer CAN choose to stay in the car?

 

[Kylie]

So the outcome can only be "set in stone" AFTER it has happened?

If you like the "set in stone" metaphor, then, yes, the outcome will be "set in stone" from any prior point in eternity. So what? How does that change anything?

We still don't know WHAT is "set in stone" to happen. And when we don't know the single thing that WILL happen, we consider the MULTIPLE things that CAN happen, compute the probability for each if you like, and place our bets.

That's how possibilities and probabilities work.

You fail to grasp the point that if it is "set in stone," then there's nothing we can do to change it, and thus we do not have free will.

You really don‘t pay attention to what I or others write, do you?

I’ve already gone over this several times. Free will does not entail changing the past, present, or future, but simply to help make it be what it was, is and will be. You‘ve made no effort to rebut my argument. You simply ignore it.

Your explanation of free will is lousy.

"Free will is simply helping the future be what it's meant to be." Please, you sound like some hippy who talks to flowers.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Everything is deterministic?

Yes. Absolutely everything.

Then what was that you were saying about "we don't presume the universe is deterministic enough to predict the distant future"?

Determinism asserts that the distant future is "theoretically" 100% predictable, but not 100% "practically" predictable. The weather, for example, is difficult to predict, but we may still assume it is reliably caused and therefore "theoretically" predictable. We've improved our ability to predict the paths of hurricanes over the years, but it is unlikely that we will ever predict its exact path.

It is theoretically possible for you to become a concert pianist, but probably not practically possible at your age.

Honestly, it sounds like you're making this up as you go.

Cut the crap, Kylie.

 

[Kylie]

Everything is deterministic?

Yes. Absolutely everything.

So if you were to hypothetically "rewind" the universe back to the way it was a year ago and then let it run forward again, we'd end up in exactly the same place that we are now?

Then what was that you were saying about "we don't presume the universe is deterministic enough to predict the distant future"?

Determinism asserts that the distant future is "theoretically" 100% predictable, but not 100% "practically" predictable. The weather, for example, is difficult to predict, but we may still assume it is reliably caused and therefore "theoretically" predictable. We've improved our ability to predict the paths of hurricanes over the years, but it is unlikely that we will ever predict its exact path.

It is theoretically possible for you to become a concert pianist, but probably not practically possible at your age.

Actually, I am a pianist.

And I have been quite clear that my arguments were all based on that "theoretical" ability to predict the future.

Honestly, it sounds like you're making this up as you go.

Cut the crap, Kylie.

You first.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

So if the inevitable course of events is that Outcome A was going to happen, and if there can be no deviation from that course of events, it's wrong to say Outcome B can happen.

It is only wrong to say that Outcome B will happen.

It is never wrong to say that Outcome B can happen. The only way we can seriously consider Outcome B is by first believing that it is something that actually can happen.

Doing it as you suggested lands us in another paradox, for example:

We're driving down the road and we see a traffic light up ahead. The traffic light is red. But will it still be red when we get there, or will it have already turned to green? We don't know what will happen. But we do know what can happen. The light can remain red and the light can change to green.

Because the light could remain red, we slow down. But, as we arrive, the light changes to green, so we resume speed. Our passenger, a hard determinist, asks us, "Why did you slow down back there?". We answer, "Because the light could have remained red." But he objects, saying, "Obviously it was inevitable that the light would turn green, therefore it could not have remained red. So, again, why did you slow down?" We stop the car, and ask our idiot passenger to get out.

We did not know what was inevitable. But we did know what was possible. It was possible that the light would still be red when we arrived. And, it was possible that the light would turn green. There were two things that could happen, even though only one of them would happen.

When we do not know what WILL happen, we imagine what CAN happen, to prepare for what DOES happen. In this scenario, we slowed down so that we were prepared to stop, in case the light remained red.

We only think it can happen because we can't see what the inevitable outcome is.

Exactly! When we can't see what the inevitable outcome is, we don't know what will happen. To deal with this lack of information, we consider instead what can happen. The light can remain red and the light can turn green.

One thing will happen, but two things can happen.

But your determination of the possibility is based on our limited knowledge. Reality is not defined by our limited knowledge. Reality doesn't give a rat's about what we know or do not know.

Reality lacks the neurological equipment to give a rat's ass about anything. So, I'm not interested in any opinions that Reality doesn't even have.

But I do know that the traffic light up ahead can stay red or it can turn green. That is reality. That's how traffic lights work.

If it's absolutely guaranteed to WON'T, how is it any different from CAN'T?

Because "the light would not remain red" is true and "the light could have remained red" is also true. These two statements cannot be taken to contradict each other.

What "can" happen is different than what "will" happen. What "could have" happened is different than what "would have" happened.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''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.

Absolutely correct! Finally, you quote a definition of determinism that does not confuse what can happen with what will happen!

