Why There is No Free-Will (with Richard Carrier)

[pood]

But when Sapolsky tells us we are meat robots of genetic determinism, or when Coyne tells us we are meat robots of the Big Bang (while at the same time rejecting genetic determinism... )

Jerry Coyne said it pretty well IMO. He says a lot of things very well indeed, especially talking about evolution. His exposures of the Behe - Dembski ID and Irreducible Complexity garbage are delicious.

Sure, he is great on that stuff.

Not so much on philosophy.

 

[Elixir]

But when Sapolsky tells us we are meat robots of genetic determinism, or when Coyne tells us we are meat robots of the Big Bang (while at the same time rejecting genetic determinism... )

Jerry Coyne said it pretty well IMO. He says a lot of things very well indeed, especially talking about evolution. His exposures of the Behe - Dembski ID and Irreducible Complexity garbage are delicious.

Sure, he is great on that stuff.

Not so much on philosophy.

I dunno - He basically foregoes it afaics.
I don't argue at all with the meat robots idea; it seems inarguable to me that physical humans are an emergent phenomenon of the physical universe. And I think genetic determinism is dumb and irrelevant, considering the vulnerability of genetic information and the massive butterfly effects possible from a single high energy particle... the galaxy of "possible" outcomes doesn't collapse into a local event "until it happens", is how I look at it. I think Coyne has a more nuanced and well grounded view of it, but I agree with him.

 

[pood]

But when Sapolsky tells us we are meat robots of genetic determinism, or when Coyne tells us we are meat robots of the Big Bang (while at the same time rejecting genetic determinism... )

Jerry Coyne said it pretty well IMO. He says a lot of things very well indeed, especially talking about evolution. His exposures of the Behe - Dembski ID and Irreducible Complexity garbage are delicious.

Sure, he is great on that stuff.

Not so much on philosophy.

I dunno - He basically foregoes it afaics.
I don't argue at all with the meat robots idea; it seems inarguable to me that physical humans are an emergent phenomenon of the physical universe. And I think genetic determinism is dumb and irrelevant, considering the vulnerability of genetic information and the massive butterfly effects possible from a single high energy particle... the galaxy of "possible" outcomes doesn't collapse into a local event "until it happens", is how I look at it. I think Coyne has a more nuanced and well grounded view of it, but I agree with him.

Coyne argues for hard determinism. As noted, he told a jazz musician that he did not write his own composition but hard determinism did, and the musician got really angry. Then he says Richard Dawkins interceded to smooth things over. Outside of biology I think Coyne — who also supports Israeli slaughter in Gaza and attacks trans rights — is a total fuckwit. My opinion, of course.

 

[Elixir]

he told a jazz musician that he did not write his own composition but hard determinism did

I heard that before. That was his emotional contrarianism as I understand it.

Outside of biology I think Coyne — who also supports Israeli slaughter in Gaza and attacks trans rights — is a total fuckwit

I didn't hear THAT before. That's sad.

 

[Jarhyn]

But when Sapolsky tells us we are meat robots of genetic determinism, or when Coyne tells us we are meat robots of the Big Bang (while at the same time rejecting genetic determinism... )

Jerry Coyne said it pretty well IMO. He says a lot of things very well indeed, especially talking about evolution. His exposures of the Behe - Dembski ID and Irreducible Complexity garbage are delicious.

Sure, he is great on that stuff.

Not so much on philosophy.

I dunno - He basically foregoes it afaics.
I don't argue at all with the meat robots idea; it seems inarguable to me that physical humans are an emergent phenomenon of the physical universe. And I think genetic determinism is dumb and irrelevant, considering the vulnerability of genetic information and the massive butterfly effects possible from a single high energy particle... the galaxy of "possible" outcomes doesn't collapse into a local event "until it happens", is how I look at it. I think Coyne has a more nuanced and well grounded view of it, but I agree with him.

Coyne argues for hard determinism. As noted, he told a jazz musician that he did not write his own composition but hard determinism did, and the musician got really angry. Then he says Richard Dawkins interceded to smooth things over. Outside of biology I think Coyne — who also supports Israeli slaughter in Gaza and attacks trans rights — is a total fuckwit. My opinion, of course.

I mean, it's a pretty evidenced "opinion".

