• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Compatibilism: What's that About?

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
The given definition of determinism doesn't allow the possibility of 'both ways' or taking a selected option. A progression of events that cannot deviate does not select from a range of options. With no alternate options to choose or to take, there is no choosing, hence no 'fact of choosing.'

The given definition of determinism is that every event will be the reliable result of prior events, such that everything that happens will have been causally necessary from any prior point in time, such that everything that happens inevitably must happen, without deviation.

We observe the people in the restaurant, choosing, from a menu of possibilities, what they will order for dinner. The people, the restaurant, the menu, the possibilities, the single chosen will ("I will have the Chef Salad, please"), were ALL causally necessary from any prior point in time and inevitably must happen.

They have no realizable alternatives to choose from. The list of options on the menu caters to different people with different tastes. Each ordering according to their own state and condition, each according to their own proclivities, wants, needs, etc.

Choice, by definition, requires possible alternatives. Determinism does not allow alternatives.


There is no honest way to say that these objects and events did not happen or were simply an "illusion".

The events happen as determined, but not because anyone present had multiple realizable options, and could have chosen something that was not determined.

That is the point. No alternatives. each and every action entailed by prior states of the system, no deviation.


Choosing, by definition, requires being presented with two or more realizable options where you free to take any one of them.

Each customer was presented with a menu of realizable options, and, they were free to order the one that they deliberately chose.

They ordered what they must necessarily order in that instance in time and place.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''



Determinism entails that ...

Determinism entails exactly what I said it entails: every event will be the reliable result of prior events, such that everything that happens will have been causally necessary from any prior point in time, such that everything that happens inevitably must happen, without deviation.

Choosing is one of those events that happens. Determinism entails that choosing inevitably must happen.

If the event of ordering a meal, or anything else, is entailed, fixed, set, long before the person comes to that point, the person has no choice, that action must proceed as determined, not freely chosen or freely willed.

If it's determined that Bob and his wife Janet go to a cafe at 11:30am and Bob must necessarily order Fish and Chips and Janet must necessarily order salad......how is that a free choice?

It's not a choice at all.

Your example is the system evolving as it must.

Damn straight.

Absolutely. Which of course negates freedom. All actions proceed as they must, not as they are chosen.

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



Given the stipulation of 'no deviation,'' you must necessarily order salad for dinner in that instance in time and place, and that ordering steak must necessarily be impossible.

Given the circumstances (bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch), I would not order the steak at that point in time, even though I certainly could have ordered it.

If you ''could have,'' it's not determinism


Ordering the steak was never impossible. I've ordered the steak before and I'll likely order the steak again, if I have more fruit and vegetables at breakfast and lunch. If the steak were not on the menu, or if the restaurant ran out of steak, then ordering the steak would be impossible. But none of those conditions were present on the evening when I ordered the salad instead.

It's clearly stipulated to be impossible in the 'no deviation/fixed by antecedents' aspect of determinism. If it is possible to take alternate actions, it's not determinism.

Claiming that it is possible to take an alternate action, 'steak instead of salad' when ordering salad is the determined action, is breaking the terms and conditions of determinism.

The terms and conditions of determinism apply to what we will do, but not to what we can do. You are falsely conflating what we can do with what we will do. And this is a consistent error within the incompatibilist understanding of determinism.

'Will do' in relation to the given definition of determinism is inseparable from 'must necessarily do.'

Whatever is done, must necessarily be done.

What you must do, you inevitably will do. As defined (not because I say so), a fixed progression of deterministic events that unfold without deviation.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
If you ''could have,'' it's not determinism
And still you fail to understand the context of "could".

We keep pointing this out to you, and you keep ignoring it so as to preach your false dichotomy as you faithfully learned it:

Could operates in "if SoA is ..."

SoA doesn't have to ever be "able to be". It just has to be true that IF it were, THEN... For "could" to be satisfied.

I feel just like I did when we were trying to explain to JC that there were alternatives besides "random" and "intelligent intent"
 
Last edited:

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
The given definition of determinism is that every event will be the reliable result of prior events, such that everything that happens will have been causally necessary from any prior point in time, such that everything that happens inevitably must happen, without deviation.

We observe the people in the restaurant, choosing, from a menu of possibilities, what they will order for dinner. The people, the restaurant, the menu, the possibilities, the single chosen will ("I will have the Chef Salad, please"), were ALL causally necessary from any prior point in time and inevitably would happen.

They have no realizable alternatives to choose from.

Every item on the menu was a realizable alternative for each customer in the restaurant. Each customer was free to order whatever they chose to order and every item was realizable, even though each customer would choose to realize only one.

This is easily proven by taking any customer and asking them to order each item on the menu. Every item on the menu is realizable for every customer.

The list of options on the menu caters to different people with different tastes. Each ordering according to their own state and condition, each according to their own proclivities, wants, needs, etc.

Exactly. Each customer was free to order any of the items on the menu that suited "their own proclivities, wants, needs, etc.". The choice, in each case, was determined uniquely by each customer, according to their own wants and needs, their own goals and reasons, their own preferences and dietary goals. Thus, each choice was an example of both determinism and free will.

Choice, by definition, requires possible alternatives.

Correct. Choosing logically requires that there be two or more options to choose from, and that we are able to choose any of those options. The menu contained many options and each customer was able to choose each item, even though they only chose one item.

Determinism does not allow alternatives.

Obviously, determinism does allow alternatives, because there they are on the menu! It was deterministically inevitable, without deviation, that the menu of realizable possibilities would be there for each customer's consideration, and that each customer would consider it, and make the inevitable choice according to their own goals and reasons.

It is not determinism OR free will. It is determinism AND free will.

Determinism entails that every event will be the reliable result of prior events, such that everything that happens will have been causally necessary from any prior point in time, such that everything that happens inevitably must happen, without deviation.

Choosing is one of those events that happens. Determinism entails that choosing inevitably must happen.

If you ''could have,'' it's not determinism

Really? Prove it.

What you must do, you inevitably will do.

And, in the restaurant, what I must do is order something from the menu (otherwise I'll have no dinner tonight). And because I have dietary goals that include having vegetables and fruits daily, I must consider what I had for breakfast (bacon and eggs) and lunch (a double cheeseburger). So, for now, I must deny myself the juicy steak, and order the Chef Salad instead.

When a choice is made causally necessary by our own goals and reasons, it is determinism and it is free will.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
If you ''could have,'' it's not determinism
And still you fail to understand the context of "could".

No, It's you. You still fail to understand the implications of your own definition of determinism....that whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined: no deviation.

That is according to your own definition.

We keep pointing this out to you, and you keep ignoring it so as to preach your false dichotomy as you faithfully learned it:

Your 'pointing out is flawed' because you fail to understand the terms and conditions of your own definition.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
If you ''could have,'' it's not determinism
And still you fail to understand the context of "could".

No, It's you. You still fail to understand the implications of your own definition of determinism....that whatever happens must necessarily happen as determined: no deviation.

That is according to your own definition.

We keep pointing this out to you, and you keep ignoring it so as to preach your false dichotomy as you faithfully learned it:

Your 'pointing out is flawed' because you fail to understand the terms and conditions of your own definition.
No, I just refuse to accept your petulant demands that I take up your false dichotomy.

It's not my fault you cannot understand even a single layer of abstraction.

You are creating a false dichotomy and you, just like JC, are just so woefully unprepared for this discussion that you cannot see it.

"Could" allows inevitability. "Could" still has room for "won't".
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
The given definition of determinism is that every event will be the reliable result of prior events, such that everything that happens will have been causally necessary from any prior point in time, such that everything that happens inevitably must happen, without deviation.

We observe the people in the restaurant, choosing, from a menu of possibilities, what they will order for dinner. The people, the restaurant, the menu, the possibilities, the single chosen will ("I will have the Chef Salad, please"), were ALL causally necessary from any prior point in time and inevitably would happen.

They have no realizable alternatives to choose from.

Every item on the menu was a realizable alternative for each customer in the restaurant. Each customer was free to order whatever they chose to order and every item was realizable, even though each customer would choose to realize only one.

This is easily proven by taking any customer and asking them to order each item on the menu. Every item on the menu is realizable for every customer.

It's been pointed out that each action/item, if determined is necessarily 'realized,' that it can't be otherwise. If an item is 'chosen' it must be chosen.

Taking someone to a cafe -if determinism is true - is determined: it has to happen.

Asking them to choose an option from the menu has to happen as determined.

The item they choose has to happen as determined.

If the determined item in that instance in time and place is salad, salad must necessarily be ordered as determined.

If salad must be ordered as determined, there are no other options in that instance in time (or any other instance in time).

Salad it must be. Not steak or fish or scallops, linguini or spaghetti: salad.

There is no 'could have done otherwise.'

There are no other possibilities, everything within a deterministic system must unfold as determined, fixed, unchangeable, no deviation.

'Determined' does not equate to freely chosen or willed.

Hence free will is incompatible with determinism as it has been defined.



The list of options on the menu caters to different people with different tastes. Each ordering according to their own state and condition, each according to their own proclivities, wants, needs, etc.

Exactly. Each customer was free to order any of the items on the menu that suited "their own proclivities, wants, needs, etc.". The choice, in each case, was determined uniquely by each customer, according to their own wants and needs, their own goals and reasons, their own preferences and dietary goals. Thus, each choice was an example of both determinism and free will.

I didn't say that each customer is free to order any of the items on menu. If that was possible, it would not be determinism.

Each customer must necessarily take the option that is determined by all the underlying drives and elements in that moment and place.

Nobody chooses their own proclivities; nobody is aware of the information processing that sets the action into motion.

The customer feels the conscious urge to order the salad, as they must.

Unless we are now talking about Libertarian Free Will?

Really? Prove it.

It's entailed in your definition: no deviation;

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

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.


Choice, by definition, requires possible alternatives.

Correct. Choosing logically requires that there be two or more options to choose from, and that we are able to choose any of those options. The menu contained many options and each customer was able to choose each item, even though they only chose one item.

If determined, a customer is not only able to order the determined item, but that it's inescapable, the customer must necessarily place the order precisely as determined: no deviation.

That necessity is stipulated in your definition.
What you must do, you inevitably will do.

And, in the restaurant, what I must do is order something from the menu (otherwise I'll have no dinner tonight). And because I have dietary goals that include having vegetables and fruits daily, I must consider what I had for breakfast (bacon and eggs) and lunch (a double cheeseburger). So, for now, I must deny myself the juicy steak, and order the Chef Salad instead.

When a choice is made causally necessary by our own goals and reasons, it is determinism and it is free will.

Every incremental step in the path of your ruminations is fixed by the system, including the workings of the brain (no exceptions) as it evolves from prior to current and future states.

