Compatibilism: What's that About?

[Jarhyn]

That we cannot predict precisely is given.

Such an idea is itself not merely a given, it is nonsense entire. The fact that you keep speaking it does not bode well for your position

We are of the system.

This is not a meaningful constraint on the accurate characterization of inaccessible cardinals, even while they cannot be completely accessed.

That determinism exists is proven.

This is a statement of faith. There is a difference between proof and non-disprovability.

We have uninterrupted progress in science.

This is entirely unrelated to anything in the discussion and the fact that you bring it up indicates a failure of understanding and how you interrelate ideas in this topic.

 

[DBT]

How the world develops is entailed by the the behavior of the objects and forces that make up this world. All of the causation is by the actual objects and the actual forces. Their behavior determines what happens. For example, the accumulated snow on a mountain side can reach a weight where gravity will cause an avalanche. The object is a mass of snow. The force is gravity. The event is an avalanche.

Sure, the behaviour of all the objects within the system, including brains and minds, is entailed by the evolving state of system.

You miss the point. It is the behavior of all the objects and forces that entails the evolution of the system, not the other way around. The universe does not behave in a unified fashion. But the human being does behave in a unified fashion. The human being literally has "skin in the game", and is concerned with the consequences of events.

The point was that all objects within the system, physical makeup, attributes, features, function, including people and the precise actions they must necessarily perform within the system without deviation - are determined by the system as a whole: the past setting actions in the present which in turn fixes conditions into the future.

That's just how determinism works by definition.

The Big Bang evolved into stars, galaxies, planets and life on Earth, life on Earth produced us with our physical and mental abilities, our brain and proclivities led to the development of Chef Salad, which some folk find appealing while others don't. It is on the menu because it appeals to enough customers to make it worthwhile.

But the Big Bang had no interest in building a restaurant. People built the restaurant for their own reasons, reasons that did not exist at the time of the Big Bang. So, if we have any complaint about the restaurant, we bring it up with the owners, not the Big Bang.

The Big Bang got the show on the road, and inf determinism is true and everything else - however complex and however long it took - was inevitable.

You said it yourself: ''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.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

The most meaningful and relevant causes of our choosing the Chef Salad are found right here, in our own thoughts, as we recalled the bacon and eggs we ate for breakfast and the double cheeseburger we had for lunch. Those thoughts, local to this time and place, provide the most meaningful explanation of why we ordered the Chef Salad tonight.

Our own thoughts are determined by countless factors that are beyond our ability to access or regulate. If determinism is true, whatever we think, contemplate and do is fixed at every incremental point of entailment.

”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.

Some find it appealing, tasty, can't get enough while others couldn't bear the thought of ordering Chef Salad, and would only do so if put under pressure by their partner or companions. Which is not classed as free will under the compatibilist definition.

Peer pressure is a common (as opposed to undue) influence, but it normally doesn't rise to the level of coercion. Each adult in the restaurant is still free to choose for themselves what they will order for dinner.

Peer pressure can be strong;
''A young person can sexperience peer pressure in varying degrees. Sometimes their peers may proactively influence them to behave in certain ways and at other times they may be just following along. Both of these situations are based on seeking approval, but it is also possible for peer pressure to be a result of bullying. This is when your child fears being teased or physically hurt for not conforming.''

But that's beside the point, which is basically that whatever happens must necessarily happen.

Inner necessitation is far stronger than peer pressure, coercion, undue influence or force.

Given determinism, inner necessitation is absolute.

''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. '' - Oxford press.

There is no challenge to basic-desert responsibility in the restaurant. If you ordered it, then you deserve to pay for it. Or did you have some different notion of basic-desert responsibility?

It's not only a question of 'basic - desert responsibility,' but the nature of how we think, and what we think and do in relation to determinism.

Their actions are not freely chosen or freely willed,

(A) They are "freely chosen" and "freely willed" as long as what we mean is that the choosing is simply free of coercion and undue influence.

That ignores unconscious inner necessity. That conditions beyond our range of awareness cause our thoughts, deliberations and actions.

Which, while this may not be so evident when our brain is functional, it is proven when things go wrong, altering functionality, mind, personality and behaviour.

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

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The point was that all objects within the system, physical makeup, attributes, features, function, including people and the precise actions they must necessarily perform within the system without deviation - are determined by the system as a whole: the past setting actions in the present which in turn fixes conditions into the future.

The system does not act as a whole. The only time the universe acted as a whole was when it was a single object, a super condensed ball of matter that exploded, creating the Big Bang. After that it was "every quark for himself". Matter began to coalesce soon after that. Hydrogen atoms formed and were drawn together by gravity to form stars. Gravity eventually collapsed these stars, creating the other atomic elements in the periodic table.

The key point here is that there is nothing we can do about the "system as a whole". But there are plenty of things we can do about specific objects. For example, in the case of an avalanche, we can monitor snow accumulation on a given mountain and periodically set off a controlled avalanche using explosives.

But there is nothing we can do about the universe as a whole. We can only do something about specific objects, such as the accumulation of snow on a given slope.

That's just how determinism works by definition.

As I may have mentioned earlier, determinism doesn't do any work. The notion that determinism itself is making all events happen, such that we have no freedom or control, has a different name: "fatalism".

Determinism cannot remove our freedom to control key aspects of our lives without becoming fatalism.

The only way to prevent determinism from becoming fatalism, is to view us as human beings that are free to exercise control over events within our lives.

