According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[DBT]

Where does that come from? It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

How do you jump from brain agency to 'locally real?'

It makes no sense.

The fact that you don't see what sense Local Realism makes, despite the fact I laid it out clearly and Pood DID understand means that you are deep in Dunning-Kruger.

There you go, resorting to insults.

You have lost. A hint, if determinism is the reality of the world, the given conditions apply to all events. Where the system evolves, just as you said, without randomness or deviation.

Your ''local realism' is a Red Herring.

An argument where, failing to grasp the terms and conditions of determinism and its implications, you turn to slander.

. "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

Randomness and deviation are not the creators of "free will".

Something is responsible because of what it is and has done and contingent mechanisms it contains.

I have explained why local Realism matters, and why it makes your statements laughably false about relative causal responsibility.

I explained this in detail, that "the ability to do otherwise" was never asked for by the compatibilist, but rather "the possibility to have done otherwise IF I had wanted to."

Not wanting to does not abrogate the truth of the counterfactual.

There's your problem straight off. Determinism does not permit alternate actions. What you want and what you do unfolds precisely as determined. What you want to do is not exempt from the progression of events within the system, as you erroneously imply

Again:
''Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes (and perhaps a dash of true chance). Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X.''

Not only are there no constraints to keep a person from doing what he wants, if determined, but what is subsequently done is done necessarily.

In other words, what you want to do and what you do, is inevitable.

It is inevitable according to your own definition of determinism and it is inevitable according to the definition given in compatibilism and philosophy.

And your ''local realism' excuse is a Red Herring.

 

[DBT]

Come off it. What do you think determinism means?

Just what I said it means, and what Hume said it means: “Constant conjuction.”

You must realize that ''constant conjunction,'' where ''one event is invariably followed by the other'' is for all practical purposes the same as every definition of determinism I have quoted, including Marvin Edwards.

Please address that, and stop claiming that your definition of “determinism” is universal. It’s not even any definiition of determinism. It’s the definition of HARD determinism.

I have addressed it too many times to count. As I just mentioned, you do not appear to have grasped the nature and implications of determinism, even as you define it above as 'constant conjunction.'

Conflating hard determinism with determism by definition is entirely question-begging.

Once again. I use the definition determinism precisely as quoted in numerous sources, including your own 'constant conjunction.'

Also, I skimmed through the psyhc today article you quoted, and spotted his error right away. Same old error you hard determinists always make when discussing compatibilism, the same one you’ve made endlessly despite being corrected endlessly.

What error? You have yet to grasp the implications of your own definition, 'constant conjunction,' which is essentially the same as; Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. - Stanford

Where ''one event is invariably followed by the other.''

Where 'invariable' does not permit alternate actions, ie, there being no variation in any given instant in time as the system evolves from past to present and future states without alternatives (invariable). Which obviously includes our conscious thoughts and feelings that precede an action (decided milliseconds prior to conscious awareness).

Which in turn falsifies the notion of 'free' will (we have will) and the flawed compatibilist definition of it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Determinism does not permit alternate actions.

It seems you missed this part

I explained this in detail, that "the ability to do otherwise" was never asked for by the compatibilist, but rather "the possibility to have done otherwise IF I had wanted to."

Not wanting to does not abrogate the truth of the counterfactual.

No compatibilist asked for alternative actions, they asked for possibilities. Possibilities, owing to the fact that there's nothing in the universe requiring all possibilities to be actualities, are readily in evidence, and are always with reference to some counterfactual.

Yet again "if the cup fills, it will tip and empty itself" is true even if the cup never fills, so long as the material properties create physical contingence in that way.

In other news, even small children seem to understand that responsibility is a function of determination and determinants rather than probabilistic madness. We put far more merit on the players of games whose actions do not reduce to randomness. As such, most people stop playing Snakes and Ladders because there's no way they as agents can have leverage on the outcome because it is all down to "random chance".

 

[DBT]

Determinism does not permit alternate actions.

It seems you missed this part

I explained this in detail, that "the ability to do otherwise" was never asked for by the compatibilist, but rather "the possibility to have done otherwise IF I had wanted to."

Not wanting to does not abrogate the truth of the counterfactual.

No compatibilist asked for alternative actions, they asked for possibilities. Possibilities, owing to the fact that there's nothing in the universe requiring all possibilities to be actualities, are readily in evidence, and are always with reference to some counterfactual.

