Compatibilism: What's that About?

[DBT]

The essence of determinism is "would" not have done otherwise. That is sufficient for determinism. Determinism cannot rationally assert "could" not have done otherwise. That would be a fallacy.

All events fixed by antecedents entails it. Rewording doesn't alter the conditions. Which are - no deviation, consequently no 'could have done otherwise.'

Semantics.

Yes. And thanks for noticing.

Semantics is about the meaning of the words we use. And I've been explaining the distinction between saying that "we would not have done otherwise" versus "we could not have done otherwise". We might think that the distinction between "would" and "could" is rather obvious. But the discussion of determinism, long ago, made the figurative leap that effectively conflated the two terms, by falsely suggesting that if something "will not" happen then it is AS IF it "cannot" happen (or, if something "would not" happen then it is AS IF it "could not" happen).

What can I say, other than that philosophy screwed things up, and created a paradox (a self-induced hoax, created by one or more false, but believable, suggestions).

It doesn't matter how it's rationalized, fixed is fixed, no deviation means no alternate actions.

If you literally cannot have done otherwise, saying 'would not have done otherwise' does not alter the fact.

If saying 'would not have done otherwise' seeks to imply freedom or the possibility of doing otherwise, it does not relate to determinism.

The fact is that there is always the possibility of doing otherwise, even if the otherwise is simply between doing something or not doing it. But, of course, there is no possibility of both doing it AND not doing it. Such would be physically and logically impossible. But whether I decide to do it, or to not do it, one will be the thing I did, and the other will be the thing I "could have" done instead.

Determinism, by definition, negates all possibility of doing otherwise.

''However, in order for determinism to be true, it must include all events. For example, determinism cannot exclude the effects of natural forces, like volcanoes and tidal waves or a meteor hitting the Earth. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of biological organisms that transform their environments, like tree seedlings changing bare land into a forest. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of deliberate choices, like when the chef prepares me the salad that I chose for lunch.

All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards

When deciding between the salad and the steak, each is a real, true, and actual possibility. Both are actually things that I actually "can" choose to order, even though I inevitably "will" only choose one. And the one that I do not choose will inevitably become the thing that I "could have" chosen instead.

The mental act of deciding, being subject to the same causal processes as the world at large, is itself on a fixed course.

What you think and feel prior to acting being the inevitable effect of information input and body/mind state and condition as events evolve as determined.

A fixed course of events, by definition, permits no deviation.

No deviation entails no alternate actions.

No alternate actions mean no choice or freedom of will.

As to freedom, there is no "freedom from causal necessity", of course. But there is a freedom to choose for myself whether to have the steak or the salad, where the "freedom" refers implicitly to freedom from coercion and undue influence. This is the freedom which is referenced by the "free" in operational "free will".

You don't choose for yourself. The world and its events is the source of our existence and acts upon our physical and mental makeup.

That internal necessitation is driven by information input which is external and acts upon the system is the fatal flaw in compatibilism.


''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents''

We've discussed the two distinctly different definitions of free will. And, yes, the distinction between the two is also a matter of semantics. And we can certainly discuss both definitions again if you like. But operational free will has no problem with determinism.

There is no such thing as 'operational free will' - the notion of free will is not compatible with determinism.

Applying labels to carefully selected conditions does not prove the proposition.

... and 'would not have done otherwise' is precisely the same as 'could not have done otherwise.

If they were precisely the same then there would be no need for two distinct words. But they are not the same at all. For example, I "could" have ordered anything on the menu, but, given my goals and reasons, I "would" only order the salad that night.

One is a common reference that gives no consideration to determinism as it is defined, the other does.

One relates to how things appear, the other relates to how, if the world is deterministic, the world works, not as it appears.

This contradicts the terms of your definition.

No. It doesn't. After all, the distinction between "could" and "would" was causally inevitable from any prior point in time. And so was the philosopher's error to conflate them, leading to your confusion.

I am pointing out that your wording does not and cannot alter the conditions of your definition of determinism: no deviation, no alternate actions.

You want it both ways, events fixed by antecedents and events not fixed by antecedents.

No! All events are fixed by antecedent events. For example, the meaningful antecedent events, of my choosing the salad rather than the steak, included my recalling that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch versus my chosen goal of eating more fruits and vegetables daily. Those were the immediate prior causes that fixed my choice.

The causes that bring you to that point began long before what you call ''immediate prior causes' - which have their own antecedents.

At no point do you get to choose your own state and condition, or have regulation over what must necessarily happen.

''How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitably consequence of something I have no choice about? And yet ...the compatibilist must deny the No Choice Principle.” - Van Inwagen

Those prior causes had their own prior causes, of course, such as my genetic enjoyment of high protein and high fat meals, and my education over the years that more fruits and vegetables would lead to better health. And those prior causes had their own prior causes, etc. etc. etc., all the way back to the Big Bang. But only the more recent causes are meaningful causes, things that we might do something about to change my dietary choices. Viewing the Big Bang as a "meaningful" cause would be silly nonsense.

