We usually eat at 7pm, but there was a special show on TV at that time that we all wanted to watch. So, we found ourselves faced with a problem that required us to make a choice.
We can have dinner at 6:30 and watch the TV show at 7pm.
We can watch the TV show at 7pm and then have dinner at 7:30.
We can take our trays into the TV room and have dinner while watching the show at 7pm.
We can record the TV show, have dinner at 7pm, and watch the recording later.
We had four real possibilities. Four alternate solutions to our problem. Four things that we could have done.
Not one of these four solutions was something that we could not do.
Not one of these four solutions was something that we could not choose to do.
No matter which one of these solutions we chose, there would always be three other things that we could have chosen, but didn't.
No matter which one of these we chose, it would be the only thing that we ever would have chosen.
No matter which one of these we chose, there would still be three other things that could have been chosen, but which never would have been chosen.
Every incremental step in the consideration process is set by antecedents, where no alternatives exist at any point in time during the process, consequently there can be no alternatives at any point.
Not only "can" there be alternatives, but there inevitably would be four of them in this case. Every incremental step in the consideration process was set by antecedents, which insured that each of the four alternatives would be considered as a true alternative.
Consequently, one cannot truthfully claim that there "can be no alternatives at any point" in this deterministic process.
With no alternatives, the process of consideration is a process of determination where no choice exists.
But there actually were alternatives, four of them. Consequently, one cannot truthfully claim that the process of determination excluded alternatives or excluded choice.
Choice, as pointed out, requires any one of two or more options to be taken.
And there were four options that could have been chosen and one of them that would be chosen.
Determinism doesn't permit alternate options to be taken. Each point in time has only one outcome.
And only one option was taken. And there was only one outcome.
Determinism is fully satisfied, and it is fully satisfied by there being four alternate possibilities and a single outcome, four things that actually could have happened, and a single thing that actually would happen.
A narrative built on a perception based on limited information about the state of the system at any given moment in time.
Well, lacking omniscience, it is always the case that human perception is based on limited information about the state of the system. But, we do the best with what we have.
And, even lacking knowledge of the whole causal chain from the Big Bang to this moment, we can, upon reflection, presume that a reliable history of causation led to this event where we faced a problem requiring a decision to be made, where we came up with four separate solutions to this problem, and where we made our choice, resulting in a single thing that we would do, and three other things that we could have done instead.
If determinism is true, none of the alternatives were possible.
Sorry, but that leap takes us off a cliff, and not to any valid conclusions. We end up losing the very tools by which we cause deliberate actions to be taken.
Saying 'we could have' after the fact is meaningless when what was done is the only thing that can happen.
And yet saying that "we could have set up trays in the living room and had dinner while watching the show" is not a meaningless fact, but contains useful information that will likely affect our future decisions.
There is no 'could have' or 'might have' in determinism, only what is and what must happen.
Apparently there are three things that we "could have done" in addition to the one thing that we "would do". And, given determinism, it was inevitably just so.
Just that the consideration of other possibilities doesn't make taking other possibilities a reality.
A "real" possibility exists solely within the imagination. We cannot walk across the possibility of a bridge, we can only walk across an actual bridge. If we make a possibility a reality, then we immediately stop calling it a "possibility" and begin calling it an "actuality".
To say that a real possibility exists solely within the imagination does not mean that it is not real. It exists as a concept that performs an essential function. For example, we cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge.
The act of consideration doesn't permit alternatives to be realized.
The act of consideration causally determines which alternative will be realized.
Alternate actions are an illusion. A mirage formed by thought.
As stated before, alternate actions are real possibilities that exist solely in the imagination. They are "real" in that the possibility of a bridge (or anything else) must enter thought before an actual bridge can be built.
At no point can an alternate action happen.
During consideration we assess whether an alternate action can actually happen if we choose it. If we decide that we cannot make it happen, even if we choose it, then we eliminate it from consideration as an impossibility.