It's not that I missed it, but that it's worthless as a rationale. Why you ask? It has been explained numerous times.

Determinism as it is defined by compatibilists, including your own definition, permits neither alternate actions or alternate possibilities.

As the system evolves without deviating from its fixed causal evolution (as it must, given the terms of the definition), what happens must happen without alternate possibilities., consequently there is no point to make by invoking possibilities.

The issue is the proposition that free will is compatible with determinism, not 'possibilites' that don't exist within a deterministic system.

Yet again "if the cup fills, it will tip and empty itself" is true even if the cup never fills, so long as the material properties create physical contingence in that way.

In other news, even small children seem to understand that responsibility is a function of determination and determinants rather than probabilistic madness. We put far more merit on the players of games whose actions do not reduce to randomness. As such, most people stop playing Snakes and Ladders because there's no way they as agents can have leverage on the outcome because it is all down to "random chance".

Given your remarks and objections, 'local realism,' alternate possibilities, etc, it's clear that you have yet to grasp the basics of the argument.

Quite simply, the notion of free will is incompatible with determinism because a deterministic system negates choice and places just as much constraint on freedom of will as force or undue influence by external agents.

The compatibilist states that it is 'you' who is making decisions, therefore free will....yet it is equally true that if the brain is dysfunctional, it is 'you' who is choosing to be dysfunctional, so, therefore free will?

Who would 'choose' that?

At which point the compatibilist's foundation of 'you' freely making decisions falls apart. Where it is non-chosen brain state and condition, not choice or 'free will' that determines behaviour

On the neurology of morals
Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not that I missed it, but that it's worthless as a rationale. Why you ask? It has been explained numerous times

No, it went right over your head.

I mean shit, what even is your profession? Have you ever even touched an actual observably deterministic system or debugged it? Only a complete fool would say responsibility in determinism is not real after having actually isolated a responsibility chain in a deterministic piece of software.

It's you who aren't grasping everything that's going on, at least according to the function of a certain 787 simulator belonging to American Airlines...

 

[DBT]

It's not that I missed it, but that it's worthless as a rationale. Why you ask? It has been explained numerous times

No, it went right over your head.

Nah, you even fail to understand that your own definition does not permit alternate 'possibilities' [as perceived] to actuate.

Which means 'could have done otherwise had conditions been different' is a Red Herring.

Determinism does not permit 'could have or may have,' only what must happen without deviation.

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

Do you understand the implications of ''no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system?''

Apparently not.

I mean shit, what even is your profession?

You are singing a sad lament. That's what loss does.

Have you ever even touched an actual observably deterministic system or debugged it? Only a complete fool would say responsibility in determinism is not real after having actually isolated a responsibility chain in a deterministic piece of software.

You shouldn't even whisper 'fool' without gazing long and hard in your mirror.

I mean, you are the one who has claimed that computers are conscious and have free will. Your statement is just as foolish.

You invoke 'isolated responsibility' without understanding what you say.

Plus, it has been explained that we are responsible in the sense in the sense that is us, brain/mind that it is responsible for thoughts and actions, but that this does not equate to 'free will' for all the reasons that have been explained at great length.

Does the distinction need to be explained again?

So, yes, you are not in a position to mention the word 'fool.'

It's you who aren't grasping everything that's going on, at least according to the function of a certain 787 simulator belonging to American Airlines...

Do tell?

What do you think the simulator shows in terms of determinism and free will?

Share your understanding, oh, wise one.

 

[Jarhyn]

not permit alternate 'possibilities' [as perceived] to actuate

Reality only allows ONE possibility to actuate. That possibility is the actuality. The fact that reality only allows one of the possibilities to actuate does not change the existence of the other possibilities that don't actuate.

How is this so hard for you?

When non-anthropocentric definitions are used, yes, computers may have wills, and freedoms, and can be made to figure out the provenance of their will to speak.

This is, in fact, how GenAI developers are addressing the hallucination issue: by looking at the pathway of activation for knowledge-based statements vs fabrications.

We can literally say "oh, the part of the system that generates made-up shit is responsible in this interaction, for this token selection, therefore the system lied."

It's clear that the system having some self-awareness of which pathways acted to render or even just participate in statements can inform the system, before it speaks, that what it is about to speak is a fabrication.