”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.

When presented with options within a deterministic system, it is the state of the system as it evolves from prior to current and future states that determines all actions, no exceptions.

Yep. Just like I have repeatedly described. But I am providing meaningful information about the prior states that caused me to choose the salad. You seem eager to sweep meaningful information under the rug of a broad, abstract generality.

Without the ability to alter the determined course of events, whatever the causes happen to be is irrelevant, events proceed as they must.

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.''

That remains correct. Determinism will always produce the same results, without randomness or variation. Given a choice between a vanilla ice cream cone versus a chocolate ice cream cone, one of these options will always be the single inevitable "I will" and the other will always be the single inevitable "I could have". Thus, determinism, without randomness or variation.

Yet, what you 'will' is the inevitable effect of an intricate web of causality, over which you have no control or freedom to choose or do otherwise.

''How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitable consequence of something I have no choice about? And yet ...the compatibilist must deny the No Choice Principle.” - Van Inwagen


”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.

 

[Jarhyn]

All events fixed by antecedents entails it. Rewording doesn't alter the conditions. Which are - no deviation, consequently no 'could have done otherwise.'

Again you keep stating this unargued assertion

Which are - no deviation, consequently no ' would have done otherwise.'

Would is not could. Could uses "if antecedents are true".

Antecedents do not have to be true for something to "be true if antecedents are true".

Compare, for example:
*If Donald had won the vote Donald would be president. (True) (antecedent false)
*If Donald had not won the vote, Donald would not be president. (True) (antecedent true)
*Donald did not win the vote. (True)
(Therefore) pick consequent where "consequence follows antecedent" is true and antecedent is true...
*Donald is not president. (True)

Admittedly next time the consequences and antecedents aren't quite so guaranteed..

 

[Marvin Edwards]

OK. So taking into account quantum mechanical views Hawking believes it is rubbed out by the averaging tendencies of quantum activity.

My presumption is that all events are always reliably caused by prior events. While we may never discover the causes of some events, we have faith that all events are caused in some reliable fashion.

Matter organized differently can behave differently. Hydrogen and Oxygen are gasses until their temperature is hundreds of degrees below freezing. But when organized into a molecule of H2O, they are a liquid at room temperature and can be frozen to skate on in winter.

Matter organized into a bowling ball is governed by gravity and will always roll downhill. But matter organized into a squirrel can climb trees. And matter organized into a human can imagine, evaluate, and choose what it will do.

The "laws of nature" for any natural object are derived by observing and describing predictable patterns of behavior. Different organizations of matter exhibit different behaviors, which results in different laws for their different nature.

I expect that quantum objects will exhibit different behaviors from macro objects. Quantum objects will be following a their own set of laws. These rules are difficult to discern because it is very difficult to observe quantum objects. Probability is likely used to compensate for this problem.

But my presumption is that quantum objects behave in a reliable fashion, according to their own set of rules, even if we are never able to figure out what those rules are.

We have then a collection of different causal mechanisms: purely physical for the bowling ball, but also biological for the squirrel, and finally the rational mechanism of the human brain.

To rescue causal determinism, we assume that every causal mechanism is perfectly reliable within its own domain (quantum, physical, biological, rational), and that every event is reliably caused by some specific combination of quantum, physical, biological, and/or rational mechanisms. That way causal determinism still holds.

There is no evidence humans were developed from complete knowledge of reality. So the constructive limitations of sensory design due to the notion that the brain has inadequate representation of reality resulting from the fact that sense depends on violation of the incompleteness theorem. Imperfect mechanisms to actually reflect reality result from the senses not knowing the source of what is sensed thereby limit their effective or complete design.

Right. We were haphazardly "designed" by the same forces that "designed" the virus, the frog, the crabgrass, and the monkey. And, like all other life forms, we are certainly imperfect. However, this does not imply that rational causal mechanisms are not deterministic. All of the flaws in our logic will be reliable flaws, making our incorrect reasoning causally deterministic. So, determinism still holds, even when the mechanisms are flawed.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Determinism cannot rationally assert that we "could not have done otherwise". That would be a fallacy.

If you literally cannot have done otherwise ...

By "literally" we mean the standard meaning of the word itself, in the absence of any figurative sense.

The literal meaning of "could have done" is to refer to something in the past that we did not do, but which we were able to do if we had chosen to do it.

There are literally many "possible" futures even though there will literally be a single inevitable "actual" future.
There are literally many things that I "could have done" in the past even though I literally "did not" do them.

Determinism asserts that there will be a single thing that we "will" do in the future and that there was a single thing that we "would have done" (and in fact we did choose to do) in the past.

Determinism has nothing to say about "possibilities" or things that we "could have" done. As you repeatedly suggest, these notions are outside the context and scope of determinism.

When determinism attempts to say something about "possibilities" it ends up saying something really stupid.
For example:
Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "In a deterministic world, there is only one possibility."
Customer: "Oh. Then what is that one possibility?"
Waiter: "How should I know? I can't read your mind!"

