Compatibilism: What's that About?

[fromderinside]

An alternate course of events - by definition - cannot happen. Not if we are talking about determinism

No, "cannot" in this statement is figurative.

It is "as if it cannot happen".

DBT, do you agree with the statement "if the universe had different contents, different things would be happening"?

That's what "can" references, and specifically which things would be happening as a function of which assumed states.

The universe doesn't need an alternate outcome to talk about outcomes in different universes, or to ask whether all the universes in this set actually different universes.

Just thinking about how we become to be what we are. All this logical construction rests on association demonstrated way back in the late19th century by originators of experimental psychology, notably not

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If something cannot happen, it is not possible for it to happen.

That is correct. What is incorrect is the assumption that if something "will not" happen that it "could not" have happened. The notion of "can" is basically the same as notion of "possibility". To say it cannot happen means that it is impossible. To say that it can happen means it is a real possibility, even if it never happens.

What "can" happen constrains what "will" happen, because if it cannot happen then it will not happen. But what "will" happen never constrains what "can" happen. That would break the notion of possibility, and we really need the notion of possibility if we are going to deal effectively with matters of uncertainty. When we don't know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare for what does happen. When we do not know what we will choose, we consider what we can choose, in order to decide what we will do.

Given our limited perspective, and knowing that similar events happen regularly, we consider that an event was possible.....yet, if not determined to happen in that moment in time and place, it was never a possibility that it would happen. It may happen later, but that's not the point....which is, that all events in each and every moment in time are fixed by antecedents.

Sorry, but that is still confusing the notion of possibility with the notion of actuality. If something is possible, then it never needs to be actualized in order to be a real possibility. A real possibility is something that can happen under certain conditions, for example, if we choose to actualize or realize that possibility then we are physically able to carry out that intent. If we are not able to carry out the intent, even if we choose to do so, then it is an impossibility. But it is never necessary to actualize or realize that possibility in order for it to be a real and true possibility.

All that is required is that the possibility be actualizable and realizable. The "-able" at the end of these two words reads as "possible to be actualized" and "possible to be realized". And that converts the notion from an "actuality" or a "reality" into a an actual or real "possibility".

So, it is incorrect to say, "if not determined to happen in that moment in time and place, it was never a possibility that it would happen". That would destroy the notion of possibility, and destroy the logical tool we use to deal with uncertainty.

It would be similar to trying to perform addition using a single number. Two numbers are required for addition. Two possibilities are required for choosing. Other logical operations will have similar requirements that must be met, by logical necessity, or the operation simply cannot proceed.

So, no. Determinism may not tie us to a single possible future, even though it definitely does tie us to a single actual future. That's just the way things must work.

The fact that events are fixed by antecedents ties us to a single actual future, but it does not limit the number of possible futures that we "can" choose to realize or actualize. It only limits us to one actual future that we "will" choose to realize.

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

That the world may not be fully deterministic has no bearing on the question of compatibilism, which is free will in relation to determinism.

Yes. That is correct. But compatibilists like me begin with the assumption of a fully deterministic universe. It just makes everything much simpler, and easier to describe, if we eliminate indeterminism from consideration.

As pointed out to Jarhyn;

Regardless of what can happen in the world - some order steak, others order salad or ice cream, what is done at any given instance in time must be done precisely as determined, not freely chosen, but as stipulated;nothing random, no alternate actions.

In other words anything and everything that can happen in the world must necessarily happen at precisely the determined time and place, and in that moment in time there are no alternate possibilities. In that precise moment in time nothing else can happen,.

According to the given terms, this hold true for every moment in time as the system evolves from initial conditions/time t.

Thanks. I was just about to respond to you from Jarhyn's post. Now, here is how it actually works:

"What is done at any given instance in time must be done precisely as determined" is fine!

So, what if "what is being done" is me considering whether to order the steak for dinner?
Why did my considering the steak happen? Because it was a real possibility listed on the menu, and I felt really good about.