The Big Bang got the show on the road, and if determinism is true and everything else - however complex and however long it took - was inevitable.

Yes. And the touring bus literally got the band on the road, but the bus will not be on the stage playing any of the musical instruments. Only the members of the band will be doing that.

It was inevitable, from any prior point in time, that it would be the band, and not the bus, that would be performing in the show, even if the bus got the show on the road.

You said it yourself: ''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, as you may have noticed, I have never deviated from that position in this discussion. Even the choices that we made of our own free will were inevitable from any prior point in time.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

That is correct. And we, as natural objects, behaving according to our own nature, make choices every day which causally determine what we will do. That is the nature of all intelligent species, according to natural law.

Our own thoughts are determined by countless factors that are beyond our ability to access or regulate. If determinism is true, whatever we think, contemplate and do is fixed at every incremental point of entailment.

Yes, our brains operate deterministically within a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect. There is perfectly reliable causation that brings us to a problem or issue that requires us to make a decision. There is perfectly reliable causation within our brain as it considers the options, and calculates according to its own goals and reasons which option it will choose. The choice sets our intent. The intent motivates and directs our actions. Our actions cause changes in the state of things. And these changes reliably cause subsequent events.

There is never any break in the causal chain of events as we choose for ourselves what we will do of our own free will.

”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.

That's a very whimsical statement by Searle. Consider this simple fact: the neurobiology is my brain, and it is my brain that is determining my behavior. Searle is attempting to pit my own brain against me. That's a delusion caused by dualism. But that's the thing about philosophy, a lot of people can get some very silly notions in their heads.

You've posted that quote by Searle many times. And it has been answered many times.

Peer pressure is a common (as opposed to undue) influence, but it normally doesn't rise to the level of coercion. Each adult in the restaurant is still free to choose for themselves what they will order for dinner.

Peer pressure can be strong;
''A young person can experience peer pressure in varying degrees. Sometimes their peers may proactively influence them to behave in certain ways and at other times they may be just following along. Both of these situations are based on seeking approval, but it is also possible for peer pressure to be a result of bullying. This is when your child fears being teased or physically hurt for not conforming.''

Right. Like I said, peer pressure is not usually irresistible. However, bullying is a form of coercion. which can compel someone to act against their will.

Inner necessitation is far stronger than peer pressure, coercion, undue influence or force.

The most common form of inner necessitation is a person simply deciding for themselves what they will do. Free will is inner necessitation.

It's not only a question of 'basic - desert responsibility,' but the nature of how we think, and what we think and do in relation to determinism.

I suspect that when you pulled that quote out of your resources that you did not really understand what it was about. But I'm always happy to discuss "basic desert responsibility" (it's an issue in our philosophy of justice).

Actions are "freely chosen" and "freely willed" as long as what we mean is that the choosing is simply free of coercion and undue influence.

That ignores unconscious inner necessity. That conditions beyond our range of awareness cause our thoughts, deliberations and actions.

Choosing is inner necessitation. Our choice sets our intent, and our intent then necessitates our subsequent thoughts and actions.

The fact that there are unconscious processes supporting our conscious experience is not surprising. We have unconscious processes supporting our auditory and visual experiences as well.

Which, while this may not be so evident when our brain is functional, it is proven when things go wrong, altering functionality, mind, personality and behaviour.

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

That is why we include significant brain abnormalities under "undue influences". When the cause of a person's behavior is a significant mental illness or injury, the offender is treated medically and psychiatrically.

 

[DBT]

The point was that all objects within the system, physical makeup, attributes, features, function, including people and the precise actions they must necessarily perform within the system without deviation - are determined by the system as a whole: the past setting actions in the present which in turn fixes conditions into the future.

The system does not act as a whole.

Are we not talking about our overall environment? Everything that brought us about, all the countless elements of the world that shape and form us as conscious beings?

You essentially said it yourself.


''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.

The only time the universe acted as a whole was when it was a single object, a super condensed ball of matter that exploded, creating the Big Bang. After that it was "every quark for himself". Matter began to coalesce soon after that. Hydrogen atoms formed and were drawn together by gravity to form stars. Gravity eventually collapsed these stars, creating the other atomic elements in the periodic table.

Large scale cosmology entailed the necessary conditions for planetary formation and conditions on earth enabling the emergence of life, and eventually us.

Nobody is saying that conditions on Mars determines our behaviour.

Obviously, the ''overall system'' in this instance is the planet Earth with its events. More to the point our own environment, our own culture, our own society, our own life experiences and circumstances, things that are happening around us.

The key point here is that there is nothing we can do about the "system as a whole". But there are plenty of things we can do about specific objects. For example, in the case of an avalanche, we can monitor snow accumulation on a given mountain and periodically set off a controlled avalanche using explosives.

But there is nothing we can do about the universe as a whole. We can only do something about specific objects, such as the accumulation of snow on a given slope.

The 'system as a whole' are all the elements of the environment, our world, our country, our town or city, our family friends, colleagues, etc, etc, that shape and form our physical and mental makeup.

We don't exist in isolation.

We don't think or act in isolation.

What we think and do is related to where we are and what is happening around us.

And if the world is deterministic, the implications are as described.

That anything done at any given moment must be done as determined, that in the moment of thought and action (as in any given moment,) there are no alternatives.

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

That is why we include significant brain abnormalities under "undue influences". When the cause of a person's behavior is a significant mental illness or injury, the offender is treated medically and psychiatrically.