When determinism attempts to say something about what "could have" happened, it again ends up making silly statements. For example:
We're driving down the road and we see a traffic light up ahead.
Currently, the light is red. But will the light turn green as we get closer, or will it remain red?
We don't know what "will" happen. But we know there are two things that "can" happen:
1. The light can remain red as we arrive.
2. The light can change to green as we arrive.
Just to be safe, we slow down.
But then, as we arrive the light changes to green. So, we resume speed.
Our passenger, a hard determinist, says, "Why did you slow down?"
We reply, "Because the light could have remained red."
He retorts, "Apparently it was determined from the Big Bang that the light would be green, therefore it could not have remained red. So, I repeat, Why did you slow down?"
We reply, "Because the light COULD HAVE remained red, you dork!"

So, you can see the problem when determinism attempts to speak of "possibilities" and things that "could have happened". It gets things wrong and screws up the way these words actually work in the real world.

One is a common reference that gives no consideration to determinism as it is defined, the other does.

Well, determinism deserves "no consideration" at all, because it literally, actually, empirically, and logically changes nothing. Everything that ever happens is always consistent with reliable cause and effect.

One relates to how things appear, the other relates to how, if the world is deterministic, the world works, not as it appears.

For you, it "appears" as if "I could have ordered the steak" is false. This illusion is caused by figurative thinking. For example, "If it is true that I never would have ordered the steak, then it is AS IF I never could have ordered the steak". And that is the source of the illusion.

But "I could have ordered the steak instead of the salad" is literally true. It implies all of the necessary facts of how things actually happened: (1) it implies that I did not order the steak, (2) it implies that I only would have ordered the steak under different circumstances, (3) it implies that ordering the steak was really possible, something that I was able to make happen if I had chosen to do so.

Determinism does not change anything about how the world works. It merely asserts that it will always work through prior events reliably causing new events. And our lives happen to be events in which we choose to cause many other events to happen.

I am pointing out that your wording does not and cannot alter the conditions of your definition of determinism: no deviation, no alternate actions.

And, if you've been paying attention, you know that I have not waivered on the definition. The problem is that you are insisting upon implications of that definition that simply do not hold water.

Here, let me lay it out simply. Within the stream of inevitable events there will be our own mental events in which we use logic, calculation, and reasoning that will deterministically cause our choices. An essential part of this reasoning is imagining possibilities and choosing what, if anything, we will do about them. All of the "possibilities" and the "could haves" are cogs in the reasoning machinery. They are mental events involved in the causing our choices.

So, these mental events, like all other events, are reliably caused and necessarily must happen, just as they do. Multiple possibilities will inevitably happen in every choosing operation. And that is the only thing that determinism may say about "possibilities" and "could haves", that they will actually happen as real causally necessary and inevitable events, just as all other events that unfold.

And, we note that there are multiple possibilities in this causal stream that lead us inevitably to the single deterministic actuality. This is how the world works. The possibilities and the could haves are causally necessary events within the deterministic stream. They cannot be discounted or ignored, because they are actual causes.

At no point do you get to choose your own state and condition, or have regulation over what must necessarily happen.

Every choice I make modifies my own state and condition. And, just like every other event that ever happens, my choices regulate my actions which in turn regulate subsequent events in the real world. I am both the result of prior events and also the prior cause of future events.

''How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitably consequence of something I have no choice about? And yet ...the compatibilist must deny the No Choice Principle.” - Van Inwagen

Yep. I deny the "no choice principle", Peter Van Inwagen. So put that in your smipe and poke it. Open your eyes Peter and watch the people in the restaurant making choices all over the place. If you cannot see it then perhaps you, Peter, are suffering from an illusion.

Hey, I've explained it to you, DBT. So why don't you explain it to Peter and help him out.

 

[bilby]

Quantum objects will be following a their own set of laws. These rules are difficult to discern because it is very difficult to observe quantum objects. Probability is likely used to compensate for this problem.

This was widely hoped to be true by Physicists in the early C20th, but their efforts to demonstrate it have resulted in the consensus that it is, in fact, untrue. Quantum objects exhibit behaviour that is predictably and reliably probabilistic, and if there is an underlying set of deterministic rules, one of those rules appears to be that it’s not possible to identify the underlying set of deterministic rules, or even to show that they are likely to exist.

Quantum mechanics is fucked up like that.

Fortunately the results of probabilistic behaviours amongst vast numbers of particles is highly predictable. The expected number of lottery winners is low enough that economists don’t need to consider their effects on the worldwide economy, and individuals certainly don’t need to factor the possibility of winning millions into their financial planning; And even tiny scraps of matter contain in the order of 10³⁰ times as many particles as there are participants in all the lotteries in history.

Determinism at the quantum level is a testable and repeatedly falsified hypothesis. But that generally doesn’t matter to the macroscopic world. Assuming that a lack of determinism at the quantum level will cause non-deterministic behaviour at the macroscopic level is about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as silly as quitting your job today, because you assume that the lottery ticket you just bought will make you a millionaire by this time next week.