Dawkins is in the same bucket though, I think.

Turds of the same meal stick together, I guess.

 

[Mr. Board Member]

But when Sapolsky tells us we are meat robots of genetic determinism, or when Coyne tells us we are meat robots of the Big Bang (while at the same time rejecting genetic determinism... )

Jerry Coyne said it pretty well IMO. He says a lot of things very well indeed, especially talking about evolution. His exposures of the Behe - Dembski ID and Irreducible Complexity garbage are delicious.

Sure, he is great on that stuff.

Not so much on philosophy.

I dunno - He basically foregoes it afaics.
I don't argue at all with the meat robots idea; it seems inarguable to me that physical humans are an emergent phenomenon of the physical universe. And I think genetic determinism is dumb and irrelevant, considering the vulnerability of genetic information and the massive butterfly effects possible from a single high energy particle... the galaxy of "possible" outcomes doesn't collapse into a local event "until it happens", is how I look at it. I think Coyne has a more nuanced and well grounded view of it, but I agree with him.

Coyne argues for hard determinism. As noted, he told a jazz musician that he did not write his own composition but hard determinism did, and the musician got really angry. Then he says Richard Dawkins interceded to smooth things over. Outside of biology I think Coyne — who also supports Israeli slaughter in Gaza and attacks trans rights — is a total fuckwit. My opinion, of course.

A point I want to bring up: In Calvinist Christianity it is said that God, although he decreed all events to happen of necessity, is not the direct (efficient) cause of moral evil because there are secondary causes, like the tree with secret wisdom, the devil who tempted Adam & Eve, etc.

I bring this stuff, though this shit sounds silly (talking snakes, etc) because even if a God did make Adam & Eve, and if the Geneses narrative is true, God would have to be the direct cause of all, including sin, if everything happens of necessity. Here is my reasoning (which I bring up in The Origin of Evil published by Internet Infidels in the Modern Library):

In order to do an action, one needs a motive to enable them.

One specifically needs an inclination to serve as an internal motivation, and without one, nothing could be a motive to the mind's eye, and one cannot choose to will.

Inclinations, the initial ones, come from your nature, which in turn are created by one's creator.

God created Adam & Eve with all their inclinations - to have sex with one another, to take of secretive wisdom, to good, towards evil, to morally neutral things, etc.

It was God's fault Adam was attracted to the tree. To help make my point, it's the Lion's nature that attracts it to meat, not the meat in and of itself.

Since the greatest motivation, or a collection of them that make something the greatest thing to do, as well as the only motivation, determine the will. God is not just determining desires - he is determining all actions.

God also DIRECTLY created all things Calvinists refer to as secondary causes, like the special tree and the devil, who he would have determined to sin as well.

Therefore, God would have to be the efficient cause of all sin. The people chose of their will to sin, but God is the Efficient Cause of their sin, since he truly determined all to sin.

Therefore, the only way God could ordain all to happen of necessity is if he is the Direct Cause of Sin - he can't just be The Final Cause of Sin, even there are additional things that exist, like the tree of knowledge and the devil. (See my point in bold above)

Is everything correct that I have stated?

Thanks,

Edouard Tahmizian
Vice President of Internet Infidels' Board of Directors

 

[pood]

But when Sapolsky tells us we are meat robots of genetic determinism, or when Coyne tells us we are meat robots of the Big Bang (while at the same time rejecting genetic determinism... )

Jerry Coyne said it pretty well IMO. He says a lot of things very well indeed, especially talking about evolution. His exposures of the Behe - Dembski ID and Irreducible Complexity garbage are delicious.

Sure, he is great on that stuff.

Not so much on philosophy.

I dunno - He basically foregoes it afaics.
I don't argue at all with the meat robots idea; it seems inarguable to me that physical humans are an emergent phenomenon of the physical universe. And I think genetic determinism is dumb and irrelevant, considering the vulnerability of genetic information and the massive butterfly effects possible from a single high energy particle... the galaxy of "possible" outcomes doesn't collapse into a local event "until it happens", is how I look at it. I think Coyne has a more nuanced and well grounded view of it, but I agree with him.