And in the next instance I recall that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast.
And in the next instance I recall that I had a double cheeseburger for lunch.
And in the next instance I recall that my doctor wanted me to eat more fruits and veggies.
And in the next instance I feel bad about the steak option.
And in the next instance I seek another option.
And in the next instance I see the Chef Salad on the menu.
And in the next instance I feel good about the Chef Salad.
And in the next instance I feel certain that I will order the Chef Salad.
And in the next instance I tell the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

That's what actually happened. And that is the logical operation known as "choosing". Both the steak and the salad (and every other item on the menu) are called "possibilities", because each of them is something that I "can" order for dinner. But I did not know what I "would" order for dinner until I arrived at the end of the my choosing operation.

Each step necessarily happened, one step inevitably leading to the next step, in precisely that order. That is what we call "determinism". You seem to be already familiar with this notion. But somehow, you've lost track of the notion of "choosing" and the notion of "possibility". I would suggest that you restore those missing notions in order to get a more accurate description of reality.

Where did you lose the notion of "choosing" and "possibility"?
Right here when you said: "In that precise moment in time nothing else can happen."

That is not what determinism implies. Determinism implies "In that precise moment in time nothing else will happen". And, of course, nothing else ever does happen.

But we cannot rationally say that "nothing else can happen", because "I can order the steak" was true at the beginning of the choosing operation. If it were the case that "I cannot order the steak" were true at the beginning, then I would never have considered the steak in the first place, and none of the other mental events that logically followed from my belief that "I could order the steak" would have happened. Therefore, in order for events to unfold precisely as they did, "I can order the steak" must be true at the outset, and therefore it follows logically that "I could have ordered the steak" will necessarily be true after choosing is finished.

That's how the logic and the language work. And don't blame me that it works that way. The logic and the language have evolved over millions of years just like we have. The logical context of possibilities evolved to deal with matters of uncertainty. When we do not know what will happen, we consider what can happen, to prepare for what does happen. When we do not know what we will choose, we consider what we can choose, to causally determine what we will choose to do.

 

[Jarhyn]

An alternate course of events - by definition - cannot happen. Not if we are talking about determinism

No, "cannot" in this statement is figurative.

It is "as if it cannot happen".

DBT, do you agree with the statement "if the universe had different contents, different things would be happening"?

That's what "can" references, and specifically which things would be happening as a function of which assumed states.

The universe doesn't need an alternate outcome to talk about outcomes in different universes, or to ask whether all the universes in this set actually different universes.

Just thinking about how we become to be what we are. All this logical construction rests on association demonstrated way back in the late19th century by originators of experimental psychology, notably not

No, all this logical construction relies on creating a deterministic mathematical system in isolation and demonstrating that the extensions of the system on any LT-able moment are mathematically sound.

Notably, this has nothing to do with psychology and everything to do with pure systemic mathematics. So beyond making an implied genetic fallacy ("the idea came from..."), You say nothing of any value to your position, because your position has no value but nonsense.

Of course, the mathematician always tries to ask "has this problem already been solved? Is it just another problem in disguise?"

Here, the answer is yes!

"Possibility" is just discussing F(StateB) instead of F(State).

"Freedom" is just discussing whether the equality is satisfied in F(StateB) = F(State).

 

[fromderinside]

An alternate course of events - by definition - cannot happen. Not if we are talking about determinism

No, "cannot" in this statement is figurative.

It is "as if it cannot happen".

DBT, do you agree with the statement "if the universe had different contents, different things would be happening"?

That's what "can" references, and specifically which things would be happening as a function of which assumed states.

The universe doesn't need an alternate outcome to talk about outcomes in different universes, or to ask whether all the universes in this set actually different universes.

Just thinking about how we become to be what we are. All this logical construction rests on association demonstrated way back in the late19th century by originators of experimental psychology, notably not

No, all this logical construction relies on creating a deterministic mathematical system in isolation and demonstrating that the extensions of the system on any LT-able moment are mathematically sound.

Notably, this has nothing to do with psychology and everything to do with pure systemic mathematics. So beyond making an implied genetic fallacy ("the idea came from..."), You say nothing of any value to your position, because your position has no value but nonsense.