 

[Jarhyn]

Quantum objects will be following a their own set of laws. These rules are difficult to discern because it is very difficult to observe quantum objects. Probability is likely used to compensate for this problem.

This was widely hoped to be true by Physicists in the early C20th, but their efforts to demonstrate it have resulted in the consensus that it is, in fact, untrue. Quantum objects exhibit behaviour that is predictably and reliably probabilistic, and if there is an underlying set of deterministic rules, one of those rules appears to be that it’s not possible to identify the underlying set of deterministic rules, or even to show that they are likely to exist.

Quantum mechanics is fucked up like that.

Fortunately the results of probabilistic behaviours amongst vast numbers of particles is highly predictable. The expected number of lottery winners is low enough that economists don’t need to consider their effects on the worldwide economy, and individuals certainly don’t need to factor the possibility of winning millions into their financial planning; And even tiny scraps of matter contain in the order of 10³⁰ times as many particles as there are participants in all the lotteries in history.

Determinism at the quantum level is a testable and repeatedly falsified hypothesis. But that generally doesn’t matter to the macroscopic world. Assuming that a lack of determinism at the quantum level will cause non-deterministic behaviour at the macroscopic level is about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as silly as quitting your job today, because you assume that the lottery ticket you just bought will make you a millionaire by this time next week.

So, I'll argue that Superdeterminism, of the sort FDI argues, does in fact still allow deterministic modelling, but it's also an unfalsifiable theory for the same reason I mention several times up thread: all systems may allow treatment of probabilistic elements as part of the initial condition, but the leverage required of a mind to call a shot from that chaos is fucking stupid. It's way easier to lose the lottery and have macroscopic hiccup, and at any rate it is needlessly complicated.

Even so, it technically describes the relationship between RNG and Dwarven Mechanical probabilistics.

And again I have pointed out that Superdeterminism does no injury to "free" and "will", "could" nor "would".

My dwarf still "could" always have killed some dwarves if the door had been unlocked, even though he didn't and wouldn't owing to the locked door.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Quantum objects will be following a their own set of laws. These rules are difficult to discern because it is very difficult to observe quantum objects. Probability is likely used to compensate for this problem.

This was widely hoped to be true by Physicists in the early C20th, but their efforts to demonstrate it have resulted in the consensus that it is, in fact, untrue. Quantum objects exhibit behaviour that is predictably and reliably probabilistic, and if there is an underlying set of deterministic rules, one of those rules appears to be that it’s not possible to identify the underlying set of deterministic rules, or even to show that they are likely to exist.

Quantum mechanics is fucked up like that.

Fortunately the results of probabilistic behaviours amongst vast numbers of particles is highly predictable. The expected number of lottery winners is low enough that economists don’t need to consider their effects on the worldwide economy, and individuals certainly don’t need to factor the possibility of winning millions into their financial planning; And even tiny scraps of matter contain in the order of 10³⁰ times as many particles as there are participants in all the lotteries in history.

Determinism at the quantum level is a testable and repeatedly falsified hypothesis. But that generally doesn’t matter to the macroscopic world. Assuming that a lack of determinism at the quantum level will cause non-deterministic behaviour at the macroscopic level is about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as silly as quitting your job today, because you assume that the lottery ticket you just bought will make you a millionaire by this time next week.

I assume the problem is that it is impossible to observe the behavior of a single quantum object, such as an electron. We can view macro objects by bouncing photons off of them. We can even see the shapes of atoms with an electron microscope by bouncing electrons off of the atoms. But what do we bounce off of the electron to observe its behavior? And how do we isolate an electron to study it individually?

There is no scientific experiment that can prove that an event is uncaused. In order to conduct a controlled experiment, it must be possible to cause the uncaused event, which would seem to be paradoxical, and thus logically impossible.

So, I'm still betting on the absence of any uncaused events ever happening, at any time or any place.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm still betting on the absence of any uncaused events ever happening, at any time or any place.

Off topic: Same. Though it might be slightly useful, on the off chance one ever happens, to make a good model of what such a thing would look like and how to isolate the observation of such apparent uncaused events so we don't miss one happening, and invite anyone claiming such visibility of super-nature to be within their ken to fulfill such so that we may laugh at them when they cannot.

 

[fromderinside]

It is an interesting mistake to think that Incompleteness prevents the idea of simulation of universe from making sense.

...

So far from Incompleteness invalidating the concept of free will, rather it makes it quite a reality. Free will implies Incompleteness.

The idea that incomplete anticipates complete is a material misunderstanding of what incompleteness theorem implies. One can only put in presumed stuff to fashion complete from incomplete knowledge of what is. One can imagine five of six or even twenty dimensions but one who has three to four dimensional capabilities can't appreciate such a world. One who more or less knows about 5% of what exists cannot model one's way around the fact one doesn't know what is the nature of the other ninety five percent beyond she knows something is there.

Presuming about yourself that the void between 5% and 100% can be filled with freedom is the work of a madman.

I'm sorry about the status of your dwarf but that's the way things go when one models with the unknowable.

