Compatibilism: What's that About?

[steve_bank]

An asteroid strikes the Earth, it has no active choice.

The question is whether or not the way our brains are wired and works a choice does not necessarily be predetermined.

How would you know the difference between what you choose to do by causal necessity and what you choose to do of your own free will?

You can't, but you still have to make decisions. Should I drink and drive? Should I vaite for ne candiate or another? Should I have a kealthy diet?

It has been a scifi p,ot device. If I choose to do nothing is that predetermined?

Were deeply conditioned from birth. Does deep conditioning burned into our subconscious brains preclude an unconditioned choice?

Post WWII some young Nazis were given a pass because they grew up only knowing Nazi indoctrination in schools. They had no basis to make a choice. Nazis like Goering and Himmler did have the capacity to choose.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You can't, but you still have to make decisions. Should I drink and drive? Should I vote for one candidate or another? Should I have a healthy diet?

Yes, we do.

It has been a sci-fi plot device.

I don't think it works as a plot device. It has to be meaningful and relevant to be part of a story's plot. My point is that universal causal necessity/inevitability is neither meaningful nor relevant. It changes nothing.

If I choose to do nothing is that predetermined?

What if it is? What if it isn't? What would you do different either way.

We're deeply conditioned from birth. Does deep conditioning burned into our subconscious brains preclude an unconditioned choice?

Actually, we've been active participants in our own lives from birth. The newborn negotiates for control with its social (the parents) and physical (the crib) environments right out of the box. Ask any parent wakened by a crying baby at 2AM to fix a warm bottle.

Post WWII some young Nazis were given a pass because they grew up only knowing Nazi indoctrination in schools. They had no basis to make a choice. Nazis like Goering and Himmler did have the capacity to choose.

The practical question is how shall we go about correcting the behavior. We have a similar problem problem with racist indoctrination for our own children. I was just reading today about the "massive resistance" to school integration after Brown v. Board of Education by Virginia and other states to school desegregation. Virginia shut down its public schools for awhile rather than integrate.

 

[pood]

It has been a scifi p,ot device. If I choose to do nothing is that predetermined?

This is the whole point. DBT and other hard determinists confuse “determined” with “predetermined.” They are not the same thing and nothing is predetermined so far as we can tell.

 

[fromderinside]

Obviously in your view free will, whatever you think that may be, is alive and well roaming about in the collective mind.

An event does not roam about. It happens in a specific time and place. Free will is the event in which a person decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. When we observe such an event, we may point it out, and say "there is a restaurant full of people deciding what they will order for dinner of their own free will". It's like seeing a car drive by and saying, "there was a car that just drove by".

Temporal and timeless cognition in physics: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...emporal-and-timeless-cognition-in-physics.pdf

In experimental and theoretical physics, we measure time as the duration of material changes that run into space. We have no scientific evidence that would be based on the elementary perception and would prove that clocks run in some physical time. Universal space is time invariant, in the sense that time is not its fourth dimension. In time-invariant space, motion happens only in space and not in time. Time as duration enters existence as an emergent physical quantity and is the result of the observer’s measurement. Linear time “past-present future” is psychological time that runs only in the brain. Universal change runs in time invariant space, in this sense the universe is timeless. Temporal cognition occurs in the frame of psychological time, and timeless cognition occurs without the impact of psychological time.

So for us perhaps, otherwise naw. Reduced to human perception again. Seems to me you are talking about what only takes place in human minds and is logically and physically squishy even there. That thing that runs in the brain can be modified and even removed.

Quasicriticality explains variability of human neural dynamics across life span: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.02592.pdf

Ageing impacts the brain’s structural and functional organization and over time leads to various disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive impairment. The process also impacts sensory function, bringing about a general slowing in various perceptual and cognitive functions. Here, we analyze the Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (Cam-CAN) resting state magnetoencephalography (MEG) dataset –the largest ageing cohort available– in light of the quasi-criticality framework, a novel organizing principle for brain functionality which relates information processing and scaling properties of brain activity to brain connectivity and stimulus. Examination of the data using this framework reveals interesting correlations with age and gender of test subjects. Using simulated data as verification, our results suggest a link between changes to brain connectivity due to ageing, and increased vulnerability to distraction from irrelevant information. Our findings suggest a platform to develop biomarkers of neurological health.