''At this point certain questions need to be asked: Why does the coercion of a person by another, or the conditions of a brain microchip, or the conditions of a tumor, – nullify the “free will” ability? What part of the “ability” is being obstructed? This almost always comes down to a certain point of “control” that is being minimized, and where that minimized control is coming from (the arbitrary part).

The compatibilist might say because those are influences that are “outside” of the person, but this misses the entire point brought up by the free will skeptic, which is that ALL environmental conditions that help lead to a person’s brain state at any given moment are “outside of the person”, and the genes a person has was provided rather than decided.''

''The No Choice Principle implies that I cannot have a choice about anything that is an unavoidable consequence of something I have no control of.''

Which comes down to: Determinism makes it impossible for us to “cause and control our actions in the right kind of way'' to qualify as free will.

Hence, incompatibilism is justified.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Again DBT fails to understand the difference between "deviation" and "possibility".

You do not need a deviation from causality (as if that makes sense in the first place) to "be able to" do some thing that you will not do.

All that is required is the recognition that the words "able", "can" and "possible" all reference an unstated "if" which contextualizes this property in terms of "in a universe configured momentarily in some specific way".

Their inability to see this aspect of those usages would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
It's been pointed out that each action/item, if determined is necessarily 'realized,' that it can't be otherwise.

No. The fact that events will not be otherwise does not imply that events cannot be otherwise. Either we are speaking of things that will happen or we are speaking of things that can happen. If we know for certain what will happen, then what can happen never comes up. It is only when we do not know for certain what will happen that we employ the notion of what can happen.

The incompatibilist is making a logical and semantic error when they conflate "can" with "will". And this error leads to a host of erroneous claims, for example, the claim that choosing does not happen when we are watching it happening right in front of us in the restaurant.

If an item is 'chosen' it must be chosen.

Exactly. If an item is chosen then choosing must be happening.

Taking someone to a cafe -if determinism is true - is determined: it has to happen.

My point exactly.

Asking them to choose an option from the menu has to happen as determined.

Correct.

The item they choose has to happen as determined.

And, how is that item determined? By the choosing process itself. A reliable series of prior events will bring about my choice to order the salad rather than the steak. This series of events includes my consideration of my dietary goals (to eat more fruits and vegetables) and my consideration of what I had for breakfast (bacon and eggs) and lunch (double cheeseburger). So, my choosing determined that I would order the salad, even though I could have ordered the steak.

If the determined item in that instance in time and place is salad, salad must necessarily be ordered as determined.

Correct. My choosing causally determined that I would order the salad rather than the steak for dinner.

If salad must be ordered as determined, there are no other options in that instance in time (or any other instance in time).

And that's where you go wrong. There were in actual physical reality, other options. There was the steak. I could have ordered the steak instead. However, given what I had for breakfast and lunch, it was inevitable that I would not order the steak.

Now, you have convinced yourself that the steak was not a "real" option, as if you thought that a "real" option had to be the one that I ended up choosing. But that is simply not what an option is. An option is something I can choose, if I want to, but it is not something that I must choose.

The fact that an option is not chosen does not make it any less a real option.

Salad it must be. Not steak or fish or scallops, linguini or spaghetti: salad.

Exactly. The salad was inevitably chosen. The steak, fish, scallops, linguini, and spaghetti were real options, but they certainly "would" not be chosen tonight, even they certainly "could" have been chosen.

There is no 'could have done otherwise.'

Obviously there were many things that I could have ordered other than the salad. So, there were plenty of "otherwises" that could have been done.

There are no other possibilities, everything within a deterministic system must unfold as determined, fixed, unchangeable, no deviation.

What you continue to fail to realize is that "determined, fixed, unchangeable, no deviation" applies as much to the inevitability of every other option I considered as it does to the single option that I chose. It was inevitable that I could choose the steak and that I could choose the salad. And, it was inevitable that I would order the salad even though I could have chosen the steak instead.

Determinism doesn't actually change anything. It simply asserts that everything will necessarily happen exactly as it does happen.

Each customer must necessarily take the option that is determined by all the underlying drives and elements in that moment and place.

Exactly. For example, my desire to eat a balanced diet and the fact that I had no fruits and no vegetables for breakfast or lunch, drove me to forego the steak dinner and choose the Chef Salad instead.

And I was free to do precisely what I wanted to do. Nobody forced me to eat the salad instead of the steak. I did that voluntarily, of my own free will (the freely chosen "I will have the Chef Salad, please").

Nobody chooses their own proclivities;

At some point in my life, I chose to pursue a more rational diet. On the other hand, I did not choose my biological drives to eat. So, I would say that you are half-right, but not entirely so. Many of the choices we make today are determined by other choices we made long ago.

nobody is aware of the information processing that sets the action into motion.

Again, you are only half-right. We are, for the most part, aware of the reasons for our actions. For example, I can easily explain why I chose the salad rather than the steak (I needed more vegetables that day). But I cannot provide a mapping of the neural signals that produced my experience of those thoughts.

The customer feels the conscious urge to order the salad, as they must.

Well, there was also a conscious urge to order that juicy steak. With two contradictory conscious urges, it was up to me to make a choice. So, I considered both options, and decided the salad would be the best option tonight.

It's entailed in your definition: no deviation;

"No deviation" means that events will happen just so and no other way. As I continue to point out, no deviation applies to all of the options that I considered on my way to choosing the salad. No deviation includes the menu of alternate possibilities, you know, the list of realizable options. and all of my thoughts and feelings about each one, that inevitably led to my choosing the salad.

"No deviation" means that it was inevitable that "I can order the steak" would be true by logical necessity. "No deviation" means that both "I will order the salad" and "I could have ordered the steak" would necessarily be true after choosing was completed.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Again DBT fails to understand the difference between "deviation" and "possibility".

That's you not understanding the implications of the given definition of determinism, including your own.

''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.


'No deviation' equates to 'no possibility of alternative actions.'

If something different can happen, there is the possibility of deviation, which contradicts the stipulated condition of 'no deviation'

As no deviation negates all possibility of alternate actions, there is no possibility of alternate actions as you, just as yourself have defined determinism;

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

'No randomness' entails no deviation. If alternate actions were possible, the development of future states of the system would not be determined by prior states of the system, and your definition is rendered null and void, meaningless.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
definition of determinism
Determinism does not define or imply that a universe with some definite quality laid upon it is immune to being understood within the laws of physics, even when that universe is not necessarily "ours".

This is what you continually fail to understand.

If I were to treat this on a much simplified level, let's take a bit field FieldA.

FieldA is a byte long.

FieldA is 01010000

The physics of FieldA, the momentary operation that happens on it, the only interaction this field undertakes is "read lowest bit, right shift 1, highest bit &= prior lowest bit."

This is a deterministic system.

As you operate it, it will tick, deterministically to
00101000, 00010100, 00001010, 00000101, 10000010, and so on.

This is "will".

Now let's do "could":

What frame is necessary to create 111011011 in frame 3?

This is "what the system could do if FrameA were instead FrameX

Now let's do "freedom": is the process of FrameA ever Free to produce 01110000?

How would FrameA have to be modified to produce this result?
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
It's been pointed out that each action/item, if determined is necessarily 'realized,' that it can't be otherwise.

No. The fact that events will not be otherwise does not imply that events cannot be otherwise.

It must. If events can go otherwise, that alternate actions are possible and may happen, your given definition of determinism is false

It's one or the other. Being mutually exclusive, a contradiction, both can't be true.


Either we are speaking of things that will happen or we are speaking of things that can happen. If we know for certain what will happen, then what can happen never comes up. It is only when we do not know for certain what will happen that we employ the notion of what can happen.

We don't have sufficient information to make absolute or even accurate or detailed predictions of future events.

Yet determinism - as it is defined - entails that all events must proceed without deviation. That all present and future events were entailed in past and current states of the system and that nothing strays from that incrementally fixed progression of events from past to present and future without deviation or alternate possibilities.


The incompatibilist is making a logical and semantic error when they conflate "can" with "will". And this error leads to a host of erroneous claims, for example, the claim that choosing does not happen when we are watching it happening right in front of us in the restaurant.

There is no error. The terms and conditions by which events unfold are set in your given definition;

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

'Without deviation' as a condition of a deterministic system replaces 'can' and 'will' with 'must' - everything must proceed without deviation.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It must. If events can go otherwise, that alternate actions are possible and may happen, your given definition of determinism is false
And again, nobody is asking for "alternate actions" to "happen". You just continually fail to understand what is meant by the word "can" , "could", and "possible", arguing like Ion or JC as the case may be, with your false dichotomy.

This answers your trash and it's not even a few seconds old/ignored. You have a habit of posting past answers you don't seem to want to read or acknowledge.
definition of determinism
Determinism does not define or imply that a universe with some definite quality laid upon it is immune to being understood within the laws of physics, even when that universe is not necessarily "ours".

This is what you continually fail to understand.

If I were to treat this on a much simplified level, let's take a bit field FieldA.

FieldA is a byte long.

FieldA is 01010000

The physics of FieldA, the momentary operation that happens on it, the only interaction this field undertakes is "read lowest bit, right shift 1, highest bit &= prior lowest bit."

This is a deterministic system.

As you operate it, it will tick, deterministically to
00101000, 00010100, 00001010, 00000101, 10000010, and so on.

This is "will".(edit: as in shall)

Now let's do "could":

What frame is necessary to create 111011011 in frame 3?

This is "what the system could do if FrameA were instead FrameX

Now let's do "freedom": is the process of FrameA ever Free to produce 01110000?

How would FrameA have to be modified to produce this result?
 
Last edited:

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
If events can go otherwise, that alternate actions are possible and may happen, your given definition of determinism is false
It's one or the other. Being mutually exclusive, a contradiction, both can't be true.

"I would inevitably order the salad" was true.
"I could have ordered the steak, but I didn't" is also true.

Your conclusion that "both can't be true", is false. They are clearly not "mutually exclusive".

What "will happen" is a subset of what "can happen". If something cannot happen, then it will not happen.
But what "can happen" is only limited by our imagination and our capability to make what we imagine happen.

If we know for certain what will happen, then what can happen never comes up. It is only when we do not know for certain what will happen that we employ the notion of what can happen.

We don't have sufficient information to make absolute or even accurate or detailed predictions of future events.

Exactly. And that is why we have the notion of "possibilities", things that "can" happen and things that we "can" choose to do.

Yet determinism - as it is defined - entails that all events must proceed without deviation.

And, of course, all events do proceed without deviation, so causal necessity is fully satisfied.

That all present and future events were entailed in past and current states of the system and that nothing strays from that incrementally fixed progression of events from past to present and future without deviation

And we've noticed that to be exactly what is happening. We do not observe any "uncaused" events. (In any case, it would be experimentally impossible to repeat such an event, because, in order to repeat the event, we would have to know how to cause it to happen!)

or alternate possibilities.