And that is all that I am asking for, is to stop misusing CAN as if it meant the same thing as WILL.

So, when I watch Jurassic Park, the lawyer CAN choose to stay in the car?

Yes, but they probably won't. They will probably run away from the dinosaur, as if that would help.

 

[Jarhyn]

In many respects the relationship between certainty, uncertainty, and determination is one that has to be very carefully looked at.

There is all this talk about explaining it to grocers, and that's all good and fine, but the fact is, if the grocer wants to understand Fermat's Last Theorem, they're not going to get there if they don't build the tools first, and that means actually learning how the math works.

A grocer simply won't be able to get there, any more than fishes will climb mountains, except by evolving as a species into something that has lungs.

It's kind of like that second programming class back in the good days when they started people on programming in C/C++, and they rolled out these pointer things... and then for some reason half the class just seemed to forget how to think.

There are just some concepts that are not going to be attainable and my guess is that it has a lot to do with how well one understands algebra and abstraction.

The mental exercises required to fully understand the concepts being discussed here require a deep level of ability to abstract.

First, one needs to be able to abstract a system. Then they need to abstract the contents of an object, and then they need to run a concrete process on that... And then they need to abstract the results and compare them again, and then return to the original abstraction and de-abstract it... Or something along these lines.

And understanding this description requires, I'm fairly certain, yet another abstraction.

It's no great surprise to me that the software engineers here who have managed to maintain a career through the days of C and pointer-heavy code actually understand the subject fairly well and why the folks who didn't, don't.

The only thing I know that throws programmers for more of a loop is flow control, timing, and memory barriers, though in all honesty I'm pretty sure these are hard because it's the exact same kind of multilevel exercise in abstraction.

People are just really bad at abstraction on average and nobody likes to admit it.

So if the future is by definition unknowable

It's not, though. It's unknowable by circumstance relative to our systemic perception.

It's not by definition unknowable on account of the fact that if you wait just a moment, it'll be the past, and quite knowable indeed.

Ah, but then it won't be the future anymore, will it. It will be knowable, but it will have ceased to be the future.

No, it won't. The moment that is ten seconds away from when I post, will always be, will always have been that moment, regardless of where the present is.

It will never cease to be that moment.

The way to imperfectly predict the future is generally going to be through macrophysics. The way to perfectly get the future described to you is to determine it, one second per second.

my arguments were all based on that "theoretical" ability to predict the future

Based on nonsense in other words. The only way to actually "predict" the future of a system, is to actually access that point in that system.

As such, there is no such thing as a perfect prediction of the future: there is only perfect replay.

So, when I watch Jurassic Park, the lawyer CAN choose to stay in the car?

Yes. By re-writing the script, hiring some actors, shooting some scenes, and splicing them into the footage.

Because when we are talking about CAN, we get to define the state we are asking CAN of. We don't get to define the rules of physics, but we do, for the sake of CAN, decide what those rules are going to be operating on.

Only SHALL is constrained by an immediate state

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Everything is deterministic?

Yes. Absolutely everything.

So if you were to hypothetically "rewind" the universe back to the way it was a year ago and then let it run forward again, we'd end up in exactly the same place that we are now?

That is correct. We would once more find ourselves in the restaurant, facing a menu of alternate possibilities, and having to choose for ourselves what we would order for dinner. We would have the same options, and the same goals and reasons determining our choice, such that we would still choose the Chef Salad, even though we could have chosen the Steak.

The "could have" is just as inevitable as the "would have". And we get them both every time we replay the tape.

Actually, I am a pianist.

Cool! I only had a few lessons as a kid. When I was a teenager I figured out how to play from the guitar chords to accompany my voice to play Beatles songs. I was raised in the Salvation Army and played a baritone horn at church and at camp but I've lost my lip due to lack of practice.

Did you ever see the movie, "The Hudsucker Proxy"? It was a comedy, but it had a beautiful love theme that I later learned was taken from Khachaturian's Adagio from Spartacus. That's a link to one of the YouTube performances.

 

[Kylie]

So if the inevitable course of events is that Outcome A was going to happen, and if there can be no deviation from that course of events, it's wrong to say Outcome B can happen.

It is only wrong to say that Outcome B will happen.

It is never wrong to say that Outcome B can happen. The only way we can seriously consider Outcome B is by first believing that it is something that actually can happen.

Doing it as you suggested lands us in another paradox, for example:

We're driving down the road and we see a traffic light up ahead. The traffic light is red. But will it still be red when we get there, or will it have already turned to green? We don't know what will happen. But we do know what can happen. The light can remain red and the light can change to green.

Because the light could remain red, we slow down. But, as we arrive, the light changes to green, so we resume speed. Our passenger, a hard determinist, asks us, "Why did you slow down back there?". We answer, "Because the light could have remained red." But he objects, saying, "Obviously it was inevitable that the light would turn green, therefore it could not have remained red. So, again, why did you slow down?" We stop the car, and ask our idiot passenger to get out.