I want you to think about basing biomarkers on subjective findings of perceptive and psychologically measured time variance. Scary?

 

[fromderinside]

So how does the functioning system become a knower of truth

"The system" is not ever a knower of truth. It may contain knowers of truth but it does not itself know truth as a system. It HAS truth, but if you want to know how the system comes to have truth, well, that's a different discussion, and which has an answer which nobody seems to like.

As to how knowers of truth come to exist in the system, as long as there is some concept of 'goal' that might exist (such as replication or repetition of some thing), there will be survival value to the subset of the system which has such "goals".

Imperfect replicators will come to find whatever truth exists in a system, whether it's "turn towards more chemical" -> "survival" or something a little more exotic.

Nothing more, nothing less, is required for a knower of truth.

You already believe this can happen without direction or agency, or at least you should if you call yourself a proper atheist or agnostic.

Your problem with your if-then-else statement is in the if. Unless you can attribute cause to how one knows truth you have no reason to suggest it is an element

I mean, I did attribute cause to the rise of knowledge of truth: the retention of imperfect replicators.

Can you provide an empirical example of how one goes about gathering imperfect replicators can elevate observation to truth? What you wrote reads like a logical rather than experimental scientific exercise. As you know logic isn't science. After setting out the parameters in a logical frame the scientist must conduct experiment and analyze results before answering the logical frame. One cannot complete the logical argument by just providing further logical argument. One can't even complete the scientific study by just finding individual results that fit theory from the midst of other data generated by the process.

As for how science. The rules are are finding connectivity with already discovered relationships among things using well defined material to conduct experiments testing what has been found to be known is against what may be.

Science is observation of a system by a system, and the extraction of true relationships within the observation through experimentation.

Academics is the secondary analysis of experimentation for logical errors which would invalidate the conclusions or render the conclusions as "statistically weak".

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodIt involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method.

Scientific results are best estimates given what is known and what is found. They are never truths.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Obviously in your view free will, whatever you think that may be, is alive and well roaming about in the collective mind.

An event does not roam about. It happens in a specific time and place. Free will is the event in which a person decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. When we observe such an event, we may point it out, and say "there is a restaurant full of people deciding what they will order for dinner of their own free will". It's like seeing a car drive by and saying, "there was a car that just drove by".

Temporal and timeless cognition in physics: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...emporal-and-timeless-cognition-in-physics.pdf

In experimental and theoretical physics, we measure time as the duration of material changes that run into space. We have no scientific evidence that would be based on the elementary perception and would prove that clocks run in some physical time. Universal space is time invariant, in the sense that time is not its fourth dimension. In time-invariant space, motion happens only in space and not in time. Time as duration enters existence as an emergent physical quantity and is the result of the observer’s measurement. Linear time “past-present future” is psychological time that runs only in the brain. Universal change runs in time invariant space, in this sense the universe is timeless. Temporal cognition occurs in the frame of psychological time, and timeless cognition occurs without the impact of psychological time.

So for us perhaps, otherwise naw. Reduced to human perception again. Seems to me you are talking about what only takes place in human minds and is logically and physically squishy even there. That thing that runs in the brain can be modified and even removed.

Quasicriticality explains variability of human neural dynamics across life span: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.02592.pdf

Ageing impacts the brain’s structural and functional organization and over time leads to various disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive impairment. The process also impacts sensory function, bringing about a general slowing in various perceptual and cognitive functions. Here, we analyze the Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (Cam-CAN) resting state magnetoencephalography (MEG) dataset –the largest ageing cohort available– in light of the quasi-criticality framework, a novel organizing principle for brain functionality which relates information processing and scaling properties of brain activity to brain connectivity and stimulus. Examination of the data using this framework reveals interesting correlations with age and gender of test subjects. Using simulated data as verification, our results suggest a link between changes to brain connectivity due to ageing, and increased vulnerability to distraction from irrelevant information. Our findings suggest a platform to develop biomarkers of neurological health.