About 700 years ago we went from nada to 5%. Believe me 5% is no better than nada in 'splaining. Our current view of things alternates between particles and states neither actually known, not even explaining gravity, only somewhat defined by what we now know. We just now put in place a machine that can detect stuff extant 12-13 billion years ago indirectly. That stuff is untouchable, unreachable, beyond our ability to ever actually touch. That sure give me confidence your models are dead on. Not. Seeing is not enough for believing. What and why is a field beyond theory a brain pfart in a recent rock shaper's imagination.

 

[fromderinside]

OK. So taking into account quantum mechanical views Hawking believes it is rubbed out by the averaging tendencies of quantum activity.

My presumption is that all events are always reliably caused by prior events. While we may never discover the causes of some events, we have faith that all events are caused in some reliable fashion.

Right. We were haphazardly "designed" by the same forces that "designed" the virus, the frog, the crabgrass, and the monkey. And, like all other life forms, we are certainly imperfect. However, this does not imply that rational causal mechanisms are not deterministic. All of the flaws in our logic will be reliable flaws, making our incorrect reasoning causally deterministic. So, determinism still holds, even when the mechanisms are flawed.

Wow and from this spreading of possible fertilizer we are supposed to be convinced by the works of recent rock shapers. Piling on doesn't necessarily improve. Adding measure doesn't assure perception is reality. We know Newton wasn't right no more than that. Your logic hasn't come far since Plato. So what gives you the 'knowledge' you know anything at all?

Kudos to bilby.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... Adding measure doesn't assure perception is reality. We know Newton wasn't right no more than that. Your logic hasn't come far since Plato. So what gives you the 'knowledge' you know anything at all?

There is food in the fridge, therefore I "know" where the grocery store is. It may not be quantum mechanics, but it keeps me fed. As someone once said, "I eat, therefore I am".

 

[DBT]

All events fixed by antecedents entails it. Rewording doesn't alter the conditions. Which are - no deviation, consequently no 'could have done otherwise.'

Again you keep stating this unargued assertion

It's entailed in your own definition of determinism.....which you don't appear to understand. You give a definition of determinism, yet you are unable or unwilling to grasp its implications.

Which are - no deviation, consequently no ' would have done otherwise.'

Would is not could. Could uses "if antecedents are true".

Antecedents do not have to be true for something to "be true if antecedents are true".

Compare, for example:
*If Donald had won the vote Donald would be president. (True) (antecedent false)
*If Donald had not won the vote, Donald would not be president. (True) (antecedent true)
*Donald did not win the vote. (True)
(Therefore) pick consequent where "consequence follows antecedent" is true and antecedent is true...
*Donald is not president. (True)

Admittedly next time the consequences and antecedents aren't quite so guaranteed..

Hilarious. Another demonstration of not understanding the nature and implications of determinism....as you yourself defined it.

Where, by definition, each and every state of the system in each and every instance in time must necessarily be entailed by the prior state of the system as it transitions from past state to current and future states, without deviation (no randomness/alternate actions).


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

 

[Jarhyn]

You give a definition of determinism, yet you are unable or unwilling to grasp its implications

No, I'm unwilling to step in a logical fallacy you are still apparently blind to.

Would not does not imply could not, because would not does not say anything about the results of the math that conforms perfectly to our physics operating on a momentary condition that does not necessarily conform to the current state.

definition, each and every state of the system in each and every instance in time must necessarily be entailed by the prior state of the system as it transitions from past state to current and future states, without deviation (no randomness/alternate actions).

And yet, none of this blather defends your unargued assertion that "would" must be the same as "could".

I see you very much enjoy sticking that pole through your spokes because you don't want to believe you are capable of riding a bike, but the problem isn't the bike. The problem is the pole You keep jamming in the spokes.

The pole is named "conflation of would and could".

 

[DBT]

Determinism cannot rationally assert that we "could not have done otherwise". That would be a fallacy.

It's entailed in your definition;

''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.''

If you literally cannot have done otherwise ...

By "literally" we mean the standard meaning of the word itself, in the absence of any figurative sense.

''Literally'' as used in this instance;
1: in a literal sense or manner: such as
b:—used to emphasize the truth and accuracy of a statement or description
The party was attended by literally hundreds of people.
c: with exact equivalence : with the meaning of each individual word given exactly
The term "Mardi Gras" literally means "Fat Tuesday" in French. - Merriam Webster.

The literal meaning of "could have done" is to refer to something in the past that we did not do, but which we were able to do if we had chosen to do it.

There are literally many "possible" futures even though there will literally be a single inevitable "actual" future.
There are literally many things that I "could have done" in the past even though I literally "did not" do them.

Determinism asserts that there will be a single thing that we "will" do in the future and that there was a single thing that we "would have done" (and in fact we did choose to do) in the past.

Determinism has nothing to say about "possibilities" or things that we "could have" done. As you repeatedly suggest, these notions are outside the context and scope of determinism.