Tacking on the exclusion of "alternate possibilities" is a logical error. We know that all possibilities exist solely within the imagination, and that a "possibility" (something that "can happen" or something that we "can do") is a logical token that replaces the notion of what "will happen" or what we "will do" whenever we deal with a matter of uncertainty.

This is a semantic rule that allows us to keep what "can" happen distinct from what "will" happen. We can know with certainty what "can" happen, even though we are still uncertain as to what "will" happen. And we know with certainty that the single event that "will" happen will be one of the several events that "can" happen.

And, of course, each of the alternate possibilities that appear to us, for example on the restaurant menu, were mental events that would have always proceeded without deviation. Every "can" was just as inevitable as the single "will".
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,708
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
If the world is determined it is in a sense orderly. Saying something determined is orderly only reflects the sense that with determination comes order not sense.

Also saying some aspect of determined includes a mind also reflects the sense that with determinism comes order. Saying something determined includes mind does not make mind sensible. It too reflects the sense that with determination comes mind order not sense.

Order can be deterministically derived as can a mind be deterministically derived.

IOW one cannot presume determination is not orderly nor mindful.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
If the world is determined it is in a sense orderly. Saying something determined is orderly only reflects the sense that with determination comes order not sense.

Also saying some aspect of determined includes a mind also reflects the sense that with determinism comes order. Saying something determined includes mind does not make mind sensible. It too reflects the sense that with determination comes mind order not sense.
Well, something certainly does lack some sense.

In fact this whole post referenced has none.

It is nonsense.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
It must. If events can go otherwise, that alternate actions are possible and may happen, your given definition of determinism is false
And again, nobody is asking for "alternate actions" to "happen". You just continually fail to understand what is meant by the word "can" , "could", and "possible", arguing like Ion or JC as the case may be, with your false dichotomy.

The point being, that unless alternate actions can happen, that you have agency, that you are able to choose between multiple realizable, there is no freedom of will.

Actions fixed by antecedents are not freely willed. Your use of 'can, 'could' and 'possible' - being relative terms - related to appearance, not causality - is not relevant.

Again;
If you accept regulative control as a necessary part of free will, it seems impossible either way:
1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise
2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control
3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible
4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
5. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will

And of course, regulative control and the ability to choose otherwise is - for the given reasons - a necessary part of free will.

Look in the mirror Sweetie, and see the JC in yourself.


This answers your trash and it's not even a few seconds old/ignored. You have a habit of posting past answers you don't seem to want to read or acknowledge.

No, it's just that you don't have a clue. Never have. Never will, it appears that you cannot comprehend the implications of determinism, or references such as 'can, 'could' and 'possible' in relation to determinism.....which doesn't surprise me at all, JC.

''Although we don’t think we (now) have a choice about the past, we have beliefs about what was possible for us in the past. When called upon to defend what we did, or when we blame or reproach ourselves, or simply wonder whether we did the right thing (or the sensible thing, the rational thing, and so on), we evaluate our action by comparing it to what we believe were our other possible actions, at that time. We blame, criticize, reproach, regret, and so on, only insofar as we believe we had alternatives. And if we later discover that we were mistaken in believing that some action XX was among our alternatives, we think it is irrational to criticize or regret our failure to do XX.

Is determinism compatible with the truth of these beliefs? In particular, is it compatible with the belief that we are often able to choose and do more than one action?

Incompatibilists have traditionally said “No”. And it’s not hard to see why. If we think of ‘can’ in the “open future” way suggested by the commonsense view, then it’s tempting to think that the past is necessary in some absolute sense. And it’s natural to think that we are able to do otherwise only if we can do otherwise given the past; that is, only if our doing otherwise is a possible continuation of the past. If we follow this train of thought, we will conclude that we are able to do otherwise only if our doing otherwise is a possible continuation of the past consistent with the laws. But if determinism is true, there is only one possible continuation of the past consistent with the laws. And thus we get the incompatibilist conclusion. If determinism is true, our actual future is our only possible future. What we actually do is the only thing we are able to do.''

Keep in mind - JC ;) - that this is precisely what your definition of determinism entails.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The point being, that unless alternate actions can happen,
No, you're asking for nonsense and we all know it.

The "alternate actions" always could have happened but they did not.

Here is this statement expanded with compatibilist language:

"The point being that unless alternate actions can have happened if the universe had been different..."

Of course they can have happened if the universe had been different than it was, because that's the only way anything ever "can" even such that "it shall not"

In your usage in hard determinist lala-land, though you are saying "unless a different thing actually DID happen" which is fucking stupid.

Nobody cares that you insist that there is only one possible past and future of "physics", because you are wrong. Physics is an operation, and has no demand that the universe it operates on be "just so".

It is still entirely coherent to consider "what of all the rules of physics we know and love, but among this other state? What comes of it?"

And doing so is "can"
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
If events can go otherwise, that alternate actions are possible and may happen, your given definition of determinism is false
It's one or the other. Being mutually exclusive, a contradiction, both can't be true.

"I would inevitably order the salad" was true.
"I could have ordered the steak, but I didn't" is also true.

Your conclusion that "both can't be true", is false. They are clearly not "mutually exclusive".

It's not physically possible to order the salad and not order the salad in the same instance in time. It's a contradiction.

What "will happen" is a subset of what "can happen". If something cannot happen, then it will not happen.
But what "can happen" is only limited by our imagination and our capability to make what we imagine happen.

Our imagination - being a physical activity of a brain - is not exempt from causal determinism. Brain activity, thoughts, feeling, imaginations, are fixed, as by definition all events within the system must be.

We imagine and we do whatever is entailed by the system as it evolves from prior to current and future states - as defined - without deviation.

Imagination is not a loophole for free will.


If we know for certain what will happen, then what can happen never comes up. It is only when we do not know for certain what will happen that we employ the notion of what can happen.

All of these being relative perceptions and expressions coming from a limited understanding of the system as it evolves.

Watch a video - a deterministic system - enough times and you get to know everything that will be said and done in the movie, no deviation, no alternatives.

The lead character orders salad, rewind and he order salad, rewind and repeat any number of times, the lead character orders salad, no deviation, no could have done otherwise, no possible alternatives, all actions fixed by the information state of the system in every instance in time.

That's determinism.

And we've noticed that to be exactly what is happening. We do not observe any "uncaused" events. (In any case, it would be experimentally impossible to repeat such an event, because, in order to repeat the event, we would have to know how to cause it to happen!)

Yet we do have the given definition of determinism, and that is what we refer to and work with, including the implications outlined above and numerous other posts.


or alternate possibilities.

Tacking on the exclusion of "alternate possibilities" is a logical error. We know that all possibilities exist solely within the imagination, and that a "possibility" (something that "can happen" or something that we "can do") is a logical token that replaces the notion of what "will happen" or what we "will do" whenever we deal with a matter of uncertainty.

The brain gathers, processes and combines information and constructs any number of impossible worlds and scenarios. That itself being determined by information input, neural architecture, pattern recognition and rearrangement.

We may imagine Superman flying above the clouds while knowing full well that it is impossible.


This is a semantic rule that allows us to keep what "can" happen distinct from what "will" happen. We can know with certainty what "can" happen, even though we are still uncertain as to what "will" happen. And we know with certainty that the single event that "will" happen will be one of the several events that "can" happen.

And, of course, each of the alternate possibilities that appear to us, for example on the restaurant menu, were mental events that would have always proceeded without deviation. Every "can" was just as inevitable as the single "will".

These are perceptions and expressions emerging from a state of limited information, we don't know what can happen or will happen, what we see as possibilities are being presented, yet all events within a deterministic system must necessarily happen as determined, which makes our perception of multiple options in any given instance an illusion.

''And it’s natural to think that we are able to do otherwise only if we can do otherwise given the past; that is, only if our doing otherwise is a possible continuation of the past. If we follow this train of thought, we will conclude that we are able to do otherwise only if our doing otherwise is a possible continuation of the past consistent with the laws. But if determinism is true, there is only one possible continuation of the past consistent with the laws. And thus we get the incompatibilist conclusion. If determinism is true, our actual future is our only possible future. What we actually do is the only thing we are able to do.''
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It's not physically possible to order the salad and not order the salad in the same instance in time. It's a contradiction.

In your usage in hard determinist lala-land, though you are saying "unless a different thing actually DID happen" which is fucking stupid.

Of course they can have happened if the universe had been different than it was, because that's the only way anything ever "can" even such that "it shall not"
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
"I would inevitably order the salad" was true.
"I could have ordered the steak, but I didn't" is also true.
Your conclusion that "both can't be true", is false.

They are clearly not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually complimentary.

It's not physically possible to order the salad and not order the salad in the same instance in time. It's a contradiction.

And it is never the case that we must both order the salad and not order the salad in the same instance in time in order for both ordering and not ordering to be real possibilities for that instance in time.

A possibility exists solely within the imagination. We cannot walk across the possibility of a bridge. We can only walk across an actual bridge. But we cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge and how we could possibly build such a bridge.

It is never required that we must actually build that bridge in order for us to consider the possibility of building the bridge to be real.

Our imagination - being a physical activity of a brain - is not exempt from causal determinism. Brain activity, thoughts, feeling, imaginations, are fixed, as by definition all events within the system must be.

100% Correct.

We imagine and we do whatever is entailed by the system as it evolves from prior to current and future states - as defined - without deviation.

Also correct. But do keep in mind that the system we are talking about here is our own the central nervous system, operating deterministically, as it considers our possibilities, estimates the likely outcomes of our choices, and fixes the final inevitable choice to order the salad rather than the steak for dinner.

Imagination is not a loophole for free will.

Operational free will requires no "loopholes". It is 100% compatible with a perfectly deterministic world. That is the point.

If we know for certain what will happen, then what can happen never comes up. It is only when we do not know for certain what will happen that we employ the notion of what can happen.

Watch a video - a deterministic system - enough times and you get to know everything that will be said and done in the movie, no deviation, no alternatives. The lead character orders salad, rewind and he order salad, rewind and repeat any number of times, the lead character orders salad, no deviation, no could have done otherwise, no possible alternatives, all actions fixed by the information state of the system in every instance in time. That's determinism.

If we could rewind time, and replay it over and over, then in every replay there would be multiple options on the menu, each of which would be once again be a real possibility. I would have the same goal of eating a balanced diet, and the same reasoning that led me to reject the steak and choose the salad for dinner (due to the bacon and eggs for breakfast and the double cheeseburger for lunch). No deviation means that everything happens exactly as it did. All of the thoughts and feelings that occurred would happen in the same physical reality (if we could rewind time).

