Compatibilism: What's that About?

[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

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".

I have it perfectly straight. It's not hard to grasp.

Given determinism, the conditions and events within the system in very moment of time are fixed by antecedents.

There being fixed, there can be no deviation.

Whatever happens within the system in any given instance in time must necessarily happen, which excludes any possibility of something else happening.

There being no alternatives in any given moment in time, 'could' or 'would' does not apply, there is only 'must proceed as determined.'

If you are having difficulty grasping the basics, which clearly you are, have a chat with your computers. Which, according to you, computers being conscious entities, with free will, I'm sure they'll be pleased to help you out. Send them my regards.

 

[Jarhyn]

Given determinism, the conditions and events within the system in very moment of time are fixed by antecedents.

And yet things being fixed for the dwarf by antecedents at any particular point in time does not change the fact that his universe may be extended along lines of difference of any given subset of particular* states, and that these "virtual" outcomes, linked to their antecedents as they are, can be calculated reasonably, if incompletely, such that they allow someone to pick which of the antecedents they trigger as a deterministic choice.

This is the process of will selection and execution

 

[Marvin Edwards]

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

Well, that's the thing. Many things "can" happen, but nothing else "will" happen. To claim that nothing else "can" happen destroys the notion of possibilities, and, if strictly applied, would cripple the brain's logical processing. Ironically, we escape this crippling effect by employing equivocation, that is, assigning "can" a special meaning within determinism rather than the meaning that it normally has.

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 brings us to this scenario:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer: "Gee, I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because we live in a deterministic universe, there is only one thing that you can order".
Customer: "Oh. That's disappointing. But, okay then, what is that one thing that I can order?".
Waiter: "I don't know."

And this scenario:

We're approaching a traffic light. It's currently red. Will it remain red when we arrive or will it turn green just as we get there? We don't know. All we know for certain is that it "can" remain red and that it "can" turn green. But wait, that violates determinism! With determinism there is only one thing that "can" happen and here we have two things that "can" happen. Our brain freezes at this impossible state of affairs and we simply drive through the light and into the cross-traffic.

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.

So, how do we deal with things while in this state of uncertainty as to what is determined to happen this time? We cannot use the notion of things that "can" happen, because it is claimed that what "can" happen is fixed by what is determined to happen. So, first we must know what is determined to happen, and from that we will know what "can" and "cannot" happen.

Let me know when you see the problem with that position.

 

[DBT]

Given determinism, the conditions and events within the system in very moment of time are fixed by antecedents.

And yet things being fixed for the dwarf by antecedents at any particular point in time does not change the fact that his universe may be extended along lines of difference of any given subset of particular* states, and that these "virtual" outcomes, linked to their antecedents as they are, can be calculated reasonably, if incompletely, such that they allow someone to pick which of the antecedents they trigger as a deterministic choice.

This is the process of will selection and execution

A load of crock. A fixed course of action that has no alternatives has no choice. Conditions set events before they even happen.

Choice, by definition, requires two or more realizable options, determinism presents no realizable alternate options, therefore no choice.

What happens must necessarily happen. There is no selection between options because there are no options.

What you say contradicts your own definition of determinism, and shows that you still don't understand what it entails.

And you still have yet to prove even once you can say "DBT was wrong about something". Still cleaving to that Plantinga quote leads me to think perhaps you should consider learning a new skill which is to say, learning your turds still stink like shit.

*(as in, of the particles)

Look in the mirror.

 

[Jarhyn]

A fixed course of action that has no alternatives has no choice

Ever the master of the unargued assertion...

determinism presents no realizable alternate options, therefore no choice.

And equivocation into begged questions

Deterministic choice function operations are still choice function operations because it's not like the choice happens without operation of the function in the first place.

 

[Jarhyn]

And you still have yet to prove even once you can say "DBT was wrong about something". Still cleaving to that Plantinga quote leads me to think perhaps you should consider learning a new skill which is to say, learning your turds still stink like shit.