Coyne argues for hard determinism. As noted, he told a jazz musician that he did not write his own composition but hard determinism did, and the musician got really angry. Then he says Richard Dawkins interceded to smooth things over. Outside of biology I think Coyne — who also supports Israeli slaughter in Gaza and attacks trans rights — is a total fuckwit. My opinion, of course.

A point I want to bring up: In Calvinist Christianity it is said that God, although he decreed all events to happen of necessity, is not the direct (efficient) cause of moral evil because there are secondary causes, like the tree with secret wisdom, the devil who tempted Adam & Eve, etc.

I bring this stuff, though this shit sounds silly (talking snakes, etc) because even if a God did make Adam & Eve, and if the Geneses narrative is true, God would have to be the direct cause of all, including sin, if everything happens of necessity. Here is my reasoning (which I bring up in The Origin of Evil published by Internet Infidels in the Modern Library):

In order to do an action, one needs a motive to enable them.

One specifically needs an inclination to serve as an internal motivation, and without one, nothing could be a motive to the mind's eye, and one cannot choose to will.

Inclinations, the initial ones, come from your nature, which in turn are created by one's creator.

God created Adam & Eve with all their inclinations - to have sex with one another, to take of secretive wisdom, to good, towards evil, to morally neutral things, etc.

It was God's fault Adam was attracted to the tree. To help make my point, it's the Lion's nature that attracts it to meat, not the meat in and of itself.

Since the greatest motivation, or a collection of them that make something the greatest thing to do, as well as the only motivation, determine the will. God is not just determining desires - he is determining all actions.

God also DIRECTLY created all things Calvinists refer to as secondary causes, like the special tree and the devil, who he would have determined to sin as well.

Therefore, God would have to be the efficient cause of all sin. The people chose of their will to sin, but God is the Efficient Cause of their sin, since he truly determined all to sin.

Therefore, the only way God could ordain all to happen of necessity is if he is the Direct Cause of Sin - he can't just be The Final Cause of Sin, even there are additional things that exist, like the tree of knowledge and the devil. (See my point in bold above)

Is everything correct that I have stated?

Thanks,

Edouard Tahmizian
Vice President of Internet Infidels' Board of Directors

I think this is correct. What I have addressed in the free will debate is the existence, not of omnipotent creator god, but rather an omniscient agent who knows in advance all that will happen without having created the world. The logic here mirrors that of Aristotle’s problem of future contingents.

I simply note that it’s wrong to say, If an OA knows in advance that I will do x, then I must do x (fatalism).

Problem of future contingents: if it’s true today that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, the sea battle must occur (fatalism).

Both arguments contain a modal fallacy.

In both cases the concept of necessity is relative and not absolute.

The arguments above go:

If today it is true that an OA knows tomorrow I will do x, then I must necessarily do x.

Corrected:

Necessarily (if today it is true that a OA knows tomorrow I will do x, then I WILL [but not MUST] do x.

And:

If today it’s true that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, then there must necessarily be a sea battle.

Corrected:

Necessarily (if today it is true that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, then there WILL [but not MUST] be a sea battle.

The upshot is that what happens tomorrow provides the truth grounds for what an OA will know today, or what proposition is true today. So if tomorrow there is NOT a sea battle then a DIFFERENT proposition would be true today.

And if tomorrow I do y instead of x then the OA will know that thing instead.

However, as noted, this does not involve an omniipotent creator, only an omniscient agent. Your argument about a creator god appears to go through,

 

[pood]

There also seems to be some idea that because many (most?) of our decisions are arrived at subconsciously before hitting conscious awareness, then we lack (compatibilist) free will.

I think this is mistaken.

If I decide for the first time consciously to put my hand into a flame, and discover the unpleasant consequences of doing so, I will not have to figure out again, consciously, whether to do that in the future. I will avoid the flame in the future without even having to think about it. Memory and subconscious information processing do not preclude compatibilism.

 

[Jarhyn]

But when Sapolsky tells us we are meat robots of genetic determinism, or when Coyne tells us we are meat robots of the Big Bang (while at the same time rejecting genetic determinism... )

Jerry Coyne said it pretty well IMO. He says a lot of things very well indeed, especially talking about evolution. His exposures of the Behe - Dembski ID and Irreducible Complexity garbage are delicious.

Sure, he is great on that stuff.

Not so much on philosophy.