Yet we do have the given definition of determinism, and that is what we refer to and work with, including the implications outlined above and numerous other posts.

A false implication does not become a true implication by repetition, regardless who is stating it.

The fact of the matter is that a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect is fully compatible with operational free will. Always has been, always will be.

We may imagine Superman flying above the clouds while knowing full well that it is impossible.

Of course. But when we imagine ourselves ordering the steak, we know full well that it is something that we can do.

These are perceptions and expressions emerging from a state of limited information, we don't know what can happen or will happen, what we see as possibilities are being presented, yet all events within a deterministic system must necessarily happen as determined, which makes our perception of multiple options in any given instance an illusion.

An illusion is a false perception of reality. The reality is the people in the restaurant choosing for themselves what they will have for dinner, free of coercion and undue influence. Therefore, anyone claiming that this is not actually happening in physical reality would be having some kind of illusion.

The source of their illusion is the delusional notion that reliable causation is some kind of external entity that controls what people do, such that the people themselves are not controlling what they choose to do. They hold that it is causation, and not the person, that is responsible for what the person does. This is a delusional notion.

''And it’s natural to think that we are able to do otherwise only if we can do otherwise given the past; that is, only if our doing otherwise is a possible continuation of the past. If we follow this train of thought, we will conclude that we are able to do otherwise only if our doing otherwise is a possible continuation of the past consistent with the laws. But if determinism is true, there is only one possible continuation of the past consistent with the laws. And thus we get the incompatibilist conclusion. If determinism is true, our actual future is our only possible future. What we actually do is the only thing we are able to do.''

And I'm surprised that you fail to see the "carefully crafted" "wordplay" in that mess of sloppy thinking by the incompatibilist, something which you accuse the compatibilists of doing!

But I hope you can see now why the single actual future is not our only possible future. Within the domain of human influence (things we can make happen if we choose to), the single actual future will be chosen, by us, from among the many possible futures that we will imagine.

For example, the restaurant menu presents us with multiple possible futures. There is the future in which I order the steak for dinner. There is the future in which I order the salad for dinner. Due to my breakfast of bacon and eggs and my double cheeseburger for lunch, and my goal to eat more fruits and vegetables, I choose the future (what I "will" do) in which I order the salad for dinner. Multiple possible futures reduced to the single inevitable future by the deterministic process of choosing. This is how it works in the real world.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
It's not physically possible to order the salad and not order the salad in the same instance in time. It's a contradiction.

In your usage in hard determinist lala-land, though you are saying "unless a different thing actually DID happen" which is fucking stupid.
That's not what I'm saying. It's quite simple JC, there are no alternate actions, nothing different can happen, therefore nothing is freely chosen or freely willed.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said that I am referring to the very same definition of determinism that compatibilists give. including you.

Nor are you someone who should be hurling insults like a petulant child, someone who is on a par with JC, et, al, with your 'computers and other machinery can become conscious" - claiming that machines have consciousness is utterly delusional.

Wake up to yourself. Stop acting like a Prat.

Of course they can have happened if the universe had been different than it was, because that's the only way anything ever "can" even such that "it shall not"

The point, JC, is the world cannot be different. No deviation. That is entailed in the given definition.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
The point, JC, is the world cannot be different. No deviation. That is entailed in the given definition.

And yet with the new Supreme Court the world became very different overnight. Roe v. Wade was overturned and abortion became unavailable in many states. The EPA was stripped of its authority to address global warming. The ability of New York to control the number of guns carried on the street was abolished. And the football coach gets to hold public prayer meetings during high school football games.

Obviously, the world can, in fact, be different. It was different just a few weeks ago. Events can deviate from what they were. The laws of our society can change.

And our individual choices, like Putin's choice to invade Ukraine, or Trump's choice to attempt to stay in office, do make a profound difference in people's lives.

Apparently, change is inevitable. Changes will occur, without deviation.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
"I would inevitably order the salad" was true.
"I could have ordered the steak, but I didn't" is also true.
Your conclusion that "both can't be true", is false.

They are clearly not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually complimentary.

It's not physically possible to order the salad and not order the salad in the same instance in time. It's a contradiction.

And it is never the case that we must both order the salad and not order the salad in the same instance in time in order for both ordering and not ordering to be real possibilities for that instance in time.

It is never the case that we must both order and not order, it cannot be possible. Your own definition does not allow it. Keep in mind the stipulation of no deviation. If it was possible perform an alternate action , it could happen, and if it did happen, there would be a deviation, which would contradict your definition.

That is the point.


A possibility exists solely within the imagination. We cannot walk across the possibility of a bridge. We can only walk across an actual bridge. But we cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge and how we could possibly build such a bridge.

Imagination is not reality. I have lucid dreams where I fly through the air, something that cannot happen outside of dreams and imaginings.

It is never required that we must actually build that bridge in order for us to consider the possibility of building the bridge to be real.

Again, if what is imagined is to be put into action, it must conform to the rules and principles of the physical world. And what is imagined is determined by countless factors, information input, processing, rearranging, etc. Nothing is exempt.

What you say implies that imagination has special status within a deterministic system. A back door for free will.


Our imagination - being a physical activity of a brain - is not exempt from causal determinism. Brain activity, thoughts, feeling, imaginations, are fixed, as by definition all events within the system must be.

100% Correct.


Sure, including all the implications this has for the notion of free will.


We imagine and we do whatever is entailed by the system as it evolves from prior to current and future states - as defined - without deviation.

Also correct. But do keep in mind that the system we are talking about here is our own the central nervous system, operating deterministically, as it considers our possibilities, estimates the likely outcomes of our choices, and fixes the final inevitable choice to order the salad rather than the steak for dinner.

We as conscious entities have no access to or regulative control of what is happening withing 'our' central nervous system.

The central nervous system is generating us by means of information acquisition, memory function, processing and subjective representation.

This has nothing to do with free will. Biology is doing it.

''The compatibilist might say because those are influences that are “outside” of the person, but this misses the entire point brought up by the free will skeptic, which is that ALL environmental conditions that help lead to a person’s brain state at any given moment are “outside of the person”, and the genes a person has was provided rather than decided.''



Imagination is not a loophole for free will.

Operational free will requires no "loopholes". It is 100% compatible with a perfectly deterministic world. That is the point.

The point is incorrect.

Abstract
If one’s solution to the free will problem is in terms of real causal powers of agents then one ought to be an incompatibilist.

1. If causal determinism is true, all events are necessitated
2. If all events are necessitated, then there are no powers
3. Free will consists in the exercise of an agent’s powers

Therefore, if causal determinism is true, there is no free will; which is to say that free will is incompatible with determinism, so compatibilism is false.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
That's not what I'm saying.

nothing different can happen, therefore nothing is freely chosen or freely willed.
What you are saying is exactly that the only definition you believe exists for choice is that something different does happen, both A and !A, a true and overlapping contradiction or fold in causality and that to choose we would have to look at each and select one, and even then you would say "no choice only one really did happen".

So yes, in your usage in hard determinist lala-land, though you are saying "unless a different thing actually DID happen" which is fucking stupid.

Again, I have lost ALL faith that there is any hope to teach you the forms of abstract thought necessary to fully contextualize "can". You will first need to be able to fully deconstruct what is actually said when a compatibilist says "he could have done it five minutes ago but he cannot now."

Marvin has made a few really good attempts, but you can't bleed a turnip...
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
"I would inevitably order the salad" was true.
"I could have ordered the steak, but I didn't" is also true.
Your conclusion that "both can't be true", is false.

They are clearly not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually complimentary.

If it was possible perform an alternate action , it could happen, and if it did happen, ...

No. It definitely did not happen. And it would never happen under the same circumstances. Got it?

And that is exactly what saying that something "could have happened" ALWAYS implies! (A) It did not happen! and (B) It would only have happened under different circumstances!

This is what we mean whenever we say that we "could have done otherwise". It simply identifies something else that we could have done instead. For example, even though I actually ordered the Chef Salad, I could have ordered the Steak Dinner, or the Lobster, or any other item on the menu. All of those were real possibilities. All of those were choices I could have made. But NONE of those were things that I DID order and I only would have ordered any of them UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

These meanings of the term "could have" are all carried implicitly within the phrase itself.

there would be a deviation, which would contradict your definition. That is the point.

Something that "could have happened" is never a deviation from what actually happens, because it never actually happens. The fact that it did not happen is implicit in the term "could have".

A possibility exists solely within the imagination. We cannot walk across the possibility of a bridge. We can only walk across an actual bridge. But we cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge and how we could possibly build such a bridge.

Imagination is not reality. I have lucid dreams where I fly through the air, something that cannot happen outside of dreams and imaginings.

On the other hand, you can also imagine something that you can do, like buying an airline ticket and flying through the air to your destination. And, you can imagine a trip to Alaska and a trip to Hawaii. Both trips are things that you actually can do. But which trip will you take?

You may decide that you WILL go to Alaska, even though you COULD HAVE gone to Hawaii.
OR
You may decide that you WILL go to Hawaii, even though you COULD HAVE gone to Alaska.

The language is as it is. It means what it means. There is no contradiction here between actualities and possibilities, because their meanings are quite distinct, and commonly understood. Well, at least understood by anyone but the hard determinist.

Again, if what is imagined is to be put into action, it must conform to the rules and principles of the physical world. And what is imagined is determined by countless factors, information input, processing, rearranging, etc. Nothing is exempt.

100% CORRECT!

What you say implies that imagination has special status within a deterministic system.

100% FALSE! Every thought is reliably caused by prior thoughts and experiences. Imagination is a deterministic operation.

Sure, including all the implications this has for the notion of free will.

There are NO implications for the notion of free will. As you may recall, operational free will is simply a choice we make for ourselves while free of coercion and undue influence.

Reliable causation itself is not coercive and certainly not undue. But a specific cause, such as a man pointing a gun at our head and telling us what to do, removes our free will. And a specific cause, such as our being free of coercion and making the choice for ourselves, is free will.

The fact that all events are reliably caused does not eliminate free will, or any other event that ever happens. In fact, determinism never changes anything thing. Everything is exactly as it is.

We as conscious entities have no access to or regulative control of what is happening within 'our' central nervous system.

Conscious awareness is a function of our central nervous system (CNS). It is not sitting outside our CNS trying to regulate it. Consciousness is a function of the brain that works cooperatively with other brain functions to enable us to do things, things like deciding for ourselves whether to order the salad or the steak for dinner.

''The compatibilist might say because those are influences that are “outside” of the person, but this misses the entire point brought up by the free will skeptic, which is that ALL environmental conditions that help lead to a person’s brain state at any given moment are “outside of the person”, and the genes a person has was provided rather than decided.''

Ah, so now the person is "outside" the person! DBT, you really shouldn't be quoting Trick Slattery here. If Trick wants to enter the discussion, he is free to join in.