*(as in, of the particles)

Look in the mirror

And then this gem. Your response to being clearly, painfully, glaringly wrong about something is... No, u.

I at least had the courtesy to point out exactly the mechanism of your wrongness. All you have posted here are begged questions, unargued assertions, equivocations, and other reekingly bad logic.

 

[DBT]

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

Well, that's the thing. Many things "can" happen, but nothing else "will" happen. To claim that nothing else "can" happen destroys the notion of possibilities, and, if strictly applied, would cripple the brain's logical processing. Ironically, we escape this crippling effect by employing equivocation, that is, assigning "can" a special meaning within determinism rather than the meaning that it normally has.

Many things ''can happen'' and they do happen, because, if determined, they must happen as determined.

If something has been determined to happen, nothing other what must happen can happen in its specific place and specific moment in time.

That's the point.

That given a deterministic system, nothing that has not been determined to happen, can happen.

That what can happen, must happen without deviation or choice.

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 brings us to this scenario:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer: "Gee, I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because we live in a deterministic universe, there is only one thing that you can order".
Customer: "Oh. That's disappointing. But, okay then, what is that one thing that I can order?".
Waiter: "I don't know."

That's not really how it works, events don't just happen out of the blue - ''oh, I think I'll just to the cafe and stir the waiter up about free will and determinism.''

Thoughts and actions are determined by antecedents. Customers go to a Cafe for a meal and to socialize, not philosophize on determinism and free will, unless something drives it, an impulse to prove a point, etc.

And yes, if the world is deterministic, and if you are not to contradict your own definition, only one course of action is possible in any given moment in time;

''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.

And this scenario:

We're approaching a traffic light. It's currently red. Will it remain red when we arrive or will it turn green just as we get there? We don't know. All we know for certain is that it "can" remain red and that it "can" turn green. But wait, that violates determinism! With determinism there is only one thing that "can" happen and here we have two things that "can" happen. Our brain freezes at this impossible state of affairs and we simply drive through the light and into the cross-traffic.

That's related to how we perceive the world and events around us, our limited information about the system as it evolves and changes. The lights do precisely what they must without multiple options or possibilities....which our perception of the system formed from our own limitations.

Again, the system itself, as defined, allows no deviation.


''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.'

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.

So, how do we deal with things while in this state of uncertainty as to what is determined to happen this time? We cannot use the notion of things that "can" happen, because it is claimed that what "can" happen is fixed by what is determined to happen. So, first we must know what is determined to happen, and from that we will know what "can" and "cannot" happen.

Let me know when you see the problem with that position.

What can happen, if determined to happen, must happen precisely when determined to happen. What can happen, an avalanche, a plane or car crash, a war, a flood...ordering a meal, arguing, feeling happy, sad, etc, happens precisely as determined.

If determined, it must happen.

And in the moment of it happening, nothing else can happen, if it rains, it cannot not rain, if there is an accident, there cannot be no accident, if you order salad, you cannot not order salad, in the instance of ordering salad, it not possible that you order steak.

By definition, there is no 'could have done differently' in determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

By definition, there is no 'could have done differently' in determinism.

By definition, you are wrong. By definition, there are large but finite extensions on any given deterministic system available upon the permutations of valid instantaneous arrangements of particles of some given subset of the system.

I've shown that with a system that meets the definition of determinism. So while you continue repeating such drivel you will continue to be wrong.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Many things ''can happen'' and they do happen ...

No. They don't. Many things that "can happen" DO NOT HAPPEN. That's the distinction between something that "can" happen versus something that "will" happen. All of the things that "will" happen DO HAPPEN. But most of the things that "can" happen WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

If something has been determined to happen, nothing other what must happen can happen in its specific place and specific moment in time.

Nope. Nothing other than what DETERMINISTICALLY MUST happen WILL happen. But many other things CAN happen and COULD HAVE happened.

That's the point.