Of course, the mathematician always tries to ask "has this problem already been solved? Is it just another problem in disguise?"

Here, the answer is yes!

"Possibility" is just discussing F(StateB) instead of F(State).

"Freedom" is just discussing whether the equality is satisfied in F(StateB) = F(State).

Ah yes mathematics is pure. It exists.

I'll accept that when a bird, a species noted for speech, declares something mathematical sans parroting.

 

[Jarhyn]

An alternate course of events - by definition - cannot happen. Not if we are talking about determinism

No, "cannot" in this statement is figurative.

It is "as if it cannot happen".

DBT, do you agree with the statement "if the universe had different contents, different things would be happening"?

That's what "can" references, and specifically which things would be happening as a function of which assumed states.

The universe doesn't need an alternate outcome to talk about outcomes in different universes, or to ask whether all the universes in this set actually different universes.

Just thinking about how we become to be what we are. All this logical construction rests on association demonstrated way back in the late19th century by originators of experimental psychology, notably not

No, all this logical construction relies on creating a deterministic mathematical system in isolation and demonstrating that the extensions of the system on any LT-able moment are mathematically sound.

Notably, this has nothing to do with psychology and everything to do with pure systemic mathematics. So beyond making an implied genetic fallacy ("the idea came from..."), You say nothing of any value to your position, because your position has no value but nonsense.

Of course, the mathematician always tries to ask "has this problem already been solved? Is it just another problem in disguise?"

Here, the answer is yes!

"Possibility" is just discussing F(StateB) instead of F(State).

"Freedom" is just discussing whether the equality is satisfied in F(StateB) = F(State).

Ah yes mathematics is pure. It exists.

I'll accept that when a bird, a species noted for speech, declares something mathematical sans parroting.

Well if the universe does not conform to the logical structure of mathematical language, you cannot honestly utter the words "the universe is deterministic".

Your beloved Sabine Hossenfelder is in fact arguing that the universe is a purely mathematical system operating in isolation, all the way down to it's smallest pieces.

If you wish to step away from accepting that reality can be described functionally and that functions can be described linguistically, then you cannot say 'the universe is deterministic'.

You cannot have it both ways FDI.

 

[fromderinside]

An alternate course of events - by definition - cannot happen. Not if we are talking about determinism

No, "cannot" in this statement is figurative.

It is "as if it cannot happen".

DBT, do you agree with the statement "if the universe had different contents, different things would be happening"?

That's what "can" references, and specifically which things would be happening as a function of which assumed states.

The universe doesn't need an alternate outcome to talk about outcomes in different universes, or to ask whether all the universes in this set actually different universes.

Just thinking about how we become to be what we are. All this logical construction rests on association demonstrated way back in the late19th century by originators of experimental psychology, notably not

No, all this logical construction relies on creating a deterministic mathematical system in isolation and demonstrating that the extensions of the system on any LT-able moment are mathematically sound.

Notably, this has nothing to do with psychology and everything to do with pure systemic mathematics. So beyond making an implied genetic fallacy ("the idea came from..."), You say nothing of any value to your position, because your position has no value but nonsense.

Of course, the mathematician always tries to ask "has this problem already been solved? Is it just another problem in disguise?"

Here, the answer is yes!

"Possibility" is just discussing F(StateB) instead of F(State).

"Freedom" is just discussing whether the equality is satisfied in F(StateB) = F(State).

Ah yes mathematics is pure. It exists.

I'll accept that when a bird, a species noted for speech, declares something mathematical sans parroting.

Well if the universe does not conform to the logical structure of mathematical language, you cannot honestly utter the words "the universe is deterministic".

Your beloved Sabine Hossenfelder is in fact arguing that the universe is a purely mathematical system operating in isolation, all the way down to it's smallest pieces.

If you wish to step away from accepting that reality can be described functionally and that functions can be described linguistically, then you cannot say 'the universe is deterministic'.

You cannot have it both ways FDI.

I don't. I the refer to the world as determined which is both narrower and broader than universe AND more appropriate philosophically. Face it we know very little about the universe. We know much more about the world in which we exist, interact, measure.