I want you to think about basing biomarkers on subjective findings of perceptive and psychologically measured time variance. Scary?

Geez, now you want to nullify time? Scary? No. Not particularly. Objects interact, causing each other to move and transform. Time is simply the distance between events, measured in relationship to certain other events, such as the position of the sun in the sky, or the burning through the knots in a rope, or the sands falling in an hour glass, or the ticks of a clock. Time is a way for us to all show up for work simultaneously.

 

[DBT]

That is how it works. If there are no consequences, the behaviour may become widespread. A message must be sent that the consequences of doing this action results in that penalty.

How does sending such a message have any effect whatsoever?

Everything that happens within a deterministic system must have an effect. Information input has an effect on the brain. The content of that information has an effect. If that information happens to be a truck bearing down on you as you cross the road, you jump and run.

In a deterministic universe, I am told, there can be no choice or deviation. So these consequences have exactly the same effect on people that perusing the menu has - none at all, because they will choose whatever actions they're determined to choose.

Unless, of course, determinism doesn't prohibit choice, and people choose their actions after considering the options and likely consequences of those options...

Choice requires the possibility of taking any of a number of options in any given instance. Determinism does not permit alternate actions. The action that is taken in any given moment in time is the only possible action, entailed by prior states of the system: events and conditions in the environment, the brain responding according to its own state and condition, etc. Which means that the process of decision making is a matter of entailment, not choice. The means and mechanisms of production are not chosen, they are entailed.

 

[DBT]

It has been a scifi p,ot device. If I choose to do nothing is that predetermined?

This is the whole point. DBT and other hard determinists confuse “determined” with “predetermined.” They are not the same thing and nothing is predetermined so far as we can tell.

Or maybe your inner process of induction and defense is going too far down the wrong track? It's possible. Take a breather and consider the definition and implications of determinism as given by compatibilists. You know the one's I mean.

 

[DBT]

I am pointing out that there is no such thing as free will within a deterministic system.

Within a deterministic system, is it still possible for someone to be free to add a column of numbers? I would say yes.

Whatever happens within the system is not only possible, it must necessarily happen. If events come to the point where you feel the need to 'add a column of numbers' for whatever reason drives your need, you add your column of numbers as determined.

By your own definition, there are no alternatives, you add your column of numbers and you do it without impediments because - if determined - it is a necessary action.

A person would not be free to add a column of numbers while driving through heavy traffic, but they could add a column of numbers while sitting at their desk. So, it is clearly possible for a person to be free to add a column of numbers. Determinism does not exclude this freedom.

Anything that happens, happens necessarily. The conditions determine what happens. Obviously nobody is going to add a column of numbers in a ledger while driving a car.....unless their brain has become somewhat unhinged.

In the same fashion, within a deterministic system, is it still possible for someone to be free to choose what they will order from the restaurant menu? I would say yes to that as well. A child, with her parents, might not be free to order from the menu, but her parents are free to do so. Determinism does not exclude this freedom.

There are no alternatives to choose from. Which, again, is not to say that any number of alternatives do not present themselves to us as we go about our business.

The point being, that however many apparent alternatives there are, the decision we make in any given instance is the only possible action for us in that moment in time.

That is how determinism is defined, and it is a condition of your own definition of determinism.

If it was choice, any number of things can be chosen in any given moment, yet as you know, determinism doesn't permit this.

That claim is also false. Determinism constrains what will happen, but not what can happen. What will happen is not the same as what can happen. There are many options on the restaurant menu. We can order any dinner listed. But we will order a specific dinner.

It's not false. As it is defined, there being no deviation as the system unfolds, progresses, evolves or develops, there are no possible alternate actions.

As there are no possible alternate actions, the whole 'will' or 'can' issue is irrelevant because whatever happens necessarily: it must happen.

'Must' overrides 'will' and 'can.'

There is no way to get to the single thing that we will order without first dealing with the many things that we can order.

Confusing what we can do with what we will do creates a paradox. There is no way to choose between a single possibility. Multiple options are required, and, there they are, listed on the restaurant menu. We are able to choose any one of them, even though it is causally necessary that we will choose only one.

