Compatibilism: What's that About?

[bilby]

Two or more possibilities cannot exist within a system where all events must proceed without deviation

Of course they can. Possibility is a measure of our knowledge of the future; It's perfectly possible for the future to be determined, but not yet known; And for us to nevertheless know what limits there are on the possibilities. If the road turns left or right, we can rule out straight ahead.

The usual way to find out which of these possibilities was the one determined to be chosen is to wait until the choice is made.

In fact, for all but the most banal cases, the fastest physically possible way to find out is to wait until the choice is made.

Sure, you could arrange to take a snapshot somehow of the location and velocity of every particle in a customer's brain as he walks into the restaurant (Heisenberg says you can't, but let's ignore him). You could crunch the numbers in your super computer that precisely models a brain - and three weeks from now, you could tell me what the customer chose.

Or you could just watch what he chooses, and find out in five minutes.

 

[Jarhyn]

Two or more possibilities cannot exist within a system where all events must proceed without deviation

Of course they can. Possibility is a measure of our knowledge of the future; It's perfectly possible for the future to be determined, but not yet known; And for us to nevertheless know what limits there are on the possibilities. If the road turns left or right, we can rule out straight ahead.

The usual way to find out which of these possibilities was the one determined to be chosen is to wait until the choice is made.

In fact, for all but the most banal cases, the fastest physically possible way to find out is to wait until the choice is made.

Sure, you could arrange to take a snapshot somehow of the location and velocity of every particle in a customer's brain as he walks into the restaurant (Heisenberg says you can't, but let's ignore him). You could crunch the numbers in your super computer that precisely models a brain - and three weeks from now, you could tell me what the customer chose.

Or you could just watch what he chooses, and find out in five minutes.

The problem here is that some folks really don't want, for whatever reason, to acknowledge that despite the fact that they don't know they made the choice until after they made it, it's still them doing it, and they are still responsible for that.

Many folks don't want to acknowledge that the way people make some choices is by training themselves ahead of time, and other times bu doing a lot of fucking work, and yet others by pushing really hard in direct opposition to a whole bunch of other neurons inside one's own greater neural network.

And some people never even discover that this is a thing they can do.

Though I suppose for some, they don't use it for so long it withers away.

 

[fromderinside]

Existence of lists doesn't imply possible anything. Choosing is an action independent of being listed. One does not need the statement of what one can be what one might do to do so. He must be capable of doing it. If he is capable of doing it he will do it regardless of whether he is also capable of doing other wise.

The capability for doing otherwise does not signal choice of doing so is an option. It only signals one has the capability to do this or that. Since determinism states one does this then that that is what one does. You have not shown that one has the faculty of choice. You've just shown that a determined one is capable of doing this or that which is not contrary to what determinism states. One does this then that regardless of capability.

You might look at things this way. One has encountered this and that so the capability to do this and that exists. However when this arrives that is determined. Otherwise one would need to know whether this or that were signaled. Obviously that was signaled since that was the result. You need an intervening uncaused variable, implied not evident, to do otherwise. A nonexistent cause to do otherwise is needed.

 

[DBT]

Two or more possibilities cannot exist within a system where all events must proceed without deviation.

Nice assertion fallacy.

We have shown what possibilities are. Possibilities are just names for objects going into a choice function. If a system can contain two or more "marbles" a system can contain two or more "possibilities", because in the context of some operation of choice upon the marbles, they are also "possibilities" in the operation of the choice function, even if one will certainly never be "the actual marble selected".

No assertion. You need to understand the terms of your own definition of determinism. Put simply, if anything can happen, you could equally turn left or right, or whatever, that is not how determinism is defined, therefore you are contradicting the given and accepted terms.

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 FIXED, means nothing can go differently. If turning left is determined, it is FIXED, there is no possibility of turning right in that instance.

No possibility means it cannot happen in that moment in time. If it could, it would not be fixed and it would not be determinism.

You should understand the basics by now.

 

[DBT]

Two or more possibilities cannot exist within a system where all events must proceed without deviation

Of course they can. Possibility is a measure of our knowledge of the future; It's perfectly possible for the future to be determined, but not yet known; And for us to nevertheless know what limits there are on the possibilities. If the road turns left or right, we can rule out straight ahead.

The usual way to find out which of these possibilities was the one determined to be chosen is to wait until the choice is made.

In fact, for all but the most banal cases, the fastest physically possible way to find out is to wait until the choice is made.