And the fix is quite simple, for example:

That given a deterministic system, nothing that has not been determined to happen, can happen.

Becomes this:
That given a deterministic system, nothing that has not been determined to happen, will happen.

That what can happen, must happen without deviation or choice.

And that statement, that "what can happen, must happen" is totally nonsensical. The fact that I "can" play a scale on the piano never implies that I "must" play a scale on the piano. If that were the case then, because I "can" play a scale on the piano is always true, I would always be playing a scale on the piano and would never be able to do anything else!

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 brings us to this scenario:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer: "Gee, I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because we live in a deterministic universe, there is only one thing that you can order".
Customer: "Oh. That's disappointing. But, okay then, what is that one thing that I can order?".
Waiter: "I don't know."

And yes, if the world is deterministic, and if you are not to contradict your own definition, only one course of action is possible in any given moment in time;

No. If the world is deterministic, then only one course of action WILL be taken in any given moment in time. To suggest that determinism means that "only one course of action is possible" is totally dysfunctional, as the example clearly demonstrates.

So, we need to clean up the notion of determinism, and remove the false statements as to what determinism actually implies. Determinism does not eliminate any events that "can" happen, because they eliminate themselves by simply not happening. The fact that something "could have" happened means that it did not happen and it would not have happened under those circumstances. It makes no false assertions. But to say that determinism eliminates items from the list of things that "could have" happened is a false assertion.

The same problem is demonstrated in this scenario:

We're approaching a traffic light. It's currently red. Will it remain red when we arrive or will it turn green just as we get there? We don't know. All we know for certain is that it "can" remain red and that it "can" turn green. But wait, the hard determinist tells us that violates determinism! If determinism means that there is only one thing that "can" happen, then how do we logically cope with what we've always used MULTIPLE possibilities to deal with? Our brain freezes at this impossible state of affairs.

That's related to how we perceive the world and events around us, our limited information about the system as it evolves and changes.

Exactly! That is the specific problem for which the logic and language of possibilities has evolved to handle: when we do not know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to deal better with what does happen.

But the hard determinist attempts to wipe out the whole notion of possibilities, leaving us without the essential tool required to deal with our uncertainty.

The lights do precisely what they must without multiple options or possibilities....which our perception of the system formed from our own limitations.

The lights have no notions, because they have no brain in which to logically manipulate concepts. But our brains have created the concept of things that "will" happen and also the concept of things that "can" happen, and it normally keeps them separate so that it knows what it is talking about at any given moment.

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.

So, how do we deal with things while in this state of uncertainty as to what is determined to happen this time? We cannot use the notion of things that "can" happen, because it is claimed that what "can" happen is fixed by what is determined to happen. So, first we must know what is determined to happen, and from that we will know what "can" and "cannot" happen.

Let me know when you see the problem with that position.

What can happen, if determined to happen, must happen precisely when determined to happen.

But, as we've noted above, what "can" happen is generally determined NOT to happen. Most of the things that "can" happen are determined to NEVER happen.

What can happen, an avalanche, a plane or car crash, a war, a flood...ordering a meal, arguing, feeling happy, sad, etc, happens precisely as determined. If determined, it must happen.

If it must happen, then it necessarily "will" happen. If it must not happen, then it necessarily "will" not happen.

But if something "can" happen, then it may happen or it may not happen. When discussing what "can" happen we are NOT talking about things that necessarily "will" happen. And that's why we have a whole set of different words to deal with these matters of uncertainty. And we use different words to distinguish possibilities from actualities, things that "can" happen from things that "will" happen.

And that is why this statement immediately rings false:

By definition, there is no 'could have done differently' in determinism.

By definition, there is no "would have done differently" in determinism. But there are still plenty of things that we "could have done differently".

 

[DBT]

By definition, there is no 'could have done differently' in determinism.

By definition, you are wrong. By definition, there are large but finite extensions on any given deterministic system available upon the permutations of valid instantaneous arrangements of particles of some given subset of the system.