Abstract
If one’s solution to the free will problem is in terms of real causal powers of agents then one ought to be an incompatibilist.

1. If causal determinism is true, all events are necessitated
2. If all events are necessitated, then there are no powers
3. Free will consists in the exercise of an agent’s powers

Therefore, if causal determinism is true, there is no free will; which is to say that free will is incompatible with determinism, so compatibilism is false.

Item 2, "If all events are necessitated, then there are no powers", is paradoxical (self-contradicting). If there are no powers, then nothing can be necessitated. Necessitating things requires the power to do so. For example, physical necessitation is based upon the four physical forces. Gravity necessitates certain behaviors of physical objects by the power of attraction between the masses of two or more physical bodies (planets, stars, Newton's apple, etc.). If there is no power, then there is no necessity. Therefore, item 2 is a bit of silly nonsense. Mumford and Anjun (the authors) should be embarrassed.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
That's not what I'm saying.

nothing different can happen, therefore nothing is freely chosen or freely willed.
What you are saying is exactly that the only definition you believe exists for choice is that something different does happen, both A and !A, a true and overlapping contradiction or fold in causality and that to choose we would have to look at each and select one, and even then you would say "no choice only one really did happen".

There you go, yet again demonstrating that you don't understand incompatibilism or the implications of determinism, as it has been defined.

I could try to explain again, but it would be futile.

So yes, in your usage in hard determinist lala-land, though you are saying "unless a different thing actually DID happen" which is fucking stupid.

Yet again, the definition given by you and Marvin sets the terms and conditions. 'All events fixed by antecedents' does not equate to free will.

Nothing is freely willed. All events are entailed by the prior state of the system, which are not chosen or freely willed.

Free will is being asserted, not demonstrated or proven.


Again, I have lost ALL faith that there is any hope to teach you the forms of abstract thought necessary to fully contextualize "can". You will first need to be able to fully deconstruct what is actually said when a compatibilist says "he could have done it five minutes ago but he cannot now."

Marvin has made a few really good attempts, but you can't bleed a turnip...

Maybe your argument is the Turnip. Has that thought crossed your mind? What do you think, JC?

All events fixed by antecedents, therefore free will, is absurd.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
"I would inevitably order the salad" was true.
"I could have ordered the steak, but I didn't" is also true.
Your conclusion that "both can't be true", is false.

They are clearly not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually complimentary.


It's not a matter of 'didn't order steak.' It's a matter of entailment- 'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

That is a consequence of no deviation, all events must proceed as determined, not chosen; the 'no choice principle' of determinism.

If it was possible perform an alternate action , it could happen, and if it did happen, ...

No. It definitely did not happen. And it would never happen under the same circumstances. Got it?

Sure, I got it long before this show got on the road. Given determinism, it's always the same circumstances. As the system evolves, every event in every instance in time is in the state it must be in.

And that is exactly what saying that something "could have happened" ALWAYS implies! (A) It did not happen! and (B) It would only have happened under different circumstances!

This is what we mean whenever we say that we "could have done otherwise". It simply identifies something else that we could have done instead. For example, even though I actually ordered the Chef Salad, I could have ordered the Steak Dinner, or the Lobster, or any other item on the menu. All of those were real possibilities. All of those were choices I could have made. But NONE of those were things that I DID order and I only would have ordered any of them UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

These meanings of the term "could have" are all carried implicitly within the phrase itself.



There are no different circumstances. Different circumstances - by definition - cannot exist within a deterministic system.

''Could have, if only things had been different'' is an expression of human imagination, powerless hindsight, a form of lament, an impossible 'if only....''.


there would be a deviation, which would contradict your definition. That is the point.

Something that "could have happened" is never a deviation from what actually happens, because it never actually happens. The fact that it did not happen is implicit in the term "could have".

'Could have' is incorrect. It's an expression based on the assumption, 'I could have, if only things had gone differently.'

As defined, nothing can go differently.


Imagination is not reality. I have lucid dreams where I fly through the air, something that cannot happen outside of dreams and imaginings.

On the other hand, you can also imagine something that you can do, like buying an airline ticket and flying through the air to your destination. And, you can imagine a trip to Alaska and a trip to Hawaii. Both trips are things that you actually can do. But which trip will you take?

Given the terms, which entail no alternate actions or deviation, whatever trip is determined as the system evolves. Not only what is done, but what is thought, felt and imagined.


Abstract
If one’s solution to the free will problem is in terms of real causal powers of agents then one ought to be an incompatibilist.

1. If causal determinism is true, all events are necessitated
2. If all events are necessitated, then there are no powers
3. Free will consists in the exercise of an agent’s powers

Therefore, if causal determinism is true, there is no free will; which is to say that free will is incompatible with determinism, so compatibilism is false.

Item 2, "If all events are necessitated, then there are no powers", is paradoxical (self-contradicting).

Not really, it just means that we have no ability to do otherwise. That Determinism makes it impossible for us to “cause and control our actions in the right kind of way'' to qualify as free will.

If there are no powers, then nothing can be necessitated. Necessitating things requires the power to do so. For example, physical necessitation is based upon the four physical forces. Gravity necessitates certain behaviors of physical objects by the power of attraction between the masses of two or more physical bodies (planets, stars, Newton's apple, etc.). If there is no power, then there is no necessity. Therefore, item 2 is a bit of silly nonsense. Mumford and Anjun (the authors) should be embarrassed.

'Powers' in this context is not related to the system, but to us as agents within the system, that it's us who lack the power to regulate events according to our will. That the evolving state of the system shapes and forms us, our thoughts, imaginings, plans, hopes dreams and actions...''there are no powers'' refers to the nature and status of our will.

That, given determinism, the notion of free will is incompatible with determinism.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

I can even say "you know what, bring me the steak, too. In fact, bring me the lot, and a bucket."

In the restaurant, ordering one thing does not even create a mutual exclusivity of option.

Again, it will continue to be the case that IF an electric field happens in the presence of something that has strong spin alignment of it's electrons across a single axis, that thing will undergo force which reorients (which CAN reorient) the object with the organized spin axis to the direction of the magnetic field.

Thus objects with spin alignments can have their orientation changed by being placed in a magnetic field.

Not only that, but many objects DO.

But, in some cases, the orientation of the object does not happen, because it is held in place by some phenomena.

When this happens, we can say the object is not free to turn. This "freedom" is determined by whether the thing could or could not turn towards the field.

What is apparent is that you do not understand "can" and I doubt you ever could.

May you one day get beyond your religion of goddidit.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
It's a matter of entailment- 'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

While that may "sound" right to you, due to figurative thinking, it is still logically false.

The fact is that it was always "possible" to order the steak instead of the salad. At no point in time was it ever "impossible" to order the steak instead of the salad.

The fact that you "would not" order the steak instead of the salad never implies that you "could not" have ordered the steak instead of the salad.

This is a consequence of the distinction between the meaning of "can" and "will", the distinction between "possibility" and "actuality", the distinction between events that "can happen" and events that "must happen".

That is a consequence of no deviation,

There are no meaningful consequences of "no deviation". Events happen exactly as they always did, without deviation. Did choosing just happen? Then it happened precisely as it did happen, without deviation. Were multiple possibilities considered? Then they were each considered exactly as they were considered, without deviation. Did we have thoughts about eating a balanced diet? Then those thoughts happened exactly as they happened, without deviation. Did we conclude that it would be better to have the salad for dinner instead of the steak? Then that also happened without deviation. Was it always true that we could have ordered the steak instead of the salad? Then that was always true without deviation.

the 'no choice principle' of determinism.

Obviously determinism does include choosing events, without deviation, so the "no choice principle" is objectively false.

Given determinism, it's always the same circumstances. As the system evolves, every event in every instance in time is in the state it must be in.

Correct. And our only problem is that we often do not have full knowledge of what those exact circumstances are. And we have no clue as to what will inevitably happen. To cope with this uncertainty, we have evolved a language and a logic based on the notion of multiple "possible" futures, things that "can" happen, events which may, or may not, ever actually happen.

Choosing always begins with our uncertainty as to which option we will choose. We may know for certain that we will only choose one option, but we do not know whether it will be option A or option B. We cannot say "I will choose A" and we cannot say "I will choose B", because we simply do not know yet which one we will choose. So we switch to the context of possibilities. Now we can say "I can choose A" and begin considering the likely outcomes of that choice. And we can also say "I can choose B" and consider its likely outcome. And later, after we've made our choice, one of them will be the thing that we "will" do and the other will be the thing that we "could" have done instead.

There are no different circumstances. Different circumstances - by definition - cannot exist within a deterministic system.

Almost correct. But when we do not know what the circumstances are, we must imagine what those circumstances could be. When we do not know what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare for what does happen. And as soon as we see the word "can" or "possibility" or any of the other words evolved to deal with our uncertainty, then we know we are in the context of things that "can" happen and not in the context of things that necessarily "will" happen.

For an ironic example, consider the "can" in the phrase "cannot exist within a deterministic system". By the correct definition of "can", different circumstances "can" exist within a deterministic system, even though they never "will".

I know. It's difficult to break a bad habit. But this is the correct way to use "can" and "will". And in most cases we use them correctly, and only screw them up when thinking figuratively instead of literally.

''Could have, if only things had been different'' is an expression of human imagination, powerless hindsight, a form of lament, an impossible 'if only....''.

Wow. A rant denigrating "could have". Didn't it occur to you that hindsight can be powerful, a way to acquire new options for the future? What we could have done in the past is also something that we can do in the future. And what is this crap about "lament"? Or "an impossible 'if only'..."? If we are disappointed by what we did, then we learn from our mistakes and do better in the future. There is no need to waste time and energy on self-pity.

'Could have' is incorrect. It's an expression based on the assumption, 'I could have, if only things had gone differently.'

Then 'could have' is correct, not incorrect.

As defined, nothing can go differently.

Nope. As defined, nothing "will" go differently. But things always "can" go differently.

We cannot eliminate a whole field of logic and language that evolved to give our species a survival advantage! That's suicide.

'Powers' in this context is not related to the system, but to us as agents within the system, that it's us who lack the power to regulate events according to our will. That the evolving state of the system shapes and forms us, our thoughts, imaginings, plans, hopes dreams and actions...''there are no powers'' refers to the nature and status of our will.

And, there we go again back to the view of the system itself as a causal agent, an entity with a mind of its own, directing the behavior and actions of its parts for its own goals and purposes. It remains superstitious nonsense, a little imaginary monster with god-like powers and a will of its own that overrides our actual wills.