In the case described above, we have four alternate actions that are really possible. Any one of them can actually happen if we choose to make it happen. The fact that we choose to make one of them happen does not make the other three impossible, but only unchosen.
There is never the possibility of choosing an alternate option.
A possibility of choosing does not require an actual choosing. We had four solutions. Each of them was a real possibility, something that we could realize if we chose to do so. None of them became unrealizable by not being chosen, they simply remained unrealized.
There are no alternate options, only the perception of alternatives.
An "alternate option" is satisfied entirely by being perceived as such. It never requires being chosen or being actualized in order to qualify as something that we "could have done". On the other hand, something that we "will" do implies being chosen and being actualized.
You don't choose to forget where you left the keys, or choose to recall where they are a minute later, the brain goes through a process, each state precisely as it must be in that precise instance in time.
The list of things that we do not choose, however long, never eliminates anything from the list of things we do choose. We do not choose to lose our keys. But we do choose which of our four solutions we will use to solve the problem of viewing the TV show and eating dinner on time.
The principle is the same for decision making, information inputs are received, processed, integrated with memory, proclivities, needs, wants, desires, fears, which informs the inevitable decision/action.
No kidding. The example above fully comports with the normal functioning of our human brains. The brain and mind behave deterministically, each mental event being reliably caused by prior mental events. The consideration of each of our four possibilities proceeded in a reliable fashion and led inevitably to our choice. At the end, we had the single thing that we would do, plus three other things that we could have done, but did not do.
'Won't' in determinism is equivalent to 'cannot be otherwise.'
Obviously not.
This example, while not perfect, is the gist of it;
''In principle, one such example would suffice to put the notion of free will in doubt. In practice, we maintain that such examples abound.
Consider the following example. Sir Isaac Newton stands by a large window on the fourth floor. He contemplates the possibility of jumping out of the window. Should he jump, he considers two possibilities: he may hover in the air, enjoying the view, or crash to the ground. Being a rational decision maker, Newton contemplates the possibility of jumping and, given his knowledge of physics, concludes that crashing to the ground is a practical certainty. He now considers his own decision, and decides not to jump. In so doing, he feels that he has made a decision, and that he has exercised his free will. He could imagine choosing differently, and decided not to.
Suppose that we are sitting with Sir Newton in his office throughout this process. Our limited knowledge of physics suffices for us to conclude, as does Newton, that a jump will result in a crash. With a lesser degree of certainty, but still quite confidently, we are willing to predict that Newton will not jump. We have seen many people next to many windows, and, for the most part, they prefer to stay in their rooms.
In short, we know Newton’s choice with a high degree of certainty........Newton knows what his decision will be in the same sense that he knows what the choices of different decisions would be. When was a decision taken in this process?
And how can Newton report an experience of free will if he cannot imagine a logically consistent world in which he chooses differently?
How can we make sense of his claim “but I could have jumped”?
Well, as discussed before, "could have" always implies (a) that it did not happen and (b) that it only would have happened under different circumstances. And "but I could have jumped" comports with those two facts. He didn't jump. And he only would have jumped under different circumstances. For example, if his office were on the first floor rather than the fourth floor and he wanted to test whether gravity applied to people like it does to apples, then he would have jumped from the first floor window, which would likely be only three feet off the ground.
However, if he actually jumped from the fourth floor window, and upon examination we discovered that he was entertaining the thought that "he may hover in the air, enjoying the view", then we would conclude he was not acting of his own free will, but suffering from the undue influence of a significant mental illness, resulting in delusions. He would not be held responsible for his irrational behavior, but we would instead hold his mental illness responsible, and make sure that he received appropriate medical and psychiatric treatment.
I would suggest that the author of this thought experiment should have put a little more thought into it. But, then, it is often difficult to find examples that persuade others of a false theory.
The correct theory of determinism and free will, on the other hand, can be supported by simple examples that everyone can understand.