When determinism attempts to say something about "possibilities" it ends up saying something really stupid.
For example:
Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "In a deterministic world, there is only one possibility."
Customer: "Oh. Then what is that one possibility?"
Waiter: "How should I know? I can't read your mind!"

When determinism attempts to say something about what "could have" happened, it again ends up making silly statements. For example:
We're driving down the road and we see a traffic light up ahead.
Currently, the light is red. But will the light turn green as we get closer, or will it remain red?
We don't know what "will" happen. But we know there are two things that "can" happen:
1. The light can remain red as we arrive.
2. The light can change to green as we arrive.
Just to be safe, we slow down.
But then, as we arrive the light changes to green. So, we resume speed.
Our passenger, a hard determinist, says, "Why did you slow down?"
We reply, "Because the light could have remained red."
He retorts, "Apparently it was determined from the Big Bang that the light would be green, therefore it could not have remained red. So, I repeat, Why did you slow down?"
We reply, "Because the light COULD HAVE remained red, you dork!"

So, you can see the problem when determinism attempts to speak of "possibilities" and things that "could have happened". It gets things wrong and screws up the way these words actually work in the real world.

Common references such as 'could have happened' do not take determinism into account.

We generally act and think in terms of 'we could have chosen this instead of that' or 'we could have done this instead of that,' and that's how we talk.

But how we talk doesn't establish how the world works.

And if the world works like you have defined it in terms of determinism, all of these 'could haves' are an illusion, because the events of the world and of course the brain and thought evolve as determines, without deviation;

''.... in order for determinism to be true, it must include all events. For example, determinism cannot exclude the effects of natural forces, like volcanoes and tidal waves or a meteor hitting the Earth. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of biological organisms that transform their environments, like tree seedlings changing bare land into a forest. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of deliberate choices, like when the chef prepares me the salad that I chose for lunch'' - Marvin Edwards.

I am pointing out that your wording does not and cannot alter the conditions of your definition of determinism: no deviation, no alternate actions.

And, if you've been paying attention, you know that I have not waivered on the definition. The problem is that you are insisting upon implications of that definition that simply do not hold water.

Of course they hold water: if determinism is true, the events of the world must proceed without deviation.

You said it yourself. It's entailed in your definition.

If other possibilities exist, and can be realized at any time, it contradicts the terms of your definition.

Here, let me lay it out simply. Within the stream of inevitable events there will be our own mental events in which we use logic, calculation, and reasoning that will deterministically cause our choices. An essential part of this reasoning is imagining possibilities and choosing what, if anything, we will do about them. All of the "possibilities" and the "could haves" are cogs in the reasoning machinery. They are mental events involved in the causing our choices.

Thoughts, calculations, imaginings, etc are not exempt from entailment as the system evolves from prior to current state.

''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time.'' - Marvin.

So, these mental events, like all other events, are reliably caused and necessarily must happen, just as they do. Multiple possibilities will inevitably happen in every choosing operation. And that is the only thing that determinism may say about "possibilities" and "could haves", that they will actually happen as real causally necessary and inevitable events, just as all other events that unfold.

Not if they aren't entailed in the state of the system. Imagining that something can happen doesn't make it possible.

Millions of people imagine winning the Lotto, only to be disappointed by the reality: the odds are astronomically against them. And of course, the winners (if determinism is true), are the inevitable winners.

in the real world. I am both the result of prior events and also the prior cause of future events.

Your actions being determined by the prior state of the system, therefore not chosen. You don't choose the circumstances of your birth, family, society, genetics, abilities, strengths, weaknesses, brain function, thought processes, how you think.......

''How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitably consequence of something I have no choice about? And yet ...the compatibilist must deny the No Choice Principle.” - Van Inwagen

Yep. I deny the "no choice principle", Peter Van Inwagen. So put that in your smipe and poke it. Open your eyes Peter and watch the people in the restaurant making choices all over the place. If you cannot see it then perhaps you, Peter, are suffering from an illusion.

Hey, I've explained it to you, DBT. So why don't you explain it to Peter and help him out.

It doesn't matter what is denied. The given definition of determinism has to be considered and adhered to.

Choice is defined as selecting between two or more realizable options. As determinism has only one course of action, the presentation of two or more realizable options must necessarily be an illusion.

It must be an illusion because if any option can be taken at any time, it is not determinism.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... Choice is defined as selecting between two or more realizable options. As determinism has only one course of action, the presentation of two or more realizable options must necessarily be an illusion. ...

Since we objectively observe people in the restaurant making choices from a "presentation" (the menu) of many realizable options we know for a fact that this actually happens in the real world, and is not any kind of an "illusion".

We can also demonstrate that each event of choosing is deterministic, simply by asking a sample of the customers, "Why did you choose to order ... for dinner?" They will explain the goals and reasoning that causally determined their choice.

So, we have determinism and we also have two or more realizable options, and we have no illusions. (Other than your own).

 

[fromderinside]

... Adding measure doesn't assure perception is reality. We know Newton wasn't right no more than that. Your logic hasn't come far since Plato. So what gives you the 'knowledge' you know anything at all?