That's not what determinism is about. Determinism simply points out that all events are reliably caused by prior events. And what is actually causing these events? The natural interactions of the objects within the universe. We happen to be such objects. We go about in the world causing events to happen, and doing so to accomplish our own goals and for our own reasons, because we have a keen interest in the consequences that affect us. This is really what determinism implies, simply that all events are reliably caused. Nothing more. Nothing less.
 
Last edited:

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

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

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
It's a matter of entailment- 'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

While that may "sound" right to you, due to figurative thinking, it is still logically false.

It has nothing to do with me. It is entailed in the given definition, your own definition. Which I accept and work with.


The fact is that it was always "possible" to order the steak instead of the salad. At no point in time was it ever "impossible" to order the steak instead of the salad.

Referring to the given definition of determinism, it was made impossible at time t - the big bang - and how things go ever after;

''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.

Fixed means precisely that Fixed, unchangeable, no alternatives, no steak if salad is determined.



The fact that you "would not" order the steak instead of the salad never implies that you "could not" have ordered the steak instead of the salad.

That is precisely what is entailed in the stipulation, no deviation' - alternate actions literally cannot happen. What happens must necessarily happen.

This is a consequence of the distinction between the meaning of "can" and "will", the distinction between "possibility" and "actuality", the distinction between events that "can happen" and events that "must happen".

In a system that permits no realizable alternatives, determinism, possible alternate actions are an illusion formed by not having sufficient information about the system as it evolves from prior to current and future states without deviation.


There are no meaningful consequences of "no deviation".

The consequences of no deviation are that that your actions are not freely chosen, you cannot choose or do otherwise.

Events happen exactly as they always did, without deviation. Did choosing just happen?

The system evolves from prior to current and future states, past states of the system shape current and future states, the system does not 'choose.'

Choice implies the ability to select from a range of realizable options. Determinism has no range of realizable options, everything must proceed as determined; conditions at time t and how things go ever after.


Then it happened precisely as it did happen, without deviation. Were multiple possibilities considered? Then they were each considered exactly as they were considered, without deviation.

The very act of consideration is fixed precisely from the start to the finish when the inevitable action is performed .

That's determinism.

Did we have thoughts about eating a balanced diet?

Of course, unavoidably.

Then those thoughts happened exactly as they happened, without deviation.

As they must.


Did we conclude that it would be better to have the salad for dinner instead of the steak? Then that also happened without deviation. Was it always true that we could have ordered the steak instead of the salad? Then that was always true without deviation.

For the reasons outlined above, it was never true that we could have ordered steak instead of salad.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

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

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.
No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Again and again you swap out a definition of choice and so argue a straw-man.

It will always be true that "IF I had decided". I didn't decide such but it will still always be true that, "IF I decided", because "IF I decided" does not rely on something different happening in the past. It relies on a whole concept of an entirely different universe being a sensible thing to think of.

As such it allows us to plan plans on the basis of contingency and unknowns through the assumption of them as knowns in the context of the plan, and on the assumption that most of the assumed unknowns are configurations that only assume differences within a single brain.

As such "can" is always in relation to an imaginary universe.

The issue here I think is that I order for a human to grok this, said human needs to be capable of some minimum number of levels of abstract thought, and I'm not sure if you have that power within you to get over the hump.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
946
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
The stamina of everyone here is impressive, but basically at this point everyone, especially DBT, is saying the same thing over and over.

I don’t think you’re going to make any inroads with someone who can’t understand the difference between “will” and “must” and basically came out and admitted that he thinks the big bang shot JFK — the mother of all JFK conspiracy theories!
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The stamina of everyone here is impressive, but basically at this point everyone, especially DBT, is saying the same thing over and over.

I don’t think you’re going to make any inroads with someone who can’t understand the difference between “will” and “must” and basically came out and admitted that he thinks the big bang shot JFK — the mother of all JFK conspiracy theories!
IOW, GODBB-DID-IT!

The most trivial of all deconversions.
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,326
The stamina of everyone here is impressive, but basically at this point everyone, especially DBT, is saying the same thing over and over.

I don’t think you’re going to make any inroads with someone who can’t understand the difference between “will” and “must” and basically came out and admitted that he thinks the big bang shot JFK — the mother of all JFK conspiracy theories!

Agreed. IMHO, I've injected a few interesting posts in this thread here and there, but they seem to get passed over by everyone other than fromderinside.

At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
It's a matter of entailment- 'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

The possibility of ordering the steak was causally necessary from any prior point in time, just like ordering the salad was causally necessary from any prior point in time.

Determinism entails that it always would be true that we could have ordered steak instead of the salad at that time and place, and that we would order the salad instead of the steak at that time and place.

It happened. Therefore, given determinism, it must have happened, just so and in no other way, without deviation.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The stamina of everyone here is impressive, but basically at this point everyone, especially DBT, is saying the same thing over and over.

I don’t think you’re going to make any inroads with someone who can’t understand the difference between “will” and “must” and basically came out and admitted that he thinks the big bang shot JFK — the mother of all JFK conspiracy theories!

Agreed. IMHO, I've injected a few interesting posts in this thread here and there, but they seem to get passed over by everyone other than fromderinside.

At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.
To your point...
.

You seem to be speaking against the same dualistic nonsense that DBT is: I don't give a shit about nonsensical libertarian free will. I'm a compatibilist.

The sad part is that you have not understood a word I said. Nothing I have said supports dualism. Just the opposite.

Of course you don’t support dualism. But here is what you wrote in the other thread:


BS. I am supporting the proposition that it is the state of the brain, neural architecture, state and condition, that determines behaviour, not free will.


Of course, if you are not a dualist, then you realize that I AM my brain. And that means that I AM my neural architecture, state and condition.


And, since you are not a dualist, but given your own words quoted above, we can recast those words to the simpler formulation, viz.

I am supporting the proposition that I determine my behavior, not free will.


And, with your own words, your have supplied a reductio of your hard determinism! If “I” determine my behavior, that just IS (compatibilist) free will! So your quote logically reduces to:


I am supporting the proposition that I determine my behavior.


:cheer:Welcome to compatibilism, DBT!

Talk about creative interpretation!

Then again, creative interpretation and careful wording is the very essence of compatibilism.

The brain is the agency of response, therefore free will, is a far cry from proving free will. Careful wording and creative interpretation doesn't prove the proposition.

That takes neuroscience: how the brain works, how decisions are made and actions taken.
And I keep explaining to you that neuroscience is not what gets you there, either. You need: a few entry level SW courses, an assembly language course, a machine architecture course, a course on basic ML and a course on HTMs.

You need to understand a neuron well enough to create an artificial one, and then to understand the behavior of neurons in concert well enough to understand how they give rise to the expression of algorithms based on the field of their connection biases.

Then you might understand how a choice function can be implemented in neural media.

But none of that is necessary to show real examples of active choice functions in machines.

To me it looks like the arguments you and fromderinside are making are compatible with each other.

At a fundamental level, FDI is arguing that there is no centralized mover in the system, just a system that moves. If I'm understanding you correctly, you basically agree with this but choose to call it free will, while fromderinside doesn't.

fromderinside uses the lack of a centralized mover to conclude that will doesn't exist - which is true according to his definition of will. While you define the system as one that operates, making your definition of will true as well

I agree with the congruence of these two thoughts. We are a system that operates which will always land on one outcome. We can choose otherwise but what makes that so isn't that the next choice wasn't inevitable, but that the human body operates in an environment where it's free to act out a range of activity. We can choose otherwise because there are minimal constraints on our behavior - experientially we experience a feeling of freedom to choose. And in a way we are choosing, the brain activity happening is us.

The brain chooses - the choice it ended up making was inevitable - both of these things can be true.
No? There are, in any given event, "central movers".

To understand this one needs to understand just a single neuron, in relation to many other neurons:

This neuron has a bias value. In meat neurons it's a bit more messy on the activation curve and result, but essentially this bias value determines how many of the "many other neurons" it takes to "activate" the neuron, to make it output a "1".

If enough of the neurons "above" that one have activated, the input will exceed the bias, and it will fire.

The most simple "central mover" here is the bias.

There are other parts to the geometry of the neuron: it's connection weights, Its refractory period, it's refractory radius, it's refractory weight.

Some nifty switching can happen in the domain of local refractory behaviors, too, but it takes about a week to align myself on that math and I have no cause to right now.

But moreover, it ends up coming together in process that something IN that process does to itself modifies the process itself. At some level there is an executive loop, but fuck if I know where it is or how it's shaped, and fuck if I would tell anyone if I did. Pointing out the location and nature of the soul is dangerous.

What you're describing sounds like 'no centralized mover' to me - complicated electrochemical impulses. Unless you want to call the entire nervous system our 'centralized mover'.

And that's partly what I'm getting at - you both agree that the brain is material, but are defining it differently, and perceiving it differently. You can't really resolve that debate.
Well, no single central mover. There is always a straw that breaks the camel's back, a signal that says "yes, this, now".

If someone asked me objectively "why did this fault happen on this system" I would be able to say "this number was too low". That is a central mover to the event.

The conflict comes insofar as DBT abandons the reality that the process alters itself, that we do decide upon what we will want to some extent, and that the thing implements evaluable choice functions.

The problem I have is the use of "determinism" to attain "absolution".

FWIW, I basically agree with the gist of your argument.

I read some Anthony Giddens (sociology of all things) recently that I believe speaks to this discussion from a high level. His theory is that an agent and it's environment represent a duality - neither has primacy over the other. The agent is both constrained and enabled by the environment, but the agent is also able to act out creatively and change his environment (which applies to your argument).

It's a kind of fallacy to look at living things as entirely passive, at the whims of culture and time. They are also internally creative and act on the world. To reduce the free will argument to humans being nothing but a conglomeration of atoms ignores any of our properties as a living animal. That doesn't necessarily make the basic free will argument wrong, just not really that interesting, and a little reductive.
To your point, while I personally do reduce humans to a conglomeration of atoms in some respects, I also recognize that conglomerations of atoms can together think, act, and have behaviors emergent of such conglomerations.

Awareness, consciousness, thought, the ability to both be aware of self and express that self, all of this is quite amazing and frankly beautiful.

Being able to put the description of it in a whole sentence to the point where it can be built into semantic completeness unto reproduction requires a lot of reduction of the elements.

Of course, I would much rather just be able to call it "free will" rather than "a will freely held, in which the will to select wills for oneself is not superceded by an inaccessible and uninterruptible impetus to act in some way vital to one's immediate survival"

I don't like having to reduce it and put together all those tiny fucking parts so painstakingly every time I want to discuss it. I don't want to have to prove the small pieces exist first, or the interactions I'm going to enforce upon those small pieces.

Its just that I can't, without reaching true semantic completeness and thus purely reduce it to switching accomplished by conglomerations of atoms, argue that these things really exist to the point where I have proven it mathematically, and can say beyond any shadow of a doubt that free will may exist within deterministic systems.
 

ramoss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Northeast USA
Basic Beliefs
Secular Jewish
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

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

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.
No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Again and again you swap out a definition of choice and so argue a straw-man.