Everything that happens within a brain, each and every incremental step as it acquires and processes information proceeds as it must, where at no point can there be an alternative. There is no point in time where something else could have happened. There is no point in time where some else can be willed or chosen

That is inner necessitation. What is thought, felt, contemplated and done must happen precisely as determined by the system, the external and internal environment, brain state in relation to events forming thought and action.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The system does not act as a whole.

Are we not talking about our overall environment? Everything that brought us about, all the countless elements of the world that shape and form us as conscious beings?

The world does not act as a whole. If the world ordered my Chef Salad then we would expect the world to pay the bill. But the world does not act as a whole.

I, on the other hand, being but a single object within the world, am able to act as a whole. I chose to order the Chef Salad, for my own reasons, to suit my own interests. And I will be required to pay the bill for my dinner.

The notion that the "system" or the "world" is responsible for my dinner order is not a realistic understanding of how things work.

The specific things that shape us are for the most part still within us. Our DNA, something that literally shapes us, has been within us from the start. All of our biological drives exist within us, and are part of what makes us who we are. Our thoughts and feelings that define who we are at this moment are happening within our own brain. Even our past history, our prior interactions with our physical and social environments, are located within our own memories. So, when we make a choice, it is truly who and what we are at that point in time that is doing the choosing. It is really and truly us.

No prior cause of us can participate in our choosing without first becoming an integral part of who we are at that moment in time.

Large scale cosmology entailed the necessary conditions for planetary formation and conditions on earth enabling the emergence of life, and eventually us.

"Yeah, but what have they done for me lately?"

Nobody is saying that conditions on Mars determines our behaviour.

But Mars is part of the "system", so when a claim is made that the "system" is causing my choice, then Mars cannot be excluded from the implication.

Obviously, the ''overall system'' in this instance is the planet Earth with its events. More to the point our own environment, our own culture, our own society, our own life experiences and circumstances, things that are happening around us.

You're getting warmer. But the question is who is responsible for paying the bill for my dinner. One of the key functions of free will is to locate the responsible prior cause of an event, the cause that will pay for the dinner. (It's that "basic deserts" issue, also called "just deserts", which those arguing against free will keep bringing up. The issue is more directly related to our philosophy of justice.)

The 'system as a whole' are all the elements of the environment, our world, our country, our town or city, our family friends, colleagues, etc, etc, that shape and form our physical and mental makeup.

And yet very few of those influences are sitting at the table with us in the restaurant. Any of their effects have already become integral parts of who and what we are. It is really us, in the restaurant, deciding what we will order.

We don't exist in isolation. We don't think or act in isolation.

And yet each of us will be choosing for ourselves what we will order for dinner.

What we think and do is related to where we are and what is happening around us.

Sure. All of these are normal influences that do not compromise our ability to choose for ourselves what we will order for dinner.

And if the world is deterministic, the implications are as described. That anything done at any given moment must be done as determined, that in the moment of thought and action (as in any given moment,) there are no alternatives.

And, of course, there will not be any deviation, which logically implies that we will have no choice but to choose, and no alternative but to consider the alternate possibilities on the menu and choose from them what we will order. Determinism asserts that all of these events must necessarily happen precisely as they do happen. Determinism is not allowed to contradict itself by suggesting that people are not choosing when they actually are choosing.

That is deterministic causal necessitation, both within us and within the world of which we are a part. And, unlike the inanimate objects, we actually get to choose what we will causally necessitate.

 

[fromderinside]

That we cannot predict precisely is given.

Such an idea is itself not merely a given, it is nonsense entire. The fact that you keep speaking it does not bode well for your position

We are of the system.

This is not a meaningful constraint on the accurate characterization of inaccessible cardinals, even while they cannot be completely accessed.

That determinism exists is proven.

This is a statement of faith. There is a difference between proof and non-disprovability.

We have uninterrupted progress in science.

This is entirely unrelated to anything in the discussion and the fact that you bring it up indicates a failure of understanding and how you interrelate ideas in this topic.

- nm

 

[DBT]

The system does not act as a whole.

Are we not talking about our overall environment? Everything that brought us about, all the countless elements of the world that shape and form us as conscious beings?

The world does not act as a whole. If the world ordered my Chef Salad then we would expect the world to pay the bill. But the world does not act as a whole.

I, on the other hand, being but a single object within the world, am able to act as a whole. I chose to order the Chef Salad, for my own reasons, to suit my own interests. And I will be required to pay the bill for my dinner.

The notion that the "system" or the "world" is responsible for my dinner order is not a realistic understanding of how things work.

The specific things that shape us are for the most part still within us. Our DNA, something that literally shapes us, has been within us from the start. All of our biological drives exist within us, and are part of what makes us who we are. Our thoughts and feelings that define who we are at this moment are happening within our own brain. Even our past history, our prior interactions with our physical and social environments, are located within our own memories. So, when we make a choice, it is truly who and what we are at that point in time that is doing the choosing. It is really and truly us.

No prior cause of us can participate in our choosing without first becoming an integral part of who we are at that moment in time.

Large scale cosmology entailed the necessary conditions for planetary formation and conditions on earth enabling the emergence of life, and eventually us.

"Yeah, but what have they done for me lately?"

Nobody is saying that conditions on Mars determines our behaviour.

But Mars is part of the "system", so when a claim is made that the "system" is causing my choice, then Mars cannot be excluded from the implication.

Obviously, the ''overall system'' in this instance is the planet Earth with its events. More to the point our own environment, our own culture, our own society, our own life experiences and circumstances, things that are happening around us.