I'm not wrong. ''No alternate actions within a deterministic system'' is entailed in your own definition.

I've shown that with a system that meets the definition of determinism. So while you continue repeating such drivel you will continue to be wrong.

By presenting a series of clumsy attempts to bypass the terms of your own definition of determinism, you have shown nothing more than an inability to grasp the nature and implications of determinism as you yourself define it.

 

[DBT]

Many things ''can happen'' and they do happen ...

No. They don't. Many things that "can happen" DO NOT HAPPEN. That's the distinction between something that "can" happen versus something that "will" happen. All of the things that "will" happen DO HAPPEN. But most of the things that "can" happen WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

An event does not happen, and cannot happen, if it has not been determined to happen. A car crash can happen. An avalanche can happen....but whether these happen or not is a matter of how the state of the system as it evolves.

That something that can happen never happens is irrelevant. Whether something happens or not is not a choice. If determined, it happens, if not, it doesn't happen.

If something has been determined to happen, nothing other what must happen can happen in its specific place and specific moment in time.

Nope. Nothing other than what DETERMINISTICALLY MUST happen WILL happen.

That is what I said.

But many other things CAN happen and COULD HAVE happened.

That's the point.

But they can't happen unless it is determined that they happen. If not determined, there is no ''could have happened.'' That is negated by ''Nothing other than what DETERMINISTICALLY MUST happen WILL happen.''

And the fix is quite simple, for example:

That given a deterministic system, nothing that has not been determined to happen, can happen.

Becomes this:
That given a deterministic system, nothing that has not been determined to happen, will happen.

It doesn't change anything in terms of the condition: no possible alternate actions. It will not happen because there is no possibility of it happening. It will not happen because it cannot happen. Determinism, as defined, does not permit it to happen.

That what can happen, must happen without deviation or choice.

And that statement, that "what can happen, must happen" is totally nonsensical. The fact that I "can" play a scale on the piano never implies that I "must" play a scale on the piano. If that were the case then, because I "can" play a scale on the piano is always true, I would always be playing a scale on the piano and would never be able to do anything else!

I meant, if it can happen and it has been determined that it happens, it must happen without deviation or choice. The remark was too brief.

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 brings us to this scenario:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer: "Gee, I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because we live in a deterministic universe, there is only one thing that you can order".
Customer: "Oh. That's disappointing. But, okay then, what is that one thing that I can order?".
Waiter: "I don't know."

Not that again. I've already responded to that scenario. If that is how a scene plays out, there are antecedent reasons for it. Something is driving the dialogue and the actions. Perhaps a compatibilist haranguing the waiter in an attempt to prove a point?

And yes, if the world is deterministic, and if you are not to contradict your own definition, only one course of action is possible in any given moment in time;

No. If the world is deterministic, then only one course of action WILL be taken in any given moment in time. To suggest that determinism means that "only one course of action is possible" is totally dysfunctional, as the example clearly demonstrates.

There is only one course of action. Alternate actions or multiple options are not a part of determinism. Whatever happens, must necessarily happen. Fixed, no deviation. The outcome entailed at time t.

So, we need to clean up the notion of determinism, and remove the false statements as to what determinism actually implies. Determinism does not eliminate any events that "can" happen, because they eliminate themselves by simply not happening. The fact that something "could have" happened means that it did not happen and it would not have happened under those circumstances. It makes no false assertions. But to say that determinism eliminates items from the list of things that "could have" happened is a false assertion.

It's not a matter of what can or cannot happen, but what must necessarily happen. That is determinism.

''There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''


Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

The same problem is demonstrated in this scenario:

We're approaching a traffic light. It's currently red. Will it remain red when we arrive or will it turn green just as we get there? We don't know. All we know for certain is that it "can" remain red and that it "can" turn green. But wait, the hard determinist tells us that violates determinism! If determinism means that there is only one thing that "can" happen, then how do we logically cope with what we've always used MULTIPLE possibilities to deal with? Our brain freezes at this impossible state of affairs.