The notion of possibilities evolved to deal with our uncertainty as to what will happen. When we do not know for certain what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare ourselves for what does happen
The notion of possibilities also serves us by providing a logical workspace for invention, creativity, and progress.

Equating what can happen to what will happen destroys the notion of possibilities, the logical operations that depend upon them, and the survival advantage that we humans possess by having an intelligent brain.

So, let's stop making that error of equating what can happen to what will happen and what does happen. An evolved human mind is a terrible thing to waste through illogical thinking.

The notion of possibilities is an expression of the limited perspective of our position within the system. We lack the necessary information to make accurate predictions in relation to complex events. There are just too many elements at work that we have no access to.

 

[Jarhyn]

Can you provide an empirical example of how one goes about gathering imperfect replicators can elevate observation to truth?

There is no "elevation". the truth of the system is there and always has been. Something is either true or it isn't. A will is either FREE to a point or it is not.

Observations are exactly what they are, and you assume as much when you say the universe is deterministic, making the claim that all events (observations included) have causes.

What you wrote reads like a logical rather than experimental scientific exercise

Experimental scientific exercises ARE logical exercises.

Every last one is built on logic and set theory because science is an operation of set theory.

You have vomited a few word salads about science in protest to that fact, but nothing will change that.

Observe, record, process out patterns, test assumptions. It's a logic exercise to extract truth, knowledge, about the system from observations.

Of course, we know that these things are at best approximations, but having some error does not change the relative correctness of what is found. The solidity and efficacy of the approximation and the consistency of all error gives testament to the existence of the thing which is being approximated to, the underlying and immutable logic of the system.

The assumption that the universe has fixed truths is what determinism is built on. You're not going to get away from that no matter how you spin.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Whatever happens within the system is not only possible, it must necessarily happen.

Correct, but you have yet to acknowledge the possibilities that must necessarily not happen.

If events come to the point where you feel the need to 'add a column of numbers' for whatever reason drives your need, you add your column of numbers as determined.

Correct. And, it is indeed my own reasoning that motivates and directs the behavior.

By your own definition, there are no alternatives, you add your column of numbers and you do it without impediments because - if determined - it is a necessary action.

If it is causally necessary that I will add a column of numbers, then I certainly will do so. But we cannot rule out alternatives or impediments. There actually may be alternatives, but I will not choose them. There actually may be impediments, but I will overcome them.

Causal necessity does not eliminate alternatives or impediments. Any alternatives or impediments that show up will also be causally necessary from any prior point in time.

With causal necessity, there will be no alternative to the events that actually occur, including the events in which we encounter alternatives and the events in which we encounter impediments.

You may find the two uses of "alternative" confusing. But in one case we are speaking of the overall series of events, and in the other case we are looking inside specific events, such as choosing, which logically require the multiple alternatives to operate. Choosing always requires two or more alternatives to select from, just like addition requires two or more numbers to sum.

In a deterministic system, it is still possible for someone to be free to choose what they will order from the restaurant menu.

There are no alternatives to choose from. Which, again, is not to say that any number of alternatives do not present themselves to us as we go about our business.

If it "is not to say that any number of alternatives do not present themselves to us as we go about our business", then one cannot say that "there are no alternatives to choose from". Either the alternatives are there or they are not there. We cannot look at the restaurant menu and say that the alternatives are not there. A menu is literally a list of alternatives to choose from.

The point being, that however many apparent alternatives there are, the decision we make in any given instance is the only possible action for us in that moment in time.

An alternative is a possible action. When faced with the restaurant menu, we cannot say that there is only one possible action.

An alternative need not be selected in order to qualify as a possible action. The fact that an alternative will not be selected does not make it "impossible" to select, but only "not selected".

That is how determinism is defined, and it is a condition of your own definition of determinism.

No, sir. It is not a condition of my definition of determinism. Determinism is the reasonable belief that all events are reliably caused by prior events, such that every event is always causally necessary from any prior point in time. This includes the physical events, such as motion of the planets, as well as the mental events happening within our own brains (which correlate to neurological processes).