 

[DBT]

It's Jarhyn and some of the others who want it both ways, determinism because, well, free will is being claimed to be compatible with determinism, aka, soft determinism, and at the same time, non determinism, because the implications are not palatable.

So it's presented as determinism/not determinism......could have done differently, but didn't. May have done differently if conditions had been different, yet conditions cannot be different.

William James said it was "a quagmire of evasion." Immanuel Kant called it "wretched subterfuge" and "petty word-jugglery."

 

[The AntiChris]

It's Jarhyn and some of the others who want it both ways, determinism because, well, free will is being claimed to be compatible with determinism, aka, soft determinism, and at the same time, non determinism,

Who are the people here that you believe are arguing for non-deterministic (ie contra causal) free will. I think this is your misinterpretation of their views because I'm not aware of anyone here who is doing this.

 

[DBT]

It's Jarhyn and some of the others who want it both ways, determinism because, well, free will is being claimed to be compatible with determinism, aka, soft determinism, and at the same time, non determinism,

Who are the people here that you believe are arguing for non-deterministic (ie contra causal) free will. I think this is your misinterpretation of their views because I'm not aware of anyone here who is doing this.

Have you tried reading what is being said?

''A real possibility is something that can happen under certain conditions, for example, if we choose to actualize or realize that possibility then we are physically able to carry out that intent. If we are not able to carry out the intent, even if we choose to do so, then it is an impossibility. But it is never necessary to actualize or realize that possibility in order for it to be a real and true possibility.'' - Marvin Edwards

''Certain conditions....?'' ''If we choose to actualize or realize that possibility''...?

Choose to? The goddamn system, as defined by compatibilists, determines the conditions and everything that happens within it.

That is why William James said it was "a quagmire of evasion." Immanuel Kant called it "wretched subterfuge" and "petty word-jugglery."

 

[DBT]

And yet again DBT fails to get "could" and "would" straight.

He starts out strong from the gate with recognizing that "couldn't" of some contextual set's degrees of freedom DOES mean "it is not possible", also understood better and more completely in expanded form as "it could not from any starting point within some given set of starting points, progress to any systemic quality satisfying the shape of the requirement", but then promptly steps in it yet again mixing language in a studding display of invalidity.

note here in the slow-motion replay:

a possibility that it would happen

As we've come to see, it's a rookie move, but DBT isn't one to shy away from making rookie mistakes it seems!

Overall, F+.

DBT: possibilities are not a function of would. They are a function of "could, given some starting point".

Still clueless. Now you can add dishonesty and misrepresentation to your childish antics.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It's Jarhyn and some of the others who want it both ways, determinism because, well, free will is being claimed to be compatible with determinism, aka, soft determinism, and at the same time, non determinism, because the implications are not palatable.

So it's presented as determinism/not determinism......could have done differently, but didn't. May have done differently if conditions had been different, yet conditions cannot be different.

William James said it was "a quagmire of evasion." Immanuel Kant called it "wretched subterfuge" and "petty word-jugglery."

It was nice to see Perry discussing the difference between "can" and "will", though in the short article he only mentions it briefly.

There is no "determinism/not determinism" in what we have been discussing. We've fully embraced a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect and have demonstrated repeatedly why the incompatibilist implications are simply false, and due to figurative thinking rather than empirical evidence.

We've been presenting empirical descriptions of what is actually happening in the simple restaurant example, that clearly demonstrate what people mean when they claim that they "could have done otherwise". Determinism certainly asserts that they "would" not have done otherwise, but it cannot logically assert that they "could" not have done otherwise.

The incompatibilists insist upon conflating "can" with "will", even after the nature of the error has been explained in detail. This common error, that we've all made in the past, is simply the figurative notion that "if something will not happen then it is AS IF if cannot happen".

Ironically, this figurative sense would easily qualify as a "wretched subterfuge", "petty word-jugglery", and "a quagmire of evasion." Because it is not the normal usage of the concepts associated with possibilities ("can", "ability", "might", "may", "realizable", etc.) and how the notion of possibility logically functions in human reasoning.