Sure, you could arrange to take a snapshot somehow of the location and velocity of every particle in a customer's brain as he walks into the restaurant (Heisenberg says you can't, but let's ignore him). You could crunch the numbers in your super computer that precisely models a brain - and three weeks from now, you could tell me what the customer chose.

Or you could just watch what he chooses, and find out in five minutes.

A lot of things can happen, generally speaking, however, given determinism - 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 - whatever happens in any given instance in time must happen as determined, no alternatives, no choosing, no doing something else.

Which is not to say that whatever cannot happen in that instance in time cannot happen at another time or place as the system evolves or unfolds. Anything that can happen may happen, but only as and when determined, with not possible alternatives in the instance of action.

 

[Jarhyn]

'Fixed' means FIXED, means nothing can go differently. If turning left is determined, it is FIXED, there is no possibility of turning right in that instance.

We have said now many times that choice, the things we are pointing out as happening, are fixed. That the "possibility" exists in the mathematical relationship between this universe, and some other universe that is not necessarily this one.

You can't make a relationship in the past with a different universe not exist simply because you don't want it to.

At that time in the past, IF the universe had been different in some SPECIFIC way -- that the section of particles there related to the selection of particles here called "you" had one of a large set of microstates relating to a specific macrostate, then the similarly paired group of particles for the car turns left.

This is a fact, a mathematical truth of the universe as relates an identifiable group extension.

There is no randomness or even difference happening.

and when that "different" universe isn't actually different, we call that "what happens" or simply 'the will that was free'.

 

[DBT]

Two or more possibilities cannot exist within a system where all events must proceed without deviation.

We've seen two or more possibilities reliably showing up at the beginning of every choosing event. Obviously, two or more possibilities CAN and WILL exist within a system where all events proceed without deviation. There is no getting around them, because, like all events, they must occur without deviation.

What we see and what must necessarily happen in any given instance are two different things.

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

That's how determinism is defined. They are the given terms. So despite the appearance of options, there are no realizable alternatives in any given instance in time, what is done must be done: ''...... it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Existence of lists doesn't imply possible anything. Choosing is an action independent of being listed. One does not need the statement of what one can be what one might do to do so. He must be capable of doing it. If he is capable of doing it he will do it regardless of whether he is also capable of doing other wise.

The capability for doing otherwise does not signal choice of doing so is an option. It only signals one has the capability to do this or that. Since determinism states one does this then that that is what one does. You have not shown that one has the faculty of choice. You've just shown that a determined one is capable of doing this or that which is not contrary to what determinism states. One does this then that regardless of capability.

You might look at things this way. One has encountered this and that so the capability to do this and that exists. However when this arrives that is determined. Otherwise one would need to know whether this or that were signaled. Obviously that was signaled since that was the result. You need an intervening uncaused variable, implied not evident, to do otherwise. A nonexistent cause to do otherwise is needed.

The deterministic cause of the choosing operation is our encountering a situation where we are faced with two or more real possibilities and we cannot go forward without making a decision. Thus, the list of options on the restaurant menu, and the social expectations of the waiter, are the prior causes that necessitate our choosing.

So, the choosing is deterministically caused to happen. Within the choosing operation we experience certain thoughts and feelings that will follow one upon the other in a deterministic fashion. We will see the Steak dinner on the menu, recognize it as a real possibility, and experience a desire. Then we will recall our bacon and egg breakfast and our double cheeseburger lunch. Then we will recall our doctor's recommendation that we eat more fruits and vegetables. Then we will see the Chef Salad on the menu, recognize it as a real possibility, recognize that it satisfies the doctor's advice, and tell the waiter "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

If someone asks us about our choice, we can explain why we chose the salad rather than the steak. "I could have ordered the steak, but I already had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. So, I decided I would order the salad instead."

The "could have" refers to the point in the choosing process when we recognized the Steak dinner as a real possibility, something that we could have chosen if we wanted to.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is impossible that he or she could

Again, no. It is impossible that he or she would. Nothing about could. You can no more eliminate mathematically implied extensions of the universe any more than you can exit this exact universe.

Therefore it is simply not coherent to say they  could not, merely that they  would not.

IOW, pull your head out your Modal Fallacy.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

We've seen two or more possibilities reliably showing up at the beginning of every choosing event. Obviously, two or more possibilities CAN and WILL exist within a system where all events proceed without deviation. There is no getting around them, because, like all events, they must occur without deviation.

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

Only the first sentence is correct. The practical implication of the second and third sentences is this:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Customer: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because determinism makes only one dinner possible, there is only one dinner that you can order."
Customer: "Then what is that dinner that I can order?"
Waiter: "I have no idea."