You're getting warmer. But the question is who is responsible for paying the bill for my dinner. One of the key functions of free will is to locate the responsible prior cause of an event, the cause that will pay for the dinner. (It's that "basic deserts" issue, also called "just deserts", which those arguing against free will keep bringing up. The issue is more directly related to our philosophy of justice.)

The 'system as a whole' are all the elements of the environment, our world, our country, our town or city, our family friends, colleagues, etc, etc, that shape and form our physical and mental makeup.

And yet very few of those influences are sitting at the table with us in the restaurant. Any of their effects have already become integral parts of who and what we are. It is really us, in the restaurant, deciding what we will order.

We don't exist in isolation. We don't think or act in isolation.

And yet each of us will be choosing for ourselves what we will order for dinner.

What we think and do is related to where we are and what is happening around us.

Sure. All of these are normal influences that do not compromise our ability to choose for ourselves what we will order for dinner.

And if the world is deterministic, the implications are as described. That anything done at any given moment must be done as determined, that in the moment of thought and action (as in any given moment,) there are no alternatives.

And, of course, there will not be any deviation, which logically implies that we will have no choice but to choose, and no alternative but to consider the alternate possibilities on the menu and choose from them what we will order. Determinism asserts that all of these events must necessarily happen precisely as they do happen. Determinism is not allowed to contradict itself by suggesting that people are not choosing when they actually are choosing.

That is deterministic causal necessitation, both within us and within the world of which we are a part. And, unlike the inanimate objects, we actually get to choose what we will causally necessitate.

Maybe deal with a single point?

Choice in this instance:
Given the word 'choose' is being used in relation to determinism, and given that determinism - as defined - permits no alternative in any given instance, including during the process of thought, deliberation and action, that each and every thought proceeds as it must, that each and every step of deliberation is fixed, that each and every action is entailed and that nothing can be otherwise, and that contrary to determinism, choice is defined as being able to [freely] make a selection between two or more realizable options (any of which can be chosen), never mind perception based on limited information, where - exactly - is real choice to be found within a deterministic system?

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe deal with a single point?

Yes, how about you do this. I know some way you can do it by trying a particular exercise in highlighting something in red..

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Maybe deal with a single point?

Yes, please!

Choice in this instance:
Given the word 'choose' is being used in relation to determinism, and given that determinism - as defined - permits no alternative in any given instance, including during the process of thought, deliberation and action, that each and every thought proceeds as it must, that each and every step of deliberation is fixed, that each and every action is entailed and that nothing can be otherwise, and that contrary to determinism, choice is defined as being able to [freely] make a selection between two or more realizable options (any of which can be chosen), never mind perception based on limited information, where - exactly - is real choice to be found within a deterministic system?

First, as always, nothing "will" be otherwise within a deterministic system. On that we can both agree. But as soon as you raise the issue of things that "can" happen, or what "can" be realized ("realizable"), then you have left the context of certainty (what "will" happen") and entered the context of possibility (what "can" happen, what is "able" to be realized).

Second, the notion of a "real" choice, that is something other than someone actually performing a choosing operation, replaces the literal meaning of "real" with a figurative, rhetorical notion of "real", that is not actually real.

Those two points may still be "over your head".

But this point is one that you can understand: The real operation of choosing is actually performed by the human brain in physical reality (the neural infrastructure). It is just as real as any other logical operation, such as addition or subtraction.

Because choosing is really happening within a system that we presume is deterministic, we must conclude that a real choice is found within a deterministic system.

 

[DBT]

Maybe deal with a single point?

Yes, please!

Choice in this instance:
Given the word 'choose' is being used in relation to determinism, and given that determinism - as defined - permits no alternative in any given instance, including during the process of thought, deliberation and action, that each and every thought proceeds as it must, that each and every step of deliberation is fixed, that each and every action is entailed and that nothing can be otherwise, and that contrary to determinism, choice is defined as being able to [freely] make a selection between two or more realizable options (any of which can be chosen), never mind perception based on limited information, where - exactly - is real choice to be found within a deterministic system?

First, as always, nothing "will" be otherwise within a deterministic system. On that we can both agree. But as soon as you raise the issue of things that "can" happen, or what "can" be realized ("realizable"), then you have left the context of certainty (what "will" happen") and entered the context of possibility (what "can" happen, what is "able" to be realized).

What can happen, generally speaking, will only happen if the event has been determined to happen precisely when it must happen.

If it is not determined to happen at a given time and place, it cannot happen in that time and place.

It may happen at another time and place, but not because someone made a freely willed choice.

Second, the notion of a "real" choice, that is something other than someone actually performing a choosing operation, replaces the literal meaning of "real" with a figurative, rhetorical notion of "real", that is not actually real.

Clearly, I was referring to the given definition of choice; to make a selection from two or more realizable options. An actual or real choice where any of the presented options can be chosen.

Which of course cannot happen within a deterministic system.

Where the selection process is fixed by the unfolding conditions, a deterministic interaction of brain/mind and environment. Where what is done must be done.

A matter of inner necessity, not free will.

Those two points may still be "over your head".

Over my head? It's just a matter of understanding the implications of determinism and working with that. That's what I do.

''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.''

But this point is one that you can understand: The real operation of choosing is actually performed by the human brain in physical reality (the neural infrastructure). It is just as real as any other logical operation, such as addition or subtraction.

Because choosing is really happening within a system that we presume is deterministic, we must conclude that a real choice is found within a deterministic system.