I dunno - He basically foregoes it afaics.
I don't argue at all with the meat robots idea; it seems inarguable to me that physical humans are an emergent phenomenon of the physical universe. And I think genetic determinism is dumb and irrelevant, considering the vulnerability of genetic information and the massive butterfly effects possible from a single high energy particle... the galaxy of "possible" outcomes doesn't collapse into a local event "until it happens", is how I look at it. I think Coyne has a more nuanced and well grounded view of it, but I agree with him.

Coyne argues for hard determinism. As noted, he told a jazz musician that he did not write his own composition but hard determinism did, and the musician got really angry. Then he says Richard Dawkins interceded to smooth things over. Outside of biology I think Coyne — who also supports Israeli slaughter in Gaza and attacks trans rights — is a total fuckwit. My opinion, of course.

A point I want to bring up: In Calvinist Christianity it is said that God, although he decreed all events to happen of necessity, is not the direct (efficient) cause of moral evil because there are secondary causes, like the tree with secret wisdom, the devil who tempted Adam & Eve, etc.

I bring this stuff, though this shit sounds silly (talking snakes, etc) because even if a God did make Adam & Eve, and if the Geneses narrative is true, God would have to be the direct cause of all, including sin, if everything happens of necessity. Here is my reasoning (which I bring up in The Origin of Evil published by Internet Infidels in the Modern Library):

In order to do an action, one needs a motive to enable them.

One specifically needs an inclination to serve as an internal motivation, and without one, nothing could be a motive to the mind's eye, and one cannot choose to will.

Inclinations, the initial ones, come from your nature, which in turn are created by one's creator.

God created Adam & Eve with all their inclinations - to have sex with one another, to take of secretive wisdom, to good, towards evil, to morally neutral things, etc.

It was God's fault Adam was attracted to the tree. To help make my point, it's the Lion's nature that attracts it to meat, not the meat in and of itself.

Since the greatest motivation, or a collection of them that make something the greatest thing to do, as well as the only motivation, determine the will. God is not just determining desires - he is determining all actions.

God also DIRECTLY created all things Calvinists refer to as secondary causes, like the special tree and the devil, who he would have determined to sin as well.

Therefore, God would have to be the efficient cause of all sin. The people chose of their will to sin, but God is the Efficient Cause of their sin, since he truly determined all to sin.

Therefore, the only way God could ordain all to happen of necessity is if he is the Direct Cause of Sin - he can't just be The Final Cause of Sin, even there are additional things that exist, like the tree of knowledge and the devil. (See my point in bold above)

Is everything correct that I have stated?

Thanks,

Edouard Tahmizian
Vice President of Internet Infidels' Board of Directors

Yes.

This is in fact why I think that in general beliefs in God go only one of a few ways: namely Fatalism and Solipsism.

For the atheist, there are also few ways it can really end up going: Nihilism or Compatibilism.

Note, I do not consider the "hard determinist", any hard determinist, to be an atheist. This is because I see God in their "necessitation", in "whatever makes it thus that it could not be otherwise."

Nor do I consider any solipsist thus; they also believe there is a God, they just believe they are themselves that thing.

But when Sapolsky tells us we are meat robots of genetic determinism, or when Coyne tells us we are meat robots of the Big Bang (while at the same time rejecting genetic determinism... )

Jerry Coyne said it pretty well IMO. He says a lot of things very well indeed, especially talking about evolution. His exposures of the Behe - Dembski ID and Irreducible Complexity garbage are delicious.

Sure, he is great on that stuff.

Not so much on philosophy.

I dunno - He basically foregoes it afaics.
I don't argue at all with the meat robots idea; it seems inarguable to me that physical humans are an emergent phenomenon of the physical universe. And I think genetic determinism is dumb and irrelevant, considering the vulnerability of genetic information and the massive butterfly effects possible from a single high energy particle... the galaxy of "possible" outcomes doesn't collapse into a local event "until it happens", is how I look at it. I think Coyne has a more nuanced and well grounded view of it, but I agree with him.

Coyne argues for hard determinism. As noted, he told a jazz musician that he did not write his own composition but hard determinism did, and the musician got really angry. Then he says Richard Dawkins interceded to smooth things over. Outside of biology I think Coyne — who also supports Israeli slaughter in Gaza and attacks trans rights — is a total fuckwit. My opinion, of course.