 

[bilby]

whatever happens in any given instance in time must happen as determined, no alternatives, no choosing, no doing something else.

One of these things is not like the others; One of these things does not belong...

 

[fromderinside]

Existence of lists doesn't imply possible anything. Choosing is an action independent of being listed. One does not need the statement of what one can be what one might do to do so. He must be capable of doing it. If he is capable of doing it he will do it regardless of whether he is also capable of doing other wise.

The capability for doing otherwise does not signal choice of doing so is an option. It only signals one has the capability to do this or that. Since determinism states one does this then that that is what one does. You have not shown that one has the faculty of choice. You've just shown that a determined one is capable of doing this or that which is not contrary to what determinism states. One does this then that regardless of capability.

You might look at things this way. One has encountered this and that so the capability to do this and that exists. However when this arrives that is determined. Otherwise one would need to know whether this or that were signaled. Obviously that was signaled since that was the result. You need an intervening uncaused variable, implied not evident, to do otherwise. A nonexistent cause to do otherwise is needed.

The deterministic cause of the choosing operation is our encountering a situation where we are faced with two or more real possibilities and we cannot go forward without making a decision. Thus, the list of options on the restaurant menu, and the social expectations of the waiter, are the prior causes that necessitate our choosing.

So, the choosing is deterministically caused to happen. Within the choosing operation we experience certain thoughts and feelings that will follow one upon the other in a deterministic fashion. We will see the Steak dinner on the menu, recognize it as a real possibility, and experience a desire. Then we will recall our bacon and egg breakfast and our double cheeseburger lunch. Then we will recall our doctor's recommendation that we eat more fruits and vegetables. Then we will see the Chef Salad on the menu, recognize it as a real possibility, recognize that it satisfies the doctor's advice, and tell the waiter "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

If someone asks us about our choice, we can explain why we chose the salad rather than the steak. "I could have ordered the steak, but I already had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. So, I decided I would order the salad instead."

The "could have" refers to the point in the choosing process when we recognized the Steak dinner as a real possibility, something that we could have chosen if we wanted to.

 Determinism

I take a narrow view since doing otherwise isn't treating determinism. The bit I highlighted from your presentation is not a deterministic statement because It insert self as as aspect of what is determined. There is no self in determinism as the highlighted text in my statement explicitly precludes sit.

Determinism is often used to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. This is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state of an object or event is completely determined by its prior states. This meaning can be distinguished from other varieties of determinism mentioned below.

If you can find room for decisions and choice in my view. I'm willing to discuss since it would be revolutionary to the idea of the meaning of determine. However I haven't found that space in over 60 years of employing the Scientific method.

You have provided no evidence to support your view, you've just presented just-so and platitudinous statements.

On the other hand I, as a Neuroscientist, a career researcher, not just an academic, schooled both in physics and psychology have tested everything from sense data, sensation through brain function, without ever having to invoke your Wundt-like equivocations.

 

[Jarhyn]

because It insert self as as aspect of what is determined

There is a machine. The machine is operating. The operation of that machine effects choice.

The machine is an object, operating in the deterministic way an engine does. And some engines effect choice, as this one does: of taking multiple things, and spitting out a subset, as determined by a specific and describable process.

Your desire to not exist does not make it so, FDI.

 

[fromderinside]

because It insert self as as aspect of what is determined

There is a machine. The machine is operating. The operation of that machine effects choice.

The machine is an object, operating in the deterministic way an engine does. And some engines effect choice, as this one does: of taking multiple things, and spitting out a subset, as determined by a specific and describable process.

Your desire to not exist does not make it so, FDI.

Inventing motive for cause is not possible. What is does IAW demonstrated laws of nature. Emergence is a brain fart it is not a scientific principle. There is no room in science for God.

 

[fromderinside]

because It insert self as as aspect of what is determined

There is a machine. The machine is operating. The operation of that machine effects choice.

The machine is an object, operating in the deterministic way an engine does. And some engines effect choice, as this one does: of taking multiple things, and spitting out a subset, as determined by a specific and describable process.

Your desire to not exist does not make it so, FDI.

BS in BS out. You have proclaimed machine as a self when it is merely a machine.

Machine: an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task:

Your hand wave of 'some machines' isn't supported by cause. At least your circling the wagons definition isn't doing the job. You can't breath life into a machine. It's a machine as defined above.

 

[DBT]

It is impossible that he or she could

Again, no. It is impossible that he or she would. Nothing about could. You can no more eliminate mathematically implied extensions of the universe any more than you can exit this exact universe.

Therefore it is simply not coherent to say they  could not, merely that they  would not.