We did not know what was inevitable. But we did know what was possible. It was possible that the light would still be red when we arrived. And, it was possible that the light would turn green. There were two things that could happen, even though only one of them would happen.

When we do not know what WILL happen, we imagine what CAN happen, to prepare for what DOES happen. In this scenario, we slowed down so that we were prepared to stop, in case the light remained red.

If outcome B WILL NOT HAPPEN, then there must be something preventing it from happening.

If there is something preventing it from happening, then Outcome B CAN NOT happen.

On the other hand, if there is nothing to say Outcome B will not happen, then indeed it CAN happen, but then you can not say that Outcome A WILL happen.

We only think it can happen because we can't see what the inevitable outcome is.

Exactly! When we can't see what the inevitable outcome is, we don't know what will happen. To deal with this lack of information, we consider instead what can happen. The light can remain red and the light can turn green.

One thing will happen, but two things can happen.

No, only one thing CAN happen, we just THINK that two things can happen because we can't see what the inevitable outcome is.

But your determination of the possibility is based on our limited knowledge. Reality is not defined by our limited knowledge. Reality doesn't give a rat's about what we know or do not know.

Reality lacks the neurological equipment to give a rat's ass about anything. So, I'm not interested in any opinions that Reality doesn't even have.

But I do know that the traffic light up ahead can stay red or it can turn green. That is reality. That's how traffic lights work.

You missed my point completely.

If it's absolutely guaranteed to WON'T, how is it any different from CAN'T?

Because "the light would not remain red" is true and "the light could have remained red" is also true. These two statements cannot be taken to contradict each other.

What "can" happen is different than what "will" happen. What "could have" happened is different than what "would have" happened.

Ah, but you are wrong.

If the timer mechanism on the lights is about to switch the lights over to green, then it is incorrect to say that it CAN remain red.

The only basis for you to say it can remain red is because there is some information you lack. But it makes no difference to the way the traffic light works whether you know or not.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''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.

Absolutely correct! Finally, you quote a definition of determinism that does not confuse what can happen with what will happen!

And that is all that I am asking for, is to stop misusing CAN as if it meant the same thing as WILL.

So, when I watch Jurassic Park, the lawyer CAN choose to stay in the car?

Yes, but they probably won't. They will probably run away from the dinosaur, as if that would help.

They PROBABLY won't?

I'll tell you what. I'll put the movie on now. You tell me, in the hour or so I have left before the lawyer has to make that choice, what probability you assign to him running out of the car, and what probability you assign to him staying in the car.

And don't try to get out of it by saying probability doesn't apply, or some other nonsense like that.

 

[DBT]

because A is fixed by the state of the system.

If action A is emitting the pattern of sounds "I would like the salad please" that action can ONLY be fixed by a translation and repetition of one of the images on the menu.

For heavens sake, what you say has no relevance to the terms and conditions of determinism.

Again: all events within a deterministic system, neurons firing, 'selection' of items on a menu go precisely as determined, not chosen.

The menu can have any number of items, yet each and every customer orders according to the state and condition of their own system in that time and place in relation to their environment, what is on the menus, proclivities, information exchange, processing, etc, everything proceeding as it must, not selected, not freely willed

The only way for the state of the system to actually accomplish fixing A is through the customer making a decision, a choice, that this is what shall be fixed.

The customer is imbedded in the system, an inherent part of it, the system and its its conditions and events shape and form the person, needs, wants, fears, aversions, tastes and so on.

Your fallacy lies in trying to separate the person from the system, that somehow the person can control what happens within their own biology and thought processes.

Autonomy of will has been shown to be a fallacy time and time again.

For example:
''Over and over, the participants made up just-so stories to account for their nonchoices. Instead of pondering their picks first and then acting on them, the study subjects appeared to act first and think later. Their improbable justifications indicate that we can use hindsight to determine our own motives—just as we might speculate about what drives someone else's behavior after the fact. In their now classic paper, Hall and Johansson dubbed this new illusion “choice blindness.”

''Choice blindness' reveals that not only are our choices often more constrained than we think, but our sense of agency in decision making can be a farce in which we are the first to deceive ourselves.''


”If the neurobiology level is causally sufficient to determine your behavior, then the fact that you had the experience of freedom at the higher level is really irrelevant.” - John Searle.

It's not a deviation, it's a journey.

The only way for the information to commute and transform from the menu to the waiter's ear is for something to take these many objects and reduce them to a single choice.

The fact that the choice must be made is that which cannot be deviated from

There are no alternative actions to choose from. All events must proceed without deviation. The activity of a brain, proceeding deterministically, produces the entailed action. Given the terms, your own terms, there can be no deviation, state and input fixes the outcome.