The traffic light does what it must do according to it design, programming, ie, its state and condition. It does this regardless of our perception of it, which in turn is determined by our own state and condition, sensory apparatus, brain, memory, experience with traffic lights, etc......a complex interaction of systems within a deterministic world as it evolves, time and change, events fixed by antecedent conditions, time t and the way things go ever after.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm not wrong. ''No alternate actions within a deterministic system'' is entailed in your own definition.

Yes you are, and while "no alternate actions happen" is entailed, that does not entail "cannot" from "will not" because the alternative actions are functions of systemic extensions not the system itself.

As has been pointed out, it's perfectly sensible to say "what happens in the system when...", especially knowing that the opportunity cost has not yet been paid. Thus the choice function can be upon the opportunity cost as calculated of such imperfect, but still sensible extensions.

Let me ask DBT, in the dwarven continuity exactly one thing will happen: Urist will get to the door, Urist will fail to open the door, Urist will throw a tantrum, then Urist will knock over a statue, Urist will transform into a beast, and then Urist will be killed by a dwarf who chops his head off with an axe as the severed part goes flying in an arc. The question is: which dwarf has the will "to fight"? Is that will going to be fulfilled? Think hard about these questions.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

An event does not happen, and cannot happen, if it has not been determined to happen.

Nope. The proper statement is this:
An event does not happen, and will not happen, if it has not been determined to happen.

A car crash can happen. An avalanche can happen....but whether these happen or not is a matter of how the state of the system as it evolves.

Much better. Whether something that "can" happen actually "does" happen is causally determined. Out of the many things that can possibly happen, some of them are causally determined to happen and many others are causally determined not to happen.

There are many things that "can" happen but only one thing that "will" happen.

That something that can happen never happens is irrelevant.

I disagree. The whole point of things that "can" happen is to help us to estimate what most likely "will" happen. A "can happen" is a possible "will happen". A "will happen" is an actual happening. A "can happen" is how we think about things when we don't know what "will happen".

Whether something happens or not is not a choice. If determined, it happens, if not, it doesn't happen.

Whether a choice happens or not is causally determined. If determined, then obviously a choice will happen! If not, then a choice will not happen.

As it turns out, we are often in situations where we find that it is determined that we must actually make a choice. So, we will make a choice.

If something has been determined to happen, nothing other what must happen can happen in its specific place and specific moment in time.

Nope. Nothing other than what DETERMINISTICALLY MUST happen WILL happen.

That is what I said.

No. You said that "nothing other what must happen can happen". There are many things that "can" happen that "must not" happen. The fact that it is causally necessary that they "will not" happen never implies that they "cannot" happen. For example, the fact that I will not order the steak never implies that I cannot order the steak.

While only one single thing will actually happen, many other things can happen and could have happened. The whole point of the notion of possibilities is to enable us to think about these things that we are unsure of. Thinking of things that can happen is the source of human invention and progress.

But they can't happen unless it is determined that they happen. If not determined, there is no ''could have happened.''

Obviously that assessment is logically incorrect. It literally does not work to think that way. That's the point of the examples.

That is negated by ''Nothing other than what DETERMINISTICALLY MUST happen WILL happen.''

Nope. My statement says nothing about what "can" happen. It appropriately limits itself to what "will" happen.

And the fix is quite simple, for example:

That given a deterministic system, nothing that has not been determined to happen, can happen.

Becomes this:
That given a deterministic system, nothing that has not been determined to happen, will happen.

Which brings us to this scenario:

Waiter (a hard determinist): "What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?"
Customer (hungry): "Gee, I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because we live in a deterministic universe, there is only one thing that you can order".
Customer: "Oh. That's disappointing. But, okay then, what is that one thing that I can order?".
Waiter: "I don't know."