IOW, pull your head out your Modal Fallacy.

If it is impossible that he or she would, then he or she could not do it. That's what impossible means.

If it's impossible, it cannot happen.

Fixed means that nothing else can happen. If nothing else can happen because the course of events is fixed, by definition, nothing else can happen.

 

[DBT]

whatever happens in any given instance in time must happen as determined, no alternatives, no choosing, no doing something else.

One of these things is not like the others; One of these things does not belong...

The idea of choosing doesn't belong in a system that permits no alternatives, options or deviations to choose from. Choice, by definition requires two or more realizable options, determinism has a progression of fixed events, the past entails the present which entails the future, no alternate actions, no alternate decisions. The evolving state of the system 'decides' without alternatives.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If you can find room for decisions and choice in my view. I'm willing to discuss since it would be revolutionary to the idea of the meaning of determine. However I haven't found that space in over 60 years of employing the Scientific method.

Then it is very lucky for us that we found that restaurant with all those people making decisions. Each person is determining for themselves what they will order. And we can theoretically view each of their choices as part of a longer causal chain reaching back as far as we can imagine. But the most meaningful and relevant cause within that infinite chain will always be their own brain/mind making the choice.

You have provided no evidence to support your view, you've just presented just-so and platitudinous statements.

There are the people, sitting in the restaurant, browsing the menu, and deciding for themselves what they will order for dinner. What more evidence do you need?

On the other hand I, as a Neuroscientist, a career researcher, not just an academic, schooled both in physics and psychology have tested everything from sense data, sensation through brain function, without ever having to invoke your Wundt-like equivocations.

I, on the other hand, simply ran into Spinoza at an early age, and figured out that determinism doesn't actually change anything. Determinism is not a causal agent. It has no interest in any outcomes. It has "no skin in the game". But we are causal agents. We go about in the world causing things to happen. And we do so for our own goals and reasons.

Causation never causes anything. It is simply a concept we use to explain the interactions of objects and forces as they bring about events.
Determinism never determines anything. It is simply a concept that expresses faith in the reliability of those interactions.
All events are causally determined by the objects and forces that make up the physical universe.
And we happen to be one of those objects, constructed in a way that can exert force upon other objects. We can kick a football and bat a baseball.
And we have evolved brains that allow us to imagine, evaluate, and choose.

 

[Jarhyn]

If it is impossible that he or she would, then he or she could not do it

Again, no, you are committing the modal fallacy, and ignoring WHY it was impossible that they would: because they could and they chose not to, and that choice created mutual exclusivity against choosing both. Because it's impossible to go back and change the past, it is in fact impossible that they ever would. Even though, as a mathematical feature of that moment in relation to a hypothetical "virtual" universe where they do, they do not.

a system that permits no alternatives

See the case statement outlined in the other thread. "Not an alternative" would be akin to no assembly code being generated "for case 2", no available call to do2(). But it IS there and we call it's presence as an operation around which flow can bypass, an "alternative". It is not about what it is used for, it is about what it is.

Much like I suppose if you never needed to use brakes on a car, say because traffic I your town is slow and you happen to live and park and work on the same long street with no intersections, and get along fine for now without engine brakes... I'm sure you would still want them there. You know, just in case. As an alternative to rear-ending someone.

If you never use brakes in a car, do you need them?

(The answer is yes, even if you somehow never use the brakes in your car you still need them there as an alternative to being otherwise unable to stop).

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If it is impossible that he or she would, then he or she could not do it. That's what impossible means.

Nope. What we CAN do constrains what we WILL do, because if we cannot do it, then we will not do it.
But what we WILL do never constrains what we CAN do, because there must be multiple CAN's to get to the single WILL.

If it's impossible, it cannot happen.

Correct. And if it cannot happen, then it will not happen. CAN constrains WILL.

But the reverse is not true, because what WILL happen never constrains what CAN happen. No matter how strongly your intuition pulls you in that direction, it is a logical fallacy that leads to illogical results.

For example:
Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because the universe is deterministic, there is only one possibility, only one dinner you can order."
Diner: "Oh. Okay then, what is the one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I'll be happy to tell you that, but only after you've made your choice."

Fixed means that nothing else can happen.

Nope. Fixed means that nothing else WILL happen. The fact that something will not happen does not logically imply that it cannot happen.

If nothing else can happen because the course of events is fixed, by definition, nothing else can happen.

Sorry, but we cannot keep substituting CAN for WILL. The correct statement is this: "If nothing else WILL happen because the course of events is fixed, by definition, nothing else WILL happen".