There is food in the fridge, therefore I "know" where the grocery store is. It may not be quantum

... Adding measure doesn't assure perception is reality. We know Newton wasn't right no more than that. Your logic hasn't come far since Plato. So what gives you the 'knowledge' you know anything at all?

There is food in the fridge, therefore I "know" where the grocery store is. It may not be quantum mechanics, but it keeps me fed. As someone once said, "I eat, therefore I am".

... Adding measure doesn't assure perception is reality. We know Newton wasn't right no more than that. Your logic hasn't come far since Plato. So what gives you the 'knowledge' you know anything at all?

There is food in the fridge, therefore I "know" where the grocery store is. It may not be quantum mechanics, but it keeps me fed. As someone once said, "I eat, therefore I am".

You make my point about subjective perception as 'knowledge.' It is derivative of objective reality, not trusted nor reasonable. Rules based on subjective perception don't meet the requirements for dealing with reality. your "I" based analysis is doomed to the failures as was "I" based analysis found impractical for building a view of the material world. Careful with such thinking you might fall off the edge of the world.

 

[DBT]

... Choice is defined as selecting between two or more realizable options. As determinism has only one course of action, the presentation of two or more realizable options must necessarily be an illusion. ...

Since we objectively observe people in the restaurant making choices from a "presentation" (the menu) of many realizable options we know for a fact that this actually happens in the real world, and is not any kind of an "illusion".

What we don't observe is the underlying process, all the events, that brings them to that precise location at that precise point in time to take the very action they must necessarily take.

Freedom? Hardly.

Choice? Not at all.

Freedom of will? An illusion.

We can also demonstrate that each event of choosing is deterministic, simply by asking a sample of the customers, "Why did you choose to order ... for dinner?" They will explain the goals and reasoning that causally determined their choice.

Asking the customers won't help because they have no access to or awareness of all the physical and mental events that bring them to the very action that must necessarily take place.

People have thoughts and act. We don't have access to what the brain is doing to produce 'our' thoughts and actions.

We, if the events of the world and the activity of brains are determined, have the illusion of freedom of choice.

The illusion of free will does not equate to the reality of free will.

Illusions are real, but the object of illusion is not.

Stage magicians, for instance, capitalize on creating illusions based on the inherent limitations of perception.

So, we have determinism and we also have two or more realizable options, and we have no illusions. (Other than your own).

Studies, which I have quoted, have shown that people may think they have made a decision even when the outcome was externally generated.

You can't have it both ways, two or more possible actions and determinism, which has no deviations. The illusion being that both are possible, multiple choices/several possibilities.... and determinism/no deviation, a fixed course of events.

The two are incompatible. Just as free will is incompatible with determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

And again DBT takes a swing and a miss at understanding "same rules, different stuff", while FDI retreats to Plato's Cave.

As it is, we observe things with our senses, and we test to see that those observations are sound, and that's "being objective"

The point is that FDI wants to pretend that they are not a confirmable phenomena.

But the thing is that something very much is happening and even if some idiot rejects "I think therefore I am", it makes such no less an idiocy to deny a phenomena is happening.

Objectivity is in fact the belief that objects exist as they are as a part of some larger system, and that those objects have properties that may be understood and known about and which change for consistent reasons.

Being objective is not about using tools, although you may use tools as you practice objectivity.

Being objective is not about writing shit down, although you may end up writing things down as you practice objectivity.

Being objective is not about interpersonal communication, although you may end up asking others about things as you practice objectivity.

Being objective is exactly operating under the belief that objects exist as they are part of a larger system, and that those objects have properties that may be understood and known about and which change for consistent reasons.

If you want to be scared of your senses because sometimes they lie, that will just make you senseless.

Objectivity is about "trust but verify"

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Determinism cannot rationally assert that we "could not have done otherwise". That would be a fallacy.

It's entailed in your definition;

No. It is not. The fact that all events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time, and they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment, does not entail that I "could" not have ordered the steak. It only entails that I "would" not have ordered the steak.

If you literally cannot have done otherwise ...

But that is not the case. When considering whether to order the salad or the steak, both "I can order the salad" and "I can order the steak" were "literally" true. Thus, even after ordering the salad, "I could have ordered the steak" was literally true (past tense of "I can order the steak").

Let's check the meaning of our words using your own dictionary:

Definition of literally
1: in a literal sense or manner: such as
a: in a way that uses the ordinary or primary meaning of a term or expression "He took the remark literally." a word that can be used both literally and figuratively
b—used to emphasize the truth and accuracy of a statement or description "The party was attended by literally hundreds of people."
c: with exact equivalence : with the meaning of each individual word given exactly "The term "Mardi Gras" literally means "Fat Tuesday" in French."
d: in a completely accurate way "a story that is basically true even if not literally true"

By "literally" we mean the standard meaning of the word itself, in the absence of any figurative sense.