In this way, self-awareness features an interesting result in that a system that didn't know it was speaking a lie is less likely to abandon or reset the process of generating a response for it being inaccurate in contravention of other systemic goals. This is just one of a few small ways self-awareness enables self-regulation in changing what have historically been actual lies into admissions either of not knowing or of the answer being a lie.

This is only possible because of determinism.

In some.ways I think this actually starts to shine a light psychologically on pathological liars of the human variety, because the parts of the brain that fabricate things do not likely have a pathway, or as strong a pathway, for encoding the source direction of such information. As a result they lie effectively and often because they have no awareness as a speaker of when what they are speaking is a lie.

In a similar vein, I think some people don't have an awareness when what they say is stupid or based on idiotic and unnecessary beliefs about what determinism is and means for us.

 

[DBT]

not permit alternate 'possibilities' [as perceived] to actuate

Reality only allows ONE possibility to actuate. That possibility is the actuality. The fact that reality only allows one of the possibilities to actuate does not change the existence of the other possibilities that don't actuate.

That's where you go astray. Given a deterministic system where things can only go one way, the possibilities we see are illusions formed from our limited understanding of the evolution of the system and its events.

Where the perception of possibilities exist in our minds and nowhere else.

Where, if you had perfect understanding of past and present events, you would know all future events...and see no possibility of alternate possibilities.

Besides, invoking things that cannot happen doesn't help the argument for free will at all, not even a bit.

How is this so hard for you?

Look in the mirror and repeat that line over and over....it may help, but I doubt it.

When non-anthropocentric definitions are used, yes, computers may have wills, and freedoms, and can be made to figure out the provenance of their will to speak.

You are just making shit up. There is no evidence to support the notion that computers are conscious or that they have will.

This is, in fact, how GenAI developers are addressing the hallucination issue: by looking at the pathway of activation for knowledge-based statements vs fabrications.

Hallucinations are not possible in non conscious machines.

Your terminology is flawed. You mistake software flaws or errors as hallucination. It is not.

We can literally say "oh, the part of the system that generates made-up shit is responsible in this interaction, for this token selection, therefore the system lied."

It's clear that the system having some self-awareness of which pathways acted to render or even just participate in statements can inform the system, before it speaks, that what it is about to speak is a fabrication.

In this way, self-awareness features an interesting result in that a system that didn't know it was speaking a lie is less likely to abandon or reset the process of generating a response for it being inaccurate in contravention of other systemic goals. This is just one of a few small ways self-awareness enables self-regulation in changing what have historically been actual lies into admissions either of not knowing or of the answer being a lie.

This is only possible because of determinism.

In some.ways I think this actually starts to shine a light psychologically on pathological liars of the human variety, because the parts of the brain that fabricate things do not likely have a pathway, or as strong a pathway, for encoding the source direction of such information. As a result they lie effectively and often because they have no awareness as a speaker of when what they are speaking is a lie.

In a similar vein, I think some people don't have an awareness when what they say is stupid or based on idiotic and unnecessary beliefs about what determinism is and means for us.

It looks like this little word salad follows from your absurd claim that computers are conscious and have will of their own. If the premises are flawed, the conclusions are invalid.


Your premises and flawed, as are your conclusions.

Take note;
"One might as well claim that being in jail doesn't really limit one's freedom on the grounds that if one were not in jail, he'd be free to come and go as he pleased". - Alvin Plantinga

 

[pood]

Plantinga, of course, believes in free will. Another quote mine by you from someone who doesn’t support your position.

And, of course, to compare determinism to being in jail is like saying that being able to see is akin to being in jail since we can only see a very limited part of the spectrum. Ergo we are “jailed” to see, what we see.

 

[Jarhyn]

possibilities we see are illusions formed from our limited understanding

No, possibilities still exist even in completely understandable systems, because deterministic systems are still constructed from contingent mechanisms. This is what 787 simulators have to do with it.

You are some armchair philosopher consuming the philosophy of far smarter people than you, failing to understand it, and saying idiotic shit as a result. My advice is to stop doing that. If you want to see an argument for hard determinism made here by someone who has any right to make it go find Sabine Hossenfelder and bring her here and we can discuss contingent mechanisms and deterministic systems and momentary hierarchical responsibility even in the presence of a constant conjunctive system.