And we've given examples of how these words are actually used and how misuse leads to nonsense, as in the example of the hard determinist waiter telling the customer that there was only a single possibility for dinner while being unable to tell the customer what that possibility was, and the fact that the traffic light could have remained red, so that was why we slowed down.

So, when an incompatibilist complains that "May have done differently if conditions had been different, yet conditions cannot be different", they are simply repeating their error over and and over. Determinism says that "conditions will not be different". But determinism cannot logically say that "conditions cannot be different", no matter how much the figurative sense tugs us in the opposite direction.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Choose to? The goddamn system, as defined by compatibilists, determines the conditions and everything that happens within it.

And, obviously, the "goddamn system" determines that we will on occasion choose what we will do. How do you continue to overlook this simple fact?

 

[Jarhyn]

Choose to? The goddamn system, as defined by compatibilists, determines the conditions and everything that happens within it.

And, obviously, the "goddamn system" determines that we will on occasion choose what we will do. How do you continue to overlook this simple fact?

Willful ignorance?

Hard Determinism can only protect someone from feeling responsibility for their actions or protect them from rage at someone else's actions when they can convince themselves "they had no choice".

Rejection of that would cause all that weight of responsibility to come crashing back into their lives.

 

[Jarhyn]

An alternate course of events - by definition - cannot happen. Not if we are talking about determinism

No, "cannot" in this statement is figurative.

It is "as if it cannot happen".

DBT, do you agree with the statement "if the universe had different contents, different things would be happening"?

That's what "can" references, and specifically which things would be happening as a function of which assumed states.

The universe doesn't need an alternate outcome to talk about outcomes in different universes, or to ask whether all the universes in this set actually different universes.

Just thinking about how we become to be what we are. All this logical construction rests on association demonstrated way back in the late19th century by originators of experimental psychology, notably not

No, all this logical construction relies on creating a deterministic mathematical system in isolation and demonstrating that the extensions of the system on any LT-able moment are mathematically sound.

Notably, this has nothing to do with psychology and everything to do with pure systemic mathematics. So beyond making an implied genetic fallacy ("the idea came from..."), You say nothing of any value to your position, because your position has no value but nonsense.

Of course, the mathematician always tries to ask "has this problem already been solved? Is it just another problem in disguise?"

Here, the answer is yes!

"Possibility" is just discussing F(StateB) instead of F(State).

"Freedom" is just discussing whether the equality is satisfied in F(StateB) = F(State).

Ah yes mathematics is pure. It exists.

I'll accept that when a bird, a species noted for speech, declares something mathematical sans parroting.

Well if the universe does not conform to the logical structure of mathematical language, you cannot honestly utter the words "the universe is deterministic".

Your beloved Sabine Hossenfelder is in fact arguing that the universe is a purely mathematical system operating in isolation, all the way down to it's smallest pieces.

If you wish to step away from accepting that reality can be described functionally and that functions can be described linguistically, then you cannot say 'the universe is deterministic'.

You cannot have it both ways FDI.

I don't. I the refer to the world as determined which is both narrower and broader than universe AND more appropriate philosophically. Face it we know very little about the universe. We know much more about the world in which we exist, interact, measure.

Nice salad, but I ordered the steak.

Marvin, consider some new waiters in your restaurant?

 

[The AntiChris]

It's Jarhyn and some of the others who want it both ways, determinism because, well, free will is being claimed to be compatible with determinism, aka, soft determinism, and at the same time, non determinism,

Who are the people here that you believe are arguing for non-deterministic (ie contra causal) free will. I think this is your misinterpretation of their views because I'm not aware of anyone here who is doing this.

Have you tried reading what is being said?

''A real possibility is something that can happen under certain conditions, for example, if we choose to actualize or realize that possibility then we are physically able to carry out that intent. If we are not able to carry out the intent, even if we choose to do so, then it is an impossibility. But it is never necessary to actualize or realize that possibility in order for it to be a real and true possibility.'' - Marvin Edwards

Nothing in that quote suggests in the slightest to me that Marvin's position depends on non-determinism.