There is never a chance of 'choosing' anything other than the foregone conclusion; entailment, not free choice.

An option of precisely....one.

One course of action.

One possible outcome.

No alternatives.

Choice within determinism? Not a chance.

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.''

 

[Jarhyn]

An option of precisely....one.

One course of action.

One possible outcome.

No alternatives.

Choice within determinism? Not a chance

Your choice costs you the power to choose other things. WAH!

Quit whining about it.

The fact that there are no take-backsies is one of the reasons you should think harder about your choices.

It doesn't take those choices away from you that they have an opportunity cost, but yes, making choices has an opportunity cost.

The fact that it costs you something to make a choice does not mean you didn't make a choice.

It doesn't mean they were not "alternatives".

Only you hard determinists whine so badly when the universe operates such that opportunity costs exist.

It doesn't mean there isn't choice, when you get no take-backsies, it just means that your choices have meaning and gravity so you need to actually think about them in the moments before you pass a point of no return towards paying the opportunity cost.

now if you would like to actually deal with one point at a time, there's some highlighting in red you could do.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What can happen, generally speaking, will only happen if the event has been determined to happen precisely when it must happen.

You're still trying to say that if it "won't" happen then it "can't" happen. And that is true in one special case, the case where we know with absolute certainty exactly what will happen. In every other case it is false.

For example, it is false whenever we do not know whether it will rain or not. It can rain, but it might not rain. If someone asks why we brought an umbrella, we say that there was a good chance that it would rain today. It could have rained, even though it did not rain. Although we know for certain now that it would not rain today, we still assert that it could have rained, because we are speaking of that moment in the past where we did not know what would happen.

If it is not determined to happen at a given time and place, it cannot happen in that time and place.

If it were true that it could not rain today, then why did we bring the umbrella? The answer is that we did not know at the time that it would not rain today. So, as we looked up at the overcast sky, the only thing we knew with absolute certainty was that it could rain today. "It can rain today" was a certain fact at the time we chose to bring the umbrella, regardless what was determined to happen.

It may happen at another time and place, but not because someone made a freely willed choice.

It could have rained today, at this exact time and place. The fact that it would not happen did not change the fact that it could have happened. What "will" happen has no impact upon what "can" happen. One thing "will" happen (it will not rain) but two things "can" happen (it can rain and it can remain dry).

And it works the same way with choices. Here I am staring at the restaurant menu, with no clue as to what I "will" order. So, this does not involve the special case where I already know for certain what I "will" do. Instead, I must consider all of the items on the menu to be "real possibilities", dinners that I "can" order. After I make my decision, I will know with absolute certainty what I "will" order. But whenever I refer to the earlier point in time, when every item on the menu was a real possibility, I can truthfully say "I could have ordered the Steak, but I chose the Salad instead".

And it has the same sense and meaning as "it could have rained today".

Second, the notion of a "real" choice, that is something other than someone actually performing a choosing operation, replaces the literal meaning of "real" with a figurative, rhetorical notion of "real", that is not actually real.

Clearly, I was referring to the given definition of choice; to make a selection from two or more realizable options. An actual or real choice where any of the presented options can be chosen.

Yes, we both understand and are using the same definition of choice.

Which of course cannot happen within a deterministic system.

And it is baffling that you would continue to assert that claim in light of the clear evidence to the contrary. Within a deterministic system, it was causally necessary from any prior point in eternity that we would be sitting in that restaurant, uncertain what we would order, and considering the multiple items that we could order, until we finally settled upon what we would order.

We had multiple possibilities. Then, through the choosing operation, we resolved them into a single dinner order. That is exactly what choosing is, a selection from multiple possibilities.

Where the selection process is fixed by the unfolding conditions, a deterministic interaction of brain/mind and environment. Where what is done must be done.

And that is exactly what happened.

A matter of inner necessity, not free will.

The mechanism of inner necessity was a choice we made of our own free will. It is not an "either this or that" but a "both this and that".

It's just a matter of understanding the implications of determinism and working with that. That's what I do.

''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.''

And that is exactly what happened. Uncertain of what we would order, we considered the items that we knew for certain we could order, and chose to order the Salad instead of the Steak for dinner (because of the bacon and eggs we had for breakfast and the double cheeseburger we had for lunch).

Replay the event as often as we like, and it will always produce the same results by the same causal mechanism: choosing. And every time we will look at the menu to know for certain what we can order, and eventually order the Salad even though we could have ordered the Steak.

There is never a chance of 'choosing' anything other than the foregone conclusion; entailment, not free choice.

Your assertion is demonstrably false, as has been just demonstrated.

An option of precisely....one.
One course of action.
One possible outcome.
No alternatives.

Well, if you know what that single option is, then please tell me, and I'll order that for dinner.

But if you cannot tell me what I will order, then stop forking around and give me the damn menu.

Choice within determinism? Not a chance.

Within determinism, we have no choice but to choose. Choice within determinism is 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.''

Just another academic source trapped in the paradox. If taken literally, we end up with this:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my options tonight?"
Waiter: "Determinism implies that there is only one thing that you can order."
Diner: "Oh. Okay. So, what is that one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "It's the same thing as what you will order. So, as soon as you tell me what you will order, I will tell you what you can order."
Diner: "Wait. It's impossible to tell you what I will order if I don't know what I can order!"
Waiter: "It seems we're both trapped in a paradox."

 

[DBT]

What can happen, generally speaking, will only happen if the event has been determined to happen precisely when it must happen.