A point I want to bring up: In Calvinist Christianity it is said that God, although he decreed all events to happen of necessity, is not the direct (efficient) cause of moral evil because there are secondary causes, like the tree with secret wisdom, the devil who tempted Adam & Eve, etc.

I bring this stuff, though this shit sounds silly (talking snakes, etc) because even if a God did make Adam & Eve, and if the Geneses narrative is true, God would have to be the direct cause of all, including sin, if everything happens of necessity. Here is my reasoning (which I bring up in The Origin of Evil published by Internet Infidels in the Modern Library):

In order to do an action, one needs a motive to enable them.

One specifically needs an inclination to serve as an internal motivation, and without one, nothing could be a motive to the mind's eye, and one cannot choose to will.

Inclinations, the initial ones, come from your nature, which in turn are created by one's creator.

God created Adam & Eve with all their inclinations - to have sex with one another, to take of secretive wisdom, to good, towards evil, to morally neutral things, etc.

It was God's fault Adam was attracted to the tree. To help make my point, it's the Lion's nature that attracts it to meat, not the meat in and of itself.

Since the greatest motivation, or a collection of them that make something the greatest thing to do, as well as the only motivation, determine the will. God is not just determining desires - he is determining all actions.

God also DIRECTLY created all things Calvinists refer to as secondary causes, like the special tree and the devil, who he would have determined to sin as well.

Therefore, God would have to be the efficient cause of all sin. The people chose of their will to sin, but God is the Efficient Cause of their sin, since he truly determined all to sin.

Therefore, the only way God could ordain all to happen of necessity is if he is the Direct Cause of Sin - he can't just be The Final Cause of Sin, even there are additional things that exist, like the tree of knowledge and the devil. (See my point in bold above)

Is everything correct that I have stated?

Thanks,

Edouard Tahmizian
Vice President of Internet Infidels' Board of Directors

I think this is correct. What I have addressed in the free will debate is the existence, not of omnipotent creator god, but rather an omniscient agent who knows in advance all that will happen without having created the world. The logic here mirrors that of Aristotle’s problem of future contingents.

I simply note that it’s wrong to say, If an OA knows in advance that I will do x, then I must do x (fatalism).

Problem of future contingents: if it’s true today that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, the sea battle must occur (fatalism).

Both arguments contain a modal fallacy.

In both cases the concept of necessity is relative and not absolute.

The arguments above go:

If today it is true that an OA knows tomorrow I will do x, then I must necessarily do x.

Corrected:

Necessarily (if today it is true that a OA knows tomorrow I will do x, then I WILL [but not MUST] do x.

And:

If today it’s true that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, then there must necessarily be a sea battle.

Corrected:

Necessarily (if today it is true that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, then there WILL [but not MUST] be a sea battle.

The upshot is that what happens tomorrow provides the truth grounds for what an OA will know today, or what proposition is true today. So if tomorrow there is NOT a sea battle then a DIFFERENT proposition would be true today.

And if tomorrow I do y instead of x then the OA will know that thing instead.

However, as noted, this does not involve an omniipotent creator, only an omniscient agent. Your argument about a creator god appears to go through,

The problem I see with the argument actually "going through" is that the god is not really just omniscient, they are also omnipotent, because omniscience plus creation would equate to omnipotence.

Second, this implies the god can only create one universe: what makes it such that the god cannot create a second universe "to the 'left'" of the first one, and making it not true that you must have done that, because right over there, in parallel, is you not doing that thing.

This would imply... There is only one place to create, and given the omnipotence, (IOW "timelessness" of the creation, lack of other creation), this would name God The Set of All Sets.

But... The Set of All Sets is a contradiction, as revealed by Russel's Paradox.

So, without necessarily even directly revealing a modal fallacy, the idea of the God itself is revealed as nonsensical.

 

[pood]

he told a jazz musician that he did not write his own composition but hard determinism did

I heard that before. That was his emotional contrarianism as I understand it.

Outside of biology I think Coyne — who also supports Israeli slaughter in Gaza and attacks trans rights — is a total fuckwit

I didn't hear THAT before. That's sad.