”If the neurobiology level is causally sufficient to determine your behavior, then the fact that you had the experience of freedom at the higher level is really irrelevant.” - John Searle.

 

[DBT]

Just substitute

Yes. If we want to make accurate statements then we need to use the words correctly.

If we are given the choice between Action A and Action B, and we choose Action A, then Action A will happen and Action B will not happen. We Action B COULD HAVE happened if we chose it, but we WOULD NOT choose it this time, so it WOULD NOT happen.

Determinism is satisfied because Action A was always the inevitable choice and it was actually chosen. There was no deviation from the inevitable course of events (and never is).

But we may still speak of the possibility of Action B happening. For example, our first concern will be whether Action B is something that we are ABLE to accomplish. If it is beyond our power to perform Action B, then Action B would be impossible and would be immediately eliminated from our list of options. It would be something that we simply cannot do. But if Action B is something that we are actually able to do, then it is considered a real possibility. And it is just as real a possibility as Action A, assuming Action A is also something that we are actually able to do.

When choosing between Action A and Action B, both options start out as equally possible. All we know at the outset is that "We CAN do Action A" and "We CAN do Action B" are both true. And, by logical necessity, we must logically assume that "We CAN choose Action A" and "We CAN choose Action B" is also true.

The fact that determinism implies we WILL only choose one of them does not contradict the fact that we CAN choose either of them. When switching from the context of "what WILL happen" to the context of "what CAN happen" we enter the world of possibilities, where there are multiple options, with different outcomes, and each outcome is a different possible future.

These multiple possible futures do not contradict the single actual future. In fact, they are part of the machinery that causally determines what that single actual future will be. For example, there is no way to get from the restaurant menu to the dinner order without considering multiple possible dinners and choosing the single actual dinner from among them: "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

The Steak dinner COULD HAVE happened, but it WOULD NOT happen. Only the Chef Salad WOULD happen. Action B COULD HAVE happened, but it WOULD NOT happen. Only Action A WOULD happen.

Action B would not happen because A is fixed by the state of the system.

Correct.

Action A being fixed by the system negates any possibility of action B happening.

Still wrong. Action A being fixed by the system never negates any real possibility. The possibility of B happening is controlled by the rules of logic, the rational thought process that selects the single actual choice from among the many possible choices.

Because there is zero possibility of action B happening when action A is inevitable, immutable, fixed, 'would not happen' is equivalent to cannot happen.

Also wrong, because it creates a logical paradox. Here it is again for your amusement:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "In a deterministic world there is only a single possibility, only one thing that you CAN order for dinner."
Diner: "Oh. Okay. Then what is the single thing that I CAN order for dinner".
Waiter: "You tell me first!"

Action B cannot happen within a deterministic system.

It CAN, but it WON'T.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''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.

Absolutely correct! Finally, you quote a definition of determinism that does not confuse what can happen with what will happen!

And that is all that I am asking for, is to stop misusing CAN as if it meant the same thing as WILL.

It's meaningless to say 'there are many possibilities' within a system where none of these perceived 'possibilities' have the possibility of happening.

Nevertheless, perceiving those possibilities is part of the very mechanism that causally determines the single actuality. They are undeniably deterministic events within a deterministic system.

Possibilities imply uncertainty.

There is no uncertainty within a deterministic system

That we don't have access to necessary information of the system to know how the system will evolve or develop does not mean that customers in a restaurant have the option to do otherwise.

Each and every customer must place their order as determined by their own state and the circumstance in which they in.

Again: ''At this point certain questions need to be asked: Why does the coercion of a person by another, or the conditions of a brain microchip, or the conditions of a tumor, – nullify the “free will” ability? What part of the “ability” is being obstructed? This almost always comes down to a certain point of “control” that is being minimized, and where that minimized control is coming from (the arbitrary part).

The compatibilist might say because those are influences that are “outside” of the person, but this misses the entire point brought up by the free will skeptic, which is that ALL environmental conditions that help lead to a person’s brain state at any given moment are “outside of the person”, and the genes a person has was provided rather than decided.''

 

[Jarhyn]

For heavens sake, what you say has no relevance to the terms and conditions of determinism

Determinism has no "terms or conditions". It does not work. It const

Your fallacy lies in trying to separate the person from the system, that somehow the person can control what happens within their own biology and thought processes

Then let us return to that thought process, and where and why the control is happening:

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

entailed, fixed, unchangeable

So it won't, which doesn't mean it can't re:

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.

Nowhere is there randomness. There is only linear deterministic calculation happening here.

As you can see, it's not illusory, it's just approximal.

It's necessary approximal nature due to Incompleteness does not in fact change that it is the same fundamental operation being done, merely with approximal data.

Clearly, it is possible to "mind control oneself" and the regulatory control is available to make decisions.