You're still trying to say that if it "won't" happen then it "can't" happen. And that is true in one special case, the case where we know with absolute certainty exactly what will happen. In every other case it is false.

I'm just pointing out the basic implications of determinism.

That anything that 'can happen' and does happen within the system is entailed to happen.

That whatever can happen within the system can only happen at the precise time and place it's determined to happen.

Meaning that an event that can and does happen somewhere and at some time must happen at that precise time and place, but not at any other time or place.

Events that can and do happen as determined cannot happen at any other time and place.

''Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation"). - Marvin Edwards.

Fixed as a matter of natural law and without deviation means that anything that is determined to happen not only will not happen, but cannot happen.

''Fixed'' negates the possibility of alternate events. ''Without deviation'' negates the possibility of alternate events.

Alternate events, by definition, cannot happen within a deterministic system.....or it's not determinism, but something cooked up to support a favored ideology.

For example, it is false whenever we do not know whether it will rain or not. It can rain, but it might not rain. If someone asks why we brought an umbrella, we say that there was a good chance that it would rain today. It could have rained, even though it did not rain. Although we know for certain now that it would not rain today, we still assert that it could have rained, because we are speaking of that moment in the past where we did not know what would happen.

If conditions appear ambiguous or uncertain to us, it's because we don't have the necessary information to know whether it's going to rain, or generally speaking, what is going to happen in the future.

Which doesn't mean the system itself - if deterministic - is ambiguous or uncertain, that maybe either this or maybe that can happen.

Given determinism, the system cannot have alternatives, everything proceeds as it must, and alternatives as we perceive them to be, are illusions formed by our own determined limitations.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You're still trying to say that if it "won't" happen then it "can't" happen. And that is true in one special case, the case where we know with absolute certainty exactly what will happen. In every other case it is false.

I'm just pointing out the basic implications of determinism. That anything that 'can happen' and does happen within the system is entailed to happen.

But that's incorrect. In fact, most of the things that "can" happen are entailed to never happen. For example, we "can" order any item on the restaurant menu, but only one of those items is entailed to be ordered. All of the other things that we "can" order are entailed to be not ordered.

We usually never bring up what "can" happen when we already know for certain what "will" happen. It is only when we do not know what "will" happen that we haul in the language and logic of possibilities, a language and logic that humans evolved to deal with their many inevitable occasions of uncertainty.

That whatever can happen within the system can only happen at the precise time and place it's determined to happen.

And why can't it happen at some other time or place? Suppose we go to McDonald's instead of Wendy's? That's two different places. They are both nearby, and we have time to go to either one. So both of these options are really possible. We know it to be a fact that we "can" go to McDonald's and it is also a certain fact that we "can" go to Wendy's.

Only one of these events "will" happen tonight, at its own precise time and place. But we have not decided yet which one "will" happen, and which one "will not" happen. All we know for certain is that they each "can" happen if we choose to make them happen.

We cannot limit what "can" happen to only what "will" happen or what "does" happen.

Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation"). One of these events is that moment of uncertainty, either about what we will do (which inevitably leads to the choosing event) or about what will happen next (which inevitably leads to speculation and planning).

Fixed as a matter of natural law and without deviation means that anything that is determined to happen not only will not happen, but cannot happen.

As we both know, ALL events are causally necessary and will happen without deviation. This includes the events of uncertainty, events in which we will inevitably invoke the logic and language of possibility. And within that logic and language of possibility we find a multitude of possible events that either will or will not ever happen, which are flagged as such by the "can" token which replaces the "will" token until we know for certain what we will do or what will happen.

''Fixed'' negates the possibility of alternate events. ''Without deviation'' negates the possibility of alternate events.

Obviously "fixed" does not negate anything within the context of possibilities. In fact, within the human brain the notion of multiple things that we "can" choose will show up exactly when and where it does. The multiple possibilities are as inevitable as the single actuality.

If conditions appear ambiguous or uncertain to us, it's because we don't have the necessary information to know whether it's going to rain, or generally speaking, what is going to happen in the future.

Exactly. And that is why it was necessary for the human brain to evolve a logic and a language to deal with these inevitable matters of uncertainty.

Which doesn't mean the system itself - if deterministic - is ambiguous or uncertain, that maybe either this or maybe that can happen.

Excellent point. That's why determinism never has any need for the notion of "possibility" or the notion of things that "may or may not" happen. There is no need to invoke such notions within the context of determinism. Thus, whenever determinism attempts to use the words "can" or "cannot", we must wash its mouth out with soap.

And that is why you'll see me routinely substituting "can" with "will" in your assertions as to what determinism implies. Determinism may not speak of things that can or cannot happen. Determinism knows nothing about such things, and can make no assertions that invoke the logic and language of possibilities. As soon as it does, it starts spitting out paradoxes.

 

[fromderinside]

And that is why you'll see me routinely substituting "can" with "will" in your assertions as to what determinism implies. Determinism may not speak of things that can or cannot happen. Determinism knows nothing about such things, and can make no assertions that invoke the logic and language of possibilities. As soon as it does, it starts spitting out paradoxes.

An example from your perspective. How is that an example? Determinism isn't the commander, it is the way things are. This then that. Always if this then that. I even go so far as to say only (always) if this then that. 'You' based Conditionals such as can or will or might are excluded thus if this then that.

Paradoxes are illusions based on our presumptions. There are no paradoxes, only outcomes, with determinism which is a strong reason is why it is the basis for the scientific method including quantum mechanical constructions*.

