You've misunderstood. That's not what the authors were attempting to do.
Neither determinism nor indeterminism can ever be definitively 'proven'.
This is explained clearly and at length in the paper we've discussed that I linked to a couple of days ago.
The existence of...
I assume you mean the claim that certain predictions are not possible from within a deterministic system.
All you'd have to do is create a closed deterministic system containing a predictor and counter-predictor (a subsystem which will always respond counter to the prediction). If the...
Apologies. I was simply attempting to add clarity (for anyone else who might read this exchange). There was no intention to misrepresent you.
No, it's simply a statement about what can be predicted in principle given a theoretical external observer not part of the universe. If it's of no...
I agree completely (I think!).
I'm talking specifically about the situation where we're attempting to predict the response of a subsystem and that subsystem uses the prediction to do the opposite.
As for the rest of your post I'm afraid it's well over my pay grade, but thanks for trying.
Because it gives a very detailed explanation of why the kind of paradox you described in your previous post shows us that our intuition that deterministic systems can be totally predicted from within that system is incorrect.
It's not clear to me what you're saying here.
It's true that that...
Absolute predictability is only possible by an observer external to our universe. Embedded predictability (absolute predictability within our universe) is not possible.
It's explained here: Determinism and the Paradox of Predictability
This is not possible (explained in the link above). Of...
This implies that you believe that under determinism it is possible to to determine ahead of time. Do you? And why would it be a problem for free will?
Of course, but I'm afraid I don't see what it has too do with what I wrote.
Sure, but what you need to do is explain how the introduction of random influences results in free will whereas purely deterministic influences do not.
In other words how do we act intentionally based on reasons (free will) if our actions are even partially driven by random events. This would...
From Libertarianism (metaphysics):
I don't think you'll find many atheists in that group.
It's quite clearly anecdotal.
Either an event is the result of a deterministic cause or it isn't. Are you suggesting there's something in between?
I may be mistaken but I suspect that DBT would agree with everything you describe here except for your use of the word "choice".
DBT simply refuses to accept that the word "choice" can be used to describe a deterministic process.
It's a semantic dispute. DBT doesn't seem to realise that...
Well it really was a truly remarkable claim coming from someone who incessantly employs 'neuroscience' (inappropriately) as justification for his views and who regularly accuses his interlocutors of failing to understand determinism.
Whilst possibly not the most diplomatic response, I can...
The crucial difference is that libertarians go further and say that we do have free will and that the universe is indeterministic.
libertarian free will predominantly (but not exclusively) originates from religious ideas. Just Google "libertarian free will" and see the number of...
That's not what I said.
You claimed that genuine choices (i.e. free will) are only possible "If the world is NOT deterministic". It was this claim that I suggested was uncommon among atheists.
It's essentially the 'luck objection' to libertarian free will. There's a jargon-free explanation...