It will always be true that "IF I had decided". I didn't decide such but it will still always be true that, "IF I decided", because "IF I decided" does not rely on something different happening in the past. It relies on a whole concept of an entirely different universe being a sensible thing to think of.

As such it allows us to plan plans on the basis of contingency and unknowns through the assumption of them as knowns in the context of the plan, and on the assumption that most of the assumed unknowns are configurations that only assume differences within a single brain.

As such "can" is always in relation to an imaginary universe.

The issue here I think is that I order for a human to grok this, said human needs to be capable of some minimum number of levels of abstract thought, and I'm not sure if you have that power within you to get over the hump.
The statement that 'a deterministic system is not a system with no choice' directly contradicts the definition of a deterministic system.

From https://www.techopedia.com/definition/602/deterministic-system

What Does Deterministic System Mean?​

A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.

Techopedia Explains Deterministic System​

In a non-deterministic system, by contrast, there is some randomness or choice involved in the model. One of the best ways to explain this is to contrast the deterministic system with a probabilistic system. Probabilistic computing involves taking inputs and subjecting them to probabilistic models in order to guess results.


Now, when it comes to the universe, is the universe deterministic or probabilistic? Does QM have hidden variables, or is it probabilistic.


My feeling it is probabilistic, but I have no way to show that is true (or false) . Since it is currently impossible to show deterministic or probabilistic, or if alleged choices are predetermined or not, the concept of free will , or not free will is nothing but word salad, no matter which position you take. It's a word game, nothing more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

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

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.
No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Again and again you swap out a definition of choice and so argue a straw-man.

It will always be true that "IF I had decided". I didn't decide such but it will still always be true that, "IF I decided", because "IF I decided" does not rely on something different happening in the past. It relies on a whole concept of an entirely different universe being a sensible thing to think of.

As such it allows us to plan plans on the basis of contingency and unknowns through the assumption of them as knowns in the context of the plan, and on the assumption that most of the assumed unknowns are configurations that only assume differences within a single brain.

As such "can" is always in relation to an imaginary universe.

The issue here I think is that I order for a human to grok this, said human needs to be capable of some minimum number of levels of abstract thought, and I'm not sure if you have that power within you to get over the hump.
The statement that 'a deterministic system is not a system with no choice' directly contradicts the definition of a deterministic system.

From https://www.techopedia.com/definition/602/deterministic-system

What Does Deterministic System Mean?​

A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.

Techopedia Explains Deterministic System​

In a non-deterministic system, by contrast, there is some randomness or choice involved in the model. One of the best ways to explain this is to contrast the deterministic system with a probabilistic system. Probabilistic computing involves taking inputs and subjecting them to probabilistic models in order to guess results.


Now, when it comes to the universe, is the universe deterministic or probabilistic? Does QM have hidden variables, or is it probabilistic.


My feeling it is probabilistic, but I have no way to show that is true (or false) . Since it is currently impossible to show deterministic or probabilistic, or if alleged choices are predetermined or not, the concept of free will , or not free will is nothing but word salad, no matter which position you take. It's a word game, nothing more.
It's a misunderstanding of choice, then.

Again I will invite you to look at the choice function of ListA. It is a deterministic choice function: of the buffer, it will always return the top element. There is no randomness, but it is nonetheless a choice function.

Math cannot accomplish a "truly random" choice. Nor can physics.

Choice is then always going to be deterministic, if accomplished by a system that can be described by math.

So in your quote, "choice" is misused.

This is in fact why I get so "reductive" and "granular" with the language.

The choice function can be a choice accomplished of alternatives of the mode of "can" as in "can, assuming that the shape of the universe is such that this would be selected".

And this extension of the system, this parallel imaginary universe or set of imaginary universes, if it contains what is, actually, the universe, we get a true/false to semantic completion: the will (properly one of a set of wills) is free.

From there all the rest may be constructed.

Choice functions, deterministic as they are, operate upon this set. One of the set is returned.

Sometimes certain inputs are categorized differently upstream and sent to a system with higher priority within our own minds, assuming we haven't attained mastery over those parts yet.

When the thing that brings us to act comes from there, "our" will is not free. None of the things we suggest to the rest of our meat may happen.

We open our "mouth" to the rest of our mind and the rest of our mind says "no".

Instead of ordering the salad, Marvin orders the steak, because lizard brain is in charge.

The wills we have, the set of imaginary universes which we gin up, does not contain in any abstract manner what is going to happen.

This is an observable event in the dynamics of the system.

It's fully deterministic.

And it clearly, observably MAY happen in our universe because as dumb and small and meaningless as they are, my stupid little dwarves do exactly that, in a proven way, in a way that may be expressed by an equation.

And for that matter we do that, too. We just don't know quite all of the equation.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

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

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.
No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Wrong.

Choice, by definition, entails selecting between two or more realizable options.

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism, according to the given definition - all events proceeding without deviation, no alternate actions - does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Without realizable alternate options, where lies the choice?

Nowhere.

No alternative equates to no choice.

Freedom - the ability to choose or do otherwise - does not exist within a deterministic system, which makes the notion of free will incompatible with determinism.

Straightforward, undeniable, no way around it. Carefully worded definitions commonly used by compatibilists do not prove the proposition.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,241
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
It's a matter of entailment- 'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'

The possibility of ordering the steak was causally necessary from any prior point in time, just like ordering the salad was causally necessary from any prior point in time.

Without possibility of deviation, therefore alternate actions, the system deterministically transitioning from prior to current state, ordering the steak is not possible if salad is determined. Given the terms, it cannot happen.

Steak was never a possibility.



Determinism entails that it always would be true that we could have ordered steak instead of the salad at that time and place, and that we would order the salad instead of the steak at that time and place.

That's not how determinism works. If two or more possibilities are realizable, it is not a deterministic system.

It is a probabilistic system.

And if it was possible to choose between two or more probabilities, we would be arguing over Libertarian free will, not compatibilism.


It happened. Therefore, given determinism, it must have happened, just so and in no other way, without deviation.

Which of course eliminates - ''the possibility of ordering the steak was causally necessary from any prior point in time...''
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

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

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.
No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Wrong.

Choice, by definition, entails selecting between two or more realizable options.

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism, according to the given definition - all events proceeding without deviation, no alternate actions - does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Without realizable alternate options, where lies the choice?

Nowhere.

No alternative equates to no choice.

Freedom - the ability to choose or do otherwise - does not exist within a deterministic system, which makes the notion of free will incompatible with determinism.

Straightforward, undeniable, no way around it. Carefully worded definitions commonly used by compatibilists do not prove the proposition.
And again you fail to read that word "possibilities" and then fill it in with the compatibilist definition, and so FAIL to speak anything meaningful at all about it.

Let's look at the system where Jim goes to the store to buy Corn Nuts.

Jim does not, when he leaves the house, have any concept of which snack he will buy. He will go to the store to buy corn nuts.

Before Jim leaves for the store, Alex asks him "hey Jim, what snack will you buy at the store" and Jim says "I don't fuckin know man, imma see what they have". But Jim WILL go to the store and buy corn nuts.

Now, Jim walks down the street, to the store, and then stands in front of their Aisle full of snacks.

Me, being the god of this universe, I can say "hey, can I change the charge of a few neurons in Jim's head such that the neurons I change are in a specific region of his brain, the part currently evaluating the data generated by looking at the snack selection, such that the buys something that isn't "corn nuts", but instead "Pistachios".

This answers a question: IF his mind were such that his decision in that moment was Pistachios, he COULD in fact buy them. I run this corrupted universe forward and yes, money changes hands there, and he walks out of the store with Pistachios.

I then stop that universe and delete it because I corrupted it.

Then Jim himself in the reality he lives in does much the same thing. He evaluates a model a little less robust than the one I'm working with, but still good enough. Instead of a single universe he models a large number of abstracts. He comes to the conclusion of this process in which he understands he doesn't want to work as hard as he would have to on Pistachios. He in fact skips past the part I viewed directly to the point at which he is at home.

He skips to this part directly because he doesn't need it proven out that he CAN buy the Pistachios. He doesn't need to see God copy and corrupt the universe to understand that IF the universe was anything like the one God copied and modified and observed, he would eventually find himself at home with a bag of Pistachios and doing more work than he really wanted to.

So, he doesn't do that.

Then, he does that same exercise with Corn Nuts, and he discovers "I like how that one seems to turn out".

And of course Jim orders the corn nuts.

Jim made a choice, the same way any choice is made.

Note the exercise in question, the idea of how the choice was made: by considering imaginary universes, and finding a set of universes which contained the actual universe. Jim's will to buy Corn Nuts was free, as he made the choice to buy corn nuts.

The fact that Jim was never going to buy the Pistachios does not eliminate it as "a possibility" because it was "a possibility of the set of universes that Jim may reach unopposed by anything outside of Jim himself."
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
946
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
At this point I'm still trying to figure out who's a chatbot, and who isn't.
I have met DBT IRL, so if he’s a chatbot, he’s an extraordinarily advanced model that drinks beer.

It’s funny, though, because under DBT’s hard determinism, we really are all extraordinarily advanced models of chatbots, aren’t we? We have no “choice” over what we say. It was all pre-scripted at the big bang.

Yet it’s this “extraordinarily advanced model” bit that is so puzzling. I’m going to assume chatbots are not conscious, and yet we are. What for? What possible selective advantage does consciousness, particularly higher-order consciousness, have in a pre-scripted world?

It seems clear to me what the advantage of consciousness is — it maximizes choices. It moves organisms away from blind instinct and enables them to evaluate, weigh, measure, and choose, to better their chances of survival and reproductive success.

Yet it is just this thing called choice that hard determinism denies, rendering the evolution of consciousness in such a world wholly inexplicable.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
946
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
But even a chatbot “chooses” what to say based on evaluation of inputs. We may wish to hesistate to say “choose” in the fullest sense of the world, because of its presumed lack of consciousness, but it’s still a choice after a fashion.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
But even a chatbot “chooses” what to say based on evaluation of inputs. We may wish to hesistate to say “choose” in the fullest sense of the world, because of its presumed lack of consciousness, but it’s still a choice after a fashion.
Which is my point about the dwarf. The "after a fashion" is not necessary. It is choice,  exactly a choice.

It is not a choice made by a person, so it lacks a lot of the things we normally see come along with the choice. It messes with your heuristic because all these unnecessary, insufficient things that you lump so consistently with the choices you see are absent. You see "but it didn't come with an immediate imagination of the universe" or "it didn't come with an apparent menu", or "it wasn't made by a person! How can that possibly 'count'."