*From: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63811/is-the-universe-fundamentally-deterministic#:~:text=You're right; the Schrödinger's equation induces a unitary,"evolution" that the wavefunction may experience: wavefunction collapse.

the Schrödinger's equation induces a unitary time evolution, and it is deterministic. Indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics is given by another "evolution" that the wavefunction may experience: wavefunction collapse. This is the source of indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics, and is a mechanism that is still not well understood at a fundamental level (this is often called as "Measurement Problem").

If you want a book that talks about this kind of problems, I suggest you "Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory" by Joos, Zeh et al; it is a good book on this and other modern topics in Quantum Mechanics. It's understandable with some effort, assuming you know basic things about Hilbert Spaces and the basic mathematical tools of QM.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Paradoxes are illusions based on our presumptions.

Yes. And our presumptions can be altered by false, but believable suggestions, drawing us into a paradox. For example, take Zeno's paradox of the race between Achilles and the Tortoise. Achilles is the fastest runner in Greece. The Tortoise, being a tortoise, is one of slowest animals. So, Achilles gives the tortoise a long head start. Then Achilles takes off in pursuit, running to where the tortoise is. But when Achilles gets to where the tortoise was, the tortoise, slow as he may be, has moved on. So, Achilles runs to where the tortoise is now. But again, when he arrives, the tortoise has move farther ahead. It would seem that Achilles will never be able to catch up to, much less pass the tortoise, no matter how fast Achilles runs.

What's the false but believable suggestion?

We get the same problem with determinism and free will. A simple question like, "How can we have free will if every choice we make was inevitable since the beginning of time?" creates the paradox.

What's the false but believable suggestion?

*From: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63811/is-the-universe-fundamentally-deterministic#:~:text=You're right; the Schrödinger's equation induces a unitary,"evolution" that the wavefunction may experience: wavefunction collapse.

the Schrödinger's equation induces a unitary time evolution, and it is deterministic. Indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics is given by another "evolution" that the wavefunction may experience: wavefunction collapse. This is the source of indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics, and is a mechanism that is still not well understood at a fundamental level (this is often called as "Measurement Problem").

If you want a book that talks about this kind of problems, I suggest you "Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory" by Joos, Zeh et al; it is a good book on this and other modern topics in Quantum Mechanics. It's understandable with some effort, assuming you know basic things about Hilbert Spaces and the basic mathematical tools of QM.

Fortunately, QM is not necessary to understand what free will is about. So we can ignore it in discussions of free will. And if determinism is limited to "this and thus that", we may presume that QM is just as deterministic as everything else.

 

[DBT]

You're still trying to say that if it "won't" happen then it "can't" happen. And that is true in one special case, the case where we know with absolute certainty exactly what will happen. In every other case it is false.

It doesn't matter what we know or don't know.

It doesn't matter what we are aware of or unaware of: the system just progresses as determined regardless of what we know, don't know, are aware or unaware of.

Whatever happens within the system must happen as determined, without deviation.

Consequently, if something has not been determined to happen at a specific time and place - regardless of how many times it happens at other times and other places - it cannot happen in that specific time and place because that would be a deviation and by definition, no deviations can happen in a determined progression of events.


''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.' - Techopedia

I'm just pointing out the basic implications of determinism. That anything that 'can happen' and does happen within the system is entailed to happen.

But that's incorrect. In fact, most of the things that "can" happen are entailed to never happen. For example, we "can" order any item on the restaurant menu, but only one of those items is entailed to be ordered. All of the other things that we "can" order are entailed to be not ordered.

Entailed not to happen is related to entailed to happen. What must necessarily happen in any given instance excludes everything else from happening.

If something that happened a moment ago has not been determined to happen right now, it cannot happen right now, therefore will not happen now.

Which doesn't mean the system itself - if deterministic - is ambiguous or uncertain, that maybe either this or maybe that can happen.

Excellent point. That's why determinism never has any need for the notion of "possibility" or the notion of things that "may or may not" happen. There is no need to invoke such notions within the context of determinism. Thus, whenever determinism attempts to use the words "can" or "cannot", we must wash its mouth out with soap.

And that is why you'll see me routinely substituting "can" with "will" in your assertions as to what determinism implies. Determinism may not speak of things that can or cannot happen. Determinism knows nothing about such things, and can make no assertions that invoke the logic and language of possibilities. As soon as it does, it starts spitting out paradoxes.

Given the terms and conditions, there can be no uncertainty in how the system evolves or develops. How we or other animals perceive the world is another matter. Which of course is entailed by our own makeup.

 

[Jarhyn]

It doesn't matter what we know or don't know.

It absolutely matters what we know. If we know the items on the menu are steak and salad, we will order a salad. If we know the items on the menu are Chicken Cutlet or Pork Cutlet, we will order the Chicken Cutlet.

If we don't know what is on the menu and we must make an exact order for our order to be validated, we probably can't even place a valid order at all.

I imagine then that it might in fact matter a lot what we know or don't know.

As it is, there's again this faulty concept of "the system must proceed as determined" while completely ignoring all the folks whose careers are literally built up around understanding deterministic systems.

Simply put, the evolution of the system absolutely can host an approximal extension on its current state and calculate approximately the future state of this approximal extensional state, and then of the results of that select one which will then be "the thing it was always going to do".

But as pointed out, without the menu of valid orders to place, it is hard to be so exact as to place any valid order.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It doesn't matter what we know or don't know. It doesn't matter what we are aware of or unaware of: the system just progresses as determined regardless of what we know, don't know, are aware or unaware of.