Not that again. I've already responded to that scenario. If that is how a scene plays out, there are antecedent reasons for it. Something is driving the dialogue and the actions. Perhaps a compatibilist haranguing the waiter in an attempt to prove a point?

It's a simple example of the conundrum created by conflating what "can" happen with what "will" happen.

The solution is simple, stop assuming that the fact of a single thing that will happen eliminates all but one of the many things that can happen. Things "can" happen even if they never "will" happen. I "can" order the steak tonight even though I "will not" order the steak tonight.

The reason we drift into the logical error is figurative thinking. We say to ourselves, "If I will not order the steak tonight it is AS IF I cannot order the steak tonight". Every figurative statement is literally false.

Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

So, there is no reason to feel bad about the logical error of conflating "will" with "can", because it is quite common, and mostly when discussing determinism. You can see the same mistake made right there by the Britanica authors, people who really should know better.


The same problem is demonstrated in this scenario:

We're approaching a traffic light. It's currently red. Will it remain red when we arrive or will it turn green just as we get there? We don't know. All we know for certain is that it "can" remain red and that it "can" turn green. But wait, the hard determinist tells us that violates determinism! If determinism means that there is only one thing that "can" happen, then how do we logically cope with what we've always used MULTIPLE possibilities to deal with? Our brain freezes at this impossible state of affairs.

The traffic light does what it must do according to it design, programming, ie, its state and condition. It does this regardless of our perception of it, which in turn is determined by our own state and condition, sensory apparatus, brain, memory, experience with traffic lights, etc......a complex interaction of systems within a deterministic world as it evolves, time and change, events fixed by antecedent conditions, time t and the way things go ever after.

And yet in all that you have not addressed the problem presented. The conflation of "can" with "will" eliminates the notion of multiple possibilities, and thus brings us to a screeching mental halt. The conflation requires us to know in advance what "will" happen before we can consider what "can" happen. The conflation has put the cart before the horse, creating a logical conundrum. The correct logical ordering is to consider the multiple things that can happen in order to prepare ourselves for the single thing that will happen. But the hard determinist is trying to sell us the notion that only a single thing "can" happen and it is identical to the single thing that "will" happen.

The lesson? Don't conflate "can" with "will". Honor the distinction, especially when thinking or speaking of determinism.

 

[fromderinside]

When thinking of determinism the correct and only answer is when this then that. All that is present is that will must take place following then. Can, in determinism is will. They are the identical.

 

[DBT]

When thinking of determinism the correct and only answer is when this then that. All that is present is that will must take place following then. Can, in determinism is will. They are the identical.

Exactly, yet apparently extremely hard for compatibilists to consider, yet alone accept.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

When thinking of determinism the correct and only answer is when this then that. All that is present is that will must take place following then. Can, in determinism is will. They are the identical.

If that were the case, then "will" should be sufficient, "can" would be unnecessary and could be removed from the dictionary. We would all simply speak of what "will" happen. Let me know when you figure out why that is not the case.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

When thinking of determinism the correct and only answer is when this then that. All that is present is that will must take place following then. Can, in determinism is will. They are the identical.

Exactly, yet apparently extremely hard for compatibilists to consider, yet alone accept.

The reason it is not accepted is that it is a false assertion. If it were true, then we would only use the word "will", and, again, would limit ourselves to claiming that "we would not have done otherwise" rather than the unnecessary "we could not have done otherwise". But the incompatibilists themselves insist that we use "we could not have done otherwise". So, what's up with that? If "could" means the same as "would", then "could" becomes unnecessary, so why are you insisting upon using it?

 

[DBT]

I'm not wrong. ''No alternate actions within a deterministic system'' is entailed in your own definition.

Yes you are, and while "no alternate actions happen" is entailed, that does not entail "cannot" from "will not" because the alternative actions are functions of systemic extensions not the system itself.

As has been pointed out, it's perfectly sensible to say "what happens in the system when...", especially knowing that the opportunity cost has not yet been paid. Thus the choice function can be upon the opportunity cost as calculated of such imperfect, but still sensible extensions.