You have a tendency to assume that any disagreement implies that your interlocutor either does not understand determinism or is trying to sneak indeterminism in by the back door. There's little hope that this discussion will lead anywhere so long as you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith.

 

[DBT]

If something cannot happen, it is not possible for it to happen.

That is correct. What is incorrect is the assumption that if something "will not" happen that it "could not" have happened. The notion of "can" is basically the same as notion of "possibility". To say it cannot happen means that it is impossible. To say that it can happen means it is a real possibility, even if it never happens.

That is equivocation. The issue is not that something can generally happen, but that if it is determined to happen, it must necessarily happen, that if x has been determined to happen, it cannot not happen, x must necessarily happen at precisely its determined moment in time.

As x is determined to happen at its precise moment in time, there can be no alternative. In that instant in time, there is no, and can be no ordering salad if steak is determined.

This is not that say that ordering steak or salad is impossible, just that if one is determined at any given moment in time, anything else is impossible in that moment in time.

Which holds true for all actions in any given moment in time as the system evolves.

What "can" happen constrains what "will" happen, because if it cannot happen then it will not happen. But what "will" happen never constrains what "can" happen. That would break the notion of possibility, and we really need the notion of possibility if we are going to deal effectively with matters of uncertainty. When we don't know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare for what does happen. When we do not know what we will choose, we consider what we can choose, in order to decide what we will do.

Determinism entails what must necessarily happen. There are no alternatives.

Which, again, doesn't mean that different people don't do different things. The point being, that what they do, they do it through necessitation. Determinism is necessitation.

What is done, must necessarily be done. Each according to their own state and condition in relation to their environment.

Given our limited perspective, and knowing that similar events happen regularly, we consider that an event was possible.....yet, if not determined to happen in that moment in time and place, it was never a possibility that it would happen. It may happen later, but that's not the point....which is, that all events in each and every moment in time are fixed by antecedents.

Sorry, but that is still confusing the notion of possibility with the notion of actuality. If something is possible, then it never needs to be actualized in order to be a real possibility. A real possibility is something that can happen under certain conditions, for example, if we choose to actualize or realize that possibility then we are physically able to carry out that intent. If we are not able to carry out the intent, even if we choose to do so, then it is an impossibility. But it is never necessary to actualize or realize that possibility in order for it to be a real and true possibility.

All the items on a menu are realizable, which means that any of the items can be ordered.

But that's not the point of determinism. Which is, again, that each and every item that is ordered - 20 customers, each ordering different things, is fixed, determined, no possible alternate action in any given instant in time, each according to their own state and condition.

A determined action must necessarily proceed as determined, unrestricted and unimpeded. Given that decisions are necessitated/determined, and actions necessarily follow (motor action), freedom of action does not equate to freedom of will.

Consequently, the claim that 'it is our brain that is performing decision making and action, therefore free will' is not a reasonable conclusion.

All that is required is that the possibility be actualizable and realizable. The "-able" at the end of these two words reads as "possible to be actualized" and "possible to be realized". And that converts the notion from an "actuality" or a "reality" into a an actual or real "possibility".

So, it is incorrect to say, "if not determined to happen in that moment in time and place, it was never a possibility that it would happen". That would destroy the notion of possibility, and destroy the logical tool we use to deal with uncertainty.

There is no uncertainty. It's determinism! Given our limited perspective, we may have uncertainty, but that doesn't mean the system has uncertainty.


Necessitation; ''Determinism is an example: it alleges that all the seeming irregularities and spontaneities in the world are haunted by an omnipresent system of strict necessitation.' - J. W. N. Watkins, "Between Analytic and Empirical," Philosophy, vol. 32

It would be similar to trying to perform addition using a single number. Two numbers are required for addition. Two possibilities are required for choosing. Other logical operations will have similar requirements that must be met, by logical necessity, or the operation simply cannot proceed.

So, no. Determinism may not tie us to a single possible future, even though it definitely does tie us to a single actual future. That's just the way things must work.

The fact that events are fixed by antecedents ties us to a single actual future, but it does not limit the number of possible futures that we "can" choose to realize or actualize. It only limits us to one actual future that we "will" choose to realize.