That's not causal determinism. Causal determinism is derived from the notion of perfectly reliable cause and effect. As in the source you quoted:

''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.' - Techopedia

Choosing, for example, is a deterministic system. Given the following inputs:
1. Two dinner options, Steak versus Salad.
2. Having had bacon and eggs for breakfast.
3. Having had a double cheeseburger for lunch.
4. Having the dietary goal of eating more fruits and vegetables.
Will always produce the same output: "I will have the Chef Salad for dinner, please".

This choosing event is embedded within a broader deterministic event, in which we decided to go to that specific restaurant, which is embedded within a broader deterministic event, which is the span of our life, which is embedded in a broader deterministic event, in which all species evolved from inanimate matter, which is embedded in a broader deterministic event, in which the universe expanded from a super condensed ball of matter to what it is today.

Whatever happens within the system must happen as determined, without deviation.

Whatever happens within the system must happen by current events reliably causing new events. The events themselves are causing the next events. (An "event" is any change in the state of a deterministic system).

There is nothing but the events themselves causing other events. A person's life is an event. A person's choice is an event within that life.

There is nothing external to the events themselves causing the next events.

Consequently, if something has not been determined to happen at a specific time and place - regardless of how many times it happens at other times and other places - it cannot happen in that specific time and place because that would be a deviation and by definition, no deviations can happen in a determined progression of events.

You keep suggesting something outside of the events, something external that is planning and directing which events happen. But that is a superstitious belief. It is not an accurate depiction of how things actually work within a deterministic system.

There is nothing to cause the next events other than the current events. And, within the restaurant, the prior events that causally determine the choice are the menu, and everything that goes on in the brain of the person as they decide what they will choose to order for dinner (also known as "inner necessitation").

There is nothing outside of these events that is causing the choice to be what it will be.

Entailed not to happen is related to entailed to happen. What must necessarily happen in any given instance excludes everything else from happening. If something that happened a moment ago has not been determined to happen right now, it cannot happen right now, therefore will not happen now.

Yes, as always, what "can" happen constrains what "will" happen. If it cannot happen, it will not happen.

But, as always, what "will" happen never constrains what "can" happen. "I can order the Steak" was just as true as "I can order the Salad". The fact that it was causally necessary that I would order the Salad never logically implies that I could not have ordered the Steak.

To say that we could not have ordered the Steak is simply false. It is only true to say that we would not have ordered the Steak.

Given the terms and conditions, there can be no uncertainty in how the system evolves or develops. How we or other animals perceive the world is another matter. Which of course is entailed by our own makeup.

Our perceptions are significant causes of our behavior. Thus they are significant causes of how the system evolves or develops. We cannot exclude such causes without undermining determinism.

So, uncertainty is a real event within the human mind, and it plays a role in causally determining what we will do. Being an entailed event, it cannot be ignored without giving a false view of determinism.

With uncertainty comes the logic and language of possibilities, in which multiple things can happen, even though a single thing will happen, and in which multiple items on the restaurant menu can be chosen, even though a single thing will be chosen.

And this means that determinism cannot undermine this logic without breaking it. If you break it, you start spitting out paradoxes, like the ones I listed. For example, having to decide what we will order without first knowing what we can order.

 

[fromderinside]

Paradoxes are illusions based on our presumptions.

Yes. And our presumptions can be altered by false, but believable suggestions, drawing us into a paradox. For example, take Zeno's paradox of the race between Achilles and the Tortoise. Achilles is the fastest runner in Greece. The Tortoise, being a tortoise, is one of slowest animals. So, Achilles gives the tortoise a long head start. Then Achilles takes off in pursuit, running to where the tortoise is. But when Achilles gets to where the tortoise was, the tortoise, slow as he may be, has moved on. So, Achilles runs to where the tortoise is now. But again, when he arrives, the tortoise has move farther ahead. It would seem that Achilles will never be able to catch up to, much less pass the tortoise, no matter how fast Achilles runs.

What's the false but believable suggestion?

We get the same problem with determinism and free will. A simple question like, "How can we have free will if every choice we make was inevitable since the beginning of time?" creates the paradox.

What's the false but believable suggestion?

*From: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63811/is-the-universe-fundamentally-deterministic#:~:text=You're right; the Schrödinger's equation induces a unitary,"evolution" that the wavefunction may experience: wavefunction collapse.

the Schrödinger's equation induces a unitary time evolution, and it is deterministic. Indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics is given by another "evolution" that the wavefunction may experience: wavefunction collapse. This is the source of indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics, and is a mechanism that is still not well understood at a fundamental level (this is often called as "Measurement Problem").

If you want a book that talks about this kind of problems, I suggest you "Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory" by Joos, Zeh et al; it is a good book on this and other modern topics in Quantum Mechanics. It's understandable with some effort, assuming you know basic things about Hilbert Spaces and the basic mathematical tools of QM.

Fortunately, QM is not necessary to understand what free will is about. So we can ignore it in discussions of free will. And if determinism is limited to "this and thus that", we may presume that QM is just as deterministic as everything else.

As usual you got your presumptions wrong both times you proclaim.

First distance covered depends independently on time per unit distance traveled not on extrapolation of relative distance one is separated at each observation.

Second QM is, on its face, relevant to what free will is about. We cannot presume QM is deterministic without experiment which will reveal a deterministic relationship. Socratic proclamations are not experiments. Bad Socratic proclamations based on presumptions are useless statements.