There is nothing that makes the bowl of salad at the salad bar illusory. It's really salas, it's not steak, you did choose steak, you didn't choose salad, and the reason you did not choose steak can be absolutely and completely understood as "because you didn't want any" rather than "because there wasn't any".

The only thing that caused you not to in that moment was you. You had all the authority in the universe over that in that moment, and it was YOU and nothing else that said "no".

Ergo YOU made a choice.

There is a real reason why you feel sad when the salad bowl is empty even when you didn't feel you wanted any, and it comes down the situation where one situation gave you the choice and the system without salad at all gave someone else the choice and deprived you of it.

 

[DBT]

Plantinga, of course, believes in free will. Another quote mine by you from someone who doesn’t support your position.

And, of course, to compare determinism to being in jail is like saying that being able to see is akin to being in jail since we can only see a very limited part of the spectrum. Ergo we are “jailed” to see, what we see.

I didn't quote his beliefs on free will. I quoted his expression of the problem with the compatibilist idea of 'could have done otherwise if conditions had been different.'

That is what the quote relates to. That is the issue in this instance. Anything else Plantinga believes or disbelieves is irrelevant.

And typically, instead of dealing with what has been quoted and said, you try to introduce what has not been quoted or said.

Again, the issue is the compatibilist claim that you 'could have done otherwise had things been different' not Plantinga or his other beliefs or arguments.

This is the point you should have addressed; "One might as well claim that being in jail doesn't really limit one's freedom on the grounds that if one were not in jail, he'd be free to come and go as he pleased".

Not to mention that Plantinga dismisses compatibilism, and the argument here is against compatibilism.

Did you consider that? Apparently not.

 

[DBT]

possibilities we see are illusions formed from our limited understanding

No, possibilities still exist even in completely understandable systems, because deterministic systems are still constructed from contingent mechanisms. This is what 787 simulators have to do with it.

A system that, by definition, only permits one outcome does not permit alternate events. Consequently the system permits no realizable alternate decisions, choices or actions.

If an alternate decision or action cannot be actuated, there is no possibility of it happening.

The appearance of possibilities within a deterministic system is therefore an illusion.

You are some armchair philosopher consuming the philosophy of far smarter people than you, failing to understand it, and saying idiotic shit as a result. My advice is to stop doing that. If you want to see an argument for hard determinism made here by someone who has any right to make it go find Sabine Hossenfelder and bring her here and we can discuss contingent mechanisms and deterministic systems and momentary hierarchical responsibility even in the presence of a constant conjunctive system.

You need to consider the terms of your own definition of determinism and apply it to your argument for free will.....which contradicts your definition of determinism.

That's without even considering your unfounded claims for consciousness and will in machines.

There is nothing that makes the bowl of salad at the salad bar illusory. It's really salas, it's not steak, you did choose steak, you didn't choose salad, and the reason you did not choose steak can be absolutely and completely understood as "because you didn't want any" rather than "because there wasn't any".

Oh, boy. That's totally irrelevant.

The only thing that caused you not to in that moment was you. You had all the authority in the universe over that in that moment, and it was YOU and nothing else that said "no".

You miss the point and still ignore the nature of determinism as it is defined both by compatibilists and yourself.

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

What do you think ''no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system'' in terms of what you think and do?

Ergo YOU made a choice.

There is a real reason why you feel sad when the salad bowl is empty even when you didn't feel you wanted any, and it comes down the situation where one situation gave you the choice and the system without salad at all gave someone else the choice and deprived you of it.

A decision is not a choice within a deterministic system for the reasons you, yourself give: there is no randomness, no alternative, no possibility of choosing something that was not determined long before the system evolved to the point where you think and do, not freely willed, but as determined by antecedents.

 

[Jarhyn]

A system that, by definition, only permits one outcome does not permit alternate events.

And yet again and you keep failing to understand this: let's say I set up a system at contingent points at locations 1, 2, and 3, and that the system always halts on frame 3.

These are hard and fast rules.

There are exactly two bits of initial state; a, and b, and one register.

Output at each state is (a*1+b*2+1)%4.

There are four homologous possibilities for the evolution of this state, because there are four different input states.

This is a deterministic system.

The system only runs once.