Let me ask DBT, in the dwarven continuity exactly one thing will happen: Urist will get to the door, Urist will fail to open the door, Urist will throw a tantrum, then Urist will knock over a statue, Urist will transform into a beast, and then Urist will be killed by a dwarf who chops his head off with an axe as the severed part goes flying in an arc. The question is: which dwarf has the will "to fight"? Is that will going to be fulfilled? Think hard about these questions.

Don't be silly, this is determinism where ''cannot'' entails ''will not.'' If you cannot do x at time t1, you clearly will not do x at time t1. In determinism 'cannot' equates to 'will not.'

''Determinism,in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... If you cannot do x at time t1, you clearly will not do x at time t1. In determinism 'cannot' equates to 'will not.'

Well, you're half right. "Can" constrains "will". If you "cannot" do x at time t then you "will not" do x at time t. If the many things that you "cannot" do includes x, then you certainly will not be able to do x. Period.

But "will" never constrains "can". There are always multiple things that you "can" do (and multiple things that you "cannot" do) at any point in time. The fact that you "will" do just one of those many things that you "can" do never implies that it is the only thing that you "can" do.

So, conflating what we "can do" with what we "will do" simply does not work.

''Determinism,in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

And it does not work for them any more than it works for you. The notion that determinism eliminates any one of the multiple things that you "can" do at any point in time is illogical, and results in the conundrums that you and they are unable to solve.

"Can you pass me the salt?" "Yes. And I can also pass you the pepper, the mustard, the ketchup, and the sugar. I can do all of those things".
"WILL you pass me the salt?" "Oh. Sure. Here is the salt."

 

[DBT]

When thinking of determinism the correct and only answer is when this then that. All that is present is that will must take place following then. Can, in determinism is will. They are the identical.

Exactly, yet apparently extremely hard for compatibilists to consider, yet alone accept.

The reason it is not accepted is that it is a false assertion. If it were true, then we would only use the word "will", and, again, would limit ourselves to claiming that "we would not have done otherwise" rather than the unnecessary "we could not have done otherwise". But the incompatibilists themselves insist that we use "we could not have done otherwise". So, what's up with that? If "could" means the same as "would", then "could" becomes unnecessary, so why are you insisting upon using it?

Or the reason may be that this is unpalatable for compatibilists? The words we use are a reflection of our experience of the world, an experience built on incomplete knowledge of the system as it transitions from past state to current and future states, which as FDI points out, 'when this, then that.' ''All that is present is that will must take place following then. Can in determined, is will. They are identical.''

Whatever happens must necessarily happen, therefore will happen. 'Could' and 'would' are expressions of uncertainty. Our uncertainty. U

Our mental uncertainty derives from our incomplete understanding of the state of the system and how events unfold. An illusion of the mind, an illusion of free will, and illusion of choice where no choice exists.

Being determinism, there is no uncertainty within the system itself. Even our illusion of freedom is entailed, where all conditions are entailed and get delivered as fixed outputs.

''Think of someone that you dislike. Let’s call this person X. Now, imagine that you were born with X’s “genetic material.” That is, imagine that you had X’s looks, body odor, inherent tastes, intelligence, aptitudes, etc. Imagine, further, that you had X’s upbringing and life experiences as well; so, imagine that you had X’s parents growing up, and that you grew up in the same country, city, and neighborhood in which X grew up, etc.

Would behave any differently from how X behaves?

Most people realize, perhaps after a moment of startled pause, that the answer to the question is “No.”

The question helps people realize that their thoughts and actions are determined entirely by their genetic and social conditioning. In other words, it helps people intuitively grasp the idea that free will is an illusion.''

Understanding that free will is an illusion means recognizing that people behave in the only way they know how. As such, it is important to realize that, when people act in harmful ways, it is because they are ignorant of the forces that actually shape their thoughts and behaviors.''