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

''If we choose to do so?!!' If? What we choose to do is determined! If determined, there is no if. Whatever happens, happens precisely as it must Brain activity is not exempt. Thoughts, feelings, desires, are not exempt.

Nothing is exempt.

That the world may not be fully deterministic has no bearing on the question of compatibilism, which is free will in relation to determinism.

Yes. That is correct. But compatibilists like me begin with the assumption of a fully deterministic universe. It just makes everything much simpler, and easier to describe, if we eliminate indeterminism from consideration.

Yes, the argument is free will in relation to determinism. QM or indeterminism are different issues.

 

[DBT]

Sorry, times up, no time to deal with multiple frantic posters.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What is incorrect is the assumption that if something "will not" happen that it "could not" have happened. The notion of "can" is basically the same as notion of "possibility". To say it cannot happen means that it is impossible. To say that it can happen means it is a real possibility, even if it never happens.

That is equivocation.

Since equivocation is using the same word in two different senses, it turns out that using "cannot" to mean the same thing as "will not", instead of what it actually means (the inability to do something) is where equivocation is happening.

If we "can" do something then we are physically "able" to do it. This ability to do something exists whether we actually do it or not. There are multiple things that we "can" do in a given situation even though there may be only one thing that we "will" do.

Changing "that which we can do" to be the same as "that which we will do" would be equivocation. F igurative thinking leads to such equivocations.

To avoid equivocation, we must stick with the original meaning of the term "can", which refers to an "ability" to do something, whether we actually will do it or not.

The issue is not that something can generally happen, but that if it is determined to happen, it must necessarily happen, that if x has been determined to happen, it cannot not happen, x must necessarily happen at precisely its determined moment in time.

On the other hand, if it were determined that x would not happen, then it would not happen, even though it could have happened, and definitely would have happened, if it were determined that x would happen.

The reason we have the words "can" and "could" is to discuss possibilities. The reason we discuss possibilities is because we often do not know what is determined to happen.

It is essential that we have the ability to discuss possibilities, things that "can" happen, but which may or may not happen. For example, we do not know yet if we "will" choose the salad or if we "will" choose the steak. But we know for certain that we "can" order the salad and we "can" order the steak.

The logic of the choosing operation, like the logic of the addition operation, requires two things that we "can" choose and "can" do (just like addition requires two numbers that we "can" add together). In the same fashion that the addition operation will add these numbers to produce a sum, the choosing operation will weigh the options to produce a choice.

Addition and choosing are both deterministic causal mechanisms. The "can" is part of the logic by which both mechanisms work. We cannot add 4 + bananas and get a sum. We must have two numbers that "can" be added together. In the same fashion, we cannot choose between two options if one of those options cannot be chosen. The ability to choose either option is logically required by the operation.

So, we cannot logically eliminate one of the "can's" due to the fact that there will be a single inevitable "will", anymore than we can eliminate one of the numbers because there "will" be a single sum. There must be two numbers that "can" be added. And there must be two options that "can" be chosen.

So, NO, determinism cannot eliminate any of the options that "can" be chosen based on the fact that only one of them "will" be chosen. That would break the logical operation. And, since we evolved the operation of choosing in order to adapt to a variety of environmental circumstances, it would be disastrous to eliminate the notion that there are two or more possibilities.

So, let's stop forking around with the notion of possibility. Keep determinism deterministic and possibility indeterministic. And let each "mind its own business" without wiping out the other's business.

As x is determined to happen at its precise moment in time, there can be no alternative.

Well, the alternative is that x may not be determined to happen at that precise moment in time. Suppose y is determined to happen instead of x at that precise moment in time? What then? (Note: This is a rhetorical question to demonstrate the notion of possibility and how it works).

In that instant in time, there is no, and can be no ordering salad if steak is determined.

But what if salad is determined? In that case steak would not be ordered. (Again: the utility of the notion of possibility).

This is not that say that ordering steak or salad is impossible, just that if one is determined at any given moment in time, anything else is impossible in that moment in time.