The standard meaning of the term "can" is:

Definition of can​

(Entry 1 of 5)
auxiliary verb
1a: be physically or mentally able to "He can lift 200 pounds."
b: know how to "She can read."
c—used to indicate possibility "Do you think he can still be alive?", "Those things can happen."—sometimes used interchangeably with may
d: be inherently able or designed to "everything that money can buy"
e: be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to "Congress can declare war."
f: be permitted by conscience or feeling to "can hardly blame her"
g: be made possible or probable by circumstances to "He can hardly have meant that."
h: be logically or axiologically able to "2 + 2 can also be written 3 + 1."

I was physically and mentally able to order the steak. So, "I can order the steak" was literally true.

Definition of could​

past tense of CAN
—used in auxiliary function in the past "We found we could go.", in the past conditional "We said we would go if we could.", and as an alternative to can suggesting less force or certainty or as a polite form in the present "If you could come, we would be pleased."

"I can order the steak" was literally true while choosing between the steak and the salad. Thus, "I could have ordered the steak", the past tense of the same statement, was literally true after choosing the salad.

The literal meaning of "could have done" is to refer to something in the past that we did not do, but which we were able to do if we had chosen to do it.

There are literally many "possible" futures even though there will literally be a single inevitable "actual" future.
There are literally many things that I "could have done" in the past even though I literally "did not" do them.

Determinism asserts that there will be a single thing that we "will" do in the future and that there was a single thing that we "would have done" (and in fact we did choose to do) in the past.

Determinism has nothing to say about "possibilities" or things that we "could have" done. As you repeatedly suggest, these notions are outside the context and scope of determinism.

When determinism attempts to say something about "possibilities" it ends up saying something really stupid.
For example:
Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "In a deterministic world, there is only one possibility."
Customer: "Oh. Then what is that one possibility?"
Waiter: "How should I know? I can't read your mind!"

When determinism attempts to say something about what "could have" happened, it again ends up making silly statements. For example:
We're driving down the road and we see a traffic light up ahead.
Currently, the light is red. But will the light turn green as we get closer, or will it remain red?
We don't know what "will" happen. But we know there are two things that "can" happen:
1. The light can remain red as we arrive.
2. The light can change to green as we arrive.
Just to be safe, we slow down.
But then, as we arrive the light changes to green. So, we resume speed.
Our passenger, a hard determinist, says, "Why did you slow down?"
We reply, "Because the light could have remained red."
He retorts, "Apparently it was determined from the Big Bang that the light would be green, therefore it could not have remained red. So, I repeat, Why did you slow down?"
We reply, "Because the light COULD HAVE remained red, you dork!"

So, you can see the problem when determinism attempts to speak of "possibilities" and things that "could have happened". It gets things wrong and screws up the way these words actually work in the real world.

Common references such as 'could have happened' do not take determinism into account.

Determinism takes care of itself. It is not something that we need to take into account. All of our "can's" and "could have's" and "possibilities" are already part of the overall scheme of reliable cause and effect. Everything that we think and do is already consistent with deterministic causation.

Your notion that determinism somehow changes things, that it is something we need to think about in order for it to work, is without substance.

We generally act and think in terms of 'we could have chosen this instead of that' or 'we could have done this instead of that,' and that's how we talk.

Correct. And every word we say is causally necessary from any prior point in the past. But, so what? How does this actually change anything?

But how we talk doesn't establish how the world works.

And yet we must talk in a rational and coherent way to describe how the world works. Right now, you're still attempting to describe determinism as if it somehow changes how the world works. But it doesn't.

And if the world works like you have defined it in terms of determinism, all of these 'could haves' are an illusion, because the events of the world and of course the brain and thought evolve as determines, without deviation;

The notion of possibilities, all our "can's" and "could have's", are logically required to explain how the world works. We are concerned with things that did not happen as well as what did happen. We are concerned with what "can" happen as well as what "will" happen. Whenever it is up to us to decide what will happen, we must consider what can happen. All of these considerations are part of the rational mechanism by which the single inevitable future comes about.

If other possibilities exist, and can be realized at any time, it contradicts the terms of your definition.

There is no contradiction. Possibilities exist solely within the imagination. They allow us to plan and carry out specific actions that will create actualities. But a possibility never implies that it will be actualized, but only that it could be actualized if we chose to do so.

Determinism means that those possibilities will occur to us due to prior mental events that will reliably bring those options to our attention for consideration. It's simple cause and effect, something that we all take for granted in everything we think and do.

Thoughts, calculations, imaginings, etc are not exempt from entailment as the system evolves from prior to current state.

Correct. Every thought we have is entailed by prior thoughts and experiences. That's what determinism is about. And, when those thoughts are engaged in choosing what we will do, while free of coercion and undue influence, that's what free will is about. Free will is not inconsistent with determinism. And that is the point.

 

[The AntiChris]

When considering whether to order the salad or the steak, both "I can order the salad" and "I can order the steak" were "literally" true. Thus, even after ordering the salad, "I could have ordered the steak" was literally true (past tense of "I can order the steak").

I'd really like to see DBT's response to this simple but powerful point.