When we encounter situations where we must make a choice before we can proceed, it will always involve two or more possible actions. These choosing events, such as ordering dinner in a restaurant, will proceed deterministically with no deviation. It will be true that two or more actions will be possible and it will be true that we can select any of the alternate actions. These will be true by logical necessity, just as it is true that a triangle has three sides.

... As it is defined, there being no deviation as the system unfolds, progresses, evolves or develops, there are no possible alternate actions.

Apparently that is not the case. There will be no alternative to us encountering alternatives that we must choose between. That is how the system unfolds, progresses, evolves, develops deterministically. We will encounter alternatives, which causally necessitates that we must choose between them.

'Must' overrides 'will' and 'can.'

Apparently not. Deterministic causal necessity insures that we must encounter that menu of items we can order in the restaurant, and that we must choose what we will order for dinner from among those alternate possibilities.

There is no way to get to the single thing that we will order without first dealing with the many things that we can order.

Confusing what we can do with what we will do creates a paradox. We cannot "choose between a single possibility". Multiple options are required, and, there they are, listed on the restaurant menu. We are able to choose any one of them, even though it is causally necessary that we will choose only one.

The notion of possibilities evolved to deal with our uncertainty as to what will happen. When we do not know for certain what will happen, we imagine what can happen, to prepare ourselves for what does happen

The notion of possibilities also serves us by providing a logical workspace for invention, creativity, and progress.

Equating what can happen to what will happen destroys the notion of possibilities, the logical operations that depend upon them, and the survival advantage that we humans possess by having an intelligent brain.

So, let's stop making that error of equating what can happen to what will happen and what does happen. An evolved human mind is a terrible thing to waste through illogical thinking.

The notion of possibilities is an expression of the limited perspective of our position within the system. We lack the necessary information to make accurate predictions in relation to complex events. There are just too many elements at work that we have no access to.

Indeed. If we had omniscience, then we could dispense with the notion of possibilities, because we would always know in advance what would happen next. But omniscience is clearly not the case. So, we should understand and correctly apply the notion of possibilities if we wish to deal effectively with our real situation in the real world.

 

[steve_bank]

Predetermined or predestined means nt matter how freely you think the choice you makes is a choice, whatever you chose is preordained to happen.

It has been scifi plots. No matter how much oiu try, no matter what you do your future is determined.

That opens a serious can of worms. Before Trump was norn was Donald Trump destined to be what he what he is with no chance of change along the way?

If a drug addict gets clean was it predestined for him to get addicted and then kick, or was it by hos own volition and choice?

The belief that everything is preordained leads to a fatalism. Why work for change if nothing can be changed.

It is not just a philosophical academic debate.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Predetermined or predestined means no matter how freely you think the choice you makes is a choice, whatever you chose is preordained to happen.

Again, so what? If the choice is preordained, then so is the fact that it will be you doing the choosing.

It has been scifi plots. No matter how much you try, no matter what you do your future is determined.

Ah. Fatalism. Your determinism is leaving out the effects that trying causes. Yes, trying is deterministic, and it causes effects. So, you are one of the causes of your own future. And, of course, it was predetermined that it would be you and no one else.

That opens a serious can of worms.

Hmm. Let's see if we can't gather up those worms and put them back in the can.

Before Trump was born was Donald Trump destined to be what he what he is with no chance of change along the way?

Well, the thing about "chance" is that it falls within the logical context of possibilities, things that may or may not happen. So, there is always the chance that some other causal chain will disrupt Trump's chain. Suppose, for example, Trump gets arrested and jailed for causing a riot on Jan 6th, and/or he gets sued by the election workers who he lied about and put their lives in danger? You know, just like Alex Jones got sued for telling lies about the children killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting.

If a drug addict gets clean was it predestined for him to get addicted and then kick, or was it by his own volition and choice?

Yes, to both. But predestination and predeterminism are religious notions that suggest some supernatural entity laying out plans for all events in advance. Causal necessity is the more rational and secular term. But it all works out the same in practice: if our choice is causally necessary than it is also causally necessary that we ourselves will be making that choice.