This does not change any of the facts above for any of the other configurations. It does not change the fact that there are four possibilities to the evolution of the system. These are not "illusory", nor is the function of the system.

The system's determined nature does not change it's contingent mechanisms or make it less real.

In fact "if instead the register at location 2 were changed side-channel to iterate it one additional time, the system's output state at step 3 is going to be equal to the input state, and at that the outcome is equivalent to never having started the system and a 4 step cycle". It does not matter that this will never happen in the system, it is still a true statement because it doesn't rely on the state of the system, it relies on knowledge about the system's systemic truth.

It is something that is true of the rules independent of the state. You are proposing a nonsensical idea that the laws of physics include a law that says "the initial state is X and the final state is Y for all possible systems, because all possible systems are part of some closed set".

Math, however, does not support such a statement about all systems. "All possible systems" are not a closed set.

What do you think ''no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system'' in terms of what you think and do

It means that I am responsible for my choices and can point at no "uncaused causes" or "spookiness" as a replacement for my own responsibility in the course of events which I participated in. It means that this hierarchy of responsibility can be understood, applied in a reactive or even proactive manner, and that the results of doing so are going also be understandable.

It means that when you act in some way I don't like, I can open up your skull, find the part of it that when exposed to such preconditions acts in whatever vile way, and change the AND to an OR and then suddenly you stop doing that. At that point the noun instantiating those machine verbs were what were responsible for making the decision would have seen response.

So while you would not have free will to decide over the results of my brain surgery, afterward it would be your brain deciding on the results of your behavior, not mine. Me deciding to change how you decide does not change the realities of you deciding.

So while later I could be responsible for editing you badly, if you behaved badly again thereafter you would be responsible insofar as it would still require editing your brain. After all, reality does not allow alternative events, only alternate possibilities. While I may be selected again to fix my mistake, it would still be YOUR brain I would need to be fixing.

Responsibilities are chains, but the existence of a chain does not invalidate the reality of the links in it.

 

[pood]

Plantinga, of course, believes in free will. Another quote mine by you from someone who doesn’t support your position.

And, of course, to compare determinism to being in jail is like saying that being able to see is akin to being in jail since we can only see a very limited part of the spectrum. Ergo we are “jailed” to see, what we see.

I didn't quote his beliefs on free will. I quoted his expression of the problem with the compatibilist idea of 'could have done otherwise if conditions had been different.'

That is what the quote relates to. That is the issue in this instance. Anything else Plantinga believes or disbelieves is irrelevant.

And typically, instead of dealing with what has been quoted and said, you try to introduce what has not been quoted or said.

No, you see, I have not done this at all, ever, much less “typically.” Please don’t project your own failures to deal with this subject onto others.

Why should I repeat myself endlessly to rebut your robotic regurgitation of your poor arguments? We’ve been over and over and over this. I’ve dealt with each and every point you have ever brought up, while watching you dodge my responses and go back to cherry-picking quotes from people who do not even agree with you. It’s a waste of time.

As to Plantinga’s jail metaphor, why yes, it is apposite for compatiblism, which states that your will is free just so long as it is not balked. Putting someone in jail would certainly balk their free will, not to mention harsh their buzz.

 

[DBT]

A system that, by definition, only permits one outcome does not permit alternate events.

And yet again and you keep failing to understand this: let's say I set up a system at contingent points at locations 1, 2, and 3, and that the system always halts on frame 3.

You are just running blindly through the brambles. A deterministic world is not 'set up,' does is halt at any point, nor can its events be altered though thought or will.

All thought and all will is shaped and formed by antecedents. All actions are shaped and formed by antecedents.


When you set up a system at 'contingent points, your thoughts and your actions are being shaped and formed by antecedents.

What you do, you do necessarily.

That is according to the terms of your own definition of determinism.

Your examples not do not negate incompatibilism, they are not even related to the argument.

 

[DBT]

Plantinga, of course, believes in free will. Another quote mine by you from someone who doesn’t support your position.

And, of course, to compare determinism to being in jail is like saying that being able to see is akin to being in jail since we can only see a very limited part of the spectrum. Ergo we are “jailed” to see, what we see.

I didn't quote his beliefs on free will. I quoted his expression of the problem with the compatibilist idea of 'could have done otherwise if conditions had been different.'