But indeed for simple "choice" that's all just "usually" there for the choices that are "easy" to discern as such.

A marble coming out of a bag because a rock fell accidentally on the bag is still an operation of choice function.

It's an argument from incredulity to say how one cannot imagine how some thing satisfied a definition.

The only thing that invalidates a definition is if it is nonsense and cannot be made to fit in any way that is not thus.

Once that "scale" has fallen away from one's eyes, one may see a whole universe of choices being made, some apparently QM level random choice, some choices using uncorrelated selection mechanisms (they feed in chaos, such as environment kinetic chaos in a dice roll), some choice involve considerations of neurons about dietary choices.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,045
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Without possibility of deviation, therefore alternate actions, the system deterministically transitioning from prior to current state, ordering the steak is not possible if salad is determined.

Without deviation, the possibility of ordering the steak was inevitable.

Given the terms, it cannot happen.

The terms of determinism are that things will happen in precisely one inevitable way, without deviation. The one inevitable way will include the possibility of ordering the steak as well as the actuality of ordering the salad. The possibility of ordering the steak is a mental event that was guaranteed to happen from the Big Bang forward.

Steak was never a possibility.

Steak was always going to be a possibility at that time and place.

If two or more possibilities are realizable, it is not a deterministic system.

You're still not getting it. The steak was possible and it was realizable. The -ible and the -able have precisely the same meaning: something that may or may not happen, depending upon the circumstances. Neither the -ible nor the -able requires anything to actually happen in reality.

It is a probabilistic system.

Oh please. I thought we were talking about determinism. Within a deterministic system, some events cannot be reliably predicted. That's why we have the notions of "random" and "chaotic", and a tool called statistical probability to help us get a general estimate of what is most likely to happen. But we may reasonably presume that even these events are reliably caused though not reliably predicted. So, determinism holds despite our inability to reliably predict events.

And if it was possible to choose between two or more probabilities, we would be arguing over Libertarian free will, not compatibilism.

Stop, before I puke!

Look, the simple fact is that determinism logically implies that all events will be reliably caused by prior events, due to our reasonable assumption that every event must be caused by something, and that something must also be caused by something, etc.

The causal chain is infinitely long, so no one has time for that. Our legitimate interest is in the most meaningful and relevant causes of a given event. A meaningful cause efficiently explains why the event happened. A relevant cause is something that we might do something about, either to make a desirable event happen more often, or to make an undesirable event happen less often.

So, when a thief robs a liquor store, we do not blame it on the Big Bang, because there is nothing we can do about the Big Bang to make things better. But there are many things we can do about the thief to discourage him from robbing stores and, if he cannot be discouraged, we can secure him in a cell where there are no stores to rob. But any talk about the Big Bang would be useless babbling.

Fortunately, determinism doesn't actually change anything, so any talk about determinism is usually useless babbling as well.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
946
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

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

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.
No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Wrong.

Choice, by definition, entails selecting between two or more realizable options.

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism, according to the given definition - all events proceeding without deviation, no alternate actions - does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Without realizable alternate options, where lies the choice?

Nowhere.

No alternative equates to no choice.

Freedom - the ability to choose or do otherwise - does not exist within a deterministic system, which makes the notion of free will incompatible with determinism.

Straightforward, undeniable, no way around it. Carefully worded definitions commonly used by compatibilists do not prove the proposition.
And again you fail to read that word "possibilities" and then fill it in with the compatibilist definition, and so FAIL to speak anything meaningful at all about it.

Let's look at the system where Jim goes to the store to buy Corn Nuts.

Jim does not, when he leaves the house, have any concept of which snack he will buy. He will go to the store to buy corn nuts.

Before Jim leaves for the store, Alex asks him "hey Jim, what snack will you buy at the store" and Jim says "I don't fuckin know man, imma see what they have". But Jim WILL go to the store and buy corn nuts.

Now, Jim walks down the street, to the store, and then stands in front of their Aisle full of snacks.

Me, being the god of this universe, I can say "hey, can I change the charge of a few neurons in Jim's head such that the neurons I change are in a specific region of his brain, the part currently evaluating the data generated by looking at the snack selection, such that the buys something that isn't "corn nuts", but instead "Pistachios".

This answers a question: IF his mind were such that his decision in that moment was Pistachios, he COULD in fact buy them. I run this corrupted universe forward and yes, money changes hands there, and he walks out of the store with Pistachios.

I then stop that universe and delete it because I corrupted it.

Then Jim himself in the reality he lives in does much the same thing. He evaluates a model a little less robust than the one I'm working with, but still good enough. Instead of a single universe he models a large number of abstracts. He comes to the conclusion of this process in which he understands he doesn't want to work as hard as he would have to on Pistachios. He in fact skips past the part I viewed directly to the point at which he is at home.

He skips to this part directly because he doesn't need it proven out that he CAN buy the Pistachios. He doesn't need to see God copy and corrupt the universe to understand that IF the universe was anything like the one God copied and modified and observed, he would eventually find himself at home with a bag of Pistachios and doing more work than he really wanted to.

So, he doesn't do that.

Then, he does that same exercise with Corn Nuts, and he discovers "I like how that one seems to turn out".

And of course Jim orders the corn nuts.

Jim made a choice, the same way any choice is made.

Note the exercise in question, the idea of how the choice was made: by considering imaginary universes, and finding a set of universes which contained the actual universe. Jim's will to buy Corn Nuts was free, as he made the choice to buy corn nuts.

The fact that Jim was never going to buy the Pistachios does not eliminate it as "a possibility" because it was "a possibility of the set of universes that Jim may reach unopposed by anything outside of Jim himself."

This is modeling the world in the possible worlds heuristic of modal logic, and is exactly the point I have repeatedly made against DBT’s necessitation argument.

Necessary truth is confined to logic. When we consider Jim and his corn huts, we find that there are logically possible worlds at which Jim orders pistachios instead of corn nuts. There is no logically possible world at which Jim orders a four-sided triangle.

To say that it is possible for Jim to order pistachios in a deterministic world is to say that it is always within his power to order pistachios, but it’s also true that he can only order one thing at a given time, and given antecedents x, y, and z in the actual world, he will (but not must!) order corn nuts. The world where he orders pistachios is called a possible non-actual world. Since this possible non-actual world exists (though it is not actual) it is clear that contra DBT, Jim’s choice of corn nuts is not necessary or necessitated, and thus the claim of hard determinism is refuted.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
'when ordering salad is determined, it is not possible to order steak.'
This is demonstrably false.

Don't be so silly, for the hundredth time, it's entailed in the given definition: no deviation, no randomness, no alternatives, which means that nothing can happen to alter the development of the future states of the system, just as you define it to be;

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

There is no way around this: there can be no alternate actions within a deterministic system.

It is entailed in your own definition.

You have no case to argue.

Your Goose was cooked at the beginning.
No, DBT, a deterministic system is not a system with no choice.

Wrong.

Choice, by definition, entails selecting between two or more realizable options.

Choice
1. an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

Determinism, according to the given definition - all events proceeding without deviation, no alternate actions - does not permit two or more realizable options to choose from.

Without realizable alternate options, where lies the choice?

Nowhere.

No alternative equates to no choice.

Freedom - the ability to choose or do otherwise - does not exist within a deterministic system, which makes the notion of free will incompatible with determinism.

Straightforward, undeniable, no way around it. Carefully worded definitions commonly used by compatibilists do not prove the proposition.
And again you fail to read that word "possibilities" and then fill it in with the compatibilist definition, and so FAIL to speak anything meaningful at all about it.

Let's look at the system where Jim goes to the store to buy Corn Nuts.

Jim does not, when he leaves the house, have any concept of which snack he will buy. He will go to the store to buy corn nuts.

Before Jim leaves for the store, Alex asks him "hey Jim, what snack will you buy at the store" and Jim says "I don't fuckin know man, imma see what they have". But Jim WILL go to the store and buy corn nuts.

Now, Jim walks down the street, to the store, and then stands in front of their Aisle full of snacks.

Me, being the god of this universe, I can say "hey, can I change the charge of a few neurons in Jim's head such that the neurons I change are in a specific region of his brain, the part currently evaluating the data generated by looking at the snack selection, such that the buys something that isn't "corn nuts", but instead "Pistachios".

This answers a question: IF his mind were such that his decision in that moment was Pistachios, he COULD in fact buy them. I run this corrupted universe forward and yes, money changes hands there, and he walks out of the store with Pistachios.

I then stop that universe and delete it because I corrupted it.

Then Jim himself in the reality he lives in does much the same thing. He evaluates a model a little less robust than the one I'm working with, but still good enough. Instead of a single universe he models a large number of abstracts. He comes to the conclusion of this process in which he understands he doesn't want to work as hard as he would have to on Pistachios. He in fact skips past the part I viewed directly to the point at which he is at home.

He skips to this part directly because he doesn't need it proven out that he CAN buy the Pistachios. He doesn't need to see God copy and corrupt the universe to understand that IF the universe was anything like the one God copied and modified and observed, he would eventually find himself at home with a bag of Pistachios and doing more work than he really wanted to.

So, he doesn't do that.

Then, he does that same exercise with Corn Nuts, and he discovers "I like how that one seems to turn out".

And of course Jim orders the corn nuts.

Jim made a choice, the same way any choice is made.

Note the exercise in question, the idea of how the choice was made: by considering imaginary universes, and finding a set of universes which contained the actual universe. Jim's will to buy Corn Nuts was free, as he made the choice to buy corn nuts.

The fact that Jim was never going to buy the Pistachios does not eliminate it as "a possibility" because it was "a possibility of the set of universes that Jim may reach unopposed by anything outside of Jim himself."

This is modeling the world in the possible worlds heuristic of modal logic, and is exactly the point I have repeatedly made against DBT’s necessitation argument.

Necessary truth is confined to logic. When we consider Jim and his corn huts, we find that there are logically possible worlds at which Jim orders pistachios instead of corn nuts. There is no logically possible world at which Jim orders a four-sided triangle.

To say that it is possible for Jim to order pistachios in a deterministic world is to say that it is always within his power to order pistachios, but it’s also true that he can only order one thing at a given time, and given antecedents x, y, and z in the actual world, he will (but not must!) order corn nuts. The world where he orders pistachios is called a possible non-actual world. Since this possible non-actual world exists (though it is not actual) it is clear that contra DBT, Jim’s choice of corn nuts is not necessary or necessitated, and thus the claim of hard determinism is refuted.
No, Jim could have ordered both, assuming he wasn't a broke ass mother fucker. He could have brought home the lot, and a bucket (assuming they had buckets for sale, but they did in the home cleaning aisle.)

But moreover he didn't, much for the same reason Marvin chose the salad, even if that choice was revoked at gunpoint.
 
Top Bottom