Oh heck, what was that word? Oh yes, "equivocation". What do you suppose that word means in the case of that sentence?

Which holds true for all actions in any given moment in time as the system evolves.

What holds true is that, even though many actions "could have" been taken if chosen, only one action "will" actually be chosen and taken.

Determinism entails what must necessarily happen.

Of course. But it does not entail what can and cannot happen.

Which, again, doesn't mean that different people don't do different things. The point being, that what they do, they do it through necessitation. Determinism is necessitation.

Yep. We agree on that. But, as it turns out, the logical operation of choosing, which actually does the necessitation, requires at least two options that are real possibilities, things that we "can" do.

All the items on a menu are realizable, which means that any of the items can be ordered.

But that's not the point of determinism. Which is, again, that each and every item that is ordered - 20 customers, each ordering different things, is fixed, determined, no possible alternate action in any given instant in time, each according to their own state and condition.

Correct. But in each case the person is deciding for themselves what they will choose according to their own goals and their own reasoning, which is operational free will. Operational free will is totally consistent with universal causal necessity/inevitability (determinism).

... the claim that 'it is our brain that is performing decision making and action, therefore free will' is not a reasonable conclusion.

Operational free will is our brain performing the decision making and the action.

There is no uncertainty. It's determinism!

Sorry, but uncertainty is an inevitable event that cannot be ignored by any true notion of determinism.

Given our limited perspective, we may have uncertainty, but that doesn't mean the system has uncertainty.

Well, the universe, as a system, is mindless and cannot experience certainty or uncertainty.

But the central nervous system of an intelligent species does experience uncertainty. Therefore it has evolved the notion of "possibilities" to deal with that uncertainty.

Necessitation; ''Determinism is an example: it alleges that all the seeming irregularities and spontaneities in the world are haunted by an omnipresent system of strict necessitation.' - J. W. N. Watkins, "Between Analytic and Empirical," Philosophy, vol. 32

Jeez! Please spare us the spiritualism.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's Jarhyn and some of the others who want it both ways, determinism because, well, free will is being claimed to be compatible with determinism, aka, soft determinism, and at the same time, non determinism,

Who are the people here that you believe are arguing for non-deterministic (ie contra causal) free will. I think this is your misinterpretation of their views because I'm not aware of anyone here who is doing this.

Have you tried reading what is being said?

''A real possibility is something that can happen under certain conditions, for example, if we choose to actualize or realize that possibility then we are physically able to carry out that intent. If we are not able to carry out the intent, even if we choose to do so, then it is an impossibility. But it is never necessary to actualize or realize that possibility in order for it to be a real and true possibility.'' - Marvin Edwards

Nothing in that quote suggests in the slightest to me that Marvin's position depends on non-determinism.

You have a tendency to assume that any disagreement implies that your interlocutor either does not understand determinism or is trying to sneak indeterminism in by the back door. There's little hope that this discussion will lead anywhere so long as you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith.

Well, it would help if DBT could at least get "could" and "would" straight.

Of course I expect DBT's failure in being able to distinguish "can" and "would" stems from the desire to sell hard determinism, a function of their desire to not be judged or not judge someone over something they did that they don't want to acknowledge "they could have decided not to".

 

[DBT]

What is incorrect is the assumption that if something "will not" happen that it "could not" have happened. The notion of "can" is basically the same as notion of "possibility". To say it cannot happen means that it is impossible. To say that it can happen means it is a real possibility, even if it never happens.

The key to understanding the issue of determinism lies in the fixed nature of the moment to moment state of the system as it evolves, that what happens from moment to moment must necessarily happen, ie, that in each and every moment as the system evolves, nothing else can happen

Being determinism, what is not determined to happen, cannot happen. There is no possibility of an alternate action in any given moment in time.

Which doesn't mean that whatever can happen within the system can't happen at some time - if determined - just that it cannot happen unless it is determined in the precise moment of determination.

Jeez! Please spare us the spiritualism

It's just how determinism is defined. It's not my personal definition, it's yours as well.

If you don't agree with it, you don't agree with your own given terms.