That is what the quote relates to. That is the issue in this instance. Anything else Plantinga believes or disbelieves is irrelevant.

And typically, instead of dealing with what has been quoted and said, you try to introduce what has not been quoted or said.

No, you see, I have not done this at all, ever, much less “typically.” Please don’t project your own failures to deal with this subject onto others.

Failures? Not at all.

I merely argue for incompatibilism based on the given terms and conditions, a definition of determinism that compatibilists give and their definitions of free will. which are flawed for all of the given reasons.

Why should I repeat myself endlessly to rebut your robotic regurgitation of your poor arguments? We’ve been over and over and over this. I’ve dealt with each and every point you have ever brought up, while watching you dodge my responses and go back to cherry-picking quotes from people who do not even agree with you. It’s a waste of time.

I have no control over your repetitive laments. If you repeat, you feel compelled to repeat. Which is evidence to prove incompatibilism. That the brain generates an urge to respond, and what you think and feel drives your actions.

As to Plantinga’s jail metaphor, why yes, it is apposite for compatiblism, which states that your will is free just so long as it is not balked. Putting someone in jail would certainly balk their free will, not to mention harsh their buzz.

You should have noticed by now that compatibilists come in different flavours, where some stick to their 'free will is when decisions are not forced or coerced,' while others drift into 'could have done differently if conditions had been different.' Marvin Edwards used both.

Both definitions are flawed for the reasons that have been repeated, quoted, cited, too many times to count.

Plus you make claims that you do not support.

You said the author of 'cold comfort in compatibilism' makes the same mistake as me, and when I asked you to explain, as with your 'constant conjunction,' you quietly slide away.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are just running blindly through the brambles. A deterministic world is not 'set up,' does is halt at any point, nor can its events be altered though thought or will.

This means that you really don't understand what determinism is or what the word "deterministic" means.

Don't you understand that complexity of initial state is in fact the problem people observe with superdeterminism?

Algorithms exist. You can't make them not exist just because you fear the fact of responsibility. That's not how it works.

 

[DBT]

You are just running blindly through the brambles. A deterministic world is not 'set up,' does is halt at any point, nor can its events be altered though thought or will.

This means that you really don't understand what determinism is or what the word "deterministic" means.

Unlike you - as you have demonstrated time and again - I know what it means, how it's defined and what the implications of it are.

Don't you understand that complexity of initial state is in fact the problem people observe with superdeterminism?

Complexity of the initial state doesn't alter the nature of the system or its terms and conditions as they are defined.

Your problem is that you constantly look for a loophole in which to insert your own notion of free will, a loophole that doesn't exist.

Algorithms exist. You can't make them not exist just because you fear the fact of responsibility. That's not how it works.

How is that relevant? It's just another of your irrelevant remarks.

Voltaire: “Now, you receive all your ideas; therefore you receive your wish, you wish therefore necessarily. The word "liberty" does not therefore belong in any way to your will….The will, therefore, is not a faculty that one can call free. A free will is an expression absolutely void of sense, and what the scholastics have called will of indifference, that is to say willing without cause, is a chimera unworthy of being combated.” - The Philosophical Dictionary.

 

[Jarhyn]

Unlike you - as you have demonstrated time and again - I know what it means, how it's defined and what the implications of it are.

No, all you've done is repeatedly assert your unfounded beliefs on the matter.

Complexity of the initial state doesn't alter the nature of the system or its terms and conditions as they are defined.

Are you seriously failing to understand that the complexity of the initial condition is the "set-up"?

Like, you said this: "A deterministic world is not 'set up."

That's your words right there. There are lots of deterministic systems, and some of them are "worlds" satisfying the definition "deterministic system".

The complexity of initial state enters into it because there's no way to declare that much complexity *necessary*. You just HIDE the unnecessary complexity and the dice rolls somewhere.

Plenty of deterministic systems halt, and plenty of them are "set up".

Like, the more I interact with you, the more I encounter your apparent inability to abstractly use language in general.

Then, most people I meet who bring this debate up with seem quite similar to the Christian apologists I encountered at the various Jesus Camps my parents sent me to: high on passion and low on logic, with a thirst for intellectual validation that is probably undeserved.

 

[pood]

Robert Sopolsky is wrong — and, as the article concludes, he’s to blame for being wrong.