The belief that everything is preordained leads to a fatalism. Why work for change if nothing can be changed. It is not just a philosophical academic debate.

I agree. But the lid for that can of worms is that it is preordained that we will be the most meaningful and relevant causes of our own futures. That's how things are "preordained" to be.

 

[steve_bank]

I agree. But the lid for that can of worms is that it is preordained that we will be the most meaningful and relevant causes of our own futures. That's how things are "preordained" to be

If all things are a predetermined predetermined causality form say the BB event, then we are predestined to make the decisions we do. In that case our actions and consequences are preset.

The atoms in our brain trace back to the BB.

 

[bilby]

That is how it works. If there are no consequences, the behaviour may become widespread. A message must be sent that the consequences of doing this action results in that penalty.

How does sending such a message have any effect whatsoever?

Everything that happens within a deterministic system must have an effect. Information input has an effect on the brain. The content of that information has an effect. If that information happens to be a truck bearing down on you as you cross the road, you jump and run.

Your position (bolded for your convenience) is nonsensical unless it's a choice to impose or not impose consequences for bad behaviour.

IF there are no consequences 
THEN
the behaviour may become widespread 
ELSE
the behaviour may not become widespread 
FI

It's a function that makes a choice. Which is something that cannot be, in the universe as you describe it.

But not only does it MAKE a choice; It DEMANDS a different choice - do we or do we not choose to impose consequences for wrongdoing?

Whether or not the behaviour may become widespread, we don't have any choice about whether to impose consequences, according to your thesis.

So why does that imposition occur? We can't have chosen to punish wrongdoers. Or can we?

None of what you said:

That is how it works. If there are no consequences, the behaviour may become widespread. A message must be sent that the consequences of doing this action results in that penalty.

makes the slightest sense, UNLESS you believe that people can and do make choices.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I agree. But the lid for that can of worms is that it is preordained that we will be the most meaningful and relevant causes of our own futures. That's how things are "preordained" to be

If all things are a predetermined predetermined causality from say the BB event, then we are predestined to make the decisions we do. In that case our actions and consequences are preset.

The atoms in our brain trace back to the BB.

Again, so what? It is still us making the decisions that control the events in our lives. And it doesn't matter which reductionism you apply. If you want to use purely physical causation, then the atoms that are me still ordered the dinner in the restaurant, and the atoms that are the waiter still brought the atoms that are the Salad to my table and also the atoms that are the dinner bill, holding the atoms that are me responsible for their deliberate act (ordering the Salad from the menu).

The nature of free will does not change with the reduction to atoms. Everything works, exactly as it did before.

 

[Jarhyn]

I agree. But the lid for that can of worms is that it is preordained that we will be the most meaningful and relevant causes of our own futures. That's how things are "preordained" to be

If all things are a predetermined predetermined causality from say the BB event, then we are predestined to make the decisions we do. In that case our actions and consequences are preset.

The atoms in our brain trace back to the BB.

Again, so what? It is still us making the decisions that control the events in our lives. And it doesn't matter which reductionism you apply. If you want to use purely physical causation, then the atoms that are me still ordered the dinner in the restaurant, and the atoms that are the waiter still brought the atoms that are the Salad to my table and also the atoms that are the dinner bill, holding the atoms that are me responsible for their deliberate act (ordering the Salad from the menu).

The nature of free will does not change with the reduction to atoms. Everything works, exactly as it did before.

I don't really think Steve is disagreeing with you? He criticized the view of fatalism and predestination, I believe, as superstitious nonsense, unfounded bullshit peddling.

If I'm wrong he can correct me.

It assumes an optimized outcome, a pole against which the lightning cannot help but to strike, a fate that would steer us to it even if we resist it.

That would in fact be belief in God, masquerading as atheism.

 

[steve_bank]

Not supertition or a be;if in god. Determinism does not require any active agent.

It is based in science. If the universe operates to a deterministic causality then all things down to the atoms in your brain are deterministic, as would be your thoughts, actions, and choices. In a deterministic view you think yiu are choosing unaware of the greater reality affecting you.