Coyne devotes most of his his time to attacking trans rights, DEI, and “wokeism.” He also contributed to a horrible book of essays, which features a contribution by the execrable Jordan Peterson, that attacks “woke” influence on science. It seems, according to him and the book’s other contributors, that progressives are destroying science, not Trump, RFK Jr., and other madmen who are trying to destroy education in its entirety to ensure that we have an ignorant population that will reliably vote MAGGOT.

 

[Jarhyn]

he told a jazz musician that he did not write his own composition but hard determinism did

I heard that before. That was his emotional contrarianism as I understand it.

Outside of biology I think Coyne — who also supports Israeli slaughter in Gaza and attacks trans rights — is a total fuckwit

I didn't hear THAT before. That's sad.

Coyne devotes most of his his time to attacking trans rights, DEI, and “wokeism.” He also contributed to a horrible book of essays, which features a contribution by the execrable Jordan Peterson, that attacks “woke” influence on science. It seems, according to him and the book’s other contributors, that progressives are destroying science, not Trump, RFK Jr., and other madmen who are trying to destroy education in its entirety to ensure that we have a population that will reliably vote MAGGOT.

Yeah, see to me this just looks like Calvinist Christianity of the sort explicitly designed to suffocate people's dreams, but rebranded in a way that makes it seem more appealing to atheists.

They just rename their God "necessity" and try to hide it in a neater way.

 

[pood]

Jerry Coyne: as dumb as a creationist

Of course this is off topic.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jerry Coyne: as dumb as a creationist

Of course this is off topic.

I don't know about that. It seems pretty on-topic to discuss the interplay between Calvinist theism couched as atheism, God, and the fact that there is a growing sphere of "science educators" whose "science" IS the religion that creationists previously accused atheists of having.

Of course, I would also like to see atheist thinkers identify this covert attempt to re-invent God and theism in a way that will be mistaken for atheism, call it out widely on public fora, and start a soul-searching that reveals these bastards for what they are: Calvinist Christian apologists.

 

[WAB]

Jerry Coyne: as dumb as a creationist

Of course this is off topic.

I don't know about that. It seems pretty on-topic to discuss the interplay between Calvinist theism couched as atheism, God, and the fact that there is a growing sphere of "science educators" whose "science" IS the religion that creationists previously accused atheists of having.

Of course, I would also like to see atheist thinkers identify this covert attempt to re-invent God and theism in a way that will be mistaken for atheism, call it out widely on public fora, and start a soul-searching that reveals these bastards for what they are: Calvinist Christian apologists.

I compared hard determinism to Calvinism many years ago when I used to be heavily involved in the free will threads. It might be in the archives if we still have access to them. I was WilliamB then. But I don't believe they are literally Calvinist Christian apologists.

And as a side note, no-one will EVER Change DBT's mind!!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm still wondering why I should care about whether or not I have free will.

 

[bilby]

I'm still wondering why I should care about whether or not I have free will.

Well, that's entirely up to you.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm still wondering why I should care about whether or not I have free will.

I mean, if it's compatibilist free will, whether you have it or not is a direct measure of how enslaved or confined someone is.

You should want it insofar as being enslaved or confined makes it a lot harder to accomplish goals.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm still wondering why I should care about whether or not I have free will.

Well, that's entirely up to you.

I'm just not convinced it's necessarily a problem of I don't have it. I guess it's just a reaction to a lot of the rhetoric around other concepts (if you don't have god/purpose in your life, it's a problem!"). Etc.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm still wondering why I should care about whether or not I have free will.

Well, that's entirely up to you.

I'm just not convinced it's necessarily a problem of I don't have it. I guess it's just a reaction to a lot of the rhetoric around other concepts (if you don't have god/purpose in your life, it's a problem!"). Etc.

I mean, is it a problem if someone has a gun to your head, or has you in chains?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm still wondering why I should care about whether or not I have free will.

Well, that's entirely up to you.

I'm just not convinced it's necessarily a problem of I don't have it. I guess it's just a reaction to a lot of the rhetoric around other concepts (if you don't have god/purpose in your life, it's a problem!"). Etc.

I mean, is it a problem if someone has a gun to your head, or has you in chains?

Yup. It's also a problem if an asteroid strikes the Earth and I end up dead but there's nothing I can do about that. Also might die for plenty of other reasons I have zero control over.