In physical system the top level is chaottc. A Chaotic system is comprised of deterministic functions, but it is impossible to model as deterministic equations because we have insufficient knowledge of variables and accuracy.

Under chaotic are deterministic and probabilistic.

Within limits Newtonian mechanics is deterministic.

If I drive in a straight line for 1 hour at 50km/hour I know I will go 50km.

Picking an object from a box without looking is probabilistic. You can not ptedict exactly(deterministically) determne which oblect yiou will pick.

noun
Philosophy
noun: determinism

1. the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

I do not think there can be any controlled experiment that will decide the question. So it remains philosophical speculation.

My point on fatalism that even secular philosophical beliefs can have negative consequences to individuals, not just theology.

My undelying view is naturalism. Science is the best way to describe and undertsnd reality. That does not mean science can answer all questions. Determinism is a perennial unanswerable question.

Free will is not scientifically testable.

 

[fromderinside]

Can you provide an empirical example of how one goes about gathering imperfect replicators can elevate observation to truth?

There is no "elevation". the truth of the system is there and always has been. Something is either true or it isn't. A will is either FREE to a point or it is not.

Observations are exactly what they are, and you assume as much when you say the universe is deterministic, making the claim that all events (observations included) have causes.

What you wrote reads like a logical rather than experimental scientific exercise

Of course, we know that these things are at best approximations, but having some error does not change the relative correctness of what is found. The solidity and efficacy of the approximation and the consistency of all error gives testament to the existence of the thing which is being approximated to, the underlying and immutable logic of the system.

The assumption that the universe has fixed truths is what determinism is built on. You're not going to get away from that no matter how you spin.

Uh, no. Scientific Causal determinism is scientific THEORY, built on a material base arrived at by making logical presumptions which support one logic over another. These are then tested through material experiment, requiring further adjustment of logical basis of both method and prediction. Outcomes are driven by the further data, not after some sort of logical gymnastics. Both the model and the methods are subject to revision and those results are considered preliminary and provisional. They, in turn, need confirmation or revision driven by other subsequent experiments. At every step the logical foundation is driven by material support. Never does THEORY become truth.

The discussion we are having here is about what material evidence supports which logical construction best. Truth, absolute, has been long rejected as a basis for scientific theory. Rather it is both probabilistic, and relativist approximations that now serve as bases for scientific theory.

Just as a flyby you'll find that it is the necessities of engineers and scientists that drives the rise of new mathematics rather than the speculations of philosophers. Your beloved set theory has only recently become a central focus of mathematics. Even  Bertrand Russell knew that. It will eventually be replaced, by scientists most likely and I have many mathematicians as beloved friends who agree, with more sophisticated material based advances in that discipline based on scientific need.

 

[fromderinside]

That is how it works. If there are no consequences, the behaviour may become widespread. A message must be sent that the consequences of doing this action results in that penalty.

How does sending such a message have any effect whatsoever?

Everything that happens within a deterministic system must have an effect. Information input has an effect on the brain. The content of that information has an effect. If that information happens to be a truck bearing down on you as you cross the road, you jump and run.

Your position (bolded for your convenience) is nonsensical unless it's a choice to impose or not impose consequences for bad behaviour.

IF there are no consequences
THEN
the behaviour may become widespread
ELSE
the behaviour may not become widespread
FI

It's a function that makes a choice. Which is something that cannot be, in the universe as you describe it.

But not only does it MAKE a choice; It DEMANDS a different choice - do we or do we not choose to impose consequences for wrongdoing?

Whether or not the behaviour may become widespread, we don't have any choice about whether to impose consequences, according to your thesis.

So why does that imposition occur? We can't have chosen to punish wrongdoers. Or can we?

None of what you said:

That is how it works. If there are no consequences, the behaviour may become widespread. A message must be sent that the consequences of doing this action results in that penalty.

makes the slightest sense, UNLESS you believe that people can and do make choices.

Nothing like believing to mess up a nice picnic. Belief is all the choice advocate has. Bad pot for pissing, that. Every action has an antecedent. It's not every action is chosen. Agency only resides in the mind of the supposed observing agent, the one who has no choice in the matter.